Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/20/2016 - RegularRoanoke County Board of Supervisors December 20, 2016 INVOCATION: Dr. Chris Cadenhead, Senior Pastor Bonsack Baptist Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES FLAG Disclaimer: "Any invocation that may be offered before the official start of the Board meeting shall be the voluntary offering of a private citizen, to and for the benefit of the Board. The views or beliefs expressed by the invocation speaker have not been previously reviewed or approved by the Board and do not necessarily represent the religious beliefs or views of the Board in part or as a whole. No member of the community is required to attend or participate in the invocation and such decision will have no impact on their right to actively participate in the business of the Board." Page 1 of 5 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Agenda December 20, 2016 Good afternoon and welcome to our meeting for December 20, 2016. Regular meetings are held on the second and fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. The meetings are broadcast live on RVTV, Channel 3, and will be rebroadcast on Friday at 7:00 p.m. and on Sunday at 4:00 p.m. Board of Supervisors meetings can also be viewed online through Roanoke County's website at www.RoanokeCountvVA.gov. Our meetings are closed -captioned, so it is important for everyone to speak directly into the microphones at the podium. Individuals who require assistance or special arrangements to participate in or attend Board of Supervisors meetings should contact the Clerk to the Board at (540) 772-2005 at least 48 hours in advance. Please turn all cell phones off or place on silent. A. OPENING CEREMONIES 1. Roll Call B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to Judith G. Stokes, Registrar, upon her retirement after more than twelve (12) years of service (Thomas C. Gates, County Administrator) D. BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing to update the Board of Supervisors on the Mountain Valley Pipeline project (Richard Caywood, Assistant County Administrator) Page 2 of 5 E. NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution approving recommendations from the Pipeline Advisory Committee for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Roanoke County's comments on the Mountain Valley Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Richard Caywood, Assistant County Administrator) F. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCE -CONSENT AGENDA: Approval of these items does not indicate support for, or judge the merits of, the requested zoning actions but satisfies procedural requirements and schedules the Public Hearings which will be held after recommendation by the Planning Commission.- 1. ommission: 1. The petition of Kimberly J. Bolden (Triple J Farm Events, LLC) to obtain a Special Use Permit in a AG -1, Agricultural/Rural Low Density, District and AG -3, Agricultural/Rural Preserve, District for the operation of a special events facility on approximately 14.954 acres, located at 5198 Blacksburg Road, Catawba Magisterial District 2. The petition of Henry L. Bennett, IV to rezone approximately 0.67 acre from AR, Agricultural/Residential, District to AV, Agricultural/Village Center, District, located at 10102 Bent Mountain Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District 3. The petition of Property Catalyst Group to obtain a Special Use Permit in an 1-1, Low Intensity Industrial District for the construction of a mini -warehouse facility on approximately 3.97 acres located at the intersection of Plantation Road and Hitech Road, Hollins Magisterial District G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending Chapter 21, Article III, Section 21-39 of the Roanoke County Code, requiring tax exempt entities to reestablish eligibility for tax exempt status of real property on a triennial basis; and enacting a new Chapter 21, Article 11, Section 21-23, requiring tax exempt entities to reestablish eligibility for tax exempt status of personal property on a triennial basis (Peter Lubeck, Senior Assistant County Attorney) I. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance accepting the conveyance of sixteen (16) parcels of unimproved real estate to the Board of Supervisors, for the extension of Ivyland Road, Vinton Magisterial District (David Holladay, Planning Administrator) Page 3 of 5 2. TAS Design, Inc. to rezone approximately 1.49 acres to remove/amend a proffered condition on property zoned C-1 C, Low Intensity Commercial, District with condition and to obtain a special use permit to allow a multi -family residential use greater than 50% of the gross floor area on site, located at 2602 Washington Avenue, Vinton Magisterial District (POSTPONED AT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER) J. APPOINTMENTS 1. Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) (appointed by District) 2. Budget and Fiscal Affairs (BFAC) (appointed by District and At -Large) 3. Clean Valley Council (At -Large) 4. Economic Development Authority (EDA) (appointed by District) K. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY 1. Approval of minutes — November 22, 2016 2. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to Hansford B. Leake, Finance Manager, upon his retirement after more than five (5) years of service 3. Confirmation of appointments to the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors and the Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority 4. Request to accept and allocate grant funds in the amount of $11,667 from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services to the Roanoke County Police Department L. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS M. REPORTS 1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report 2. Outstanding Debt Report 3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of November 30, 2016 Page 4 of 5 4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues and Encumbrances as of November 30, 2016 N. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS 1. George G. Assaid 2. Al Bedrosian 3. Martha B. Hooker 4. Joseph P. McNamara 5. P. Jason Peters O. WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session to update the Board of Supervisors on the Crash Reporting Center (Howard B. Hall, Chief of Police; Ruth Ellen Kuhnel, County Attorney) P. ADJOURNMENT Page 5 of 5 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. C.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: December 20, 2016 Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to Judith G. Stokes, Registrar, upon her retirement after more than twelve (12) years of service Thomas Gates County Administrator Thomas C. Gates County Administrator Recognition of the retirement of Judith G. Stokes BACKGROUND: Judith G. Stokes, Registrar, will retire on January 1, 2017, after twelve years and two months of service with Roanoke County. Ms. Stokes is expected to be in attendance to receive her resolution and quilt. DISCUSSION: There is no discussion associated with this agenda item. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. Page 1 of 1 %Liau tv of Ytonuohr 501ut AOAP,Uk pF F i� ? _— �J a� 1838 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO JUDITH G. STOKES, REGISTRAR, UPON HER RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN TWELVE (12) YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Judith G. Stokes was employed by Roanoke County on November 15, 2004; and WHEREAS, Ms. Stokes will retire on January 1, 2017, after twelve years and two months of devoted, faithful and expert service to Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, during Ms. Stokes tenure as Registrar, she has served with professionalism and dedication in providing services to the citizens of Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, during Ms. Stokes time with Roanoke County, she implemented the successful use of touch screen voting equipment mandated by the Commonwealth of Virginia as well as electronic poll books, and most recently the State -ordered system of voting equipment, which utilizes paper ballots with optical scanners. She maintained and trained a staff of 300 officers of election, while often conducting as many as five elections in a given year. She encouraged voter registration and participation in the County, which increased the rolls to 69,000. Her legacy in the County will live on long after her departure from active service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to JUDITH G. STOKES for more than twelve 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. Presented this 20th day of December 2016 s George A�ssaiid Al Bedrosian �Rwvt��__ k 6L Martha Hooker J p P. McNamara P. Jason Pet rs ACTION NO. ITEM NO. D.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: December 20, 2016 Briefing to update the Board of Supervisors on the Mountain Valley Pipeline project Richard Caywood Assistant County Administrator Thomas C. Gates County Administrator This time has been set aside to update the Board on the Mountain Valley Pipeline project. Page 1 of 1 O IF - X40 0 0 E U C) r� L n 1 l0 W E O N a--+ Q W N E WN O O 4— Ln Ln 0 W 4 LL o > V) - 4 4O Ln p C: W cin (n C: D W ca O 4-jLn r N U E E U N N 4 ca O a Q � � ate-+ � ^ � � rl1 4-j ca W O N COVJ U W C: 4-1 — LL ca C: a s- 0 a--+ Ln O p aJ 4-j k.0U iE 0 oN O O p N p - m >�� LU '� lD bn M O Q � � Wo �� >� QE •� E E � - ca � N lD � N v O o 0 D N DC 01 cn Z D cn n� W E c O L— 0 O 0 sz C6 a--+ O a--+ E 4A � �--+ 0 W ca +� O a a> a� O o ._ CT - C6 W CO -0-0 Q 5 4-j O z a--+ Ln w W 9 .� E a� t�0 o 4-j U _N E _� 4 O 'Ln° .moo Ln Ln a) a cn � cn N O Ln Q QLL 4-J C)7 J Q o °' "4-j o o -s- C a N >� 4) CT- oc •� a� caE to Q� �� Ln Q 4-j 4-j O 00 o� ° ° O z z z O O O � p p p Q W w o w— w LU p� p in E Htj Ca w N � C6 N 'N Q0 N O O O � > U DC O cn O C: O U Ln O o N _ -0 U N . C6 N :3 V �' O cn ca :3O O CLU U O O C: O V)-0 Q ca 0 CLa� o a� i c� .N o v1 U > oC N � N O rl O E E Q D 0 W O � p oU m N V) N T� E v O U w U- O � N U4-0 o o L E � 4- (D o o 4-0 .� > U > Ln EE w LU Uztf U LU Q c c 0 c 0 0 Mill 4- 0 N a-+ O U O � • �p 4-J N O Ln O Q � O � oC 4-J Cr c LU =) Q U --ase) ol N E J O ateJ � � G lD bn O 00 L L.L N L O U U [toil M, vi O Q 7.-I Pei O m 00 a--+ O ate-+ c j N c ca E OO 4A N Zo .N O> -6 Q N E U O_ a--+ U � - Q Q 00 Q O C6 4-0 O ate-+ ca N Ln 4-0 - V) O ca a--+ LL a--+ C Q n 1 a) '5 4-j U L ateJ (� ate-+ O VJ (.0N O 4-0 ca N �ca — � l0 I� `� O M +-+ > a--+ cn N rl O +-+ U r -I U a--+ 4-0 o HNCf �O Ou ca U - 0- cn Q 0 c� .E Q 0 U ca Ln .N Ln El m ACTION NO. ITEM NO. E.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: December 20, 2016 Resolution approving recommendations from the Pipeline Advisory Committee for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Roanoke County's comments on the Mountain Valley Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement Richard Caywood Assistant County Administrator Thomas C. Gates County Administrator Passage of this resolution will affirm the proposed comments of the Pipeline Advisory Committee, County Staff, and outside counsel for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project. BACKGROUND: On September 16, 2016 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) project. The FERC established December 22, 2016 as the comment deadline for the DEIS. DEIS comments represent the last significant opportunity for public comment on the project DISCUSSION: County staff worked with the PAC and outside counsel to develop appropriate comments on the DEIS to submit to FERC. The PAC met on October 17, 2016 and December 12, 2016, to review the DEIS and discuss these comments. Draft comments are included with this item. Due to the complexity of the DEIS, County Staff will continue to work with our outside counsel to review and enhance the proposed comments until the December 22, 2016, deadline. Page 1 of 2 FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact for this item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed resolution affirming the DEIS comments recommended by the PAC, County Staff, and our outside counsel. Page 2 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2016 RESOLUTION APPROVING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PIPELINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR FILING WITH THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ROANOKE COUNTY'S COMMENTS ON THE MOUNTAIN VALLEY PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WHEREAS, on November 10, 2015, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors authorized County staff to file the necessary motion to intervene with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the Mountain Valley Pipeline proceedings; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued the project's Draft Environmental Impact Statement; and WHEREAS, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has indicated that it intends to issue the Final Environmental Impact Statement on March 10, 2017, which will initiate the 90 -day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline ending on June 8, 2017; and WHEREAS, the issuance of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement represents one of Roanoke County's last significant opportunities to provide input to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project; and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement's findings and conclusions regarding certain impacts of the proposed project are not based on substantial evidence in the record and lack supporting documentation; and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement does not adequately consider alternative mitigation measures that would better mitigate or avoid the environmental impacts of the projects, including wetland crossings and the crossing of the Roanoke River; and Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement does not address all reasonably foreseeable facilities needed for the project or the cumulative impacts of the project; and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement does not provide an adequate basis for verifying compliance with Nationwide Permit 12 (NWP-12) or the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 404(b)(1) guidelines nor does it satisfy the Forest Service's obligation to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to amending the land resource and management plan; and WHEREAS, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission did not provide adequate avenues for the dissemination of information to the public nor did it provide an opportunity for true and open public comment and discussion related to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement; and WHEREAS, under the Natural Gas Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is responsible for compiling the "consolidated record" which serves as the basis for final decision making by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and other regulating agencies; and WHEREAS, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has broad authority to require the project record to be presented in a manner that is transparent and reasonably accessible to County Staff, the Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory Committee, and the public; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Pipeline Advisory Committee met on December 12, 2016 to review these matters. Page 2 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, that the Board of Supervisors accepts the recommendations of the Pipeline Advisory Committee as presented on December 20, 2016, and directs staff to take the following action: 1) To file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in consultation with outside counsel, an appropriate motion detailing Roanoke County's comments and concerns with the inadequacies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and its incomplete nature with lack of detail. Page 3 of 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC, ) CP 16-10-000 Mountain Valley Pipeline Project ) PF15-3-000 Equitrans, LP ) CP16-13-000 Equitrans Expansion Project ) PF 15-22-000 ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA'S COMMENTS ON THE MOUNTAIN VALLEY PROJECT AND EQUITRANS EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Roanoke County, Virginia provides these comments in response to the "Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Mountain Valley Project and Equitrans Expansion Project" (Notice) issued on September 16, 2016.1 Roanoke is one of the counties that would be crossed by the MVP Project. The County is an intervenor in this proceeding, having filed a timely, unopposed Motion to Intervene on November 25, 2015.3 It is also a Cooperating Agency for purposes of the Commission's compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).4 As stated in our Motion to Intervene, Roanoke County has significant interests which will be affected by the outcome of this proceeding. These interests include protection of the County's natural and cultural resources, as well as promotion of economic and community development within the County and broader region. The County also has an interest in how the MVP Project eLibrary no. 20160916-3014. 2 Resource Report 1, p_ 1-3 ("The line then heads south passing approximately one mile west of Spring Hollow Reservoir at approximate MP 234.5 and shifts to the south-southeast passing to the west of Bent Mountain, Roanoke County, Virginia at approximate MP 242.7. At MP 243.8, the pipeline heads east, crossing the Blue Ridge Parkway in an open field between MP 2443 and 244.4," before entering Franklin County.") 3 Roanoke County, "Motion to Intervene and Identification of Issues," eLibrary no. 20151125-5074 (Nov. 25, 2015) (Motion to Intervene). eLibrary no. 20160210-3028 (letter granting County status). Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16--13-000) may affect its regulatory obligations, especially those related to erosion and sediment control and limitations on stormwater discharges.' As described below, the DEIS does not permit for meaningful analysis of the environmental impacts of the MVP Project and alternatives. The County requests that the Commission and Cooperating Agencies prepare a revised DEIS for public review and comment prior to preparing the FEIS, as required by the Council for Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).6 These comments are organized as follows: Section I states our General Comments; Section II states or Specific Comments on Resource Issues; and Section III states our Recommendations. I. GENERAL COMMENTS A. The DEIS's Findings and Conclusions Regarding Certain Impacts of the Proposed Proiect Are Not Based on Substantial Evidence in the Record. In the DEIS, OEP Staff conclude that "construction and operation of the MVP and the EEP would result in limited adverse environmental impacts, with the exception of impacts on forested land."' This and other "conclusions in the EIS are based on [Staff's] analysis of the environmental impact[s] and the following assumptions: ■ the Applicants would comply with all applicable laws and regulations; ■ the proposed facilities would be constructed and operated as described in section 2.0 of the EIS; ■ the Applicants would implement the mitigation measures included in their applications and supplemental submittals to the FERC; ■ the Applicants would follow the mitigation measures included in other agencies' permits and approvals; and ■ the Applicants would comply with [Staff's] recommended mitigation measures, listed in section 5.2."8 These are major assumptions. Staff provide little basis for these assumptions. For example, there is no discussion of the applicants' compliance history. With respect to the MVP 5 See Motion to Intervene, p. 2. 6 See 40 CT -R. § 15029(a). DEIS, p_ 5-1. 8 Id. at pp. 4-1 — 4.2. Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16--13-000) 2 Project, many have alleged that Mountain Valley has not complied with regulations governing the application process, giving rise to concern that it is unlikely to comply with the regulations and certificate conditions governing construction, operation, and maintenance. While mitigation is listed, Staff does not provide the specific basis for its assumption that those measures will be effective in mitigating the impacts of these projects on specific resources along the proposed routes. For example, expert evidence has been submitted regarding the unique characteristics of karst in this region.9 The DEIS does not address this evidence specifically, or otherwise explain why construction and mitigation practices used elsewhere will be successful in this unique terrain. In its comments on the final resource reports, the Forest Service repeatedly requested that Mountain Valley provide documentation for its conclusions that mitigation measures would be effective.10 Rather than comply with the Forest Service's request, Mountain Valley tried to shift the burden to the Forest Service to show why the proposed mitigation measures were not adequate 11 Under the Administrative Procedures Act, the Commission must state the "reasons or basis" for each of its findings and conclusions on all the material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the record." Under Natural Gas Act section 19(b),13 the Commission's findings of fact will be upheld only if based on "substantial evidence." Under this standard, substantial evidence is record evidence which is expressly found to be: (A) reliable and probative for the purpose of supporting a finding and (B) superior to competing evidence with respect to a given finding." 9 See Dr_ Ernst H_ Kastning, "An Expert Report on Geologic Hazards in the Karst Regions of Virginia and West Virginia," eLibrary no. 20160713-5029 (Kastning Report). 10 See, e.g., letter from Joby P. Timm to Secretary Bose, eLibrary no_ 20160311-5013 (Mar. 9, 2016) (Forest Service Comments), Att. 1, p. 5. 11 Letter from Matthew Eggerding to Joby P. Timm, eLibrary no_ 20160408-5318 (April 8, 2016) (MVP Response to Forest Service), p. 41- 12 L12 5 U.S.C_ § 557(c). 13 15 U.S.C. § 717r(b). 14 See Fed. Rules Evid. 702; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U -S. 579, 590 (1993); Motor Vehicle, 463 U.S. at 43; Burlington Truck, 371 U.S. at 168. See also Butte County v. Hogen, 613 Fad 190,194 (D.C. Cir. 2010): ... an agency's refusal to consider evidence bearing on the issue before it constitutes arbitrary agency action within the meaning of § 706. This proposition may be deduced from case law applying the substantial evidence test, under which an agency cannot ignore evidence contradicting its position. The substantiality of evidence must take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight. Although we are dealing with the question whether agency action is arbitrary or capricious, in their application to the requirement of factual support the substantial evidence test and the arbitrary or capricious test are one and the same_ Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16--13-000) The County requests that OEP Staff and Cooperating Agencies state the specific basis for their findings that the proposed mitigation measures, if implemented, will effectively mitigate or avoid the environmental impacts of the construction, operation, and maintenance of the MVP Project. We identify certain mitigation measures which we do not believe are supported by adequate explanation and evidence in Section II, below. We request that Staff direct Mountain Valley to provide additional information that supports these findings, or revise its findings if such information cannot be provided. Staff should analyze that information and modify its findings in the revised DEIS B. The DEIS Does Not Adequately Consider Alternative Mitigation Measures that Would Better Mitigate or Avoid the Environmental Impacts of the Proiects. The DEIS finds that the applicants' proposed mitigation measures, along with some additional measures recommended by the Cooperating Agencies and OEP Staff, will mitigate the projects' adverse impacts. As stated above, the information provided in the DEIS does not provide an adequate basis for several of Staff's findings that proposed mitigation will effectively mitigate the impacts on specific resources. Further, the DEIS does not show Staff's consideration of alternative mitigation measures that would better mitigate or entirely avoid the potential impacts. This is inconsistent with NEPA and implementing regulations. When an agency prepares an EIS, it must include mitigation measures (not already included in the proposed action or alternatives) among the alternatives compared in the EIS. 15 Each EIS must contain a section analyzing the environmental consequences of the proposed action and its alternatives, including "[m]eans to mitigate adverse environmental impacts." 16 An EIS must include "a detailed discussion of possible mitigation measures" to show that the agency carefully considered the significant environmental impacts of the project and to inform the public regarding those impacts. 17 "An agency must discuss mitigation measures "in 15 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C) (mandating that agencies' detailed statements must include alternatives to the proposed action); id § 4332(E) (requiring agencies to study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources). 16 40 CF -R. § 1502.140 (listing mitigation measures as one of the required components of the alternatives included in an EIS); id. § 150825(b)(3) (defining the "scope" of an EIS to include mitigation measures). 17 Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Dept oflnterior, 376 Fad 853, 872-73 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989)1-40 CF -R. §§ 1502.14(f), 1502.16(h)). Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16--13-000) rd sufficient detail to ensure that environmental consequences have been fairly evaluated.... A mere listing ... is insufficient."18 The DEIS lists mitigation measures but does not provide adequate explanation for why OEP Staff believes those measures would effectively mitigate project impacts. As stated above, the Forest Service made several requests for documentation that proposed mitigation measures were likely to be effective in its comments on the final resource reports, but Mountain Valley declined to provide such information." For example, in Resource Report 2, Mountain Valley stated, "[u]se of controlled blasting techniques should avoid the impacts of blasting and limit rock fracture to the immediate vicinity of detonation along the trench line, and contain impact to within the construction right of way. ,21 The Forest Service responded by directing Mountain Valley to "[p]rovide credible citation of this limited area of effect from controlled blasting. A statement like this, which can be interpreted as a mitigation of the project's effects, must be supported by credible evidence .,,21 Rather than provide evidence, Mountain Valley replied with a link to a 16 -second YouTube video of "[t]ypical blasting techniques used for pipeline construction."22 The DEIS states that blasting could impact groundwater quality and quantity, but that Mountain Valley "would minimize or avoid impacts on groundwater during blasting by implementing the construction practices outlined in its Blasting Plan."23 The DEIS does not explain why Staff believes the blasting plan to be adequate to mitigate effects, or cite to any specific evidence to support that finding. Because it does not specifically evaluate the Blasting Plan, it has no basis for developing or considering alternative measures to mitigate impacts from blasting. This does not comply with the Commission's obligations under NEPA to provide detailed discussion of proposed and alternative mitigation measures. C. The DEIS Does Not Address All Reasonably Foreseeable Facilities Needed for the Proiects. As the County stated in its Motion to Intervene, the County is concerned that Mountain Valley has deferred its proposal to construct a fourth compressor station along the proposed route 18 Id. (citing Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. United States Forest Serv., 137 Fad 1372, 1380 (9th Cir. 1998)). 19 See, e.g., Forest Service Comments, Att. 1, pp_ 5, 7. 20 Resource Report 2, p. 2-26- 21 Forest Service Comments, Att. 1, p. 5- 22 MVP Response to Forest Service, p. 44. 23 DEIS, p_ 4-84. Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16--13-000) at approximately MP 220.51.24 A fourth compressor station, the Swann Station, was included in Mountain Valley's initial proposals, but omitted from its final application.25 By removing a fourth compressor station from its proposal, Mountain Valley is limiting its ability to use the pipeline's potential capacity.26 Mountain Valley has stated that it will include additional interconnects if there is sufficient market demand. It has not explained how it can accommodate these additional interconnects without a fourth compressor station. The DEIS does not analyze the potential impacts of a fourth compressor station despite Mountain Valley's statements that it is still considering such a facility to accommodate demand. The DEIS's omission of any analysis of the impacts of a fourth compressor station is inconsistent with the Commission's obligation to analyze the cumulative impacts of the MVP Project.27 "Cumulative impact" is defined as "the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency... undertakes such other actions."28 A "likely" or "reasonably foreseeable" effect is interpreted to mean "that the impact is sufficiently likely to occur that a person of ordinary prudence would take it into account in reaching a decision...."29 The duty to analyze cumulative impacts is not limited to actual proposals,"or anticipated actions with defined timetables for implementation.31 Instead, the 24 See Draft Resource Report 1, pp. 1-8 — 1-9. Now that the Swann Compressor Station has been removed from the project description, the pipeline will travel approximately 150 miles before it reaches the Transco Interconnect_ See id. at 1-4- 25 See id. 26 According to Draft Resource Report 1, "[t]he capacity of the MVP system is limited b the design capacity of the compressor stations." Id. 27 40 C_FR. § 150825(c). 28 Id. § 1508.7; Sierra Club v. Marsh, 976 F2d 763, 767 (1st Cir. 1992). 29 Id. 30 See Texas Committee on Natural Resources Van Winkle, 197 F. Supp2d 586, 617 (2002)(citing Oregon Natural Res. Council v. Marsh, 832 F2d 1498 (9th Cir. 1987), rev'd on other grounds, 490 U.S. 360 (1989). 31 Sierra Club v. U.S. Dept. of Energy, 255 F.Supp2d 1177 (2002)_ The court considered whether a mine should have been analyzed as a cumulative impact of an easement grant because it was a "reasonably foreseeable future action." In its analysis the court stated that it was not pertinent when the mining company will begin operations, as long as action is "still reasonably foreseeable. Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16--13-000) 31 cumulative impacts of a proposal must be analyzed even if certain details of the proposal are unknown.3z In preparing an EA or EIS, an "agency need not foresee the unforeseeable, but ... [r]easonable forecasting and speculation is ... implicit in NEPA, and we must reject any attempt by agencies to shirk their responsibilities under NEPA by labeling any and all discussion of future environmental effects as `crystal ball inquiry."' ... While the statute does not demand forecasting that is "not meaningfully possible," an agency must fulfill its duties to "the fullest extent possible. ,33 As stated above, it is reasonably foreseeable that Mountain Valley will add a compressor station at approximately MP 220.51 to allow the MVP Project to operate at capacity. Mountain Valley has indicated it will add interconnects to meet project demand and operate the project at capacity. The impact of the fourth compressor station along this section of the route should be evaluated in the context of the overall project by FERC now so that the public can consider that impact prior to any decision to construct the pipeline. D. The DEIS Does Not Adequately Address the Cumulative Impacts of the Proiects and Other Reasonably Foreseeable Proiects. The County previously requested that the Commission and Cooperating Agencies prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement as the basis for its decision on the MVP and EEP Projects. In support of this request, it noted that there were several pipeline projects pending or planned for the region, including the Atlantic Coast Pipeline and the Appalachian Connector Project.34 It cited the CEQ guidance recommending programmatic environmental review to provide for more efficient and comprehensive analysis of the cumulative impacts of ongoing, proposed or reasonably foreseeable actions that share a common geography or timing.35 The Commission did not specifically respond to the County's request; however, in correspondence with congressional representatives, the Commission Chair stated that the project - 32 Texas Committee on Natural Resources v. Van Winkle, 197 F. Supp -2d at 620 ("Even if the exact future of these other projects is uncertain, uncertainty alone does not excuse the COE's failure to address the cumulative impacts of these projects ...."); Scientists' Inst. for Pub. Info., Inc. v. Atomic Energy Comm'n, 481 F2d 1079, 1092 (D.C.Cir.1973); see also Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc. v. Callaway, 524 F2d 79, 87-90 (1975). 33 Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. F.E.R.C., 753 Fad 1304, 1310 (D -C. Cir_ 2014) (quoting Scientists'Inst. for Pub. Info., Inc. v. Atomic Energy Comm'n, 481 F2d 1079, 1092 (D.C.Cir.1973)). 34 See Motion to Intervene, pp. 6-7 35 Id. at 6. Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16--13-000) 7 specific documents prepared by OEP Staff "will analyze both the impacts of the respective projects and the cumulative impacts of other actions affecting the environment in the region."36 Contrary to the previous assurances, the DEIS does not adequately analyze the cumulative impacts of the projects and other proposed or reasonably foreseeable natural gas pipeline or other projects within the region. This does not comply with NEPA section 102(2)(C),37 which requires that an EIS analyze the "environmental impact of the proposed action." Such impact includes direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action.38 The DEIS broadly describes non jurisdictional oil and gas facilities that are proposed, under construction, or recently constructed in the vicinity of the proposed projects .39 The DEIS states that specific information about these projects is unknown: Non jurisdictional gathering systems including pipelines and compressor stations account for an estimated 3,328.9 acres of impacts within the affected watersheds. We were able to estimate the amount of land that would be disturbed, but we do not know how many acres of that land are forest, wetland, or pasture. Similarly, data for resources affected by the existing wells are also unknown. As a result, it is only possible to speak in general terms about the cumulative effects on specific resources." For example, the cumulative impacts analysis for wetlands states, "we were unable to find quantitative data for the extent of impacts to wetlands from non -FERC regulated projects, but we assume that some level of impacts would occur."41 Contrary to NEPA regulations, the DEIS does not describe Staff's efforts to obtain this information, or provide any basis for why it cannot be obtained.42 Such regulations require that, even if an agency has incomplete or unavailable information, the agency is required to reveal the facts and explain that such information is incomplete or unavailable. 43 36 See, e.g., letter from Chair Norman C. Bay to Hon. Bob Goodlatte, eLibrary no. 20160121-0011 (Jan. 20, 2016). 37 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). 38 40 C_F.R. §§ 1508.7, 1508.8. 39 DEIS, p. 4-493 — 4-494. 40 Id. at 4-494. 41 See, e.g., DEIS, pp. 4-503 — 4-504 ("We were unable to find quantitative data for the extent of impacts to wetlands from non -FERC regulated projects, but we assume that some level of impacts would occur_"). 42 40 CT -R. § 150222(a) — (b). 43 See 40 CF -R. § 1502.22. CEQ's regulations specifically require: When an agency is evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects on the human environment in an environmental impact statement and there is incomplete or unavailable information, the agency shall always make clear that such information is lacking. Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16--13-000) N. The analysis of jurisdictional facilities is similarly characterized by limited data, expectations (as opposed to specific findings), and unsubstantiated conclusions. For example, with regard to groundwater, the DEIS states, "it is apparent that the MVP and EEP route would cross near numerous wells, springs, and swallets, some of which would be located within 0.1 mile of the projects."44 However, Staff does not have information for other projects: "[w]e were unable to quantitatively determine the number of these features on a HUC10 watershed basis."45 It does not state whether this information is unknowable or only unknown to Staff. It generalizes about the potential impacts: Given the relatively shallow ... nature of the pipeline trenching and the often deep depths at which water wells are drilled to reach aquifers, in general it is unlikely that pipeline activities would negatively affect groundwater supplies from wells, although springs may be more subject to disruption. Potential impacts on groundwater in karst areas may be (a) If the incomplete information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives and the overall costs of obtaining it are not exorbitant, the agency shall include the information in the environmental impact statement. (b) If the information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts cannot be obtained because the overall costs of obtaining it are exorbitant or the means to obtain it are not known, the agency shall include within the environmental impact statement: (1) A statement that such information is incomplete or unavailable; (2) a statement of the relevance of the incomplete or unavailable information to evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment; (3) a summary of existing credible scientific evidence which is relevant to evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts on the human environment, and (4) the agency's evaluation of such impacts based upon theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community. For the purposes of this section, "reasonably foreseeable" includes impacts which have catastrophic consequences, even if their probability of occurrence is low, provided that the analysis of the impacts is supported by credible scientific evidence, is not based on pure conjecture, and is within the rule of reason. 44 DEIS, p. 4-500. 45 Id. at 4-500. It elaborates: We do not have data about impacts on karst features and related groundwater resources for all of the other projects within the HUC10 watersheds crossed by the MVP and the EEP. However, a review of information available regarding karst features crossed by other FERC -jurisdictional projects shows whether or not there are karst impacts associated with any of those other projects.... [W]hile the ACP Project and Supply Header do cross karst terrain, it is unclear whether any of it occurs within the HUC10 watersheds shared by the MVP or the EEP....Other projects that may also cross karst terrain include transportation or other energy projects. Id. at 4-501. Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16--13-000) Wei more likely given the extensive interaction between surface and near surface flow and deeper aquifers. It does not explain what it means by "disruption" to springs, or what the potential impacts on groundwater in karst areas would be. It does not provide a clear description of the cause -and - effect relationship between the proposed projects and impacts on groundwater. It does not describe the intensity46 of the potential impacts. The DEIS states, "[i]n consideration of available information for the projects, and the protective measures proposed by MVP, we have not identified any cumulative impacts on karst terrain that would result from construction and operation of the projects." However, the previous statement that, "[w]e do not have data about impacts on karst features and related groundwater resources for all of the other projects" renders this statement meaningless.47 Based on this cursory analysis of incomplete data, the DEIS concludes "[g]iven the nature of shallow pipeline trenching relative to deeper aquifers, Mountain Valley's Karst Mitigation Plan, as well as the protective permitting requirements of other agencies for other projects such as oil and gas well development, we conclude that the combined cumulative effects upon groundwater would be less than significant."48 As stated above, it provides no specific basis for its implicit assumption that the proposed mitigation measures, specifically the Karst Mitigation Plan, will render potential impacts insignificant. The analysis of cumulative impacts to surface waters is similarly deficient. That analysis is premised on the assumption that "the MVP and the EEP would contribute little to the long- term cumulative impacts on waterbodies because the majority of the potential impacts are temporary and short-term."49 It surmises that it is "likely" that other projects would be required to install and comply with BMPs similar to those proposed by FERC, so the "cumulative effect on the surface waterbody resources would be temporary and minor."" The DEIS only lists the number of waterbodies that jurisdictional projects would cross. It does not describe the baseline condition of specific waters that may be cumulatively affected." 46 "Factors that have been used to define the intensity of effects include magnitude, geographic extent, duration, and frequency of the effects." CEQ, "Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act" (Jan. 1997), p. 44. 47 DEIS, pp. 4-500 — 4-501. 48 Id. at 4-501. 49 Id. at 4-502. 50 Id 51 See "Considering Cumulative Effects under NEPA," p. 41. "The concept of a baseline against which to compare predictions of the effects of the proposed action and reasonable alternatives is critical to the NEPA process.... The analyst must determine the realistic potential for the resource to sustain itself in the future and Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16--13-000) 10 The DEIS does not describe how conditions on any of the 361 perennially flowing water bodies that would be crossed by the MVP have changed over time and how they are likely to change in the future without the proposed actions. In other words, there is no trends analysis.52 The DEIS does not identify any thresholds beyond which change in these surface waters would be detrimental. The DEIS only considers the cumulative impacts of the proposed projects; it does not provide analysis of the cumulative impacts of alternatives. As a result, decision makers and the public have no basis for comparing the cumulative impacts of the proposed and alternative actions. In sum, the DEIS does not show that FERC or the Cooperating Agencies took a hard look at the cumulative impacts of the MVP Project or alternatives. E. The DEIS Does Not Provide an Adequate Basis for Verifyin2 Compliance with NWP-12 or the CWA section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The Army Corps is a Cooperating Agency for purposes of preparing the EIS. According to the DEIS, "[t]he COE is still reviewing Mountain Valley's plan and will continue to work with Mountain Valley to determine the appropriate type and amount of mitigation needed for the MVP's wetland impacts in West Virginia and Virginia. ,53 It states that the Army Corps will not consider Mountain Valley's application for permit under CWA section 404 complete until FERC issues the Final EIS.54 This sequence undermines the public's opportunity for public review of the proposed action. As described below, how the Corps will permit the project, whether it uses individual permits or NWP-12 and its proposed conditions for any permit, is relevant to the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and consideration of alternatives. The Army Corps has not disclosed whether it intends to issue individual permits for specific waterbody and wetland crossings, authorize the MVP under NWP-12, or ensure compliance with CWA section 404 using a combination of individual and general permits. As a result, it is not clear whether the Army Corps has satisfied NEPA for purposes of its decision under Section 404. whether the proposed action will affect this potential; therefore, the baseline conditions of the resource of concern should include a description of how conditions have changed over time and how they are likely to change in the future without the proposed action." Id. 52 "Considering Cumulative Effects under NEPA," App. A, pp. A-24 — A-27_ "Trends analysis provides the historical context that is critical to assessing the cumulative effects ofproposed actions." Id. at A-24. 53 DEIS, p_ 4-129. 54 Id. Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16--13-000) 11 As described in Section H, we are concerned that at least two of the proposed wetland crossings at 37.128527, -80.132335 and 37.128486, -80.130777 are not eligible for coverage under NWP-12 because they are less than 500 feet apart and collectively would exceed the 1/2- acre threshold.55 That circumstance should trigger the need for Mountain Valley to apply for an individual permit. Neither the Army Corps nor FERC have responded to this concern, despite the County raising it over eight months ago. The Army Corps' decision to authorize the project using NWP-12 rather than individual permits may have significant environmental consequences.56 Projects that are covered by a NWP are not necessarily required to undergo the more comprehensive, site-specific environmental and public interest reviews that are required for individual permits.57 The County remains concerned that authorizing the MVP Project under NWP-12 will result in inadequate consideration of the direct impacts of each waterbody and wetland crossing, and of the cumulative impacts of scores of crossings within the region.58 A NWP is a general permit designed to cover a class of projects that are expected to have "minimal adverse effects on the aquatic environment that would likely generate little, if any, public comment if they were evaluated through the standard permit process with a full public notice." 59 The Army Corps' environmental analysis of the potential impacts of any NWP is predictive in nature because at the time the NWP issues, the Army Corps does not know or consider individual projects that may be authorized under the permit. When it issued NWP-12 in 2012, the Army Corps affirmed that the permit would comply with the CWA section 404(b)(1) Guidelines,60 which provide that dredged or fill material should not be discharged if it will result in an unacceptable impact on the aquatic ecosystem: 55 See Roanoke County, "Comment and Objection," eLibrary no. 20160411-5323 (April 11, 2016), p_ 1 56 Individual Permits are subject to greater scrutiny by the Army Corps. The Army Corps will grant an individual permit only if the proposal is found to be in the public interest and to comply with the CWA section 404(b)(1) guidelines. Under those guidelines, the Army Corps is required to permit the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. 40 C.F.R. §230.10(a) 57 33 C_FR. §§320.1(c), 320.4. 58 See Motion to Intervene, pp. 10-11. 59 Army Corps, "Reissuance of Nationwide Permits," 77 Fed. Reg. 10184, 10185 (Feb. 21, 2012). See also Army Corps, "Decision Document Nationwide Permit 12,) p_ 3 ("NWPs are a type of general permit designed to authorize certain activities that have minimal individual and cumulative adverse effects on the aquatic environment and generally comply with the related laws cited in 33 CFR 3203.") 60 Under the guidelines, no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted for a project if. (1) it causes or contributes to violations of applicable state water quality standards; (2) there are practicable alternatives (40 C_FR. 230.10(a) to the proposed discharge; (3) the discharge causes or contributes to significant degradation of the environment; and (4) all appropriate steps have been taken to minimize the potential adverse impacts. 40 C_F.R §230.10. The guidelines also require a cumulative impacts analysis (40 CFR. § 230.10(g)) and a determination of Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16--13-000) 12 Based on the information in this document, the Corps has determined that the discharges authorized by this NWP comply with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, with the inclusion of appropriate and practicable conditions, including mitigation, necessary to minimize adverse effects61 on affected aquatic ecosystems. The activities authorized by this NWP will result in minimal individual and cumulative adverse effects on the aquatic environment." Again, that finding was predictive in nature. The Army Corps is now required to verify that the impacts of the MVP Project would be minimal prior to authorizing it under NWP-12.63 The Army Corps' decision document for NWP-12 provides: "[e]ach separate and distant crossing should be evaluated to determine if it meets the terms and conditions of the NWP, and cumulative effects of the overall utility line should be evaluated to determine if the adverse cumulative effects on the aquatic environment are more than minimal and therefore do not quality for NWP authorization. 64 secondary effects on the aquatic ecosystem. 40 C.F.R. §§ 23010(g) -(h). In addition, mitigation regulations require that actions be taken to minimize adverse impacts. 33 C.F.R. § 320.4(r); 40 C.F.R §§ 230.70-230.77, 230.93. 61 Under the guidelines, effects contributing to significant degradation considered individually or collectively, include: (1) Significantly adverse effects of the discharge of pollutants on human health or welfare, including but not limited to effects on municipal water supplies, plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and special aquatic sites; (2) Significantly adverse effects of the discharge of pollutants on life stages of aquatic life and other wildlife dependent on aquatic ecosystems, including the transfer, concentration, and spread of pollutants or their byproducts outside of the disposal site through biological, physical, and chemical processes; (3) Significantly adverse effects of the discharge of pollutants on aquatic ecosystem diversity, productivity, and stability Such effects may include, but are not limited to, loss of fish and wildlife habitat or loss of the capacity of a wetland to assimilate nutrients, purify water, or reduce wave energy; or (4) Significantly adverse effects of discharge of pollutants on recreational, aesthetic, and economic values. 40 C.F.R. § 230.10(c). 62 Army Corps, "Decision Document Nationwide Permit 12," p_ 46. 63 See Maryland Native Plant Soc y v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 332 F. Supp. 2d 845, 862 (2004) ("[t]he important inquiry insofar as a general permit is concerned is whether the environmental impact of the project which is verified is minimal.")_ 64 Army Corps, Decision Document Nationwide Permit 12, p. 7_ Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16--13-000) 13 The Army Corps must condition the NWP-12 authorization or issue an individual permit if the District Engineer (DE) finds that the proposed project would have more than "minimal" environmental effects: If the DE finds that the proposed activity would have more than minimal individual or cumulative net adverse effects on the environment or otherwise may be contrary to the public interest, he shall modify the NWP authorization to reduce or eliminate those adverse effects, or he shall instruct the prospective permittee to apply for a regional general permit or an individual_" Based on the County's review, the DEIS does not provide adequate information for the Army Corps to verify that the multiple waterbody crossings proposed by the MVP Project will have only minimal impacts on the aquatic environment, as required by the 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The DEIS refers to Mountain Valley's list of the proposed crossings, and generally concludes that compliance with FERC's Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Procedures) and Mountain Valley's proposed mitigation measures will minimize the impacts of each crossing.66 Contrary to the Forest Service's repeated requests for credible evidence to support statements regarding the effectiveness of proposed mitigation, the DEIS does not cite to any evidence in support of this finding. In its comments on Mountain Valley's final resource reports, the Forest Service stated that the potential impacts to the aquatic environment could not be determined based on information in Resource Report 2: There is a general discussion on Impacts to Waterbodies from Crossings and Mitigation Measures in this section; however there has been no site specific analysis of potential impacts to waterbodies or aquatic biota. There has not been a sediment analysis done on the pipeline, access roads, or staging areas, therefore there is not quantitative data with which to do an effects analysis or alternative comparison. A sediment analysis should be completed to determine the potential amount of sediment delivered to the stream systems and subsequent effect on fisheries, and downstream mussels.67 Mountain Valley subsequently provided Hydrologic Analysis of Sedimentation.68 However, the geographic scope of that analysis was limited to the Jefferson National Forest and contained "multiple fundamental problems" as identified by the Forest Service.69 The Forest 65 33 C_F.R. § 3301(d). 66 DEIS, p_ 5-4. 67 Forest Service Comments, Att1, p. 6. 68 eLibrary no. 20160725-5227 (July 25, 2016). 69 Forest Service, "Comments on the Hydrologic Analysis of Sedimentation," eLibrary no. 20160816-5247 (Aug. 16, 2016) (Forest Service Comments re Sedimentation), Att. 1, p. 1. Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16--13-000) 14 Service found that Mountain Valley's effects analysis was not scientifically valid because it was based on the incorrect premise that the actions proposed would only "temporarily" increase sediment yields.70 The Forest Service also challenged the geographic scope of the analysis as too limited, and the modeling methods used by Mountain Valley.71 The Army Corps has not explained how it proposes to verify the MVP Project's compliance with NWP-12 and the 404(b)(1) guidelines without scientifically valid hydrologic analysis of sedimentation analysis. The County requests that the Army Corps provide its preliminary determination as to whether the MVP Project complies with the terms and conditions of NWP-12, and basis therefor, for public review in advance of the FEIS. If the Army Corps determines that the MVP Project in whole or part does not comply with NWP-12, the County requests that the Army Corps direct Mountain Valley to apply for individual permits, or disclose the conditions the DE believes will bring the project into compliance with NWP-12. The verification is relevant to the public's and decisionmakers' evaluation of the environmental consequences of constructing the project and should be disclosed before the EIS is finalized and the deadline for the Army Corps to issue a final permitting decision is triggered. F. The DEIS Does Not Satisfy the Forest Service's Obligation to Comply with NEPA Prior to Amending the Land Resource and Management Plan. The DEIS describes several proposed amendments to the Land Resource and Management Plan (LRMP) for the Jefferson National Forest. 12 These include one plan -level amendment, and four project specific amendments. The plan -level amendment calls for converting 186 acres to Rx 5C -Designated Utility Corridor .73 According to the DEIS, "Rx 5C - Designated Utility Corridors contain special uses which serve a public benefit by providing a reliable supply of electricity, natural gas, or water essential to local, regional, and national economies."74 The project specific amendments allow for exceedances of restrictions on soil 70 Id. at Att. 1, p. 2. In its comments on Resource Report 3, the Forest Service stated: "[t]he statement that "Sediment -related impacts are generally temporary, lasting only during the period of active -in -stream construction" does not take into account potential sediment impacts from upslope grubbing, trenching, grading during construction of pipeline corridor and access roads. Impacts from these activities need to be quantitatively evaluated via sediment analysis and effects on water bodies and aquatic biota disclosed." Forest Service Comments, Att. 1, p. 9. 71 Id. at Att.l, pp. 2-3, Att2_ 72 DEIS, pp. 4-259 — 4-264. 73 Id. at 4-261 — 4-262. "The new Rx 5C land allocation would be 500 feet wide (250 feet wide on each side of the pipeline), with two exceptions: 1) the area where the pipeline crosses Rx 4A -Appalachian National scenic Trail Corridor would remain in Rx4A; and 2) the new 5C area would not cross into Peters Mountain Wilderness so the Rx 5C area would be less than 500 feet wide along the boundary of the Wilderness." Id. 74 Id. at 4-261 Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16--13-000) 15 conditions and riparian corridor conditions, removal of old growth trees, and crossings of the ANST and Peters Mountain.75 The DEIS does not state explicitly whether the Forest Service intends to prepare any additional or supplemental environmental documents for purposes of these amendments. The Forest Service's webpage for the MVP indicates that it intends to rely on FERC's Final EIS for the proposed amendments.76 The County does not believe the Forest Service can rely exclusively on the DEIS to satisfy its NEPA obligations because the DEIS does not demonstrate that the Forest Service has taken a hard look at the potential impacts of the proposed amendments. More specifically, the DEIS does not (1) address the need for the proposed amendment, other than to say that the MVP Project will not comply with LRMP," (2) identify or evaluate any alternatives to the proposed plan or project -specific amendments,'$ or (3) evaluate the effects of establishing a utility corridor through the Jefferson National Forest. This does not comply with the Forest Service's independent to comply with NEPA prior to amending the LRMP.79 Further, the DEIS does not address the deficiencies in the factual record identified by the Forest Service in its several comment letters.80 The Forest Service has stated that additional information "is necessary for adequate review and decision."81 The Forest Service has an independent obligation to assure the record is complete for purposes of its NEPA review and ultimate permitting decisions. The County requests that the Forest Service establish procedures for satisfying its independent obligations under NEPA. Those procedures should include a schedule that 75 DEIS, pp. 4-263 — 4-264 76 See hgp://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gwj/landmanagement/projects/?cid=stelprd3827827 (describing the Forest Service's role under "Step 13" as reviewing the "Final EIS to ensure public and agencies [sic] concerns are addressed adequately for Forest Service to make a decision on amending the Forest Plan ... and issuing a special use permit to construct and operate a natural gas pipeline on National Forest System lands."). 77 Id. 78 36 C_F_R_ § 220.5(e). 79 40 C.F_R_ § 15023; see also 36 U.S_C_ § 220.4. The proposed amendments fit the classes of action normally requiring an EIS include "[p]roposals that would substantially alter the undeveloped character of an inventoried roadless area or a potential wilderness area_" 36 C_F.R. § 220.5_ The Forest Service is responsible for the NEPA analysis for the LRMP amendments because the amendments are controlled by the Forest Service. Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15 — National Environmental Policy Act Handbook Chapter — Zero Code, p. 4- 80 See, e.g., Forest Service Comments, Forest Service Sedimentation Comments; letter from Joby P_ Timm to Secretary Bose, eLibrary no. 20161025-5044 (Oct. 24, 2016). 81 Forest Service Comments, p. 9. Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16-13-000) 16 describes how the Forest Service will comply with NEPA before the Commission finalizes the FEIS and the Forest Service is expected to issue its final permitting decisions within 90 days. 12 F. Lack of Availability for Public Comment In the DEIS, it was stated that "[a]dditional public comment sessions will be held at multiple locations along the proposed pipeline route to take comments on this draft EIS."83 In a supplemental filing on September 16, 2016, FERC detailed the process by which public comments would be received regarding the DEIS. Individuals who wished to make a public statement would be given a number by a FERC staff member present at the session and, in the order of the numbers, would be called back to provide their comments "on a one-on-one basis with a stenographer (with FERC staff or representative present)."84 There is a certain expectation among citizens that public comment sessions or public hearings with a local or governmental authority will be held in a public venue to promote discourse and provide an opportunity for feedback. However, the isolated nature of the public comment sessions implemented by FERC to respond to the DEIS discourages public dialogue and limits understanding of the topic as a whole. These sessions, with only one representative from FERC present, were designed to limit public engagement and involvement and discourage true and open discussion. II. SPECIFIC RESOURCE COMMENTS A. Steep Slopes and other Geologic Hazards The DEIS states that "construction and operation of the MVP could result in unstable slopes including cut slope failures and fill slope failures."85 It further states, "[c]onstruction of the MVP could alter the surface and near surface drainage along the pipeline trench, which could increase pre-existing landslide hazard potential on natural slopes. ,16 It acknowledges that, "[s]everal steep slopes along Mountain Valley's proposed pipeline route have experienced 82 18 C_F.R. § 157.22. 83 DEIS, p_ 1-23. 84 eLibrary no. 20160916-3014. 85 Id. at 4-29. 86 Id. Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16--13-000) 17 landslide activity in the past. ,87 It nevertheless suggests that these impacts can be effectively mitigated through Mountain Valley's implementation of a revised Landslide Mitigation Plan." Although not directly cited, the discussion in the DEIS appears based on the information Mountain Valley provided in Resource Report 6. According to Resource Report 6, the terrain along the MVP route is marked by long, steep slopes, strong erosion due to multiple stream dissections, potentials for landslides, and, specifically in the Valley and Ridge and Blue Ridge provinces where the county is located, areas of karst terrain. 89 The report states that 49% of the project area in the County is at moderate susceptibility for landslides while 51% has a history of high landslide incidence caused primarily by a combination of steep slopes and highly erodible soils. Id. The County entered data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Soil Survey Geographic database into the County's geographic information system to determine the percent rise and soil erosion hazard of the slopes proposed to be crossed. Of the approximate eight -mile length of the pipeline proposed in the County, 21% of the project area is along slopes with rises between 26% and 40%, and 25% of the project area is along slopes with rises over 40%. The GIS also calculated that 93% of the proposed project area is at a Moderate to Severe risk for soil erosion. Indeed, 84% of the project area has been categorized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as being at Severe risk for soil erosion.90 The DEIS does not specifically address this information. The County highlighted the potential impacts to Poor Mountain, located between MP 236 and 238, which has some of the most severe slopes in the County. The County also expressed concern regarding the potential need for blasting along these slopes, where bedrock is located within the proposed pipeline trench depth from MP 236.2 to 237, and MP 238.4 to 239. "Using controlled explosives to clear the bedrock has the potential to increase the susceptibility for landslides, specifically between mileposts 236 and 238 where the mountain slopes have a greater than 40% rise and the land is at Severe risk for soil erosion."91 Blasting in this area could contribute to erosion and sedimentation problems at Spring Hollow Reservoir, one of the County's primary water supply sources.92 Also discussed below are the potential impacts to 87 Id. at 4-46. 88 Id. at 4-47. 89 Resource Report 6, p. 6-2. 90 See Comment and Objection, Att. 3-4- 90 Id., P- 4. 92 We note that in its comments on the Atlantic Sunrise DEIS, EPA recommended avoidance of blasting near bedrock wells and in karst terrain: Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16--13-000) IN springs and private wells. The DEIS does not specifically explain how Mountain Valley's proposed mitigation measures would address these concerns. The Forest Service expressed similar concerns regarding the impacts of blasting along steep slopes on aquatic resources: "[b]lasting could affect stream hydrology permanently by fracturing aquifers or damaging perched water tables. It could also directly and indirectly affect fish and macroinvertebrates. Please provide a full discussion of blasting effects supported by independent scientific research."93 It made repeated requests for an engineering geologic assessment of slope modifications.94 The DEIS does not include this information. The Forest Service reiterated these concerns subsequent to the publication of the DEIS, requesting that Mountain Valley prepare site-specific design of stabilization measures in selected high -hazard portions of the route within the Jefferson National Forest. 95 According to the Forest Service: The route for the [MVP Project] ... would cross some very challenging terrain in the central Appalachians. Potentially difficult situations include steep slopes, presence of headwater streams, geologic formations with high slippage potential, highly erodible soils, and the presence of high-value natural resources downslope of high hazard areas. These hazards are exacerbated by high annual rates of precipitation and the potential for extreme precipitation events. Similar hazards on other smaller pipeline projects in the central Appalachians have led to slop failures, erosion and sedimentation incidents, and damage to aquatic resources. Therefore, the Forest Service (FS) is concerned that crossing such challenging terrain with a much larger pipeline could present a high risk of failures that lead to resource damage.... [¶] [T]he FS has identified the need for more detailed information to document the effectiveness of [Mountain Valley's] proposed techniques and measures [for slope stabilization and erosion/sedimentation control].96 It is noted that blasting along the proposed route may potentially impact yields and/or increase turbidity. Groundwater flow impacts should also be considered. EPA recommends that alternatives to blasting be fully explored. We also recommend that blasting within close proximity to bedrock wells and in karst terrain be avoided and/or should not be conducted. EPA Comments re Atlantic Sunrise DEIS, Enclosure 2, p. 7- 93 Forest Service Comments, Att. 1, p. 6- 94 Id., Att., 1, p. 20. 95 Letter from Joby P_ Timm to Secretary Bose, eLibrary no. 20161025-5044 (Oct. 24, 2016). 96 Id. at Att. 1, p_ 1. Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16-13-000) 19 Although the Forest Service's comments focused on resources within the forest, the County's expert has determined that they apply equally to high -hazard areas outside of the forest. Refer to expert's report for effects analysis and recommendations. B. Waterbody and Wetlands Crossings 1. Erosion and Sedimentation The DEIS states that erosion and sedimentation are among the impacts that could result from construction activities in stream channels and on adjacent banks: Clearing and grading of stream banks, in -stream trenching, trench dewatering, and backfilling could each cause temporary, local modifications of aquatic habitat involving sedimentation, increased turbidity, and decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations...... The DEIS continues: The clearing and grading of stream banks could expose soil to erosional forces and would reduce riparian vegetation along the cleared section of the waterbody. The use of heavy equipment for construction could cause compaction of near -surface soils, an effect that could result in increased runoff into surface waters in the immediate vicinity of the proposed construction right-of-way. Increased surface runoff could transport sediment into surface waters, resulting in increased turbidity levels and increased sedimentation rates in the receiving waterbody. Disturbances to stream channels and stream banks could also increase the likelihood of scour after construction.98 Nonetheless, the DEIS does not anticipate any "long-term or significant impacts on surface waters" as a result of construction or maintenance of the MVP Project. This expectation is based largely on Mountain Valley's adherence to implementation of its proposed erosion and sedimentation controls, adherence to proposed crossing guidelines, and plans "to restore the streambanks and streambed contours as practical to pre -construction conditions."99 In its motion to intervene, the County stated its concern regarding Mountain Valley's vagueness as to how it would prevent erosion and sedimentation on waterways and wetlands the pipeline would cross. The County stated that it is required to prevent unauthorized stormwater discharges under its MS4 Permit, and does not want Mountain Valley's activities to cause non - attainment of standards established under that permit, or to cause the County's burden in achieving those standards to be increased. 97 DEIS, p_ 4-108. 98 DEIS, p_ 4-108. 99 Id. at 4-116. Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16--13-000) 20 The County continues to be concerned that Mountain Valley's proposed erosion and sedimentation control measures are not adequate to minimize or avoid the potential impacts to surface waters. As stated by the Forest Service, broad assertions that impacts will be minimized or avoided by implementation of the construction practices outlined in the FERC Plan and Procedures are inadequate. Those statements "[n]eed supporting independent research citation ... Simply stating that mitigations are effective is not sufficient. "'00 As described above, Mountain Valley has not undertaken hydrologic analysis of sedimentation for the majority of the pipeline route, even though the Forest Service has stated such analysis is necessary to identify and evaluate the impact to waterbodies or aquatic biota. 101. The analysis it has undertaken for the Jefferson National Forest is not valid according to the Forest Service. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality has similarly stated that Mountain Valley's Erosion and Sediment Control Plan "absolutely lack[s] the specificity that DEQ is requiring for these plans." 102 The County requests that OEP Staff and Cooperating Agencies require Mountain Valley to undertake the studies necessary to evaluate the MVP Project's contribution to erosion and sedimentation -related impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. This information is necessary for the Commission and Cooperating Agencies to complete their review of the proposed project, and should be provided in a revised DEIS for public review and comment. los 2. Dry Open Cut of Roanoke River MVP proposes to cross the Roanoke River using the "dry open -cut construction method."104 According to the DEIS, "open -cut crossing of major waterbodies may impact larger populations of aquatic species, as well as interrupt potential recreational or boating activities ... 100 Forest Service Comments, Att. 1, p. 5; see also id. at 6 101 Id., Att. 1, p. 6. 102 Casey Fabris, "Franklin County votes against Mountain Valley Pipeline easement," THE ROANOKE TIMES (Oct. 18, 2016), available at hgp://www.roanoke.com/news/local/franklin county/franklin-county-votes-against- mountain-valley_pipeline-easement/article_ c728fd20-a955-507b-9850-d9663f5lbddb.html (quoting James Golden, Director of Operations, DEQ). 103 See Hydrogeological Assessment of Watershed Impacts Caused by Constructing the Mountain Valley Gas Pipeline through Roanoke County, Virginia (Attachment A) prepared by Pamela C. Dodds, Ph.D., Licensed Professional Geologist 104 Citation to Relevant Resource Report/Response to Add'1 Information Request. The DEIS describes this method as involving "trench excavation, pipeline installation, and backfilling in a waterbody without controlling or diverting streamflow (i -e., the stream flows through the work area throughout the construction period). Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16--13-000) 21 »los Trenchless crossing methods, such as HDD crossings, are often used to minimize these impacts," but "Mountain Valley has not proposed any HDD crossings ....»106 The DEIS does not address the close proximity of the proposed crossing of the Roanoke River to Spring Hollow Reservoir's water intake pump station (1.57 river miles). 107 It also does not address the fact that this proposed crossing is located within a floodplain with increased concern of soil liquefaction and lateral spreading with softer sediments and a high groundwater table. The reservoir provides critical water supply and recreational uses for the County. 108 Roanoke County, in its filing on April 11, 2016, requested that FERC reconsider the categorization of the Roanoke River crossing due to these factors. Additionally, a more detailed and comprehensive crossing plan was requested. However, in the DEIS, the categorization of the Roanoke River remains the same, and no alternate crossing methods have been considered. Roanoke County once again urges FERC to reconsider the "Intermediate" categorization of this crossing and to impel MVP to consider alternative crossing methods. 3. Wetland Crossings at 37.128527, -80.132335 and 37.128486, -80.130777 In comments filed on April 11, 2016, Roanoke County raised concerns regarding the MVP's potential impacts to wetlands within the county. It has not received a response to those concerns to date from either OEP Staff or the Army Corps. The County specifically objected to Mountain Valley's claim that the proposed wetland crossings at 37.128527, -80.132335 and 37.128486, -80.130777 complied with the terms of NWP-12: [Mountain Valley] states that they will be in compliance with [NWP-12] issued by the [Army Corps] by limiting impacts of wetland crossings to "under 0.5 acres of cumulative impacts per single and complete project." However, the 0.5 acre maximum cited in NWP-12 applies to crossings that can be considered separate because "they are sited at distant locations from other crossings." The two impact points listed by [Mountain Valley] in its February 26, 2016 filing, which total over the 0.5 acre maximum, cannot be considered separate crossings with respect to the requirements of the NWP-12 due to the fact that they are less than 500 feet apart. 109 105 DEIS, p. 4-87- 106 Id 107 See Roanoke County's Comment and Objection, p. 2. los See id. at pp. 2-3- 109 Id. at 1. Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16--13-000) 22 These wetlands are important to the County, and the DEIS does not describe how their value can be replaced by offsite mitigation. Describe As stated above, we request that the Army Corps provide its verification as to whether these and other water body and wetland crossings along the proposed MVP route comply with NWP-12 and 404(b)(1) Guidelines as soon as possible. The Army Corps' current proposal to defer this disclosure until after publication of the FEIS will preclude meaningful opportunity for public review of the potential impacts to aquatic resources. C. Water Supply Wells The DEIS finds that construction of the MVP Project may impact groundwater supplies: In areas of shallow groundwater, construction activities may temporarily affect near - surface aquifers. Grading and clearing, trenching and blasting, trench dewatering, and hydrostatic test discharge activities could temporarily alter overland water flows and groundwater recharge, or could result in minor fluctuations in groundwater levels. Overland construction could potentially increase turbidity through erosion and sedimentation.) to However, it finds that any disturbances to wells in near -surface aquifers "would typically quickly re-establish equilibrium, and turbidity levels would rapidly subside, such that impacts would be localized and temporary." 111 It does not cite to any specific evidence to support this finding. 112 The DEIS acknowledges that MVP has not identified all private domestic water supply wells within 150 feet of the construction work areas."' To remedy this deficiency, the DEIS recommends that MVP "file with the Secretary the location of all water wells, springs, swallets, and other drinking water sources within 150 feet (500 feet in karst terrain) of the pipeline and aboveground facilities."' 14 OEP Staff does not explain why it did not require Mountain Valley to complete this task prior to publishing the DEIS. The DEIS describes Mountain Valley's proposed measures for minimizing impacts to wells located within 150 of the MVP (500 feet in karst terrain), including two pre -construction water quality evaluations, and water yield testing during the second pre -construction 110 DEIS, p. 4 -73 - III Id 112 See id. 113 Id. at 4-80. 114 Id. (bold in original). Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16--13-000) 23 evaluation. "' It also describes Mountain Valley's proposal to conduct post -construction evaluations if a water supply owner lodges a complaint. "If this investigation confirms that pipeline construction was the source of impact, Mountain Valley would provide the owner with a temporary water supply until a permanent supply is developed." 116 The DEIS does not state whether the Commission would oversee investigations conducted by Mountain Valley in response to complaints.117 It simply states: "Mountain Valley would coordinate with the water supply owner to evaluate potential sources of impact.""' The County previously objected to the impacts of blasting along mountainous terrain to springs and private wells. These groundwater sources serve as the primary drinking water sources for many County residents, especially those who live in and around Poor Mountain and Bent Mountain. It highlighted two primary risks associated with blasting bedrock in close proximity to wells and natural water sources: (1) chemicals and compounds used for blasting can seep into and contaminate the groundwater, and (2) blasts can loosen subsurface soils causing increased turbidity. 119 The DEIS does not specifically describe how Mountain Valley will minimize these risks, focusing the discussion instead on the pre -construction and post - construction evaluations of wells, which will only serve to help identify an impact after it has occurred. In comments on the Atlantic Pipeline DEIS, the EPA recommended avoidance of karst terrain given the potential impacts to water supplies: Groundwater in shallow aquifers and karst terrain is also present in areas along the pipeline route, including in the area of 8 known private water supplies. Due to its connection with surface water through sinkholes, caves and swallets, groundwater in karst geologic terrains is especially vulnerable to contamination. EPA recommends that to prevent impacts on public and private water supplies, the pipeline should avoid karst terrain, and consider route alternatives. 120 The DEIS does not specifically respond to the County's objection that Mountain Valley's inadequate mitigation plan and refusal to conduct post -construction evaluations for all wells within 150 feet of the blasting areas unfairly forces landowners, rather than Mountain Valley, to 115 Id. at pp. 4-80 — 4-81. 16 Id. 4-81. 117 118 Id. 119 Roanoke County's Comment and Objection, p. 4 (citing Brandon Kernen, "Rock Blasting and Water Quality Measures That Can Be Taken To Protect Water Quality and Mitigate Impacts," 2010, available at hqp://des.nh. og v/organization/commissioner/pip/publications/wd/documents/wd-10-12.pdf1. 120 EPA's Comments re Atlantic Sunrise DEIS, Enclosure 2, p. 7. Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16--13-000) 24 bear the risk.121 It does not respond to the County's request that the Commission require Mountain Valley to (1) create specialized blasting plans when the proposed project area crosses bedrock in close proximity to springs and wells, and (2) revise its mitigation plan for wells and springs within 150 feet of any proposed blasting areas. 122 As explained by the Forest Service, "[b]lasting could affect stream hydrology permanently by fracturing aquifers or damaging perched water tables. ...,,12' All homes in the vicinity of the pipeline construction right-of-way are serviced by private wells or springs. There are no practical options or alternatives for these homeowners to connect to the public water system of Roanoke County should their private water supply be tainted. Describe Adequacy of well mapping done by MVP to date (e.g., failure to take into account existing info., deficiencies in efforts to gain access for mapping). The County supports OEP Staff's recommendation that Mountain Valley complete mapping of existing wells and springs. The County requests that OEP Staff require Mountain Valley to provide documentation that all existing wells and springs within 125 feet of the pipeline construction right-of-way would not be adversely affected by the blasting or any further construction activities. The documentation represented in the DEIS is inadequate and provides no supporting statistics that these water features would remain unaffected, specifically in karst- rich soils. This documentation should be provided to well owners for review and verification, and filed with the Commission. The County also requests that OEP Staff require more robust and impartial procedures for resolving complaints pre- and post -construction. The decision whether construction cause or contributed to an impact to wells should not be within the sole discretion of Mountain Valley, which plainly is not an impartial judge. These issues must be addressed in a revised DEIS. Post -construction complaint procedures are absolutely no substitute for the Commission's and Cooperating agencies full consideration of the MVP Project's potential hydrogeologic impacts prior to authorization of construction. D. Cultural Resources The DEIS summarizes the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) section 106 consultation process conducted by Mountain Valley to date, acknowledging that the process is not yet complete. 124 121 Roanoke County's Comment and Objection, p_ 4- 122 Id 123 Forest Service Comments, Att. 1, p. 6- 124 See DEIS, pp. 4-323 — 4-338, 4-384. "About 36 miles of pipeline route remains to be inventoried. In addition, 5 above ground facilities, 65 new or to -be -improved access roads, and 91 ATWS, staging areas, and yards still require survey. Also, testing or additional research must be conducted at 57 unevaluated sites in the direct APE Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16--13-000) 25 ■ Describe concerns re cultural/historic resources, including Blue Ridge Parkway (DEIS, p. 4-348), Coles -Terry Rural Historic District (id. at p. 4-349), decision to move 28 previously recorded historic sites from the direct APE to indirect APE (id. at p. 4-351). ■ Comments re proposal to create Bent Mountain Rural Historic District (DEIS, p. 4-362) ■ Describe adequacy of proposed measures to minimize/avoid impacts ■ Describe adequacy of consultation process to date E. Visual Resources The DEIS summarizes Mountain Valley's visual resources analysis, including assessment of impacts at key observation points (KOP).125 The list of KOPs includes four locations in Roanoke County: Camp Roanoke, Poor Mountain Natural Area Preserve, Blue Ridge Parkway, and Ferrum Mountain Road. 126 It finds moderate 121 visual impacts at the Blue Ridge Parkway, but no impacts at the other sites. 121 ■ Is this list complete? It% The DEIS states that MVP has not yet completed the survey for its proposed crossing of the Blue Ridge Parkway. It requires that, prior to construction, Mountain Valley "should file with the Secretary documentation that the BRP Crossing was reviewed by the NPS." 129 Comments re proposed crossing? Specific recommendations for avoidance or mitigation measures? Any comments re proposed crossing of TNC's easement? The Forest Service has previously commented that Mountain Valley's visual impacts analysis, which is the basis for Staff's analysis in the DEIS, does not adequately identify potential impacts. For example, it has challenged Mountain Valley's focus on proximate views: to determine their NRHP eligibility." Id. at 4-384. All of this must occur before the Commission can complete its assessment of project effects on cultural resources, and specifically historic properties within the APE. See id. its Id. at 4-229. 126 Id. at 4-231 — 4-232. 127 "Low to medium impacts were found for KOPs where the pipeline right-of-way could not be seen by viewers, either because of distance or existing landscape or vegetation screening." Id. at 4-229. les See id. 129 Id. Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16--13-000) 26 The data displayed ... indicates that MVP analyzed only the "nearest" potential view between project components and the viewing platform. "' The nearest location of a travelway or area may not be the part that would have the greatest impact on its scenery. Intervening geology or evergreen vegetation may block the view at the nearest location, but further out along that same travelway there could be a clear view to the project area. The table should be updated to include whether other portions of travelways listed, further from the proposed project area, may also have a view of the project area. "131 While this comment is directed to visual resources with the forest, it applies equally to other scenic areas within the region. The County has prepared visual simulations of the impact of the restored right-of-way on various landscapes within the County."' These depictions show significant impacts to hillsides and landscapes that are currently green and undeveloped. These depictions clearly show a significant impact on scenery. The DEIS does not even acknowledge these impacts, let alone propose adequate mitigation for them. F. Roads According to the DEIS, the "Applicants would mostly use existing public and private roads to gain access to their respective rights-of-way. However, many existing roads are not suitable for construction traffic. Where necessary, the Applicants would improve existing roads, through widening and/or grading.... After pipeline installation, the Applicants would remove new temporary roads and restore the land to its pre -construction condition and use."133 The DEIS further reports that, "[o]utside of public roads, Mountain Valley would use 365 private roads to access the construction right-of-way.... Virtually all of the existing private roads would require improvements. Mountain Valley would build 27 new roads for construction access. Eighty-six of the existing roads and 17 of the new roads would also be used for permanent access during project operation. 134 The County is also concerned that the plans for improvements prior to pipeline construction and restoration post -construction have not been disclosed. As a result, we cannot determine whether Mountain Valley's plans will adequately protect local interests. This puts the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors in a very difficult position as it will likely bear the brunt of complaints related to impacts to roads, but the Board will be without authority or resources to address those complaints. This would place an undue burden on Roanoke County and other local governments. 130 Forest Service Comments Att. 1, pp. 26-27. 131 Id. at 28. 132 See XX (Attachment XX). 133 DEIS, p. 2-30. 134 Id. Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16--13-000) 27 Roanoke requests that the Commission require Mountain Valley to disclose its specific plans for pre- and post -construction changes to any roadways it plans to use, and provide sixty days for review and comment by the Virginia Department of Transportation and local governments. We also request that Mountain Valley develop and circulate proposed complaint procedures in the event there are problems with Mountain Valley's modifications to roadways. This information should be distributed for review and comment period before the FEIS issues. III. RECOMMENDATIONS Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 1502.9(a), the Commission must issue a revised DEIS that will permit meaningful analysis of the MVP Project. The County makes the following recommendations for additional investigation and analysis in preparation for the revised DEIS. List recommendations identified in Sections I and II IV. CONCLUSION Roanoke County thanks the Commission and Cooperating Agencies for their consideration of these comments ... Dated: December 15, 2016 Respectfully submitted, Richard Roos -Collins Julie Gantenbein WATER AND POWER LAW GROUP PC 2140 Shattuck Ave., Suite 801 Berkeley, CA 94704 rrcollinsgwaterpowerlaw. com i gantenbeingwaterpowerlaw.com Attorneys for ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16--13-000) DECLARATION OF SERVICE Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC's Mountain Valley Pipeline Proiect (CP16-10-000) and Equitrans, LP's Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16-13-000) I, XX, declare that I today served the attached "Roanoke County, Virginia's Comments On The Mountain Valley Project and Equitrans Expansion Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement" by electronic mail, or by first-class mail if no e-mail address is provided, to each person on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding. Dated: December 15, 2016 an Roanoke County's DEIS Comments Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (CP16-10-000) Equitrans Expansion Project (CP16-13-000) XX WATER AND POWER LAW GROUP PC 2140 Shattuck Ave., Suite 801 Berkeley, CA 94704-1229 Phone: 510- 296-5590 Fax: 866-407-8073 j gantenbein(cr�,waterpowerlaw.com 29 HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF WATERSHED IMPACTS CAUSED BY CONSTRUCTING THE MOUNTAIN VALLEY GAS PIPELINE THROUGH ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By Pamela C. Dodds, Ph.D., Licensed Professional Geologist Prepared for the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors December 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Executive Summary 3 SECTION 1.0 Description and Requirements for Construction of the Mountain Valley Gas Pipeline in Roanoke County, Virginia 6 SECTION 1.1 Acreage Requirements for Work Activities 6 SECTION 1.2 Pipeline Trench Description 7 SECTION 1.3 Work Corridor Leveling and Dewatering 7 SECTION 2.0 Geology of Roanoke County 8 SECTION 2.1 Karst 9 SECTION 2.2 Landslide Potential 10 SECTION 2.3 Seismic Hazards 11 SECTION 3.0 Soils of Roanoke County 13 SECTION 4.0 Water Resources of Roanoke County 18 SECTION 4.1 Surface Water 18 SECTION 4.2 Surface Water and Groundwater are One Integral Unit 20 SECTION 4.3 Watersheds 21 SECTION 4.3.1 Delineated Watersheds Crossed by the Proposed MVP Gas Pipeline Project 22 SECTION 4.3.2 Headwater Areas and the River Continuum 32 SECTION 4.3.3 Streams 34 SECTION 4.3.4 Wetlands 35 SECTION 4.3.5 Hydrostatic Testing 36 SECTION 4.3.6 Public Water Supply in Roanoke County 37 SECTION 4.4 Groundwater 40 SECTION 5.0 Conclusions 41 SECTION 6.0 References 47 Curriculum vitae for Pamela Crowson Dodds, Ph.D., L.P.G. 49 Cover: Photo #1: Wetland vegetation near access road which connects with the proposed MVP gas pipeline corridor at approximately MP 243.3. Photo #2: Anastomosing wetlands, also near access road which connects with the proposed MVP gas pipeline corridor at approximately MP 243.3. Page 2 of 52 HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF WATERSHED IMPACTS CAUSED BY CONSTRUCTING THE MOUNTAIN VALLEY GAS PIPELINE THROUGH ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA By Pamela C. Dodds, Ph.D., Licensed Professional Geologist EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A gas pipeline constructed in Roanoke County, as described in the Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC (MVP) Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and Related Authorizations, submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) October, 2015, and subsequently in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) submitted September, 2016, will cause environmental degradation and destruction which will adversely impact landowners and communities: 1) The MVP gas pipeline construction will adversely impact headwater aquatic habitats which serve as the base of the food chain for the entire river continuum ecosystem. The steep terrain in Roanoke County provides the unique geomorphology for first order high gradient streams. First order streams consist of a single tributary which forms in the headwater areas of a watershed. The watersheds of first order high gradient streams in Roanoke County provide the essential aquatic habitats for aquatic species and associated terrestrial fauna and fowls within the entire lengths of the river continuums in the overall major watersheds. 2) The MVP gas pipeline construction will adversely impact springs and wetlands by soil removal. The composition of weathering products from the underlying bedrock determines characteristics of soils relating to water retention, pore space, and acidity. The organic fraction of the soils results from interactions between the available vegetation and soil organisms such as microbial communities, worms, and tree roots. Soil scientists estimate that a time period greater than 100 years is required for one inch of soil to form. For this reason, soil is considered a non- renewable resource. The MVP gas pipeline construction on forested ridges and slopes will destroy the soils which regulate the transport of surface water and also carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen to headwater areas of first order high gradient streams and to wetlands. The destruction will result from access road construction and from leveling the 125 -foot wide work corridor, causing soil removal and compaction of the underlying subsoils and bedrock residuum. Page 3 of 52 3) The MVP gas pipeline construction will require deforestation and blasting, both of which will reduce groundwater recharge and cause significant changes to the amount of groundwater available as a drinking water source, as well as to groundwater flow routes. The MVP gas pipeline construction will require deforestation, which will decrease groundwater recharge and increase stormwater runoff. Reduced groundwater recharge will reduce the amount of groundwater to springs and seeps to streams and wetlands. The MVP gas pipeline construction will also require extensive excavation or blasting for more than approximately 28% of the work corridor in Roanoke County because the soils survey indicates that the depth to bedrock for more than approximately 28% of the work corridor is less than 3.3 feet. The trench depth required for installation of the 42 -inch diameter is at least 8.5 feet. Blasting will destroy the flow of groundwater and change the route of groundwater flow to the abundant springs and wetlands that occur in the headwater areas of the first order high gradient streams. The remainder of the proposed gas pipeline route occurs where soils are equal to or greater than 5 feet, indicating that excavation and, possibly, blasting would be necessary. 4) The MVP gas pipeline construction will degrade karst environments. Karst terrain is present in the limestone and dolostone of the Elbrook Formation underlying the Roanoke River where the MVP gas pipeline is proposed to cross the river. This karst terrain contains a unique array of cave systems, bedrock voids, and associated drainage basins. Blasting along the proposed MVP work corridor will degrade fragile cave systems by causing collapse as well as by causing changes in the groundwater flow and direction responsible for maintaining the moist cave conditions. There is a strong potential for collapse of the gas pipeline where construction occurs in karst terrain. 5) The MVP gas pipeline construction will cause increased stormwater discharge and also degrade stream functions at the numerous locations where stream crossings are proposed. Streams will be degraded by increased stormwater discharge as well as disruption of streams at crossings and release of buried fertilizers and pesticides. Ground cover determines the amount of precipitation that will penetrate the ground as groundwater recharge or run off the surface. Forested areas intercept rainfall, allowing the rain to gently reach the ground surface. Therefore, in forested areas, the rain will penetrate the ground to recharge groundwater and will flow across the ground surface with less volume and velocity (discharge) than in non -forested areas. Even where sediment from stormwater discharge from construction areas is captured in erosion control structures, the increased discharge flowing into streams will result in stream bank erosion downstream and, consequently, increased sedimentation downstream. Where stream crossings are planned for the MVP gas pipeline construction, stream bedding Page 4 of 52 forms will be destroyed, aquatic habitats will be destroyed, and buried layers containing fertilizer and pesticides will be disturbed, with the consequence of releasing fertilizer and pesticides to the stream water. Areas along streams in Roanoke County are commonly agricultural. Fertilizers and pesticides frequently enter the streams with the surface water runoff from agricultural fields. Through time, less toxic pesticides have been used, but the older, more toxic pesticides are now covered by sediment in the stream beds. When the stream bed sediments are disturbed, the older layers of fertilizer and pesticides will be released to the stream water. Algal blooms can result from the increased amount of fertilizer available. Algal blooms are known to cause death of aquatic organisms. Toxic pesticides are also known to cause death of aquatic organisms. 6) The MVP gas pipeline construction will create the potential for landslides. The Soil Survey for Roanoke County and the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, Virginia provides the recommendation that steep slopes throughout the area are best suited for woodland. Severe hazard of erosion is stated as a concern where heavy equipment is proposed for use on steep slopes. Regardless of best management practices, erosion and landslides will occur within these areas. 7) The MVP gas pipeline construction will create the potential for pipeline collapse in areas known to have experienced earthquakes. Roanoke County is located in the Giles earthquake hazard zones which has experienced significant numbers of earthquakes and which is considered to be at risk for future earthquakes. Construction of the proposed MVP gas pipeline in an earthquake zone, especially in the karst area where the gas pipeline is proposed to cross the Roanoke River, creates the potential for pipeline collapse. 8) Cumulative damage would result from the MVP gas pipeline construction. The findings provided in this report are in contrast to the MVP statement on page 22 of its October, 2015 application that, "There Is Minimal Potential For Adverse Impacts To Landowners And Communities Affected By The Project". The findings provided herein support the conclusion that there would be significant adverse impacts resulting from construction of the proposed pipeline through Roanoke County. Cumulative adverse impacts will result from construction of a gas pipeline in the numerous watersheds of first order high gradient streams in Roanoke County. Page 5 of 52 SECTION 1.0 DESCRIPTION AND REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE MOUNTAIN VALLEY GAS PIPELINE IN ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SECTION 1.1 Acreage Requirements for Work Activities The route of the proposed MVP gas pipeline crosses ridgelines and intervening mountainsides as well as streams and rivers. The MVP reports include details of the requirements for placing their 42 -inch diameter pipelines into trenches which are mostly located on mountain ridges. The MVP DEIS states the construction right-of-way for the pipeline installation is 125 feet and that the construction right - of way at wetlands crossings would be 75 feet. The proposed MVP work corridor is shown to extend approximately 8.3 miles through watersheds of tributaries to Mill Creek, Bottom Creek, and the Roanoke River. Therefore, approximately 126 acres would be deforested/de-vegetated, leveled, and compacted. Although the information provided in Appendix E-1 of the MVP DEIS provides lengths and widths of proposed access roads, the access road acreage is listed mostly as "TBD". However, the approximate acreage is calculated as 24 acres, using the lengths and widths of the access roads as provided in Appendix E-1. Based on the MVP DEIS information about the proposed work areas extending beyond the work corridor for the pipeline installation, approximately 8.3 acres of additional land will be used for potential pipe storage, contractor staging yards, and areas for trucks to turn. Based on the MVP DEIS listing of work areas in the study area which are within 50 feet of wetlands, approximately 23% of the work areas will be within 50 feet of wetlands. Appendix K of the MVP DEIS provides a list of vertical/lateral slopes with grades between 15% and 30% and also a list with grades greater than 30%. Based on this list, 65% of the study area traversed by the proposed MVP route consists of terrain with slopes 15% to greater than 30%. Table 1 — Acreage requirements for gas pipeline work corridor, work areas, and access roads. Work Work Access TOTAL APPROXIMATE Corridor Space Roads ACRES (acres) (acres) (acres) 126 8.3 24 158.3 Page 6 of 52 SECTION 1.2 Pipeline Trench Description In the MVP DEIS, it is stated that, "The trench would be dug at least 12 inches wider than the diameter of the pipeline and excavated to a depth of 5.5 feet to 9 feet... in order to provide sufficient cover over the pipeline... There would generally be 36 inches of cover over the top of the pipeline in deep soils and 18 inches of cover in areas of consolidated rock. At waterbody crossings, the pipe would be more deeply buried; with a minimum of 4 feet of cover at navigable waterways and a minimum of 2 feet of cover at waterbodies with consolidated rock." The MVP General Project Description Resources Report 1 (RR1), dated October, 2015, provides: "Generally, the trench will be excavated at least 12 inches wider than the diameter of the pipe. The sides of the trench will be sloped with the top of the trench up to 12 feet across, or more, depending upon the stability of the native soils." Summarizing, the trench for the pipe itself is 5.5 feet wide. However, because the walls are sloped upward to the surface, the surface of the trenched area will be 12 feet wide. The trench depth ranges from 5.5 feet deep to 9 feet deep to accommodate the 3.5 -foot diameter of the pipe and 2 to 4 feet of cover material. Trench descriptions in RR1 further describe that up to 2 feet of cover would be required at the base of the trench where rock is present to prevent the rock from damaging the pipe. SECTION 1.3 Work Corridor Leveling and Dewatering The work corridor of approximately 125 feet will be leveled by deforestation, excavation, and grading (Figure 1.3.1). RR1 describes trench dewatering procedures: "The storm water will be pumped from the trench to a location down - gradient of the trench. The trench will be dewatered in a manner that does not cause erosion and does not result in heavily silt -laden water flowing into any waterbody or wetland. The storm water will be discharged to an energy dissipation/filtration dewatering device, such as a hay bale structure." On the left side of Figure 1.3.1, a hill has been excavated to its intersection with a ravine. Water can be observed in the trench by the ravine where the pipeline is to be placed. Groundwater from the hillside would also flow toward the ravine and the pipeline trench. However, MVP provides no discussion concerning the interception of groundwater on cut slopes/hillsides. Page 7 of 52 Figure 1.3.1 — Leveled work corridor for pipeline installation, showing cut hillsides and evident dewatering into the pipeline trench. Heavy equipment and pick-up trucks provide a scale. SECTION 2.0 GEOLOGY OF ROANOKE COUNTY The northwestern portion of Roanoke County is located in the Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province of Virginia and the southeastern portion of Roanoke County is located in the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province of Virginia. Bedrock within these two physiographic provinces occurs in bands striking southwest - northeast. The strike of a bedrock unit is the intersection of the bedrock with the ground surface. Bedrock beneath the Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province in Roanoke County consists of limestone and dolostone of the Elbrook Formation extending to either side of the Roanoke River, shale and siltstone of the Rome Formation extending in a band bordering the Elbrook Formation to the southeast, and quartzite and conglomerate of the Chilhowie Group, extending as a band to the southeast of the Rome Formation. These sedimentary rocks were originally deposited as horizontal depositional units, with the oldest Chilhowie Group overlain by the Rome Formation, which is overlain by the Elbrook Formation. Mountain -building processes caused the rocks to fold into anticlines (arch - shaped folds) and synclines (trough -shaped folds) and also to become fractured and faulted. Because limestone is the least resistant to weathering, it usually occurs in valleys. Shale and siltstone are less resistant to erosion than sandstone, quartzite, and conglomerate and typically occur at elevations between the limestone and the sandstone, quartzite, and conglomerate. The sandstone, quartzite, and conglomerate are the most resistant to weathering and occur beneath ridges. The Pulaski fault zone is a major fault zone present to the northwest of the Roanoke River. The Salem fault zone is mapped (Butts, 1940) near Lafeyette in Montgomery County, extending northeast along the Elbrook Formation, that is, along the Roanoke River through Roanoke County. The Blue Ridge fault zone is to the southeast of the Salem fault zone. Bedrock beneath the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province in Roanoke County consists of mostly igneous and metamorphic rocks: layered pyroxene granulite, granite gneiss, and porphyritic leuchocharnockite granite. These rocks were formed at depth under conditions of high heat and pressure and are considered Page 8 of 52 the basement rock of the most geologically ancient mountains in the United States. The Blue Ridge fault zone is also present within these igneous and metamorphic rocks, which caused the older bedrock to be thrust to the northwest over the younger sedimentary rocks. Faults and fractures can be observed at numerous bedrock locations within the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province in Roanoke County. A fault with slickensides is present in the bedrock outcrop (Figure 2.0.1) near MP 242.9 of the proposed MVP gas pipeline route. Mill Creek is situated along the strike of the fault. Figure 2.0.1 — Bedrock outcrop of vertical beds of metamorphic rock with slickensides, indicating a fault. The fault strike is consistent with the trend of the adjacent Mill Creek SECTION 2.1 Karst Karst areas occur within the dolostone and limestone of the Elbrook Formation, which underlies the Roanoke River valley in thicknesses ranging from 1500 to 2900 feet. Sinkholes are present within the Elbrook Formation. Also, Dixie Caverns, a commercial cave, is located within the Elbrook Formation in Salem, Virginia. In this area, the topography is characterized as karst terrain containing numerous caves, crevices, cavities (voids), fractured rock, disappearing streams, sinkholes, and springs (Figure 2.1.1). Figure 2.1.1 — Features typical of karst terrain. Page 9 of 52 Draper Aden Associates prepared a "Karst Hazards Assessment (Desktop Review And Field Reconnaissance" (DAA report), dated April 16, 2016, for MVP to present as DR2 RR2-4 to FERC in response to FERC's Environmental Information Request #2, dated December 24, 2015. The report provides locations and descriptions of karst areas along the proposed MVP gas pipeline route. The DAA report states that the contact with dolomite of the Elbrook Formation is located along the proposed MVP gas pipeline route at approximately MP 232.55 (in Montgomery County). In Roanoke County, a sinkhole, described as 1 acre in diameter and 34 feet deep, is located at approximately MP 233.1. Several sinkholes are reported approximately 400 east of MP 233.4. Limestone bedrock of the Elbrook Formation is shown in the DAA report to extend south across the Roanoke River to approximately MP 234. 1, where the bedrock is described as the Rome Formation "marginal karst" and "limited karst potential". SECTION 2.2 Landslide Potential The MVP Landslide Mitigation Plan, February 2016, submitted to FERC in response to FERC's request dated Dec 2015, states: "Numerous landslides on the Appalachian Plateau have developed in soils derived from sedimentary rocks. Shale, especially red beds and shale -limestone sequences, disintegrate rapidly into clayey soil upon exposure. Most landslides involving soil and weathered bedrock consist of smooth, integrated, thin earth -flow slabs that may be many square yards in area but generally are less than about eight feet thick. Commonly, the slabs move no faster than about three feet or six feet per year and are normally underlain by material containing water with a hydrostatic head of as much as seven feet. In both the folded Appalachians and the Blue Ridge Mountains, numerous slow-moving debris slides form in colluvial soil and scree that are particularly abundant on slopes underlain by sandstone and metamorphic rocks." Excavation on steep slopes is also of great concern for landslides. As provided in Appendix K, "Steep Slopes", of the MVP DEIS, approximately 65% of the proposed MVP gas pipeline corridor in Roanoke County exhibits steep slopes of 15% to greater than 30%. Soils within this area are of concern for severe erosion hazard on steep slopes. It is stated in the MVP Resource Report 6 that landslides "can also affect the reliability of the pipeline should failures occur that would result in displacement of the pipeline." Page 10 of 52 SECTION 2.3 Seismic Hazards It is stated in the MVP Resource Report 6 that "The Project alignment does not traverse known faults with recent (Quaternary) movement, such that risk to the pipeline by permanent ground deformation (PGD) from fault rupture is negligible. Therefore, avoidance of the PFZ [Pembroke Fault Zone in Giles County, Virginia] and Project -specific mitigation is not considered necessary." However, the earthquake of magnitude 5.8 which occurred in Mineral, Virginia, in 2011 was detected in Roanoke County at a magnitude between 3.3 and 3.9 (Figure 2.3.1) 1 75- uscssam ta5u�5�y y } • • ^ • Wask 1-Chariutto,srilk �'j.g ^' �r �•f M4.2�L7 2.011 .._ 9984 • i�; BA M4. f 987 M4.5.'- Roanoke M O 200+a. . 5.9 • 2B 2-e'3i'F,...�•+•�ti,• 1887 a.a a -e Jtii� 5 ■ ab -t9 Figure 2.3.1 — Earthquakes in the Roanoke, VA area (map excerpted from Horton and Williams, 2012. The Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy developed an Earthquake Epicenter Density map (Figure 2.3.2) which depicts the area in Roanoke County as part of the Giles County Seismic Zone where the MVP gas pipeline construction is proposed. Page 11 of 52 Figure 2.3.2 — Map showing the densities of earthquake epicenters, provided as a color scale indicating the relative densities in numbers per square mile. Three major earthquake zones are identified. Notice Roanoke is located within the Giles County Seismic Zone. The black line is the approximate location of the proposed MVP gas pipeline. This map is from https://dmme.virginia.gov/DGMR/EQHazardMapping.shtml. Seismic activity can create instability, especially in karst areas and in landslide - prone areas. Sinkholes have been located along the proposed MVP route where the Roanoke River crossing is proposed, just upstream from the Spring Hollow Reservoir Intake. Where voids in the limestone occur, there can be collapse of the bedrock supporting the gas pipeline. Seismic activity can cause ground movement that could result in bedrock collapse where the voids are located. Additionally, as provided in the MVP Resource Report 6, seismic activity can result in liquefaction of the soils which are typically found at streams and rivers. Liquefaction causes the soils to lose integrity, thus becoming unsupportive where the gas pipeline would be located. This creates a condition of pipeline failure where the soils collapse. Page 12 of 52 Earthquake Epicenter N Density (Numisq mile) Low Density fl� 0 a� High Density .\ 3 Central Virginia--- SeismicZone �"� Giles County Eastern Tennessee \� Seismic Zone Seismic Zone 0 50 100 i ome ers 0 25 0 100 Miles Figure 2.3.2 — Map showing the densities of earthquake epicenters, provided as a color scale indicating the relative densities in numbers per square mile. Three major earthquake zones are identified. Notice Roanoke is located within the Giles County Seismic Zone. The black line is the approximate location of the proposed MVP gas pipeline. This map is from https://dmme.virginia.gov/DGMR/EQHazardMapping.shtml. Seismic activity can create instability, especially in karst areas and in landslide - prone areas. Sinkholes have been located along the proposed MVP route where the Roanoke River crossing is proposed, just upstream from the Spring Hollow Reservoir Intake. Where voids in the limestone occur, there can be collapse of the bedrock supporting the gas pipeline. Seismic activity can cause ground movement that could result in bedrock collapse where the voids are located. Additionally, as provided in the MVP Resource Report 6, seismic activity can result in liquefaction of the soils which are typically found at streams and rivers. Liquefaction causes the soils to lose integrity, thus becoming unsupportive where the gas pipeline would be located. This creates a condition of pipeline failure where the soils collapse. Page 12 of 52 SECTION 3.0 SOILS OF ROANOKE COUNTY Specific soils series develop based on the following factors: parent material, topography, climate, living organisms, and time. Soils scientists estimate that a time period greater than 100 years is required for one inch of soil to form (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/wa/soils/?cid=nresl44p2 03633 3). Soil is therefore considered to be a non-renewable resource. The soils which would be traversed by the proposed MVP gas pipeline route from approximately MP 236.1 to MP 239.2 in Roanoke County formed primarily on residuum (weathered in place) and colluvium (soil and/or rock which has moved downslope) of interbedded shale, siltstone, and sandstone and, in some areas, on limestone. Most of the soils are described as "channery", indicating the presence of relatively flat rock fragments up to 6 inches in length. Such channery soils are specified by MVP as unsuitable for bedding or backfill material around the pipeline because the rock fragments could damage the pipeline. These soils include the Chiswell -Litz very channery silt loam, Dekalb channery sandy loam with rock outcrops, Sylvatus very channery silt loam, and Grimsley cobbly loam. The depths to bedrock for these soils are between 10 to 40 inches (although, the bedrock depth under Grimsley soils may be up to 60 inches). Leveling of the work corridor and access roads will require rock excavation or blasting. Trench excavation will require rock excavation or blasting. Soils evaluations provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) indicate these areas are best suited for woodland and there are concerns of severe erosion hazard and caving of cutbanks for excavated areas. Soils which would be traversed by the proposed MVP gas pipeline route from approximately MP 239.2 to MP 244.4 in Roanoke county formed primarily on residuum and colluvium of igneous and metamorphic rocks. The soils in this area are dominated by Edneyville fine sandy loam and Alderflats silt loam, with lesser amounts of Grimsley cobbly loam, Cotaco loam and gravelly loam, Sindion loam, Peaks very stony gravelly loam, and Evard fine sandy loam. The Alderflats silt loam is poorly drained and is classified as hydric, that is, supportive of wetlands, with a seasonal high water table of 0 to 12 inches. The NRCS evaluates the Edneyville soils best suited for woodland and the remainder as suited for woodland, pasture, and hay. The NRCS indicates concerns of severe erosion hazard on steep slopes and also caving of cutbanks for excavated areas. The area exhibits extensive wetlands within the Mill Creek watershed. Soil permeability is a measure of how water can be transported through the soil. Soils with moderate to rapid permeability facilitate the downward flow of rainfall penetrating the ground surface to recharge the groundwater and to flow to and through rock fractures that form springs or seeps where the ground surface intercepts the rock fractures. If these essential soils are compacted or removed Page 13 of 52 for pipeline construction and/or if blasting is conducted that will alter the flow of groundwater conveyed to bedrock fractures, the amount of groundwater flow and the direction of groundwater flow will change, such that flow of water to sustain springs and seeps will be destroyed. Soils which are present on steep slopes crossed by the proposed MVP gas pipeline include the Dekalb soils, which exhibit rapid permeability; the Grimsley, Chiswell -Litz, Sylvatus, Edneyville, and Peaks soils, which exhibit moderately rapid permeability; and the Evard soils, which exhibit moderate permeability. Compaction or removal of these soils will inhibit the flow of groundwater to bedrock fractures. Soils associated with stream terraces or floodplains include the Cotaco loam and Sindion loam, which exhibit a seasonal high water table of 18 to 36 inches. The Cotaco, Evard, and Sindion soils exhibit moderate permeability. The hydric Alderflats soils exhibit slow permeability. Table 3.1 provides a summary of soil types and locations from Appendix N "Soil Limitations" of the MVP DEIS. Also provided are soil descriptions and depth to bedrock excerpted from the Soil Survey of Roanoke County and the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, Virginia (U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS). Table 3.1 — Summary of soils traversed by the proposed MVP gas pipeline route in Roanoke County. Mile Soil Name Slope Description Depth to Post Rock 236.2- Chiswell -Litz 25-50% Very channery silt loam formed on 10 to 40 236.3 residuum of shale, siltstone, sandstone, inches and interbedded limestone. Best suited as woodland or pasture. Erosion hazard severe. Shallow excavations of severe concern due to slope and depth to rock. 236.3- Dekalb-Rock 25-80% Channery sandy loam formed in 20 to 40 236.4 Outcrop sandstone residuum or colluvium and inches or Complex interspersed with sandstone outcrops. bedrock Best suited for woodland. Shallow outcrop excavations of severe concern due to caving of cutbanks and depth to rock. Sylvatus very 55-75% Very channery loam formed in colluvium 10 to 30 channery and residuum of phyllite bedrock. inches to Silt loam Suitable for woodland. Shallow bedrock excavation of severe concern due to slope and depth to rock. Chiswell -Litz 25-50% Very channery silt loam formed on 10 to 40 complex residuum of shale, siltstone, sandstone, inches and interbedded limestone. Best suited as woodland or pasture. Erosion hazard severe. Shallow excavations of severe concern due to slope and depth to rock. Page 14 of 52 236.4- Dekalb-Rock 25-80% Channery sandy loam formed in 20 to 40 236.9 Outcrop sandstone residuum or colluvium and inches or Complex interspersed with sandstone outcrops. bedrock Best suited for woodland. Shallow outcrop excavations of severe concern due to caving of cutbanks and depth to rock. 236.9- Dekalb 35-80% Very stony, channery, sandy loam 20 to 40 237.0 channery formed in sandstone residuum. Best inches to sandy loam, suited for woodland. sandstone very stony Dekalb-Rock 25-80% Channery sandy loam formed in 20 to 40 Outcrop sandstone residuum or colluvium and inches or Complex interspersed with sandstone outcrops. bedrock Best suited for woodland. Shallow outcrop excavations of severe concern due to caving of cutbanks and depth to rock. 237.0- Dekalb 35-80% Very stony, channery, sandy loam 20 to 40 238.2 channery formed in sandstone residuum. Best inches to sandy loam, suited for woodland. sandstone very stony 238.2- Dekalb 7-15% Very stony, channery, sandy loam 20 to 40 238.3 channery formed in sandstone residuum. Best inches to sandy loam, suited for woodland. sandstone very stony Dekalb 35-60% Very stony, channery, sandy loam 20 to 40 channery formed in sandstone residuum. Best inches to sandy loam, suited for woodland. sandstone very stony 238.3- Sylvatus very 35-55% Very channery loam formed in colluvium 10 to 30 238.4 channery silt and residuum of phyllite bedrock. inches to loam Suitable for woodland. Shallow bedrock excavation of severe concern due to slope and depth to rock. 238.4- Dekalb 7-15% Very stony, channery, sandy loam 20 to 40 238.5 channery formed in sandstone residuum. Best inches to sandy loam, suited for woodland. sandstone very stony Sylvatus very 35-55% Very channery loam formed in colluvium 10 to 30 channery silt and residuum of phyllite bedrock. inches to loam Suitable for woodland. Shallow bedrock excavation of severe concern due to slope and depth to rock. 238.5- Sylvatus very 35-55% Very channery loam formed in colluvium 10 to 30 238.8 channery silt and residuum of phyllite bedrock. inches to loam Suitable for woodland. Shallow bedrock excavation of severe concern due to slope and depth to rock. 238.8- Grimsley 7-15% Cobbly loam formed on upland 40 to 60 239.0 cobbly loam colluvium. Best suited for woodland. inches to shale bedrock Sylvatus very 35-75% Very channery loam formed in colluvium 10 to 30 channery silt and residuum of phyllite bedrock. inches to loam Suitable for woodland. Shallow bedrock Page 15 of 52 Page 16 of 52 excavation of severe concern due to slope and depth to rock. 239.0- Edneyville fine 15-55% Fine sandy loam formed on uplands in Greater than 239.4 sandy loam the Blue Ridge in residuum or colluvium 60 inches of igneous and metamorphic rock. Best suited to woodland. Shallow excavations of severe concern where slopes are steep. 239.4- Grimsley 7-15% Cobbly loam formed on upland 40 to 60 239.6 cobbly loam colluvium. Best suited for woodland. inches to shale bedrock 239.6- Edneyville fine Mostly Fine sandy loam formed on uplands in Greater than 240.2 sandy loam 15-55% the Blue Ridge in residuum or colluvium 60 inches with very of igneous and metamorphic rock. Best minor 7- suited to woodland. Shallow 15% excavations of severe concern where slopes are steep. 240.2- Cotaco loam 2-7% Loam and gravelly loam formed on low Greater than 240.3 stream terraces and colluvial benches. 60 inches Seasonal high water table 18 to 30 inches. Best suited for pasture or hay. Shallow excavations of severe concern due to wetness. 240.3- Edneyville fine 15-55% Fine sandy loam formed on uplands in Greater than 240.8 sandy loam the Blue Ridge in residuum or colluvium Winches of igneous and metamorphic rock. Best suited to woodland. Shallow excavations of severe concern where slopes are steep. Sindion loam, 0-2% Loam formed in flood plains with a occasionally seasonal high water table of 18 to 36 flooded inches. Suitable for pasture or hay. Shallow excavations of severe concern due to wetness. 240.8- Peaks gravelly 35-60% Very stony gravelly loam with areas of 20 to 40 241.1 loam, very rock outcrop formed in residuum or inches stony colluvium from gneiss bedrock. Suitable for woodland. Shallow excavations of severe concern due to slope and depth to rock. Edneyville fine 7-55% Fine sandy loam formed on uplands in Greater than sandy loam the Blue Ridge in residuum or colluvium 60 inches of igneous and metamorphic rock. Best suited to woodland. Shallow excavations of severe concern where slopes are steep. 241.1- Evard fine 7-15% Fine sandy loam formed on uplands in Greater than 241.5 sandy loam the Blue Ridge in residuum or colluvium 60 inches of igneous and metamorphic rock. Best suited to pasture and hay. Erosion hazard severe on steeper slopes. Shallow excavations are of severe concern due to caving of cutbanks. Page 16 of 52 Page 17 of 52 Alderflats silt 04% Silty clay loam formed on residuum and Greater than loam Hydric colluvium, located in long, irregular Winches upland depressions. Poorly drained, with seasonal high water table 0 to 12 inches. Suitable for pasture and woodland. Shallow excavations of severe concern due to wetness and caving of cutbanks. 241.5- Edneyville fine 2-7% Fine sandy loam formed on uplands in Greater than 241.8 sandy loam the Blue Ridge in residuum or colluvium Winches of igneous and metamorphic rock. Best suited to woodland. Shallow excavations of severe concern where slopes are steep. Alderflats silt 04% Silty clay loam formed on residuum and Greater than loam colluvium, located in long, irregular Winches Hydric upland depressions. Poorly drained, with seasonal high water table 0 to 12 inches. Suitable for pasture and woodland. Shallow excavations of severe concern due to wetness and caving of cutbanks. 241.8- Edneyville fine 7-55% Fine sandy loam formed on uplands in Greater than 242.9 sandy loam the Blue Ridge in residuum or colluvium Winches of igneous and metamorphic rock. Best suited to woodland. Shallow excavations of severe concern where slopes are steep. 242.9- Alderflats silt 04% Silty clay loam formed on residuum and Greater than 243.1 loam colluvium, located in long, irregular Winches Hydric upland depressions. Poorly drained, with seasonal high water table 0 to 12 inches. Suitable for pasture and woodland. Shallow excavations of severe concern due to wetness and caving of cutbanks. Edneyville fine 7-15% Fine sandy loam formed on uplands in Greater than sandy loam the Blue Ridge in residuum or colluvium 60 inches of igneous and metamorphic rock. Best suited to woodland. Shallow excavations of severe concern where slopes are steep. 243.1- Edneyville fine 7-55% Fine sandy loam formed on uplands in Greater than 243.6 sandy loam the Blue Ridge in residuum or colluvium Winches of igneous and metamorphic rock. Best suited to woodland. Shallow excavations of severe concern where slopes are steep. 243.6- Evard fine 7-15% Fine sandy loam formed on uplands in Greater than 243.9 sandy loam the Blue Ridge in residuum or colluvium Winches of igneous and metamorphic rock. Best suited to pasture and hay. Erosion hazard severe on steeper slopes. Shallow excavations are of severe concern due to caving of cutbanks. Page 17 of 52 SECTION 4.0 WATER RESOURCES ROANOKE COUNTY Water resources in Roanoke County include both surface water and groundwater. The Roanoke River receives water from the North Fork Roanoke River and the South Fork Roanoke River, along with numerous smaller tributaries, including unnamed tributaries (UNTs). The proposed MVP gas pipeline route crosses the Roanoke River as well as high gradient first order streams and also crosses the headwater areas to these streams. SECTION 4.1 SURFACE WATER A trellis drainage pattern has developed in Roanoke County, with the Roanoke River and other major streams flowing southwest to northeast along the strike of the bedrock. Tributaries to these streams are perpendicular to the mountains, forming a trellis pattern. Fractures typically form perpendicular to the strike of the bedrock. Fracture sets are common, in which fractures form at an obtuse angle or perpendicular to the primary fracture set. The fracture sets create zones of weathering in which streams and tributaries develop. Forested ridges intercept rainfall so that it gently penetrates the ground as groundwater rather than flowing overland as runoff. This means that 1) the rain Page 18 of 52 Alderflats silt 0-4% Silty clay loam formed on residuum and Greater than loam Hydric colluvium, located in long, irregular 60 inches upland depressions. Poorly drained, with seasonal high water table 0 to 12 inches. Suitable for pasture and woodland. Shallow excavations of severe concern due to wetness and caving of cutbanks. 243.9- Edneyville fine 7-25% Fine sandy loam formed on uplands in Greater than 244.4 sandy loam the Blue Ridge in residuum or colluvium 60 inches of igneous and metamorphic rock. Best suited to woodland. Shallow excavations of severe concern where slopes are steep. Alderflats silt 0-4% Silty clay loam formed on residuum and Greater than loam Hydric colluvium, located in long, irregular 60 inches upland depressions. Poorly drained, with seasonal high water table 0 to 12 inches. Suitable for pasture and woodland. Shallow excavations of severe concern due to wetness and caving of cutbanks. SECTION 4.0 WATER RESOURCES ROANOKE COUNTY Water resources in Roanoke County include both surface water and groundwater. The Roanoke River receives water from the North Fork Roanoke River and the South Fork Roanoke River, along with numerous smaller tributaries, including unnamed tributaries (UNTs). The proposed MVP gas pipeline route crosses the Roanoke River as well as high gradient first order streams and also crosses the headwater areas to these streams. SECTION 4.1 SURFACE WATER A trellis drainage pattern has developed in Roanoke County, with the Roanoke River and other major streams flowing southwest to northeast along the strike of the bedrock. Tributaries to these streams are perpendicular to the mountains, forming a trellis pattern. Fractures typically form perpendicular to the strike of the bedrock. Fracture sets are common, in which fractures form at an obtuse angle or perpendicular to the primary fracture set. The fracture sets create zones of weathering in which streams and tributaries develop. Forested ridges intercept rainfall so that it gently penetrates the ground as groundwater rather than flowing overland as runoff. This means that 1) the rain Page 18 of 52 will gently fall to the ground and recharge groundwater and 2) the surface flow of rainwater on the ground will be slower than in cleared areas, thereby reducing the velocity and quantity of stormwater drainage. Conversely, deforestation removes the protective tree canopy, causing increased stormwater discharge and decreased groundwater recharge. The proposed MVP gas pipeline construction would result in deforestation and soil compaction, causing increased stormwater discharge and decreased groundwater recharge. Leveling of the work corridor and access roads, along with trenching for pipe installation, will intercept groundwater, thereby reducing or eliminating the flow of water to rock fractures which serve as a conduit to provide water to seeps, springs, and wetlands, as well as to streams during times of drought. As depicted in Figure 4.1.1, when rainwater is intercepted by trees on forested ridges, the rainfall gently penetrates the ground surface and migrates downward through the soil to bedrock. The water then flows through bedrock fractures and along bedding planes to continue migrating downward or to form seeps and springs where the fractures or bedding planes intercept the ground surface. Seeps and springs can occur at various elevations on mountain slopes, depending on where the bedrock fractures or bedding planes intercept the ground surface, and can also occur along streams and rivers. As the quantity of groundwater accumulates beneath the ground surface, a hydraulic gradient forms, causing the groundwater to move downgradient to nearby streams and rivers or to lower areas where the water may reach streams and rivers that are farther away. Figure 4.1.1 — Forests on ridges facilitate groundwater recharge and reduced stormwater runoff. precipitation Mountain FORESTS canopy INTERCEPT RAINFALL Zllevlpapor plo and evration i "0 " Allowing Rainfall to .•- GENTLYREACH THE GROUND litter interception and evaporation througnfah Thus Allowing hroughfall LESS SURFACE RUNOFF and GREATER GROUNDWATER net rainfall entering RECHARGE ulir,ers+sary the soil Springs and seeps occur where the bedding planes, faults, and fracture sets intersect the ground surface along the ridges throughout Roanoke County (Figure 4.1.2). Seeps and springs maintain the flow of water to headwater areas and wetlands and also to streams. During times of drought, groundwater Page 19 of 52 maintains a flow of water to streams. Where there is deforestation and compaction of soil at the ground surface, there is a reduction of groundwater recharge and, consequently, a reduction of available water through fractures to maintain springs and seeps. Excavation and blasting intercepts groundwater and also changes the amount and direction of groundwater flow. Seeps and springs disappear where groundwater is no longer available. Figure 4.1.2 — Fractures within any rock provide conduits through which groundwater may flow downward or at angles to the ground surface. Where bedding planes of the rock or where fractures in the rock intercept the ground surface, it is common for springs or seeps to occur. Seeps and springs also provide water directly to streams. SECTION 4.2 SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER ARE ONE INTEGRAL UNIT In its document, "Sustainability of Ground -Water Resources", the USGS emphasizes that "Groundwater is not a renewable resource". To understand this statement requires an understanding of the global water budget and also an understanding that groundwater and surface water are connected as one integral system. Firstly, the global water budget, or hydrological cycle, consists of precipitation, evaporation, and condensation. It is important to recognize, however, that the hydrological cycle over the ocean (covering approximately three-quarters of the earth) is essentially separate from the hydrological cycle over the continents. Dennis Hartmann, in his book "Global Physical Climatology", provides an excellent summary diagram (Figure 4.2.1) showing the pathways of the hydrological cycle in terms of centimeters per year for the exchange of water. Through time, there has been a delicate balance of the amount of precipitation transferred to the continents from the hydrological cycle over the oceans and the amount of surface water flowing into the ocean. In this diagram, the arrow representing the amount of water from the ocean's hydrological cycle indicates that 11 centimeters per year transfers from the ocean Page 20 of 52 to the continent. The arrow showing the runoff from the land surface indicates that 11 centimeters flows back to the ocean from the continent. It is obvious that when groundwater recharge is reduced and streamflow into the oceans is increased, a situation is created where there is no longer a balance- when streamflow to the oceans exceeds the amount of precipitation from the oceans back onto the --:--I cycle is lost forever. GLOBAL WATER BALANCE 111-27y 40 r 118 7S P107 21(-11) LAND 304 o£eDae DCBkN 704 of— Figure 4.2.1 — Oui wdLUI iesuuiL;es die iiniLe un uui UUM111UHU5. Calculations of the global water balance indicate that water transferred to land from the oceans is balanced by water drainage from land to the oceans. If water drainage to the oceans exceeds the amount of water transferred to land from the oceans, our water resources on land are lost. (Units are in centimeters per year. Diagram by Dennis L. Hartmann, Global Physical Climatology, 1994.) Deforestation for construction in the headwater areas of first order high gradient streams reduces the amount of precipitation to recharge groundwater. Compaction of soils for roads and work areas reduces and/or destroys the process of soils to be saturated and to serve as an avenue for groundwater recharge. Blasting for gas pipeline trenches and also for leveling of road and work corridor surfaces destroys or changes the bedrock fractures, compromising the amount of groundwater flow and the direction of groundwater flow to seeps and springs which provide water to wetlands and to streams and rivers. SECTION 4.3 WATERSHEDS "Watershed" refers to all of the land that drains to a certain point on a river (Figure 4.3.1). A watershed can refer to the overall system of streams that drain into a river, or can pertain to a smaller tributary. Stream order is a measure of the relative size of streams. The smallest tributary is a first order stream, which originates in the highest elevations. WATERSHED www, Shed mn;dz -- Page Figure 4.3.1 — Headwaters of first order high gradient streams in Roanoke County are located at the highest elevations on the watershed divides. The Federal Government Agencies have established a hierarchical ordering of watersheds using Hydrological Unit Codes (HUC). The smallest HUC is the HUC-12 Subwatershed, which typically encompasses an area from 10,000 acres to 40,000 acres. This is in contrast to the acreage within a watershed of a high gradient first order stream in the Appalachian Plateau Physiographic Province, the Valley and Ridge Physiographic Province, or the Blue Ridge Physiographic Province. In 2007, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) prepared a document, "Functional Assessment Approach for High Gradient Streams", for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to use in assessing impacts and mitigation with respect to processing Clean Water Act Section 404 permit applications. High gradient headwater streams are characterized as first and second order ephemeral and intermittent streams with channel slopes ranging from 4% to greater than 10%, with watersheds of approximately 200 acres. There is no comparison of such small watersheds to the smallest HUC 12 watersheds that range from 10,000 acres to 40,000 acres in size. The impacts to a small watershed cannot be measured in the HUC 12 designation. In the MVP DEIS, numerous high gradient first order streams are identified at locations where they are crossed by the proposed MVP gas pipeline route. SECTION 4.3.1 Delineated Watersheds Crossed by the Proposed MVP Gas Pipeline Project In the following figures and tables, watersheds of high gradient first order streams are delineated along the proposed MVP gas pipeline between approximate mile post (MP) MP 234.5 and MP 244.3. MVP designated streams and wetlands are plotted on the map based on the coordinates provided in "Mountain Valley Pipeline Project Standard JPA-NWP12, Virginia, Attachment G- 7: Impact Analysis and Compensatory Mitigation Plan" (NWP12), dated February 2016. It is explained in the NWP12 that streams and wetlands were "clipped" to the limit of disturbance (LOD), such that "Any wetland or waterbody mapped outside the LOD of either access roads or pipeline survey corridors were not considered for the purposes of impacts and mitigation." Tables associated with the figures provide compilations of stream information excerpted from MVP Field Survey Stream Impact Analysis (Table 1, NWP12) and from MVP Desktop Survey Stream Impact Analysis (Table 3, NWP12) for streams surveyed by MVP in Roanoke County. The tables also include supplementary information from MVP Attachment RR2-17," Table 2-A-2, Waterbodies Crossed by the MVP Page 22 of 52 Project" (revised February 26, 2016), submitted in response to the FERC Environmental Information Request dated December 24, 2015. The tables also provide a compilation of wetlands information excerpted from the MVP Field Survey Wetland Impact Analysis (Table 2, NWP12) and MVP Desktop Survey Wetland Impact Analysis (Table 4, NWP12) for wetlands surveyed by MVP in Roanoke County. Supplementary information is included from MVP Attachment RR2-37, Table 2-13-1 (Revised February 26, 2016) "Wetlands Crossed by the MVP Project", in response to the FERC Environmental Information Request dated December 24, 2015. (Note that the "TTVA" designation may be in error where the designation was listed by MVP as "TTWV"). Field data collected for this report are included in the tables and correlated with MVP data. At least 6530.2 lineal feet (provided by MVP for some of the streams and unnamed tributaries) of 36 unnamed tributaries and streams, 34 headwater areas, and numerous wetlands will be crossed by the proposed construction. SECTION 4.3.1. MVP MP 234.5 to MP 236.6: Watersheds 1, 2, 3, 4 High gradient first order tributaries to Cove Hollow are within watersheds 1, 3, and 4. The uppermost segment of Indian Run is within watershed 2. Cove Hollow and Indian Run are tributaries to the Roanoke River. Three unnamed tributaries (UNTs) within these four watersheds will be crossed by the proposed construction and 14 headwater areas will be crossed by the proposed construction. Table 4.3.1.1 — Locations and descriptions of high gradient first order streams, wetlands, and headwater areas within watersheds of the stream in Cove Hollow and also of Indian Run. LOCATION ACRES DESCRIPTION SPRINGS WETLANDS Watershed 156 MVP mainline crosses an ephemeral UNT 1 to Cove Hollow, MVP designation TTVA-S- 015, and crosses 2 headwater areas. The MP 234.5 to access road connecting to the mainline at MP 235.0 MP 234.5 crosses 1 headwater area. Watershed 63 MVP mainline crosses Indian Run and a 2 headwater area to Indian Run. Although not in this first order stream watershed, MP 235.0 to another headwater area to Indian Run is MP 235.2 crossed by the access road connecting to the mainline at MP 234.5. Watershed 322 MVP mainline crosses an ephemeral UNT 3 to Cove Hollow, MVP designation TTVA-S- 16 where a connecting access road is MP 235.2 to located within the stream valley for the MP 236.1 entire length to Cove Hollow, approximately 3590 feet. The mainline crosses 8 Page 23 of 52 Page 24 of 52 headwater areas to TTVA-S-016, including one headwater area with MVP designation as intermittent stream TTVA-S-17. Watershed 174 Mainline crosses headwater area to Cove 4 Hollow. MP 236.1 to MP 236.2 Page 24 of 52 Figure 4.3.1.1 — Locations and delineations for watersheds 1, 2, 3, and 4. Page 25 of 52 ELBROOKFORMA TION Dolostone, Limestone " P;�s4 em mo `-._.�✓°/I, 11��� ON� r'7 � - - y s✓c_ r ROM>=FORMATfON Shale, Silts tones .,. � !700 � • 1� 1} � FlT ' 1f G �f600� N Proposed MVP Gas Pipeline Route {�-� 1 f Proposed MVP Access Road — Headwater Areas Watershed Delineation �\ U;., Geologic Contact O Watershed Number 1� Declination - i aro�,IP 237 .. s SCALE 124040 0 1 MILE !' f 0 1000 YARDS MN 8.14° W�,� $ d 1 KILOMETER o ', ` Name: ELLISTON Location- 037.2120583° N 080 2019191'W Date: 12/09116 Scale: 1 inch = 2,000 H. Capyn9ni f[130PJ MyTgpn Figure 4.3.1.1 — Locations and delineations for watersheds 1, 2, 3, and 4. Page 25 of 52 MVP MP 236.2 to MP 238.2: Watersheds 5, 6, 7 The proposed construction will cross the high gradient first order stream segment to Cove Hollow, along with 6 headwater areas located in watershed 5. One high gradient first order stream segment to Dry Hollow, along with 2 headwater areas, will be crossed by the proposed construction in watersheds 6 and 7. MVP stream and wetland designations are provided for streams and wetlands listed in MVP reports. Table 4.3.1.2 — Locations and descriptions of high gradient first order streams, wetlands, and headwater areas within watersheds of the streams in Cove Hollow and Dry Hollow. LOCATION ACRES DESCRIPTION SPRINGS WETLANDS Watershed 141 MVP mainline crosses the high gradient first 5 order stream segment of Cove Hollow and 4 headwater areas. Note that the mainline MP 236.6 to also crosses 2 headwater areas to the MP 237.2 second order stream segment of Cove Hollow. Watershed 103 MVP estimates 84.5 lineal feet of impact 6 where mainline crosses intermittent first order stream segment of Dry Hollow, MVP MP 237.2 to designation TT -S-018. Access road MP 237.7 connecting to the mainline at MP 237.2 crosses headwater area to stream TT -S- 018. Watershed 147 MVP mainline crosses 1 headwater area to 7 stream TT -S-018. MP 237.7 to MP 238.2 Page 26 of 52 Figure 4.3.1.2 — Locations and delineations for watersheds 5, 6, and 7. Page 27 of 52 36 Chilhowre Group-- \ Quartzite, Conglomerate'�ti a ! 0 �U2P t.'P 23 t two ' !r Proposed MVP Gas Pipeline Route Proposed MVP Access Roads Headwater Areas Watershed Delineations Geologic Contact#g_ / Watershed Number Ft T�\� i� �///i !r•� I 3700 I I Declination `Q i.��r - /J •/l i' 0 IN u en SCALE 1:24000 J 0 1 MILE 0 1000 YARDS MN $.15' w — �--�-} I • 'g60 P 0 t KILOMETER Name: ELLISTON Location: 037.1819051° N 080.1806158° W Date: 12/09/16 Scale: 1 inch = 2,000 ft. CopYnpM lC1 ]OOB @AyTPPP Figure 4.3.1.2 — Locations and delineations for watersheds 5, 6, and 7. Page 27 of 52 MVP MP 238.2 to MP 240.4: Watersheds 8, 9, 10 High gradient first order stream segments to Bottom Creek are located in watersheds 8, 9, and 10. MVP stream and wetland designations are provided for streams and wetlands listed in MVP reports. Within these watersheds, at least 1887.9 lineal feet (as provided by MVP for some of the UNTs and streams) of 13 UNTs and streams will be crossed by the construction and 5 headwater areas will be crossed by the construction. Table 4.3.1.3 — Locations and descriptions of high gradient first order streams, wetlands, and headwater areas within watersheds to Bottom Creek. LOCATION ACRES DESCRIPTION SPRINGS WETLANDS Watershed 362 MVP estimates 77 lineal feet of impact 8 where mainline crosses the perennial high gradient first order UNT, MP 238.2 to designated as S -Y14, to Bottom Creek. MP 239.0 MVP estimates 85 lineal feet of impact where mainline crosses intermittent UNT, designated as S -Y13, highlighted as a headwater area. MVP mainline also crosses 1 additional headwater area. The MVP access road connecting with the mainline at MP 238.3 crosses 2 headwater areas to S -Y14. Watershed 200 MVP mainline is located within the Numerous TTVA-W-005 9 stream valley of the UNT to Bottom springs PEM, Creek from MP 2394 to 239.7. MVP observed in Depressional, MP 239.0 to estimates 140.0 lineal feet of impact to areas located near MP 239.7 intermittent UNT designated TTVA-S- adjacent to MP 239.6 021, 43.9 lineal feet of impact to stream and TTVA-W- intermittent section of Bottom Creek, designations 004 PEM, designated TTVA-S-022, 45.1 lineal feet and also Slope, of impact to perennial section of Bottom within UNT located near Creek designated TTVA-S-025, 258.6 TT -S-021 MP 239.5. lineal feet of impact to ephemeral UNT Both to Bottom Creek designated TTVA-S- wetlands 023, and does not provide an estimated impacted by impact to intermittent UNT to Bottom mainline Creek designated TTVA-S-024. Access road located adjacent to TTVA-S-021 crosses 2 headwater areas. Watershed 194 MVP estimates 21.0 lineal feet of Several MVP 10 mainline impact to intermittent UNT springs designated designated TTVA-S-26 and 194.4 lineal observed wetland TT - MP 239.8 to feet of mainline impact to ephemeral W-006 PSS, MP 240.4 UNT designated TTVA-S-027, 630 Riverine. lineal feet of mainline impact to Also, several perennial UNT designated TTVA-S-028, wetlands 13.5 lineal feet of mainline impact to observed intermittent UNT designated TTVA-S- 029, and 101.1 lineal feet of mainline impact to Bottom Creek, designated Page 28 of 52 Page 29 of 52 TTVA-S-030. Mainline crosses 1 undesignated headwater area. MP 240.5 Access road connecting to mainline at Numerous r ` r 1 F ef R Yd` F MP 240.5 extends ENE: MVP estimates springs i 63.0 lineal feet of impact to perennial observed UNT to Bottom Creek, designated near Bottom TTVA-S-028, 194.4 lineal feet of impact Creek near to ephemeral UNT to Bottom Creek, MP 240.5 Proposed MVP Gas Pipeline Route ;c designated TTVA-S-027, and 21.0 lineal Proposed MVP Access Roads Headwater Areas rvl as ¢ Watershed delineations Geologic Contact feet of impact to intermittent UNT to _. Watershed Number \ ♦ Spring \ OO Wetland Bottom Creek, designated TTVA-S-026 Page 29 of 52 \1 I + 1r �! j' i I, L )uafiZllo, ConglOR7CldC.� r ` r 1 F ef R Yd` F i J 238 r: Proposed MVP Gas Pipeline Route ;c Proposed MVP Access Roads Headwater Areas rvl as ¢ Watershed delineations Geologic Contact _. Watershed Number \ ♦ Spring \ OO Wetland Dedl* tion } 1 f SCALE 1:24000 R 1 MILE KILOMETER MN e.16' WI Name- ELUSTON Location037-1790795° N 080.1640067° W Date: 12109/16 Scales 1 inch = 2.000 N. cormum;c, xaa xrew Page 29 of 52 Figure 4.3.1.3 — Locations and delineations for watersheds 8, 9, and 10. MVP MP 240.9 to MP 244.4: Watersheds 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 At least 4642.3 lineal feet (as provided for some of the UNTs and streams) of 17 high gradient first order stream segments and UNTs to Mill Creek, 7 headwater areas, and numerous wetlands will be impacted by construction in the area including watersheds 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. MVP stream and wetland designations are provided for streams and wetlands listed in MVP reports. Table 4.3.1.4 — Locations and descriptions of high gradient first order streams, wetlands, and headwater areas within watersheds to Mill Creek. LOCATION ACRES DESCRIPTION SPRINGS WETLANDS Watershed 178 MVP estimates 85.7 lineal feet of impact Numerous MVP 11 where mainline crosses the intermittent springs designated high gradient first order UNT, observed wetland TT - MP 240.9 to designated as TT -S-031, to Mill Creek. W-007, PEM, MP 241.8 MVP estimates 88.4 lineal feet of impact Slope; TT -W - where mainline crosses perennial UNT, 008, PEM designated as TTVA-S-032, to Mill Slope; TTVA- Creek. Mainline crosses 1 headwater W-009, PEM, area near MP 241.0 and again near MP Depressional; 241.4. TTVA-W-010, PSS, Riverine; TTVA-W-011, PSS, Riverine. MP 242.0 to MVP mainline is in the valley of Numerous MVP wetland MP 242.5 perennial Mill Creek, impacting springs on TT -W-012, approximately 2241 lineal feet of Mill hillslope PEM, Creek. Mainline crosses 1 headwater Riverine; TT - area to Mill Creek. MVP access road W-013, PSS, connecting to mainline at MP 242.2 Riverine traverses valley of intermittent UNT, designated TTVA-S-034, to Mill Creek, impacting 285.3 lineal feet. Watershed 28 MVP access road connecting with 12 mainline at approximately MP 242.55 impacts headwater area to UNT to Mill MP 242.5 to Creek. MP 242.6 Watershed 93 MVP mainline crosses through 3 13 headwater areas to a UNT to Mill Creek, crossing through 1 of the headwater areas approximately 389 feet. Page 30 of 52 MP 242.6 to MP 242.8 MP 242.8 to MVP estimates 285.3 lineal feet of Numerous MVP wetland MP 243.1 impact to perennial Mill Creek, springs TTVA-W-014, designated TTVA-S-035 and also observed PSS, crosses 1 headwater area to Mill Creek. along Mill Riverine; A fault was observed in a bedrock Creek TTV-W-15, outcrop adjacent to Mill Creek, showing PSS strike of fault is the same as the Mill Riverine; Creek Valley. TTVA-W-016, PSS, Riverine. Watershed 51 MVP estimates 173 lineal feet of impact MVP wetland 14 to intermittent UNT, designated S -Y7, to TT -W-017, Mill Creek, 84 lineal feet of impact to PEM, MP 243.2 to perennial UNT, designated S -Y8, to Mill Riverine; MP 243.5 Creek, and 33 lineal feet of impact to wetland intermittent UNT, designated S -Y9, to TTVA-W-018, Mill Creek. MVP estimates 34 lineal PEM feet of access road impact to perennial Riverine, UNT, designated S -Z17, to Mill Creek, wetland impact (lineal feet not provided) to TTVA-W-019, perennial UNT, designated TTVA-S- PEM, 036, to Mill Creek. Riverine Watershed 166 MVP crosses UNT to Mill Creek with MVP wetland 15 wetlands present. MVP access road TTVA-W-021, connecting with mainline at PSS, Slope; MP 253.5 to approximately MP 243.6 crosses TTVA-W-022, MP 243.9 several wetlands, impacts 359.5 lineal PEM, slope; feet of ephemeral UNT, designated TT -W-020, TTVA-S-037, UNT to Mill Creek, PEM, Slope; impacts 18 lineal feet of perennial UNT, TTVA-W-023, designated S -Q20, to Mill Creek, PEM, impacts 32.0 lineal feet of perennial Depressional UNT, designated TTVA-S-038, to Mill Creek, and impacts 291.1 lineal feet of ephemeral UNT, designated TTVA-S- 039, to Mill Creek. Watershed 182 MVP mainline impacts 96 lineal feet of MVP Wetland 16 perennial UNT, designated S-1321, to W-1324, PSS, Mill Creek, impacts 147 feet of Riverine, W - MP 243.9 to ephemeral UNT, designated S-1325, to B25, PSS2, MP 244.4 Mill Creek and numerous wetlands. slope, TT -W- 024, PEM, Depressional Page 31 of 52 Page 32 of 52 Figure 4.3.1.4 — Locations and delineations of watersheds 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Page 33 of 52 290 26 3a° lite ze3o Proposed MVP Gas Pipeline Route —f I Proposed MVP Access Roads —:1', Headwater Areas — a Watershed Delineations Geologic Contact 1 O Watershed Number v Wetland 7 75 i Spring ! wrenm y� Cem v ` 13 Q - Q ... � P •..i2526 -' ', �� J`JrJ �ii�iVL�... 2'Op�� y '14 RNOCKiTE granite Gneiss 14 l` ` \ 1 ! J 15 e King 1 1 fie p'' r �.� j - s �; / �2� �- - 'o Q Declination -- PorpyriteLeuchocharnockite ney g Granite I '! SCALE 1:24000 I o_ 1 MILE . lC ` `. •1 " 2636 :.CFm U 1000 YARDS !� \\ MN 8.17° 11� -:,� ,.� y -..'1, ✓` .Ml 0 1 KILOMETER Name: ELLIST©N Location: 037.1431797° N 080.1380373° W Date: 12/09/16 Scale: 1 inch = 2,000 ft. Go0Y0�1IL120� MVTopp Figure 4.3.1.4 — Locations and delineations of watersheds 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16. Page 33 of 52 SECTION 4.3.2 Headwater Areas and the River Continuum The headwater areas for first order streams in Roanoke County are environmentally sensitive and provide seeps, springs, and wetlands in shaded areas where light is filtered by the tree canopy and temperatures are lower, sustaining the aquatic organisms at the very base of the food chain. The steep terrain in Roanoke County provides the unique geomorphology for first order high gradient streams. Because the proposed MVP gas pipeline route is along the ridge, watersheds on both sides of the ridge are adversely impacted by construction activities. Headwater areas of first order streams provide the essential aquatic habitats for aquatic species and associated terrestrial fauna and fowl within the entire length of the river continuum in the overall watershed. The soils which have formed in the headwater areas regulate the transport of surface water and also carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen. The shade of the forest canopy provides the filtered light and lower temperatures critical to maintaining the headwater aquatic habitats. The River Continuum Concept was developed by Vannote, R.L., G. W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell, and C.E. Cushing in 1980 and presented in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37: 130-137. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have embraced the River Continuum Concept as illustrating the strong connection between headwater areas on mountain ridges and various downstream areas. The River Continuum Concept diagram (Figure 4.3.1.1) provides pie diagrams of predominant benthic aquatic organisms associated with various locations, starting at the headwaters, along the river continuum. Shredders, predominant in the forested headwaters, break down organic matter used downstream by collectors, predators, and filter -feeders. The filter -feeders are subsequently consumed by larger benthos and fish. Page 34 of 52 shredd rs a� raters Qobes predators collectors trout 2 periphytoncoarse cohectors partitnlate A matter basslmouth microbes -V1_V�4,.dders 3 I. itulate -� predators vascular hydrophytes 0 � s perch 6 p rticulate ine tmatter particulate matter 7 a" microbes crollortors tp cattish 12 �v VIII IIIIIIIII III R.Paury Channel Width Figure 4.3.2.1 — The River Continuum (Vannote, et al; 1980) illustrates the food chain connection between headwater areas of first order high gradient streams and the wider, larger downstream areas in the overall watershed. Ecological communities are typically classified with respect to the vegetation present because it is the most permanent, visible feature of a community. Biodiversity refers to the diversity within an ecological community, with emphasis on the inter -relationships and interdependence among the various species. Trees not only intercept rainfall so that it falls gently to the ground surface and is thus able to penetrate the ground as groundwater recharge, but also store nutrients in their trunks, branches, and roots. Fungi in the soil facilitate transport of nutrients between trees and the soil. The soil stores nutrients which are processed by soil microbes to regulate essential nutrient cycles involving oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen. Roots of the trees and of herbal vegetation help to stabilize the soil so that the soil nutrients are not washed away by stormwater runoff. The ecological communities in the headwater areas of first order high gradient streams consist not only of the vegetation, but also the aquatic benthic macroinvertebrates, fungi, and soil microbes. Insect larvae, commonly grouped as shredders, constitute most of the aquatic benthic macroinvertebrates in the headwater areas because they shred organic material into components used by collectors and predators downstream. Page 35 of 52 SECTION 4.3.3 Streams It is stated in the MVP Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, page 6, that "It is anticipated that all stream impacts within the pipeline limit -of -disturbance will be temporary, occurring during pipeline construction activities. These temporary waterbody impacts will not result in an adverse impact to water quality, physical or biological habitat, or aquatic species within the Project area due to the temporary stream crossing construction activities and implementing the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan's Best Management Practices. The methods used include silt fence or compost filter sock along disturbed areas and permanent vegetative cover." In the MVP NWP12, it is stated that "The pipeline will be installed to provide a minimum of four feet of cover from the waterbody bottom to the top of the pipeline, except in consolidated rock, where a minimum of two feet of cover will be required. Trench spoil will be placed on the bank above the high water mark for use as backfill... Excavated material not required for backfill will be removed and disposed of at an upland site." The proposed method for the MVP gas pipeline installation is to excavate an open trench in the stream where the crossing is proposed. There is no indication from the proposed MVP work description or Best Management Practices (BMPs) that there is any comprehension or consideration of the in -stream aquatic habitats (Figure 4.3.3.1) that will be destroyed by open trenching. There is no mention of restoring the embeddedness required by aquatic organisms as adequate habitat. sang" Issama- Heavily embedded Lightly embedded D water 0 sand & silt rocks Figure 4.3.3.1 — Cobbles and pebbles provide aquatic habitats and protection for aquatic organisms. Insect larvae, which constitute the base of the river continuum food chain, reside on the cobbles and pebbles. Minnows and juvenile fish hide in the spaces between cobbles and pebbles for protection. When sand and silt fill the spaces between the cobbles and pebbles, the aquatic habitats and protection areas are destroyed. When the aquatic habitats are removed for trenching and stream crossing work spaces, they cannot be restored. Page 36 of 52 Numerous streams in the area proposed by MVP for the gas pipeline construction are classified as trout waters in the Virginia Water Quality Standards 9 VAC 24-280 (January 2011). These streams are listed in Table 4.3.3.1. Table 4.3.3.1 — Trout water classifications for streams that will be impacted if the proposed MVP gas pipeline is constructed. STREAM STREAM CLASSIFICATION IDENTIFICATION STOCKABLE TROUT WATERS Mill Creek from its confluence with Bottom Creek to its headwaters Roanoke River from 5 miles above Salem's #2 raw water intake to the Spring Hollow Reservoir intake South Fork Roanoke River from 5 miles above the Spring Hollow Reservoir intake to the mouth of Bottom Creek Roanoke River and its tributaries from Salem's #1 raw water intake to points 5 miles upstream from Salem's #2 raw water intake. Roanoke River from the Spring Hollow Reservoir intake to the Montgomery County Line NATURAL TROUT WATERS Bottom Creek from its confluence with the South Fork Roanoke River upstream including all named and unnamed tributaries Mill Creek from its confluence with the North Fork Roanoke River upstream including all named and unnamed tributaries Roanoke River and its tributaries from Salem's #1 raw water intake to their headwaters Roanoke River and its tributaries from Salem's #1 raw water intake to points 5 miles upstream from Salem's #2 raw water intake. In order to mitigate permanent stream impacts, that is, where streams are covered by roads, MVP proposes buying credits in stream mitigation sites in other watersheds. Where a first order high gradient stream is destroyed, the damage can never be offset by restoring a stream in an entirely different watershed. SECTION 4.3.4 Wetlands In the MVP NWP12, the proposed wetland mitigation procedures include 1) segregation of the topsoil up to one foot in depth in wetlands with subsequent placement in the trench following subsoil backfilling; 2) tilling compacted areas; and 3) allowing natural re -vegetation in saturated wetlands due to the "low Page 37 of 52 success rates of revegetation from seeding in saturated soils". There is no mention of preserving seeps and springs known to maintain wetland hydrology. There is no mention that trenching for the gas pipeline installation provides conduits which remove and lower the groundwater table. When the groundwater is diverted into ditches, it is transported away as surface water and the groundwater table is lowered. The depletion and redirection of groundwater along the pipeline trench, as well as changes in the direction of groundwater movement caused by blasting, destroys springs and seeps which maintain wetland hydrology. The Alderflats soils are designated by NRCS as hydric soils capable of supporting wetlands. The typical soil profile for Alderflats soil includes silty clay loam to a depth of 30 to 50 inches, with loamy sand at a depth of 50 to 62 inches. The water capacity of silty clay loam is high because the sediment particles have more pore spaces to hold the water. When this hydric soil is compacted, the pore spaces are closed and the texture is permanently changed. Tilling will simply cause soil clumping and will not restore the water capacity of the soil. In order to mitigate permanent wetland impacts, that is, where wetlands are covered by roads, MVP proposes buying credits in wetland mitigation sites in other watersheds. It is important to understand wetlands in headwater areas and along streams serve vital functions for the river continuum. When these wetlands are degraded or destroyed, there will be permanent adverse impacts. SECTION 4.3.5 Hydrostatic Testing The MVP DEIS, Table 4.3.2-10 lists "Hydrostatic Test Water Sources and Discharge Locations for the Mountain Valley Project and the Equitrans Expansion Project". MVP proposes withdrawal of 5,691,886 gallons of water from the Roanoke River at MP 233.8 for hydrostatic testing. This is the location of the proposed Roanoke River crossing for the gas pipeline and is approximately 1.2 miles upstream of the intake for Spring Hollow Reservoir. There is no evaluation of the potential impact on Spring Hollow Reservoir. The proposed discharge point for 894,951 gallons is approximately 15.7 miles away into Upper Craig Creek, which flows through the Jefferson national Forest and is a tributary to the James River. Craig Creek is listed on the National Rivers Inventory and is described as possessing outstandingly remarkable natural value and considered to be of national significance. MVP is currently working with the U.S Forest Service to modify the crossing of Craig Creek, which is currently proposed for four separate crossings. Page 38 of 52 In the MVP response to the U.S. Forest Service Request 4, it is stated that the test water will be discharged to an upland area within the watershed. Thousands of gallons of water in a small watershed for a first order high gradient watershed will result in erosion of the ground surface, destruction of the existing soil, and flooding of the first order stream that would result in destruction of aquatic habitats and cause stream bank erosion downstream. SECTION 4.3.6 Public Water Supply in Roanoke County Spring Hollow Reservoir was constructed within the watershed of an unnamed tributary near its confluence with the Roanoke River. Water supply from the reservoir to residents in the Salem, VA area began in 1996. Water is pumped from the Roanoke River to maintain the 3.3 billion gallons of water within the 158 - acre reservoir. Three groundwater wells were drilled in 2003 to supplement the quantity of water to the Spring Hollow Reservoir. In 2005, a new drinking water treatment plant was completed, with a capacity of 10 million gallons of treated water per day. As provided in the MVP Attachment RR2-18b, "Table 22-5 (Revised February 26, 2016) Intermediate and Major Waterbodies Crossed by the MVP Project", submitted in response to the FERC Environmental Information Request dated December 24, 2015, the proposed MVP gas pipeline route crosses the Roanoke River and tributaries to the Roanoke River upstream of the Spring Hollow Reservoir intake. Figure 4.3.6.1 depicts four of the watersheds of first order high gradient streams that are proposed by MVP to be crossed by the gas pipeline construction route. The first order high gradient streams within these watersheds are tributaries to the North Fork Roanoke River. Twenty headwater areas within these watersheds will be impacted by the proposed MVP gas pipeline construction. Also, three headwater areas of Indian Run (a tributary to the South Fork Roanoke River near its confluence with the Roanoke River) will be impacted. Table 4.3.6.1 includes a listing of the crossings provided by MVP Attachment RR2-18b. Mill Creek and Bottom Creek are tributaries to the South Fork Roanoke River, but are not listed in the table because they are not considered intermediate or major waterbodies. Within the watersheds of Mill Creek and Bottom Creek, at least 6530.2 lineal feet (provided by MVP for some of the streams and unnamed tributaries) of 36 unnamed tributaries and streams, 34 headwater areas, and numerous wetlands will be crossed by the proposed construction. Page 39 of 52 Figure 4.3.6.1 — Map depicting headwater areas impacted by proposed MVP gas pipeline construction in delineated watersheds upstream of the intake to Spring Hollow Reservoir. Page 40 of 52 MP 23 Al2 0 forme k� Shale, 1-7 ti I j' MP 2�3F VO Q\ V wi tELBROOK FORMATION Qolostone, Limestone 4. o ti BM '\ h of 1292.. ' 1118ttr 11-1k, f UJ / Declination Proposed MVP Gas Pipeline Route �> ROME FORMATIQN r }. Proposed MVP Access Roads Headwater Areas KALE 124000 Watershed Delineations 1 MILE Geologic Contacts 0 1000 YARDS MN 8.13'W 0 1 KILOMETER Name: ELLISTON Location: 037.2311799° N 080.2253247' W Date: 12/10116 Scale: 1 inch = 2,000 ft. gn��1z� Figure 4.3.6.1 — Map depicting headwater areas impacted by proposed MVP gas pipeline construction in delineated watersheds upstream of the intake to Spring Hollow Reservoir. Page 40 of 52 Table 4.3.6.1 — Listing of waterbodies crossed by the proposed MVP gas pipeline, as provided in MVP Attachment RR2-18b, "Table 22-5 (Revised February 26, 2016) Intermediate and Major Waterbodies Crossed by the MVP Project", submitted in response to the FERC Environmental Information Request dated December 24, 2015. The list provided by MVP in Table 3 does not include crossings of the numerous first order high gradient tributaries in both Montgomery and Roanoke counties. County Waterbody Mile Waterbody Crossing Method Length of Montgomery North Fork Roanoke River Post Width Open Cut Dry Ditch Crossing Montgomery Bradshaw Creek 229.2 (feet) Open Cut Dry Ditch (feet) Montgomery North Fork Roanoke River 2258 20 Open Cut Dry Ditch - Montgomery North Fork Roanoke River 225.8 20 Open Cut Dry Ditch 94 Montgomery Bradshaw Creek 229.2 25 Open Cut Dry Ditch 77 Montgomery Bradshaw Creek 229.6 15 Open Cut Dry Ditch - Montgomery North Fork Roanoke River 230.2 92 Open Cut Dry Ditch 51 Montgomery UNT to North Fork Roanoke River 2326 40 Open Cut Dry Ditch Montgomery UNT to North Fork Roanoke River 2326 40 Open Cut Dry Ditch - Montgomery Roanoke River 233.8 70 Open Cut Dry Ditch 84 Montgomery UNT to Roanoke River 234.0 14 Open Cut Dry Ditch 75 Montgomery UNT to Roanoke River 236.1 15 Open Cut Dry Ditch 232 Roanoke UNT to Bottom Creek 238.8 14 Open Cut Dry Ditch 77 MVP provided a report (dated June 7, 2016) prepared by CSI, "Hydrologic Analysis of Sedimentation: Mountain Valley Pipeline, Jefferson National Forest, Eastern Ranger Divide District". CSI evaluated the impact of the proposed MVP gas pipeline construction through 3.43 miles of the Jefferson National Forest (JNF), concluding that excess sediment would be introduced into waterways within the JNF and downstream areas resulting in changes to water quality and impacting aquatic biota. One downstream impacted area was identified as the Dry Run -North Fork Roanoke River Subwatershed, which is a headwater area of the upper Roanoke that drains to the North Fork Roanoke River. CSI calculations provided that there will be an increase of 73.41 % in the sediment load due to construction in the JNF. CSI noted that their estimates did not incorporate sediment control practices. It is important to note that even with sediment control practices, the quantity of water from the construction areas will cause downstream stream bank erosion. Page 41 of 52 SECTION 4.4 GROUNDWATER The MVP DEIS provides that the Valley and Ridge regional aquifer system flows through sandstone, shale, limestone, and dolomite bedrock where the MVP gas pipeline route is located in Roanoke County. The MVP DEIS mentions the Blue Ridge and Piedmont aquifer system within sedimentary and metamorphic bedrock in Franklin County. However, based on the observed geology in Roanoke County, the Blue Ridge and Piedmont aquifer system also flows within igneous and metamorphic rocks underlying the portion of the gas pipeline from proposed MP 239.2 to MP 244.4. The proposed MVP gas pipeline route traverses limestone and dolostone of the Elbrook Formation where the route crosses the Roanoke River. Although the crossing is located in Montgomery County, this area pertains to Roanoke County because the crossing is within 1.2 miles upstream of the intake to Spring Hollow Reservoir. Three groundwater wells located in the Spring Hollow Reservoir area extend into the Elbrook Formation. Groundwater flow through karst areas (limestone and dolomite) exhibits both diffuse flow and conduit flow. Conduit flow consists of "integrated systems of openings ranging from solutionally widened joints and bedding plane partings to pipelike passages many meters in diameter" (White, 1988). Pipelike passages and larger solutionally widened joints and bedding plane partings can be observed in the caves in the area, and are also present, although inaccessible for observation, in limestone and dolomite throughout the Elbrook Formation. Groundwater recharge occurs mostly on the forested ridges where rainfall is intercepted by trees so that it gently penetrates the ground as groundwater rather than flowing overland as runoff. When the rainfall penetrates the surficial soils, it migrates downward to bedrock, flowing through bedrock fractures and along bedding planes and fault planes. As the quantity of groundwater accumulates beneath the ground surface, a hydraulic gradient forms, causing the groundwater to move downgradient. Where rock fractures or bedding planes intercept the ground surface, seeps and springs form. Numerous springs and seeps are present along the proposed MVP gas pipeline route in Roanoke County, particularly from MP 239.2 to MP 244.4. The hydraulic gradient also moves the groundwater to nearby streams and rivers or to lower areas where the water may reach streams and rivers that are farther away. During times of drought, groundwater supplies water to streams and rivers to maintain aquatic habitats. Groundwater also collects as a perched water table where water accumulates above relatively impermeable bedrock where bedrock fractures are few or not present. Along the proposed MVP gas pipeline route, there are numerous wetlands which have formed in areas of a perched water table. The profile descriptions of soils in the area indicate a more permeable area of sediment, Page 42 of 52 such as sand -sized particles, overlying bedrock. The water within the perched aquifer saturates the sandy material and the soils above to create wetlands. In areas where more bedrock fractures are present, the groundwater flows downgradient through the fractures and there is no perched aquifer. Perched aquifers are numerous in the watersheds of Mill Creek and Bottom Creek, accounting for the numerous wetlands. Deforestation removes the protective tree canopy, causing increased stormwater discharge and decreased groundwater recharge. The proposed MVP gas pipeline construction would result in deforestation and soil compaction, causing increased stormwater discharge and decreased groundwater recharge. Leveling of the work corridor and access roads, along with trenching for pipe installation, will intercept groundwater, thereby reducing or eliminating the flow of water to rock fractures which serve as a conduit to provide water to seeps, springs, and wetlands, as well as to streams during times of drought. SECTION 5.0 CONCLUSIONS The findings of this report provide evidence that construction of the proposed MVP gas pipeline will result in adverse impacts on the environment within specific watersheds of high gradient first order streams, within the Roanoke River, Bottom Creek, Mill Creek, larger streams and rivers, within karst terrain, and within aquifer systems. The adverse impacts would be cumulative because of the expansive area of the proposed gas pipeline corridor, access roads, and additional work spaces. The adverse impacts would be cumulative also because of being in areas of existing or planned development. 1) Construction of the proposed MVP gas pipeline will adversely impact headwater aquatic habitats which serve as the base of the food chain for the entire river continuum ecosystem. Where seeps, springs, and wetlands are adversely impacted in the headwater areas, the effects will continue along the entire length of rivers within the overall watershed system. Watersheds along the proposed MVP gas pipeline construction route are predominantly those of first order high gradient streams, which typically have stream profile slopes greater than 4%. Springs, seeps, and wetlands occur in the headwater areas of the first order streams. Page 43 of 52 2) Construction of the proposed MVP gas pipeline will remove soil and compact soil, causing adverse impacts to springs and wetlands and to the hydrologic function of transporting water from the watershed to wetlands and first order stream channels. Soil microorganisms require soil moisture in order to function in their capacity to 1) fix nitrogen for uptake by plant roots; 2) transform iron and manganese to increase their solubility and availability to higher organisms in the food chain; 3) detoxify sulfur; 4) oxidize organic carbon; and 5) transform phosphorus into soluble reactive phosphorus for uptake by higher organisms in the food chain. Dewatering and compaction of the soil during construction activities for a 125 - foot wide work corridor and during trenching activities will destroy the soil microorganisms. Simple replacement of surficial topsoil after construction cannot restore the function of microorganisms in their capacity to provide organic compounds to the higher organisms in the headwater area ecosystem. Water transport includes surface water flow necessary to create channels, both ephemeral channels in ravines as well as stream channels. When the land above the headwater areas is destroyed by leveling the ground surface, there is destruction of the slopes that would normally provide the sufficient amount of surface water to the ravines and stream channel. By leveling the ground surface, the existing soils which normally become saturated during precipitation events are removed and the remaining soils are compacted. This results in destroying the condition of saturated soils that allow surface water to flow slowly into the headwater areas. Additionally, the storage of water in soils facilitates the creation of hydric soils necessary to establish wetlands. The wetlands provide environments for chemical cycling of nutrients. With removal of soils in the headwater areas and compaction of the subsoil, the stormwater surface flow will increase in velocity, causing erosion within the stream bed and along the stream banks. The resulting erosion will cause deposition of silt and clay within the pebbles and cobbles, destroying the aquatic habitats of the microbes and insect larvae. Additionally, trenching for the gas pipeline installation provides conduits which remove and lower the groundwater. When the groundwater is diverted into ditches, it is transported away as surface water and the groundwater table is lowered. The depletion of groundwater removes the capacity for groundwater to supply water to the first order streams during drought conditions (baseflow), with the consequent death of aquatic organisms. The depletion and redirection of groundwater along the pipeline trench, as well as changes in the direction of groundwater movement caused by blasting, destroys springs, seeps, and wetlands in the headwater areas of first order streams. Page 44 of 52 3) Construction of the proposed MVP gas pipeline will adversely impact the hydraulic function of transporting water in ephemeral channels in ravines, in the channel, and through the sediments. Water within an ephemeral channel or in a stream will determine the existence of aquatic habitats within the sediments and will interact with groundwater in the sediments of the stream bed and stream banks. The flow of water determines the size and amount of sediments that are deposited. Where the water velocity is great enough to move silt and sand away from areas of pebbles and cobbles, aquatic habitats are created for microbes and insect larvae which break down organic matter to provide food for larger aquatic species. Stream water velocities great enough to move pebbles and cobbles will obviously also result in the destruction of the aquatic habitats. Additionally, the velocity of the stream water controls the spacing and depth of stepped pools in the stream bed. The typical deep pools that form within the first order high gradient streams provide aquatic habitats for trout to live. In the MVP access road alignment maps submitted to FERC on April 22, 2016, the widths of access road easements are shown as 40 feet, with a wider study corridor of approximately 80 feet to 100 feet wide; however, the detailed construction plans are not provided. In order to construct a flat roadbed, fill material will be required for construction, indicating wide embankment areas associated with the roadbeds. The access roads are located not only in headwater areas, but also in the ravines associated with numerous first order high gradient streams, as well as at specific stream crossings. Consequently, if the gas pipeline is installed, not only will the headwater areas be compromised by the gas pipeline construction activities, but also by the construction of substantial temporary and permanent access roads, which will cause additional destruction of riparian buffers and specific streams. 4) Deforestation for construction of the proposed MVP gas pipeline will adversely impact the geomorphologic function of conserving water in the ecosystem as well as transporting wood and sediment to create diverse bed forms and dynamic equilibrium. Pipeline construction requires deforestation within an area at least 125 feet wide. The relatively dense tree canopy in the headwater areas intercepts rainfall so that it gently penetrates the ground as groundwater rather than flowing overland as runoff. This means that 1) the rain will gently fall to the ground and recharge groundwater and 2) the surface flow of rainwater on the ground will be slower than in cleared areas, thereby reducing the velocity and quantity of stormwater drainage. Woody debris in the forested headwater areas constitutes an important contribution to first order streams because the small woody debris provides particulate organic matter and the large woody debris, when transported to the stream bed, provides protected areas for aquatic organisms and also helps create the stepped pools needed by trout. Page 45 of 52 5) Construction of the proposed MVP gas pipeline will adversely impact the physicochemical functions of temperature oxygen regulation, and also the processing of organic matter and nutrients. The deforestation required for pipeline construction will also adversely impact the function of the relatively dense tree canopy that provides filtered light and relatively cooler, regulated temperatures. Aquatic organisms in the headwater areas and upper reaches of the first order stream channels require the filtered light and cooler, regulated temperatures in order to survive. The deep, stepped pools of stream water must provide the cooler temperatures required for trout to survive. 6) Construction of the proposed MVP gas pipeline on ridge -tops will adversely impact biological functions of biodiversity and life cycles of aquatic and riparian life. The ecology of the entire watershed is embraced in the river continuum concept, starting at the headwaters of first order high gradient streams and continuing downstream with changes of predominant benthic aquatic organisms along the river continuum. Shredders, predominant in the forested headwaters, break down organic matter used downstream by collectors and filter -feeders. The filter - feeders are subsequently consumed by larger benthos and fish farther downstream. The downstream healthy fish populations can only exist with specific water velocities, stream bed forms, temperature, and water chemistry. Ecological systems of first and second order high gradient streams are described in detail in the "Functional Assessment Approach for High Gradient Streams, West Virginia", written for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) June 2007, published by the USACE (http://training.fws.gov/courses/csp/csp3ll2/resources/Wetland Assessment M ethodologies/FunctionalAssessment-HighGradientStreams.pdf ) and "A Function - Based Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects", by Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller; 2012; U..S Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006. (https://www.fws. gov/chesapeakebay/Stream Reports/Stream %20 Fu nctions%20 F ram ework/Final%20Stream%20Functions%20Pyramid %20Doc 9-12-12.pdf ) Page 46 of 52 7) The proposed MVP mitigation approach for wetlands and streams is deficient. The MVP mitigation approach does not incorporate an understanding of the importance of headwater areas that supply surface and groundwater to the headwater streams and wetlands. Additionally, the MVP mitigation approach does not recognize the importance of headwater aquatic organisms as being the base of the food chain in the river continuum. Purchasing mitigation credits in areas outside of the actual watersheds for first order high gradient streams will not compensate for the cumulative damage to the specific watershed impacted or to the receiving water bodies downstream. 8) Construction of the proposed MVP gas pipeline will require deforestation and blasting, both of which will reduce groundwater recharge and cause significant changes to the amount of groundwater available as a drinking water source, as well as to groundwater flow routes. Groundwater flows along bedrock bedding planes and fractures, forming seeps and springs where the bedding planes and fractures intercept the ground surface. The seeps and springs also occur within streams and along stream banks, providing water to streams during drought conditions. Deforestation results in reduced groundwater recharge, with the consequent decreased availability of groundwater. Blasting causes changes in the bedrock fractures, resulting in changes in the direction of groundwater flow. Consequently, seeps and springs will not receive the groundwater that was available prior to construction. 9) Construction of the proposed MVP gas pipeline will degrade karst environments by reducing and redirecting groundwater flow and by creating the potential for collapse. Where deforestation and blasting reduce and redirect groundwater flow, cave environments are impacted due to changes in moisture. Blasting causes collapse of fractures and voids in limestone, which results in degradation of karst terrain and cave environments. 10) Construction of the proposed MVP gas pipeline will cause increased stormwater discharge and also degrade stream functions at the numerous locations where stream crossings are proposed. Increased stormwater discharge causes downstream stream bank erosion, introducing sediment into the streams. Increased amounts of silt and sand in the stream are deposited in openings between cobbles and pebbles, destroying the aquatic habitats and protective areas for minnows and juvenile fish. Page 47 of 52 11) Construction of the proposed MVP gas pipeline will create the potential for pipeline collapse in areas known to have experienced earthquakes, especially in karst areas. Roanoke County is located in the Giles earthquake hazard zones which has experienced significant numbers of earthquakes and which is considered to be at risk for future earthquakes. Construction of the proposed MVP gas pipeline in an earthquake zone, especially in the karst area where the gas pipeline is proposed to cross the Roanoke River, creates the potential for pipeline collapse. 12) Construction of the proposed MVP gas pipeline will result in landslides on the pervasive steep slopes of Roanoke County. The Soil Survey for Roanoke County and the Cities of Roanoke and Salem provides the recommendation that steep slopes throughout the area are best suited for woodland. Severe hazard of erosion is stated as a concern where heavy equipment is proposed for use on steep slopes. Regardless of best management practices, erosion and landslides will occur within these areas. 13) Construction of the Proposed MVP Gas Pipeline Will Cause Cumulative Damage. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations that implement the National Environmental Policy Act define cumulative effects as "the impact on the environment which results from the incremental consequences of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions" (40 CFR § 1508.7). Cumulative effects include both direct and indirect, or induced, effects that would result from the Project, as well as the effects from other projects (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions) not related to or caused by the Project. Cumulative impacts may result when the environmental effects associated with a Project are added to temporary (construction -related) or permanent (operations -related) impacts associated with other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects. Although the individual impact of each separate project might not be significant, the additive or synergistic effects of multiple projects could be significant. The cumulative effects analysis evaluates the magnitude of cumulative effects on natural resources such as wetlands, water quality, floodplains, and threatened and endangered species, as well as cumulative effects on land use, socioeconomics, air quality, noise, and cultural resources. The CEQ regulations (40 CFR § 1508.8) also require that the cumulative effects analysis consider the indirect effects which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Page 48 of 52 The cumulative damage that would result from construction of the proposed MVP gas pipeline is inconsistent with the protection of Virginia water resources. The purpose state for the Virginia Ground Water Management Act of 1992 (§ 62.1- 254) is: "to recognize and declare that the right to reasonable control of all ground water resources within this Commonwealth belongs to the public and that in order to conserve, protect and beneficially utilize the ground water of this Commonwealth and to ensure the public welfare, safety and health, provision for management and control of ground water resources is essential. Further, in Virginia Code § 62.1-11, waters are declared to be a natural resource such that "The public welfare and interest of the people of the Commonwealth require the proper development, wise use, conservation and protection of water resources together with protection of land resources, as affected thereby." It is stated in the MVP application that, "(1) the Mountain Valley Project is not expected to result in any significant adverse impact on the environment; (2) all impacts can be avoided or, where unavoidable, can be adequately mitigated; (3) the proposed route is the best of those evaluated; (4) the Mountain Valley Project's short-term use of the environment will not conflict with the long-term productivity of the environment; and (5) resources will not be irreversibly or irretrievably lost due to the construction activities". The findings of this report support the conclusion that there would be significant environmental destruction and degradation in Roanoke County if the MVP pipeline were to be constructed. SECTION 6.0 REFERENCES Butts, Charles, "Geology of the Appalachian Valley in Virginia"; 1940; Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia Conservation Commission, Virginia Geological Survey Bulletin 52. Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller; "A Function -Based Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects"; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006; 2012; https://www.fws.gov/chesapeakebay/Stream Reports/Stream%20Functions%2OFr amework/Final%20Stream%2OFunctions%2OPyramid%2ODoc 9-12-12.pdf Horton, J.W. and R.A. Williams; "The 2011 Virginia Earthquake: What Are Scientist Learning?"; EOS, Vol. 93, No. 33, August 2012; American Geophysical Union. Page 49 of 52 Latta, Bruce F., "Public and Industrial Ground -Water Supplies of the Roanoke - Salem District, Virginia; 1956; Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Conservation and Development, Virginia Division of Geology, Bulletin 69. McDowell, Robert C. and Arthur P. Schultz, "Structural and Stratigraphic Framework of the Giles County Area, a Part of the Appalachian Basin of Virginia and West Virginia"; USGS Bulletin 1839-E. Mitsch, William J. and James G. Gosselink; "Wetlands"; 1986; Van Nostrand Reinhold, NY. Southworth, C. Scott, Karen J. Gray, and John F. Sutter, "Middle Eocene Intrusive Igneous Rocks of the Central Appalachian Valley and Ridge Province — Setting, Chemistry, and Implications for Crustal Structure"; 1993; U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1839-I, J; http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1839i/report.pdf. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service in cooperation with Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Soil Survey of Roanoke County and the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, Virginia; 1997/1998. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; "Functional Assessment Approach for High Gradient Streams, West Virginia", written for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) June 2007, published by the USACE; http://training.fws.gov/courses/csp/csp3ll2/resources/Wetland Assessment Met hodologies/FunctionalAssessment-HighGradientStreams.pdf . U.S. Geological Survey, Virginia State Geological Map Compilation, https://mrdata.usgs.gov/qeolog V/state/map.htm I?x=- 78.8464152525638&y=37.5165737850333&z=7#. Vannote, R.L., G. W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell, and C.E. Cushing in "The River Continuum Concept", 1980, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37: 130-137. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Physiographic Provinces of Virginia, http://www.deg.virginia.gov/Programs/Water/WaterSuPplyWaterQuantity/Ground waterProtectionSteeringComm ittee/PhysiographicProvincesofVirginia.aspx. White, William B., Geomorphology and Hydrology of Karst Terrains, 1988, Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, New York. Page 50 of 52 Curriculum vitae for Pamela Crowson Dodds, Ph.D., L.P.G. P.O. Box 217 Montrose, WV 26283 pamelarta-h ug hes. net My education includes a bachelor's degree in Geology and a doctoral degree in Marine Science (specializing in Marine Geology), both from the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, VA. I have a Credential in Ground Water Science from Ohio State University and I am a Licensed Professional Geologist. I have held teaching positions at the high school level and at the college level, and have provided geology and hydrogeology presentations, workshops, and classes to state and federal environmental employees, to participants in the Regional Conference in Cumberland, MD for the American Planning Association, and to participants in the WV Master Naturalist classes. I have served as an expert witness in hydrogeology before West Virginia government agencies. As a Hydrogeological Consultant (2000 — Present), I have conducted hydrogeological investigations, provided hydrogeological assessment reports, served as an expert witness in hydrogeology before the West Virginia Public Service Commission in three cases and before the West Virginia Environmental Quality Board in one case, and provided numerous presentations and workshops in hydrogeology to state and federal environmental employees (including USFWS and WV FEMA Managers), participants in the Regional Conference in Cumberland, MD for the American Planning Association, participants at civic and landowner meetings, and participants in the WV Master Naturalist classes. As a Senior Geologist for the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (1997-1999), 1 determined direction of groundwater flow and the pollution impacts to surface water and groundwater at petroleum release sites and evaluated corrective actions conducted where petroleum releases occurred. At sites where the Commonwealth of Virginia assumed responsibility for the pollution release investigation and corrective action implementation, I managed the site investigations for the Southwest Regional Office of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). This included project oversight from contract initiation through closure. As a Senior Geologist and Project Manager for the Environmental Department at S&ME, Inc. (Blountville, TN, 1992-1997), 1 conducted geology and groundwater investigations. I supervised technicians, drill crews, geologists, and subcontractors. The investigations were conducted in order to obtain permits for landfill sites and to satisfy regulatory requirements for corrective actions at petroleum release sites. My duties also included conducting geophysical investigations using seismic, electrical resistivity, and ground penetrating radar techniques. I conducted numerous environmental assessments for real estate transactions. I also conducted wetlands delineations and preparation of wetlands mitigation permits. As the District Geologist for the Virginia Department of Transportation (1985-1992), my job duties included obtaining and interpreting geologic data from fieldwork and review of drilling information in order to provide foundation recommendations for bridge and road construction. My duties included supervision of the drill crew and design of asphalt and Page 51 of 52 concrete pavements for highway projects. Accomplishments included preliminary foundation investigations for interstate bridges and successful cleanup of leaking underground gasoline storage tanks and site closures at numerous VDOT facilities. While earning my doctoral degree at the College of William and Mary, I worked as a graduate assistant on several grant -funded projects. My work duties included measuring tidal current velocities and tidal fluctuations at tidal inlets; land surveying to determine the geometry and morphology of numerous tidal inlets; determining pollution susceptibilities of drainage basins using data from surface water flow parameters, hydrographs, and chemical analyses; developing a predictive model for shoreline erosion during hurricanes based on calculations of wave bottom orbital velocities resulting from various wind velocities and directions; performing sediment size and water quality analyses on samples from the Chesapeake Bay and James River; conducting multivariate statistical analyses for validation of sediment laboratory quality control measures; reconnaissance mapping of surficial geologic materials in Virginia, North Carolina, and Utah for publication of USGS Quaternary geologic maps; teaching Introductory Geology laboratory classes at the College of William and Mary; and serving as a Sea Grant intern in the Department of Commerce and Resources, Virginia. EDUCATION: College of William and Mary Williamsburg, VA 23185 Ph.D., 1984 Major: Marine Science (Marine Geology) Flint Hill Preparatory Fairfax, VA High School Diploma, 1968 JOB-RELATED TRAINING COURSES: College of William and Mary Williamsburg, VA 23185 B.A., 1972 Major: Geology 2007: Certified Volunteer Stream Monitor, West Virginia (Dept. of Environmental Protection) 2006: Certified Master Naturalist, West Virginia (Dept. of Natural Resources) 1996: Karst Hydrology, Western Kentucky University 1996: Global Positioning Systems (GPS) for Geographic Information Systems (GIS) applications, seminar conducted by Duncan-Parnell/Trimble 1995: Safe Drinking Water Teleconference, sponsored by the American Water Works Association 1992-1998: OSHA Hazardous Waste Site Supervisor training with annual updates 1990: Credential in Ground Water Science, Ohio State University JOB-RELATED LICENSE: PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS Licensed Professional Geologist: TN #2529 West Virginia Academy of Sciences National Speleological Society Page 52 of 52 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. F.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: December 20, 2016 The petition of Kimberly J. Bolden (Triple J Farm Events, LLC) to obtain a Special Use Permit in a AG -1, Agricultural/Rural Low Density, District and AG -3, Agricultural/Rural Preserve, District for the operation of a special events facility on approximately 14.954 acres, located at 5198 Blacksburg Road, Catawba Magisterial District Philip Thompson Deputy Director of Planning Thomas C. Gates County Administrator Consent agenda item for first reading of an ordinance. BACKGROUND: The first reading on this ordinance is accomplished by adoption of this ordinance in the manner of consent agenda items. The adoption of these items does not imply approval of the substantive content of the requested zoning actions; rather, approval satisfies the procedural requirements of the County Charter and schedules the required public hearing and second reading of these ordinances. The second reading and public hearing on this ordinance is scheduled for January 24, 2017. The title of this ordinance is as follows: 1. The petition of Kimberly J. Bolden (Triple J Farm Events, LLC) to obtain a Special Use Permit in a AG -1, Agricultural/Rural Low Density, District and AG -3, Agricultural/Rural Preserve, District for the operation of a special events facility on approximately 14.954 acres, located at 5198 Blacksburg Road, Catawba Magisterial District. Page 1 of 2 DISCUSSION: There is no discussion on this agenda item. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact on this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends as follows: 1. That the Board approve and adopt the first reading of this rezoning ordinance for the purpose of scheduling the second reading and public hearing for January 24, 2017. 2. That this section of the agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth as Item(s) 1, and that the Clerk is authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this action. Page 2 of 2 County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning 5204 Bernard Drive P O Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 P2 - For Staff Use Only I?ate receiver Check type of application fileyl (check all that apply) by: �Applicants name/address w/zip Phone: ( Ja l 1( -"Received CK ff Applicata e; O er' n e/address Phone #: �YD -- ,�i —:5700 l Work: PC./BZA d e: 1 Q 0.00 Magisterial District: Placards issued: ccaC.rS."LLI- SCC Va. A010 d BOS date. Existing Zoning: �v: Size of parcel(s): Acres: 11"! T L� l Case Number Proposed Zoning: P Proposed land Use: ry Fad � ALL APPLICANTS Check type of application fileyl (check all that apply) Rezoning Special UseV Variance Waiver Administrative Appeal Comp Plan (15.2-2232) Review �Applicants name/address w/zip Phone: ( Work: !V, 1 1 l f S Cell #: C CL CK .� U Fax No.: _ 0 O er' n e/address Phone #: �YD -- ,�i —:5700 l Work: 51 Fax No. #: � 1 Q Property ation� 51 W S r l (.l.CA^C` t.I +` ] Magisterial District: Community Planning area ccaC.rS."LLI- SCC Va. A010 d Tax Map No.: 14-00-01-09 Existing Zoning: �v: Size of parcel(s): Acres: 11"! Existing Land Use:$@ REZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WAIVER AND COMP PLAN (15.2-2232) REVIEW APPLICANTS (R/SIW/CP) Proposed Zoning: P Proposed land Use: ry Fad � Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? YestZ No C IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes No F IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes f. No VARIANCE, CE, WAIVER AND ADMINISTRATE APPEAL APPLICANTS (VI W/AA) 7 Variance/Waiver of Secfion of the Roanoke County Z rdinance in o Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to ** Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): f the Roanoke County Zonin t dinanfMV 2 12016 Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NO ACCEPTED IF k F THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. R/S/W/ P V/AA R/SIW P VIAA R/S/WI P V/A4 Consultation 8 1/2" x 11" concept plan Apphca o ee Application Metes and bounds description Proffers, if applicable Justification Water and sewer application r Adjoining property owners I hereby certify that I am either the owner of th property or the o er'swent r contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent f the owner. /� / Owner's Signature 2 JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT WAIVER OR COMP PLAN (15.2-2232) REVIEW REQUESTS Applicant fl The Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use permit waiver or community plan (15.2-2232) review requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance_ Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. 3 CONCEPT PLAN CHECKLIST A concept plan of the proposed project must be submitted with the application. The concept plan shall graphically depict the land use change, development or variance that is to be considered. Further, the plan shall address any potential land use or design issues arising from the request. In such cases involving rezonings, the applicant may proffer conditions to limit the future use and development of the property and by so doing, correct any deficiencies that may not be manageable by County permitting regulations. The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Site plan and building permit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development regulations and may require changes to the initial concept plan. Unless limiting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent permitted by the zoning district and other regulations. A concept plan is required with all rezoning, special use permit, waiver, community plan (15.2-2232) review and variance applications. The plan should be prepared by a professional site planner. The level of detail may vary, depending on the nature of the request. The County Planning Division staff may exempt some of the items or suggest the addition of extra items, but the following are considered minimum: ALS APPLICANTS a. Applicant name and name of development b. Date, scale and north arrow c. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions d. Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties e. Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. f. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties g. All property lines and easements <� h. All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights i.Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the development —Zi . Dimensions and Iocations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces Additional information required for REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS k. Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site 1. Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers m. Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals n. Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections o. Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants p. Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed q. If project is to be phased, please show phase schedule I certify that all items required in the checklist above are complete. Si atur of apph7_ 1 Date C: s p Community Development o Planning & Zoning Division a X818 POTENTIAL OF NEED FOR TRAFFIC .ANALYSIS AND/OR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY The fallowing is a list of potentially high traffic -generating land uses and road network situations that could elicit a more detailed analysis of the existing and proposed traffic pertinent to your rezoning, subdivision waiver, public street waiver, or special use permit request. If your request involves one of the items on the ensuing list, we recommend that you meet with a County planner, the County traffic engineer, and/or Virginia Department of Transportation staff to discuss the potential additional traffic related information that may need to be submitted with the application in order to expedite your application process. (Note this list is not inclusive and the County staff and VDOT reserve the right to request a trafi`1c study at any time, as deemed necessary.) High Traffic --Generating Land Uses: • Single-family residential subdivisions, Mufti -family residential units, or Apartments with more than 75 dwelling units • Restaurant (with or without drive-through windows) • Gas station/Convenience store/Car wash • Retail shop/Shopping center • Offices (including: financial institutions, general, medical, etc.) • Regional public facilities • Educational/Recreational facilities • Religious assemblies • Hotel/Motel • Golf course • Hospital/Nursing home/Clinic • Industrial site/Factory • Day care center • Bank Non-specific use requests Road Network Situations: • Development adjacent to/with access onto/within 500 -ft of intersection of a roadway classified as an arterial road (e.g., Rte 11, 24, 115, 117, 460, 11/460, 220, 221, 419, etc) • For new phases or changes to a development where a previously submitted traffic study is more than two (2) years old and/or roadway conditions have changed significantly • When required to evaluate access issues • Development with ingress/egress on roads planned or scheduled for expansion, widening, improvements, etc. (i.e. on Long Range Transportation Plan, Six -Yr Road Plan, etc.) • Development in an area where there is a known existing traffic and/or safety problem • Development would potentially negatively impact existing/planned traffic signal(s) • Substantial departure from the Community Plan • Any site that is expected to generate over one hundred (100) trips during the peak hour of the traffic generator or the peak hour on the adjacent streets, or over seven hundred fifty (750) trips in an average day Effective date: April 19, 2005 7 4 V-toAty0 F Community Development z Planning &Zoning Division D z Y838 NOTICE TO APPLICANTS FOR REZONING, SUBDIVISION WAIVER, PUBLIC STREET WAIVER, OR SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITION PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE PROCEDURE The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver or Special Use Permit petition if new or additional information is presented at the public hearing. If it is the opinion of the majority of the Planning Commissioners present at the scheduled public hearing that sufficient time was not available for planning staff and/or an outside referral agency to adequately evaluate and provide written comments and suggestions on the new or additional information prior to the scheduled public hearing then the Planning Commission may vote to continue the petition. This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the new or additional information and provide written comments and suggestions to be included in a written memorandum by planning staff to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall consult with planning staff to determine if a continuance may be warranted. POTENTIAL OF NEED FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSES AND/OR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver, or Special Use Permit petition if the County Traffic Engineer or staff from the Virginia Department of Transportation requests further traffic analyses and/or a traffic impact study that would be beneficial in making a land use decision (Note: a list of potential land uses and situations that would necessitate further study is provided as part of this application package). This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the required traffic analyses and/or traffic impact study and to provide written comments and/or suggestions to the planning staff and the Planning Commission. If a continuance is warranted, the applicant will be notified of the continuance and the newly scheduled public hearing date. d to Effective date: April 19, 2005 8 APPLICATION FOR WEDDING EVENTS TRIPLE j FARM EVENTS, LLC NOVEMBER 23, 2016 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION,. me one awes one moo sea we a me* amas..................s..ss2 OUTDOOR SPECIFICS..........................................2 SAFETY PLAN........... moseseewe amass ass*@@ awe ass moo****** **a* s....3 PARKING PLS.N..........i.........................................3 LIGHTINU SPECIFICS,.... •.... •.•... s rr. rr r rr r rr r rr r rr r rr r rr r r.. �i SANITIZATION PLAN......i •,....... ■.. • •........... i..........$ FOODSAFETY..sea ....saesass .....r.meows ........si..sss.....s,s....4 NOISE.. sea @as see so* one amass. on ass a so a awe soon* seem as a none ass @meows ass sams.s4 ADVERTISING........... assess ....s..............s s as. •.,.. •,......ss6 FUTURE LAND USE.............................................�► OTHER ATTACHMENTS ....................................... i INTRODUCTION Kimberly Bolden, owner of Triple J Farm Events, LLC is applying for an outdoor special use B permit, to be allowed to hold outdoor weddings on Saturdays from May through October, and possibly a few small Christmas parties in December. The property is agriculture, but will not be effected by events, which will only be taken place in front of property, and in and around barn. I will work with Roanoke County and comply with all guidelines to limit or eliminate any negative impact on the community and surrounding neighbors. I believe this will only improve property value and will meet a large need in the county for this type of business. I am taking advantage of a recent code put in place for this type of business. OUTDOOR SPECIFICS Triple J Farm Events is specifically going to be used for weddings and some small events. The barn is approximately 36 x 48 and holds 85 people inside and no more than 150 people outside. Clients will be able to arrive day before event to have rehearsals and decorate. There will be approximately 12-15 weddings a year, and a couple events in December. Triple J Farm will furnish porta johns, which Va. Board of Health requires one john for every 100 guest. They will be delivered Friday before event and picked up on Monday after. There will be food trucks for catering at some events. SAFETY PLAN One of our main goals is to ensure the safety of all our guests. To that end, we have consulted with Deputy Fire Marshall, Scott Jones, and will be working with Roanoke County Fire Dept. I am required to purchase one large fire extinguisher for barn, with classification code 2A1 DBC. We also have one outside faucet near back of barn. We will have three to five employees, depending on number of guests. All employees will be dressed and wearing name tags to be easily found, if needed. PARKING PLAN AND CIRCULATION Triple J Farm Events provides onsite parking for employees and guests (see map). There will be signs directing guests to parking and an event employee will be directing traffic also. Traffic flow will enter at barn and exit on other side of house eliminating congestion on Blacksburg Rd. There will be additional parking, if needed, in front field. We will put NO PARKING signs along Blacksburg Rd. to keep vehicles away from road. LIGHTING SPECIFICS We have used low lighting to ensure to not affect our surrounding neighbors. These rope lights are lining our outside fencing and are running along our back porch. We have a dusk of dawn light on end of barn facing 5180 property. Most lights will be turned off by 10pm May thru October. SANITIZATION PLAN Triple J Farm has been working closely with Tidy services. We will provide a part -a -john for use at each event and they will contain running water, hand sanitizer and paper towels. Hand sanitizer will be near all food areas, as well. Addition to our residential trash can we will need to add another large can for trash and pick-up. FOOD SAFETY PLAN Food trucks and outside catering only from respected local food services and catering businesses will be delivering food. NOISE All events will have music in some form, most are Djs with amps and some will be live bands. Triple J Farm will control noise levels, if believe is effecting neighbors or livestock. All music will stop by 10pm. ADVERTISING Triple J Farm Events will advertise mostly by social media. We do have a sign at front, and alongside Blacksburg Rd. In addition, we have a web page and would like to enter into bridal shows and join the Roanoke wedding network. FUTURE LAND USE Triple J Farm will continue to be in land use, and will not be effected by these events. We will continue to raise beef cattle, and will be highly protected from outside guests and traffic. The area where livestock is, will be totally separate from venue. !)®{ � /]]!; 2 ` � � « - _ ))k{���° 2 70 ! 'E/{Q E/ ; co Co 0 fk,l�.!!, . 00 |};EE«¥..� c . . \mc Hl - 7 �\\�,§�) /®!E E � October 1, 2016 To whom it may concern, I, ZtJ� owner of 5198 Blacksburg Road, Catawba, Virginia 24070 give Kimberly Bolden, o er of Triple J Farm Events, permission to operate her wedding venue on this property. Thank you, 1 Charlotte W Johnston 21 U) � m 0 2 LO ® a ~ ® D . 21 U) � m 0 2 LO LT®)k!§f\�z' 101211201$ Location 5198 BLACKSBURG RD Summary Property Account Number 2370 Parcel ID 014.00-01-08.00-0000'' Old Parcel ID -- Current Property Mailing Address Owner JOHNSTON CHARLOTTE W LIFE EST City CATAWBA State VA Address 5198 BLACKSBURG RD Zip 24070 Jurisdiction-ZoningCode-Multiple Zonings Description Current Property Sales Information Sale Date 812812015 Legal Reference DB201508325 - - - Sale Price 0 Grantor(Seller) JOHNSTON,CHARLOTTE W Current Property Assessment Card 1 Value Year 2016 Building Value 216,600 Xtra Features Value 38,700 Land Area 14.95 - AC Land Value 96,300 Total Value 351,600 Narrative Description This property contains 14.95 -AC of land mainly classified as RURAL HS with a(n)RURAL HS style building, built about 1979, having CEDAR 1 REDW exterior andCORR/SHT MET roof cover, with 0 unit(s), 0 total room(s), 4 total ,bedroom(s), 3 total bath(s), 0 total half bath(s), 0 total 314 bath(s). Legal Description NEW LT 2A SUR FOR JAMES M & CHARLOTTE W JOHNSTON �1 http:/iwebpro.roanokecountyva.gov/Sum mary.asp?AccountN umber= 2370 111 Unofficial Property record Card - Roanoke County, Virginia General Property Data Parcel ID 014.00-01.08,01.0000 Prior Parcel ID — Property Owner JOHNSTON CHARLOTTE W LIFE EST Mailing Address 5198 BLACKSBURG RD City CATAWBA Mailing State VA Zip 24070 Account Number 2371 Property Location 0 BLACKSBURG RD Property Use RURAL AC Most Recent Sale Date 812812015 Legal Reference OB201508324 Grantor JOHNSTON, CHARLOTTE W Sale Price 0 Jurisdiction ZoningCode-County-AG3-Agriculturaf/Rural Land Area 12.2 -AC Description Preserve Current Property Assessment Card 1 Value Building Value 0 Xtra Features 0 Value Building Style NIA # of Living Units N/A Year Built NIA Style/Story Height NIA Insulation NIA Finished Area (SF) NIA Number Rooms 0 # of 314 Baths 0 Land Value 33,600 Total Value 33,600 Building Description Foundation Type NIA Frame Type NIA Roof Structure NIA Roof Cover NIA Primary Ext. Siding NIA Interior Wails NIA # of Bedrooms 0 # of 112 Baths 0 Legal Description NEW LT 2 B SUR FOR JAMES M & CHARLOTTE W JOHNSTON CATAWBA Narrative Description of Property Flooring Type NIA Basement Floor NIA Heating Type NIA Heating Fuel NIA Air Conditioning 0% # of Bsmt Garages 0 # of Full Baths 0 # of Other Fixtures 0 This property contains 12.2 -AC of land mainly classified as RURAL AC with a(n) NIA style building, built about NIA , having N/A exterior and NIA roof cover, with NIA unit(s), 0 room(s), 0 bedrooms 0 bath(s), 0 half bath(s). Property Images S. n E i E � gg 1 z E E S G Y> Disclaimer. This information is believed to be correct but is subject to change and is not warranteed. Unofficial Property Record Card - Roanoke County, Virginia General Property Data Parcel ID 014.00-01-04.00-0000 Prior Parcel ID — Property Owner UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Mailing Address XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX City XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Mailing State XX Zip 99998 Account Number 2366 Property Location 0 BLACKSBURG Rif Property Use FEDERAL Most Recent Sale Date 2/2212005 Legal Reference CH0212212005 Grantor UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Sale Price 0 Jurisdiction -ZoningCode- County -AG 3-Agricultural/RuraI Preserve Land Area 3.54 -AC Description Current Property Assessment Card 1 Value Building Value 0 Xtra Features 0 Value Building Style NIA # of Living Units NIA Year Built NIA Style/Story Height NIA Insulation NIA Finished Area (SF) NIA Number Rooms 0 # of 314 Baths 0 Land Value 3,500 Total Value 3,500 Building Description Foundation Type NIA Frame Type NIA Roof Structure NIA Roof Cover NIA Primary Ext. Siding NIA Interior Walls NIA # of Bedrooms 0 # of 112 Baths 0 Legal Description PT LT 2 SUR FOR JERRY MORGAN EST CATAWBA Narrative Description of Property Flooring Type NIA Basement Floor NIA Heating Type NIA Heating Fuel NIA Air Conditioning 0% # of Bsmt Garages 0 # of Full Baths 0 # of Other Fixtures 0 This property contains 3.54 - AC of land mainly classified as FEDERAL with a(n) NIA style building, built about NIA, having NIA exterior and NIA roof cover, with NIA unit(s), 0 room(s), 0 bedrooms 0 bath(s), 0 half bath(s). Property Images �x 3 , Y- V» t ry Disclaimer. This information is believed to be correct but is subject to change and is not warranteed. Unofficial Property Record Card - Roanoke County, Virginia General Property Data Parcel ID 014.00-01-07.00-0000 Prior Parcel ID -- Property Owner CALDWELL-BONO DEBORAH BONO BENNY ANDREW Mailing Address 51 BO BLACKSBURG RD City CATAWBA Mailing State VA Zip 24070 Jurisdiction-ZoningCode-Multiple Zonings Description Account Number 2369 Property Location 5180 BLACKSBURG RD Property Use RURAL HS Most Recent Sale Date 71712003 Legal Reference D80200316979 Grantor CALDWELL DEBORAH S Sale Price 0 Land Area 26.57 - AC Current Property Assessment Card 1 Value Building Value 293,600 Xtra Features 28,000 Land Value 132,300 Total Value 453,900 Value Building Style RURAL HS # of Living Units 0 Year Built 1995 Style/Story Height CONTEMPORARY Insulation NIA Finished Area (SF) 3250 Number Rooms 0 # of 314 Baths 0 Building Description Foundation Type CONT FOOTING Frame Type Roof Structure GABLE Roof Cover ASPICOMP SHN Primary Ext. Siding CEDAR I REDW Interior Walls DRYWALL # of Bedrooms 3 # of 112 Baths 1 Legal Description MAJ PT LT 3 SUR FOR JERRY MORGAN EST CATAWBA Narrative Description of Property Flooring Type CARPET Basement Floor N/A Heating Type AIR -DUCTED Heating Fuel GAS Air Conditioning 100% # of Bsmt Garages 0 # of Full Baths 3 # of Other Fixtures 0 This property contains 26.57 - AC of land mainly classified as RURAL HS with a(n) RURAL HS style building, built about 1995 , having CEDAR I REDW exterior and ASPICOMP SHN roof cover, with 0 unit(s), 0 rooms 3 bedroom s , 3 bath s 1 half bath's'. Property Images No Picture u1M ��6 Ill W n ua A,,-,flabl Disclaimer. This information is believed to be correct but is subject to change and is not warranteed. Unofficial Property Record Card - Roanoke County, Virginia General Property Data Parcel ID 007.00-0250.00-0000 Prior Parcel ID — Property Owner CALDWELL-BONO DEBORAH BONO BENNY ANDREW Mailing Address 5180 BLACKSBURG RD City CATAWBA Mailing State VA Zip 24070 Jurisdiction-ZoningCode-County-AG1-Agricultural/Rural Low Description Density Account Number 2011' Property Location 5195 BLACKSBURG RD Property Use RURAL HS Most Recent Sale Date 711712003 Legal Reference CH0711712003 b Grantor Sale Price 0 Land Area 45.82 - AC Current Property Assessment Card 1 Value Building Value 0 Xtra Features 126,600 Land Value 258,300 Total Value 384,900 Value Building Style NIA # of Living Units NIA Year Built NIA Style/Story Height NIA Insulation NIA Finished Area (SF) NIA Building Description Foundation Type NIA Frame Type NIA Roof Structure NIA Roof Cover NIA Primary Ext. Siding NIA Interior Walls NIA Flooring Type NIA Basement Floor NIA Heating Type NIA Heating Fuel NIA Air Conditioning 09i6 # of Bsmt Garages 0 Number Rooms 0 # of Bedrooms 0 # of Full Baths 0 # of 314 Baths 0 # of 1I2 Baths 0 # of Other Fixtures 0 Legal Description MAJ PT TR A CATAWBA Narrative Description of Property This property contains 45.82 - AC of land mainly classified as RURAL HS with a(n) NIA style building, built about NIA, having NIA exterior and NIA roof cover, with NIA unit(s), 0 room(s), 0 bedroom's), 0 bath's), 0 half bath's). imaaes Disclaimer. This information is believed to be correct but is subject to change and is not warranteed. Unofficial Property Record Card - Roanoke County, Virginia General Property Data ParcellD 014.00-01-09.00-0000 Prior Parcel ID - Property Owner HENSLEY JAMES C Mailing Address 5216 BLACKSBURG RD City CATAWBA Mailing State VA Zip 24070 Account Number 2372 Property Location 5218 BLACKSBURG RD Property Use RURAL HS Most Recent Sale Date 10131/2005 Legal Reference CH1013112005 x Grantor HENSLEY JAMES C & SUSAN B Sale Price 0 Jurisdiction-ZoningCode-Multiple Zonings Land Area 27.59 -AC Description Current Property Assessment Card 1 Value Building Value 124,900 Xtra Features 12,300 Land Value 129,700 Total Value 266,900 Value Building Description Building Style RURAL HS Foundation Type CONT FOOTING Flooring Type CARPET # of Living Units 0 Frame Type Basement Floor NIA Year Built 1990 Roof Structure GABLE Heating Type HEAT PUMP StylelStory Height RANCH WITH Roof Cover ASPICOMP SHN Heating Fuel ELECTRIC BASEMENT Insulation NIA Primary Ext. Siding FACE BRICK Air Conditioning 100% Finished Area (SF) 1336 Interior Walls DRYWALL # of Bsmt Garages 2 Number Rooms 0 # of Bedrooms 3 # of Full Baths 2 # of 314 Baths 0 # of 112 Baths 0 # of Other Fixtures 0 Legal Description MAJ PT LT 1 SUR FOR JERRY MORGAN EST CATAWBA Narrative Description of Property This property contains 27.59 - AC of land mainly classified as RURAL HS with a(n) RURAL HS style building, built about 1990 , having FACE BRICK exterior and ASPICOMP SHN roof cover, with 0 unit sl, 0 room's}, 3 bedroom(-), 2 bath's), 0 half bath's}. Property images Disclaimer: This information is believed to be correct but is subject to change and is not warranteed czl) CZ .. i": f-) �, � r � av Y } t1 ,� Ig I °Mt{aE �{ k aY 1��z .�yz'si. �1. � tt � .Y 1C1 %k �Y.'��� I�� �fi- �� 11 I � r 4 �� �4y�'� k � _ r "t y L r� �.....� �' � � >r � � �.i �� � � � * t � E ..I e3.. ' b w, , I, i i I c r _ � �; ��� moi. � � , � � .-_ ;`� r{�1 �.� � �... a 1�7 � :ra .Y� .. 1 I I I _� s G w Screenshot_2016103 0-031900_png <- Reviews 5* 22 4* 3* 2* 1* 5.0 of 5 stars from 22 ratings Jenny Marie reviewed Triple J Farm Events — em Sep 18 at 11:40pm • 0 Such a gorgeous venue and super sweet owners would def recommend this venue for weddings and events everything is flawless and there are no words to describe all the beauty of every piece by piece details of the venue job well done!!! ( Courtney Bolden and Lisa Whorley jib Like 1P comment 2 Comments 4 Share T.J. Wells reviewed Triple J Farm Events — �� Jct 3 ai 4:71 m • 10 p Can you ever ask for more than a beautiful location and a wonderful venue? Of course you can! How about incredible owners and fantastic customer service? If you're getting married, I HIGHLY suggest you check out Triple J Farm Events for your venue! You won't be disappointed! 0 You, Lisa Whorley and Alice Johnston Prather 2 Comments Page 1 of 1 https://mail.google.com/,/ses/mail-static//js/k—gmail.main.en.B91bvZOFvbY.0/mom i,... 10/30/2016 Screenshot 20161030-031750.png <- Reviews Jennifer Savage -Pierson reviewed Triple J Farm Events — 40 Oct 3 at 11:25pm ° 0, 1 had been with my boyfriend for almost ten years and wanted to find a venue where we could have the wedding of our dreams with kind vendors who would make the process as easy as possible. Being their FIRST wedding, I cannot say enough incredible things about this venue. I had over half of my friends tell me that I had their'dream wedding' and the location and venue was a huge part of it. Kim and her family were so invested in our wedding and that meant the world to dan and I. 1 did the footwork. I looked other places and triple j farms is the BEST. Just go look at it and I promise you'll fall in love. I know I did. THANK YOU KIM! 00 You, Lisa Whorley and Alice Johnston Prather Q Lore Comment 1 Comment A Share Buddy Angela Italiano reviewed Triple J Farm Events — +D Sep 23 at 7:40pm • 0 I had the pleasure of meeting with Kim today. She makes you feel right at home.. Breath taking is about all I can say about the farm. Kim has put her heart and sole into Triple J Farm. I look forward to working with her in the future. I highly recommend Triple J Farm Events. You will not leave disappointed! 0 Courtney Bolden and Lisa Whorley 1 Comment J - Page 1 of 1 haps://mail.gaogle.com/ /ses/mail-staticf /js/k—gmail.main.en.BRlbvZO vbY.O/m=in i,... 10/30/2016 Screenshot20161030-031808.png <- Reviews Michelle Sowder reviewed Triple J Farm Events — 4D Oct 29 at 2:57pm - 0 This place is beautiful!! If this would have been available 2 years ago, when I got married, I would have chosen this!! 0 Triple J Farm Events 1 Comment idr Like * comment 4 Share Donna Montgomery reviewed Triple J Farm Events — em Aug 20 at 12:11 am • 0 Thoughtful attention to every detail. Kim is so pleasant to work with. The venue is absolutely beautiful. Kim has a way of putting her special touches on everything. A magical night. THANK YOU for making this evening so PERFECT. 1 Comment Holly Clyburn reviewed Triple J Farm Events — m Sep 13 at 10:45am • 0 Beautiful venue. Terrific attention to detail. Loved taking pictures there and look forward to photographing the upcoming wedding. Page 1 of 1 https://mail.google.com/—/ses/mail-static/ /js/k=gmail.main.en.B91bvZOFvbY.0/min i,... 10/30/2016 Screenshot 20161030-031833.png f Reviews Mary Vargas Machaj reviewed Triple J Farm Events — W Jul 7 at 10:39pm - 0 Such an amazing location! And so easy to work with 0 Triple J Farm Events ii Like * Comment 4 Share ;,I Roger Mills reviewed Triple J Farm Events — May 29 at 4:19pm • 0 Great all new brides should look at it before they decide anything! 0 Triple J Farm Events jib Like 1P Comment Sarah Scott reviewed Triple J Farm Events — Jun 3 at'i :55pm • 0 BEAUTIFUL!! I can't wait to have my wedding here! 1 Comment jdl Like Lisa Whorley reviewed Triple J Farm Events — 40 Mar 18 at 6:53am - 0 ^—A n -..-rte. Page 1 of 1 https://mail.google.com! /ses/mail-static/ /js/k—gra;ail.main.en.B9lbvZOFOY.O/m=m i,... 10/30/2016 p '•� �� � .'� � � Lam. � � "� a � A) I 1 L gy Q Ea ..a N p V j T1 r 4c-�SQ 4, d r W E LL L C Q m LU E m LL Q L 0 E as 0 - CD CD Q O C i m 0 rn u m a� 0 to Ql 0 In C (] L U C O i7 m a Q3 rn in a� _O d C 49 CL C v Q ti vj S L Nk CD 15 v L ` n '� 1 u r`-� •a' '34 { t w iii Py �� I 0 MIR m I '� I I� I�� 1 'J IJ !�! ��� ��� . I� �� w a �. �; r �,� a► �;. ���. �F �: ��� � ,: � r 1. �, } .+ '' � ,� � zy(���,i. 1 p� )Li'F Y^t'i'c ria LL 00 O C'4 (n 0 OC) COO 0 CL U) 0 U) (D = CO N o o z rnm (7) .2 0)a U) 0 U) 0 N , CL O 0 U) CL CL 2 CL 2 x m 2 H m ma ga < LU IL IL < M Q Q M Q Q > Q Q Q> c� Q 00Q Q � Q M Q � M .00 Q r Q Q ¢ Q Q O O O o U O LL C (6 O 0 U) N O m (? C7 O m N � = U Q w O m O to Q 6 m Q Q o /yam Q U) W (6 OO N E (6 Z o N Z rn m CO N o o Q v 0' U) (n m a5 r _ - o o g .. .N Q Q Q N m rn Q o o x 2 m Q w a a Q 2 M Q M Q Y N 0Y N � O N w u�i J m O fl- LO CO N II m m > Y o'o E N 80 Z N h .0 o fl fn N 1 _ 1 U U) U n eee U U IL w CL u U U a > w CL w CL w CL w CL w CL a CL cd CL w CL w CL w Z U z U z U > O ° O '- O _0 U L N o U) (? LL N 0 O O Y N O w C6 o (? (� LLJ O ' O o o n Y10 00 p E U fl 5 rn O p CL U) N N v (6 N o NN a --_ m 00 Z E o N NU)ao _0 fA o Z rn E m m o fn 0 .Q 0) m .O U U Q .X w 0 a 0 a N < ACTION NO. ITEM NO. F.2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: December 20, 2016 The petition of Henry L. Bennett, IV to rezone approximately 0.67 acre from AR, Agricultural/Residential, District to AV, Agricultural/Village Center, District, located at 10102 Bent Mountain Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District Philip Thompson Deputy Director of Planning Thomas C. Gates County Administrator Consent agenda item for first reading of an ordinance. BACKGROUND: The first reading on this ordinance is accomplished by adoption of this ordinance in the manner of consent agenda items. The adoption of these items does not imply approval of the substantive content of the requested zoning actions; rather, approval satisfies the procedural requirements of the County Charter and schedules the required public hearing and second reading of these ordinances. The second reading and public hearing on this ordinance is scheduled for January 24, 2017. The title of this ordinance is as follows: 1. The petition of Henry L. Bennett, IV to rezone approximately 0.67 acre from AR, Agricultural/Residential, District to AV, Agricultural/Village Center, District, located at 10102 Bent Mountain Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. DISCUSSION: There is no discussion on this agenda item. Page 1 of 2 FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact on this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends as follows: 1. That the Board approve and adopt the first reading of this rezoning ordinance for the purpose of scheduling the second reading and public hearing for January 24, 2017. 2. That this section of the agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth as Item(s) 2, and that the Clerk is authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this action. Page 2 of 2 Countv of Roanoke Pte.- tLQDa8l9 For Staff Use Only Community Development Date received: Received by: Planning & Zoning 11 •-3-:�Oi 614a> Application fee: PC/BZA date: -AQ' ,A 5204 Bernard Drive P O Box 29800 Placards issued: BQs date: Roanoke, VA 24018 1 (540) 772-2065 FAX (540) 776-7155 Case Numbero cq ALL APPLICANTS Check type of application filed (check all that apply) ,Rezoning ❑ Special Use ❑ Variance ❑ Waiver ❑ Administrative Appeal ❑ Comp Plan (15.2-2232) Review Applicants name/address w/zip . " ' ' Phone: s`!D �/ 5 - y(- 6 3 t7 � �' P Work: SYQ 3-17- - 7 60 •,�f !G Be i/ +- Nti'E y `� /4L Cell #: S o Imo�i%lo eo 3atcoie- 2�i�! FaxNo.: 5YQ &V:5 - Y 9 Owner's name/address whip Phone #: S�mE Work: Fax No. #: Property Loca inn n , 6(n/T /12T. Magisterial District: WUSCG f Lf.S 10102- Community Planning area: 0 ,,r,- Imr• ✓�f�- z As Tax Map No.: 00 - Ori. • yW , OCA - d 0 o Existing Zoning: - aGlhrnuL.7'vl>,,a �- PPXrOP ,.zrat. Size of parcel(s): Acres: C)•' C7 Existing Land Use: ftpr- REZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WAIVER AND COMP PIAN 05.2-2232) REVIEW APPLICANTS (R/S/WICP) Proposed Zoning: AV - A COXCULT'09A t- 'VV/ -L -,CE Proposed Land Use: F(),,5 oP PL �El�`tsG Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes No ❑ IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Dues the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes No C IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes ❑ No ❑ VARIANCE, WAIVER AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL APPLICANTS (WW/AA) Variance/Waiver of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance in order to: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPT ANY OF ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. ^? R/SMCP VIAA R/S/W/CP V/AA R/ssrw/CP V/AA Consultation 8 1/2" x I1" concept plan Applicati' n`fee Application Mates and bounds description... Proffers, 'aOpl Justification Eli Water and sewer applieAtion Adjoining r s I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the property or the owner's gent gr'contract purchaser and am ac consent fthe owner. Owncr'; NOV 2 3 2016 de iAy Develo[)Mpt owners the knowledge and, 2 REQUESTS Applicant Ar4v,4 /, t6yAj°"rc�- !/ The Planning Conunission will study rezoning, special use permit waiver or community plan (15.2-2232) review requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan. Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. 3 CONCEPT PLAN CHECKLIST A concept plan of the proposed project must be submitted with the application. The concept plan shall graphically depict the land use change, development or variance that is to be considered. Further, the plan shall address any potential land use or design issues arising from the request. In such cases involving rezonings, the applicant may proffer conditions to limit the future use and development of the property and by so doing, correct any deficiencies that may not be manageable by County permitting regulations. The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan'or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Site plan and building permit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development regulations and may require changes to the initial concept plan. Unless limiting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent permitted by the zoning district and other regulations. A concept plan is required with all rezoning, special use permit, waiver, community plan (15.2-2232) review and variance applications. The plan should be prepared by a professional site planner. The level of detail may vary, depending on the nature of the request. The County Planning Division staff may exempt some of the items or suggest the addition of extra items, but the following are considered minimum: ALL APPLICANTS a. Applicant name and name of development b. Date, scale and north arrow c. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions d. Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties e. Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. ✓ f. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties g. All property lines and casements ✓" h. All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights ✓ i. Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the development j. Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces Additional information required for REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMITAPPLICANTS / k. Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site / 1. Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers ✓ m. Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals n. Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections o. Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants p. Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed q. If project is to be phased, please show phase schedule I certify that all items required in the checklist above are complete. Signature o` aapplicant Date *Ila Community Development Planning & Zoning Division POTENTIAL OF NEED FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND/OR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY The following is a list of potentially high traffic -generating land uses and road network situations that could elicit a more detailed analysis of the existing and proposed traffic pertinent to your rezoning, subdivision waiver, public street waiver, or special use permit request. If your request involves one of the items on the ensuing list, we recommend that you meet with a County planner, the County traffic engineer, and/or Virginia Department of Transportation staff to discuss the potential additional traffic related information that may need to be submitted with the application in order to expedite your application process. (Note this list is not inclusive and the County staff and VDDT reserve the right to request a traffic study at any time, as deemed necessary.) High Traffic --Generating Land Uses: • Single-family residential subdivisions, Multi -family residential units, or Apartments with more than 75 dwelling units • Restaurant (with or without drive-through windows) • Gas station/Convenience store/Car wash • Retail shop/Shopping center • Offices (including: financial institutions, general, medical, etc.) • Regional public facilities • Educational/Recreational facilities • Religious assemblies • Hotel/Motel • Golf course • Hospital/Nursing home/Clinic • Industrial site/Factory • Day care center • Bank • Non-specific use requests Road Network Situations: • Development adjacent to/with access onto/within 500 -ft of intersection of a roadway classified as an arterial road (e.g., Rte 11, 24, 115, 117, 460, 11/460, 220, 221, 419, etc) • For new phases or changes to a development where a previously submitted traffic study is more than two (2) years old and/or roadway conditions have changed significantly • When required to evaluate access issues • Development with ingress/egress on roads planned or scheduled for expansion, widening, improvements, etc. (i.e. on Long Range Transportation Plan, Six -Yr Road Plan, etc.) • Development in an area where there is a known existing traffic and/or safety problem • Development would potentially negatively impact existing/planned traffic signal(s) • Substantial departure from the Community Plan • Any site that is expected to generate over one hundred (100) trips during the peak hour of the traffic generator or the peak hour on the adjacent streets, or over seven hundred fifty (750) trips in an average day Effective date. April 79, 2005 111 O� VcOAIVO Community Development; Planning & Zoning Division o z U 1838 NOTICE TO APPLICANTS FOR REZONING, SUBDIVISION WAIVER, PUBLIC STREET WAIVER, OR SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITION PLANNING COIyIl nsSION APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE PROCEDURE The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver or Special Use Permit petition if new or additional information is presented at the public hearing. If it is the opinion of the majority of the Planning Commissioners present at the scheduled public hearing that sufficient time was not available for planning staff and/or an outside referral agency to adequately evaluate and provide written comments and suggestions on the new or additional information prior to the scheduled public hearing then the Planning Commission may vote to continue the petition. This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the new or additional information and provide written comments and suggestions to be included in a written memorandum by planning staff to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall consult with planning staff to determine if a continuance may be warranted. POTENTIAL OF NEED FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSES AND/OR TRAFFIC IWACT STUDY The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver, or Special Use Permit petition if the County Traffic Engineer or staff from the Virginia Department of Transportation requests filrther traffic analyses and/or a traffic impact study that would be beneficial in making a land use decision (Note: a list of potential land uses and situations that would necessitate fur~ther study is provided as part of this application package). This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the required traffic analyses and/or traffic impact study and to provide written comments and/or suggestions to the planning staff and the Planning Commission. If a continuance is warranted, the applicant will be notified of the continuance and the newly scheduled public hearing date. Effective date: April 99, 2005 Name of Petition Petitioner's Signature Date 7112!2016 JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING.docx JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT WAIVER OR COMP PLAN (15.2-2232) REVIEW REQUEST (RESPONSE) EX.1-(PG 3 OF APPLICATION) We are requesting a change in zoning at 10102 Bent Mountain Rd. Bent Mt. , Va. 24059 from AIR(Agri culturelRes€dential) to AV(Agricu€tureWiMage Center District. • Sec. .t , ; -Purpose. (A) The purpose of the AV, agricultural/village center district is to establish areas which will serve as the focal point for cultural and commercial activity of the rural service areas of the county, as envisioned in the comprehensive plan land use category of the same name. The density recommended for these areas is intended to average between one (` ) and three (3) units per acre. Small country stores, family restaurants, and similar small service and personal service businesses, in addition to public and institutional buildings such as schools, post offices and places of religious assembly, are commonly found at these crossroad locations. These areas bring a sense of community to the surrounding rural areas, with an emphasis on providing the essential goods and services to rural residents, but are not intended as employment destinations for urban residents. New development should therefore be carefully considered for its compatibility with the surrounding development and the purpose and intent of this district. Any expansion of these areas should be contiguous to existing village center areas to avoid leap -frog commercial development. Similarly additional development may warrant additional public services, such as community sewer and water systems. (Ord. No. 042799-11, §§ 1f., 2, 4-27-99; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 4-22-08) EX.2-(PG 3) We intend to completely restore this historical site to its original state. Our plan consists of opening a salonlBarbour shop to offer our services to the Bent Mt community and surrounding areas. This project will meet two separate guidelines and policies listed in the Roanoke County Community Plan Land Use Guide. #1- RURAL VILLAGE -(SECTION HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW) Land Use Types A future land use area where limited development activity has historically occurred and where suburban or urban development patterns are discouraged. These rural community and farming areas are generally in between the intense suburban development patterns already established in the County and the designated Conservation and Rural Preserve areas. Rural Housing - Low-density single-family residential generally averaging one unit per acre. Cluster developments are encouraged. Rural Community Centers - Nonresidential uses which serve rural residents such as outdoor recreation and park facilities, religious assembly facilities, schools, fire and rescue stations and clubs. Agricultural Production and Services - Livestock, orchards and crop productions, landscape and horticultural services, veterinary services, farm labor and farm management services. Generally including all activities that support land based uses. Forest and Wood Products - Includes the operation of timber tracts, tree farms, forest https:llconnecLemaiisrvr.com/owalW ebReadyView.aspx?t=att&id=RgAAAAAOpILYm9H sS4gvvv8CYui gBwD4uaF2wK7xS6M PI W pAA2n2AAAAHguTAAD4uaF... 116 7/12/2016 JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING.docx nurseries and the gathering of forest products. Excludes sawmills and large-scale timber cutting operations. Small Scale Commercial - Limited commercial operations that serve the local, rural community. Included would be personal services and retail convenience stores. Rural Parks and Outdoor Recreation - Parks and recreational facilities that are designed to preserve the environmentally sensitive character of the rural landscape. #2 -VILLAGE CENTER Land Use Types A future land use area which serves as the commercial and institutional focal point of surrounding rural residential and farming establishments. Here, the highest level of rural land use activities may occur. By nature, the majority of commercial and institutional activities in Village Center areas are designed, scaled and marketed to best serve the product and service needs of the residents from the surrounding rural areas. Agricultural Production and Services - Services which support the surrounding agricultural community. Parks and Outdoor Recreation - Small-scale facilities that serve the rural neighborhoods or are used for community purposes. These recreation facilities should be linked to the residential areas by greenways, bike trails and pedestrian paths. Eco -tourism - Facilities that serve a niche market and are often outdoor, sports oriented. Designed in an environmentally sensitive way to protect the valuable natural resources of the rural areas. Residential - Development at relatively high rural densities, generally not exceeding 6 units per acre and including single-family and two-family housing. Rural Community Centers - Includes institutional uses such as schools, religious assembly facilities, clubs and meeting rooms that serve the needs of the surrounding rural village residents. Convenience Retail - Establishments that provide retail goods and services to the surrounding rural village residents. Rural Highway Retail - Small-scale, rural establishments that provide retail goods and services to the passing motorists. These uses should be clustered in a village design that complements the rural surroundings. EX.3-(PG. 3) *Please see attached Business Plan in response to the impact on the property itself and the surrounding properties and surrounding areas. The impact on public services and facilities will include but not limited to a private well and septic for our water and sewer needs. We also will be connected to AEP for power and energy as well as Cox Communications for digital needs. We will be installing an entrance and exit for defined access. Our services will include haircare for all ages which will give our local residents the opportunity to use our service after school and or work. We are located a mile down from Bent Mt. Fire and Rescue in case of emergency. JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE REQUEST R EX. 1 -(PG 4)(FOR OUR PURPOSE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW) Permitted Uses. hUps'llconnect.em ai isrvr.com/0wa WebReadyV ew.aspx?t=att&id=RgAAAAAOpILYm9H sS4gvvv8CYul gBwD4uaF2wK7xS6M P!W pAA2n2AAAAH guTAAD4uaF... 2f6 711212016 JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING.docx (A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. 1. Agricultural and Forestry Uses Agriculture * Stable, Private Wayside Stand 2, 3 4. Residential Uses Accessory Apartment Home Beauty/Barber Salon Home Occupation, Type II Manufactured Home * Manufactured Home, Emergency Multiple Dog Permit * Residential Human Care Facility Single -Family Dwelling, Attached Single -Family Dwelling, Detached Two -Family Dwelling * Civic Uses Administrative Services Clubs * Community Recreation Cultural Services Day Care Center Educational Facilities, Primary/Secondary Family Day Care Home Paris and Ride Facility Post Office Public Paries and Recreational Areas Religious Assembly Safety Services * Utility Services, Minor Office Uses Financial Institutions General Office Medical Office htfps:llconnect.emaitsrvr.com/0waWebReadyView.aspx?t=att&id=RgAAAAAOptLYm9HsS4gvvv8CYul gBwD4uaF2wK7xS6M Pi W pAA2n2AAAAHguTAAD4uaF... 316 7112!2016 5. C� JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING.doex Commercial Uses Agricultural Services " Antique Shops * Bed and Breakfast Consumer Repair Services Personal Improvement Services Personal Services Restaurant, General " Studio, Fine Arts Veterinary Hospital/Clinic Miscellaneous Uses Amateur Radio Tower Wind Energy System, Small* EX.2-(PG. 4) Our property has been a staple in this community since 1949.It would be our goal to restore and keep true to the original footprint and character of the original business and structure. Business Proposal Salon 10102 Bent Mtn. Rd Our Objective: in this proposal is to inform you of our Business Plan and Venture. Our names are Chip & Crystal Bennett. We are from Roanoke VA and currently reside on Cotton Hill Road in Roanoke Va. 24018. We would like to offer at our location on Bent Mtn. a Salon to the residents of the Bent Mtn. area. We will offer the service of Cutting, Coloring, Styling, Washing, and Barber Cuts We will market the residents of Bent Mtn, are along with any residents traveling thru to Roanoke, for example Floyd Va.. : The management team will be Chip & Crystal Bennett. The husband and wife power team!! :Are goal in our finances is to remodel and renovate the facility to its original glory from the Bent MT Apple shed, which means using our natural and local resources more than our lender, using our lender might be necessary but we'd like to put our best efforts into restoring it ourselves.. Company As the owners we would like the experience to be fulfilling and memorable. The location is and up and coming area, but also staying true to the quaint beautiful bent mtn. and more services are wanted by the community in their area so travel is not always necessary into Roanoke (Town). The History of us as a family is 20 years and as a salon owner 10 years. Our goal is to achieve an operation that is a service to the community but also a place for the neighbors to call home. We also would eventually like to offer other services out of this building that would be beneficial to the community as deemed allowed by the county at that time. https:llconnect.emaiisrvr.comlowaMebReadyview.aspx?l=att&id=RgAAAAAOpILYm9Hs54gvw8CYulgBwD4uaF2wK7xS6M Pi W pAA2n2AAAAHguTAAD4uaF... 416 7/12/2016 JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING.docx Products : We will also offer the customers/clients to purchase hair products such as shampoos. :Compared to any competitors that we have there are very few out of the home salons in the area where you are offered a service/product in a localized setting that is easy accessible to the community.. The closest salon that we found was not until you reach Brambleton Ave. Production Plan We would like to keep our overhead low so the hiring of personnel will be numbered. We will use local suppliers when needed. Our equipment is minimum and mostly acquired. The property is accessible and of great history in the area, many people on Bent Mtn. recall visiting the location as a child, dating back 50 years. : If subcontractors are needed to fulfill County Requirements we cannot personally fulfill we will do so and with also local companies. : There will be no manufacturing costs with the salon. Market Research & Analysis : Our target market will be of all ages due to all ages and generations now living on the mountain and surrounding areas. Everyone needs a Haircut and they especially love one that is exceptional and where the feet there more than a number. : There is very little competition so it is sure to be a success in that regard alone. Marketing Strategy on site. Our Sales and Distribution will come from this location and be available We will not need to market to an extreme the location and the excemlerary service will speak for itself. : We are very excited about this opportunity and to bring back Grandaddy Bohons Location loved by us and the community For Your Time And Consideration Crystal Bennett Chip & https:llconnect.emaiisrvr.comlowalWebReadyView.aspx?t=att&id=RgAAAAAOpILYm9Hs54gvvv8CYulgBwD4uaF2wrK7xSBM Pi W pAA2n2AAAAHguTAAD4uaF... 516 Henry Bennett; Crystal Bennett 10102 Bent Mountain Road Roanoke, Virginia 24018 November 11, 2016 The Property Owners of 10102 Bent Mountain Road hereby proffer the following condition: 1. The property will be utilized only as a Financial Institution, General Office, Medical Office, Agricultural Services, Antique Shop, Consumer Repair Service, Personal Improvement Service, Personal Services, Fine Arts Studio, Veterinary Hospital/Clinic use, or Retail Sales use after obtaining a Special Use Permit. Henry I,, Bennett IV Crystal E. Bennett { V1NI�aln'.VNno�31loNvoa 5T11H ilO5NIM ml ml I \ g� s NOIionmISNOO aOd ION ilalRX3 ONIN02�21 _ = o of e W AlivNIMAl 8d avom NIV1NmW iN39 MIR z j x �, g. 3 ' NOIVS 2A1VH 119NNA8 o a aLu r.. . _ . .. e W g. .-2 n ug -cy l-p� 1H UP 'I.- Ell, wN�� 'zgo 3 z3. -N --H oo _ Hy baa 4.8 c a t - - ��:_•'_�=--- -•' - - `�i, v � 1 �- q�+ „tat q .,4�.. _. �, `\�v', 4'�.•- 'f'{: ;,�± L ` t ' S/.IZ ,t{ EI.,IL .Y� � �, � _� . ti�� 1, +i •:r�� r i IA v � m S CD 5 v Cq � C o Mn r 0 -a y a II Y to » W i3 ID In w Q U 'E.!2 {tl O C Q ❑ N e g v co O N a N z r - Q (O O 0) (9 o a`,tu , C m Lfl f Q �"�'�: � ,tom "Y "* �" ! rt• 1 14• � ps� � Yr �./ f .t\ t - - ��:_•'_�=--- -•' - - `�i, v � 1 �- q�+ „tat q .,4�.. _. �, `\�v', 4'�.•- 'f'{: ;,�± L ` t ' S/.IZ ,t{ EI.,IL .Y� � �, � _� . ti�� 1, +i •:r�� r i IA v � m S CD 5 v Cq � C o Mn r 0 -a y a II Y to » W i3 ID In w Q U 'E.!2 {tl O C Q ❑ N e g v co O N a N z r - Q (O O 0) (9 o a`,tu , C m Lfl f Q it s _z. r 21 R JJJ � ���e�Y +��!`,�. ,� :� �, 4 ' �= . • ,� N �r 41 1 I 0 KLI'Ountv Of Roanoke 3 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BUILDING PERMITS! INSPECTIONS DIRECTOR, ARNOLD COVEY DEVELOPMENT REVIEW i DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, TAREK MONEIR ENGINEERING DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, PHILIP THOMPSON ENVIROMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLANNING & ZONING TRANSPORTATION MEMORANDUM Date: November 10, 2016 To: Roanoke County Planning Commission From: Brian Hughes, Planner I Subject: Building Renovation (10 102 Bent Mountain Road) The property owner of 10102 Bent Mountain Road is petitioning to rezone the land parcel from the Agricultural/Residential to Agricultural Village zoning district, with the intent of operating a Salon (Personal Services) zoning use in an existing structure. The applicant intends to subcontract certain aspects of the building construction, while maintaining overall control of the project. To refurbish the existing pole barn structure for business use, the rezoning applicant intends to utilize provisions of the Virginia Rehabilitation Code. According to Morgan Yates, Roanoke County Building Commissioner, The Virginia Rehabilitation Code encourages property owners to utilize existing structures when possible, as opposed to building a new structure outright. Mr. Yates met with the rezoning applicant on November 10, 2016. In that meeting, Mr. Yates indicated the property owner would be engaging in Level Two work within the Rehabilitation Code. Mr. Yates states he would be happy to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have regarding the existing structure, including accompanying the body on a site visitation. In the November 10, 2016 meeting, Mr. Yates encouraged Mr. Bennett to seek the guidance of a licensed design professional. P.O. BOX 29800 - ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018 - PHONE (540) 772-2080 - FAX (540) 776-7155 Yl( � -k 9,9 9 C) 2 I�.Cl1ti`1Ca1:;- t. ,ca9if�: 11' Property Location: 10102 BENT MOUNTAIN RD Parcel ID: 111.00-02-44.00-0000 Magisterial District: WINDSOR HILLS Account: 46188 Card 1 of 1 Owner Name and Mailing Address: BENNETT HENRY L IV;BENNETT CRYSTAL E 6330 COTTON HILL RD ROANOKE VA 24018 Current Property Assessment 2016 Total Building Value: 0 Total Land Value: 26300 Total Value: 26300 a�- Narrative Description This property contains 0.67000 AC of land with a(n) COMMERCIAL style building, Built about 1950, having primary WOOD ON SHEATHING exterior and MODULAR METAL OR METAL roof cover, 0 bedroom(s), 0 full bath(s), 0 half bath(s). Property Characteristics Jurisdiction: COUNTY Legal Description: BENT MT Deeded Acreage: 0.67000 AC Neighborhood: J082 / BENT MOUNTAIN COMMERCIAL Estimated Acreage: 0.74757864 AC Census Block: 511610306003057 Vacant Land: NO Land Use Program: NO Sales Information Most Recent Sales Sale bate Sale Price Legal Reference Sales Description 5/14/2015 0 DB201504193 GIFT 1/1/1900 0 PBOI16800685 PLAT 911/1900 0 DBOO11680683 NEEDS REVIEW 1 1/16/2016 Property Location: I0102 BENT MOUNTAIN RD Parcel ID: 111.00-02-44.00-0000 Magisterial District: WINDSOR HILLS Account: 45188 Card 1 of 1 Zoning Information Split: NO Zoning Code Zoning Description County -AR Countv-AR/Agricultural/ Residential Action No: Date: Ordinance: Name: X211 w 2 1/16/2016 Property Location: 10102 BENT MOUNTAIN RD Parcel ID: 111.00-02-44.00-0000 Magisterial District: WINDSOR HILLS Account: 46188 Card 1 of 1 Overlay Districts Emergency Communications: N Roanoke River Conservation: No Airport: No *Manufactured Housing: No Wellhead Protection: No Clearbrook Village: No Floodplain: No *For more Information on Roanoke County Zoning, please call 540-772-2068 or visit http://www.roanokccountyva.pov/l)z Community Number: 510190 Flood Certificates FIRM Panel: Flood Zone: Building Type: COMMERCIAL Year Built: 1950 Finished Area (SF): GABLE Style/Story Height: 1.0 STORY Bedrooms: 0 Full Baths: 0 Half Baths: 0 Air Conditioning: Heating: SHEET VINYL Heating Type: NONE Heating Fuel: NONE Flood Zone Information Effective Date: Floodway: Building Description Foundation Type: CONTINUOUS FOOTING Roof Structure: GABLE Roof Cover: MODULAR METAL OR METAL Primary Exterior Wall: WOOD ON SHEATHING Secondary Exterior Wall: Primary Interior Walls: MASONRY / MINIMUM Secondary Interior Wall: Primary Floors: SHEET VINYL Secondary Floors: Basement Garage: Fireplace: 3 1116/2016 I�t3,3'ti:t ah9 IIS:.t aaif*. 11' Property Location: 10102 BENT MOUNTAIN RD Parcel ID: 111.00-02-44.00-0000 Magisterial District: W NDSOR HILLS Account: 46188 Card I of I Sub Arca BASE Building Areas Sketched Area Finished Area Perimeter 4320 4320 276 ®n s. B. 90 im Area By Label A'S = -320 4 1/16/2016 Rent.csKE I(: (,siN-rY Property Location: 10102 BENT MOUNTAIN RD Parcel ID: 111.00-02-44.00-0000 Magisterial District: WINDSORHILLS Account: 461$$ Card 1 of 1 Trash Service: TUESDAY Sulk & Brush Pickup: B ROUTE Recycling: Mia BRAMBLETON TEEN CENTER (10.75 miles) Recreational Center: Map CAMP ROANOKE (6.54 miles) Library: Mia BENT MOUNTAIN BRANCH LIBRARY (0.53 miles) Elementary School: Middle School: High School BACK CREEL{ CAVE SPRING CAVE SPRING Services Schools No Public Connection Website Water: No Public Connection Server: No Public Connection Police Station: Man Public Safety Center, 5925 Cove Rd, Roanoke VA Fire Station: Map BENT MOUNTAIN 5 1/16/2016 Property Location: 10102 BENT MOUNTAIN RD Parcel ID: 111.00-02-44.00-0000 Magisterial District: WINDSOR HILLS Account: 46188 Card i of 1 Broadband Providers Wireless 4G Provider Name Upload Speed Download Sneed AT&T MOBILITY, LLC. 768 Kbps - 1.5 Mbps 1.5 - 3 Mbps VERIZON WIRELESS 256 - 768 Kbps 768 Kbps - 1.5 Mbps Wireless LTE Provider Name Upload Speed Download Speed AT&T MOBILITY, LLC. VERIZON WIRELESS 768 Kbps - 1.5 Mbps 256 - 768 Kbps 1.5 - 3 Mbps 768 Kbps - 1.5 Mbps Wireline Cable Provider Name Upload Speed Download Speed COX COMMUMCATIONS 10 - 25 Mbps 100 - 1000 Mbps Wireline DSL Provider Name VERIZON Upload Speed 768 Kbps - 1.5 Mbps Download Speed 3 - 6 Mbps 6 1/16/2016 Property Location: 10102 BEFIT MOUNTAIN RD ParcellD: 111.00-02-44.00-0000 Magisterial District; WINDSOR HILLS Account: 46188 Card 1 of 1 P etometry 1 Tax Map 7 1/16/2016 RC)AVC�Kf ��:[�Elkri`fY Property Location: 10102 BENT MOUNTAIN RD Parcel ID: 111.00-02-44.00-0000 Magisterial District: WINDSOR HILLS Account: 46188 Card 1 of 1 Hybrid +`221`, r 1116/2016 R(�ANh jK8_I�.�i(C (7glh: Property Location: 0 BENT MOUNTAIN RD Parcel rb: 111,00-02-45.00-0000 Magisterial District: WINDSOR HILLS Account: 46189 Card 1 of 1 Split: NO ZoninV Code County -AR Action No: Date: Ordinance: Name: Zoning Information Zoning Description County-ARIAgricultural/ Residential 2 3/14/2016 Rr ntvOl r_c:a rx xl 1LI" Property Location: 0 BENT MOUNTAIN RD Parcel ID: 111.00-02-45.00-0000 Magisterial District: WINDSOR HILLS Account: 46189 Card 1 of 1 Emergency Communications: No Airport: No Wellhead Protection: No Floodplain: No Overlay Districts Roanoke River Conservation: No *Manufactured Housing: No Clearbrook Village: No *For more Information on Roanoke County ,Zoning, please call 540-772-2.068 or visit http://wwiv.roanokecounMa.gov/pz Community Number: 510190 Blood Certificates FIRM Panel: Flood Zone: Flood Zone Information Effective Date: Floodway: 3 3/14/2016 ROANOKL: C C,tJN f Y Property Location: 0 BENT MOUNTAIN RD Parcel lD: 111.00-02-45.00-0000 Magisterial District: WINDSOR HILLS Account: 46189 Card 1 of 1 Building Areas Sub Area Sketched Area Finished Area Perimeter 3114/2016 fti)AVa7KF{_ouNTY Property Location: 0 BENT MOUNTAIN RD Parcel ID: 111.00-02-45.00-0000 Magisterial District: WINDSOR HILLS Account: 46189 Card 1 of 1 Trash Service: TUESDAY Bulk &c Brush Pickup: B ROUTE Recycling: Map BRAMBLETON TEEN CENTER (10.67 miles) Recreational Center: Map CAMP ROANOKE (6.57 miles) Library: Map BENT MOUNTAIN BRANCH LIBRARY (0.58 miles) Elementary School: Middle School: High School: BACK CREEK CAVE SPRING CAVE SPRING Services No Public Connection website Water: No Public Connection Sewer: No Public Connection Police Station: Map Public Safety Center, 5925 Cove Rd, Roanoke VA Fire Station: Man BENT MOUNTAIN Schools 5 3/14/2016 Property Location: 0 BENT MOUNTAIN RD Parcel ID: 111.00-02-45.00-0000 Magisterial District: WINDSOR MILLS Account: 46189 Card 1 of I Broadband Providers Wireless 4G Provider Name Upload Saeed Download Speed AT&T MOBILITY, LLC. 768 Kbps - 1.5 Mbps 1.5 - 3 Mbps VERIZON WIRELESS 256 - 768 Kbps 768 Kbps - 1.5 Mbps Wireless LTE Provider Name UploadSp_eed Download Speed AT&T MOBILITY, LLC, 768 Kbps - 1.5 Mbps 1.5 - 3 Mbps VERiZON WIRELESS 256 - 768 Kbps 768 Kbps - 1.5 Mbps Wireline Cable Provider Name Upload Speed Download Speed COX COMMUNICA'CIONS 10 - 25 Mbps 100 - 1000 Mbps Wireline DSL Provider Name Upload Speed Aownload_SpeeJ VERiZON 768 Kbps - 1.5 Mbps 3-6Mbps 6 3/14/2016 Property Location: 0 BENT MOUN'T'AIN RD Parcel I D: 111.00-02-45.00-0000 Magisterial District: WINDSOR HILLS Account: 46189 Card 1 of 1 Pictometry Tax Map 3/14/2016 Property Location: 0 BENT MOUNTAIN RD Parcel ID: 111.00-02-45.00-0000 Magisterial District: WINDSOR HILLS Account: 46189 Card 1 of 1 Hybrid 8 3/14/2016 ll`OA k fjtt. l'l)tIN I Property Location: 10179 BENT MOUNTAIN RD Parcel lD: 111,00-01-41.00-0000 Magisterial District: WINDSOR HILLS Account: 46110 Card 1 of 1 Owner Name and Mailing Address: FRALIN ROSALIND H P 0 BOX 223,BFNT MTN VA 24059 Current Property Assessment 2016 Total Building Value: 45800 Total Land Value: 35100 Total Value: 80900 Narrative Description This property contains 1.56000 AC of land with a(n) PREFAB WAREHOUSE style building, Built about 2000, having primary MODULAR METAL exterior and MODULAR METAL OR METAL roof cover, 0 bedroom(s), 0 full bath(s), 0 half bath(s). Property Characteristics Jurisdiction: COUNTY Legal Description: BENT MOUNTAIN Deeded Acreage: 1,56000 AC Neighborhood: 3082 /BENT MOUNTAIN COMMERCIAL Estimated Acreage. 1,56112666 AC Census Block: 511610306003051 Vacant Land: NO Land Use Program: NO Sales Information Most Recent Sales Sale Dat c Sale Price Leeal Reference Sales Description 3/1012006 0 W130200600I39 FAMILY / RELATED PARTIES / TRUST 1011/1993 5000 D130014190373 UNDIVIDED OR FRACTIONAL INTEREST 7/19/1993 40000 DB0014100334 UNDIVIDED OR FRACTIONAL INTEREST 1/1/1900 0 P130073000278 PLAT 1/1/1900 0 DB0009730046 UNKNOWN REASON 1 3/7/2016 Re)AMOKi Js%v a )t IN a i Property Locodoo: 10179 HENT MOUNTAIN RD Parcel Il): 111.00-01-41.00-0000 Magisterial District: WrNDSORNILLS Account: 46110 Card 1 of I Zoning Information Split; NO Zoning Codo Zoning Description County -AR Count-AR/APtamiturali Residenual Action No: Duce. Ordinance: umc: 21 �; AR >r� d 10210 t i j f 10162 2 3/7/2016 l OAIJ(.)KtiAlftl !W .1Y Property Location: 10179 BENT MOUNTAIN RD Parcel ID: 111.00-01-41.00-0000 Magisterial District. WINDSOR HILLS Account: 46110 Card 1 of 1 Overlay Districts Emergency Communications: No Roanoke River Conservation: No Airport: No *Manufactured Housing: No Wellhead Protection: No Clearbrook Village: No Floodplain: ti'o *For more Information on Roanoke County Zoning, please call 540-772-2068 or visit httn://www.roanokecountvva.gov/pz Community Number: Flood Certificates i37[t P111 FIRM Panel: Flood Zone: Flood Zone Information Building Description Effective Date: Floodway: Building Type: PREFAB WAREHOUSE Foundation Type: CONTINUOUS FOOTING Year Built: 2000 Roof Structure: STEEL FRAME Finished Area (SF): 2250 Roof Cover: MODULAR METAL OR METAL Style/Story Height: 1.0 STORY Primary Exterior Wall: MODULAR METAL Bedrooms: 0 Secondary Exterior Walk Full Baths: 0 Primary Interior Walls: MASONRY/MINIMUM. Half Baths: 0 Secondary Interior Wall: Air Conditioning: Primary Floors: CONCRETE FINISHED Heating: Secondary Floors: Heating Type: NONE Basement Garage: Heating Fuel: NONE Fireplace: 3 3/7/2016 ROANC7KE 1A Property Location: 10179 BENT MOUNTAINRD Parcel ll): 111.00-01-41,00-0000 Magisterial District: WINDSOR HILLS Account: 46110 Card 1 of 1 Building Areas Sub Area Sketched Area Finished Area Perimeter BASE CANOPY 2250 2250 210 600 0 166 75 S' B. C 30 (0)BAS 30 75 8 0117! B - A- By, 0118 2260 A" G 1504 4 3/7/2016 R0A.%44.)K1 ANV,t)(4N1Y Property Location: 10179 BENT MOUNTAIN RD ParcellD: 111,00-01-41,00-0000 Magisterial District: WINDSOR HILLS Account: 46110 Card 1 of 1 Trash Service: TUESDAY Bulk & Brush Pickup: B ROUTE Recycling: Map BRAMBLETON TEEN CENTER (10.99 miles) Recreational Center: Map CAMP ROANOKE (6.67 miles) Library: Man BENT MOUNTAIN BRANCH LIBRARY (0.69 miles) Elementary School: Middle School: High School: BACK CREEK CAVE SPRING CAVE SPRING Services No Public Connection Website Water: No Public Connection Sewer: No Public Connection Police Station: Mao Public Safety Center, 5925 Cove Rd, Roanoke VA Fire Station: Man BENT MOUNTAIN Schools 5 3/7/2016 Property Location: 10179 BENT MOUNTAIN RD Parcell]). H L00-01-41.00-0000 Magisterial District: WINDSOR HILLS Account: 46110 Card 1 of 1 Broadband Providers Wireless 4G Provider Name Uuload Sneed Download Speed AT&T MOBILITY, LLC. 768 Kbps - 1.5 Mbps 1.5 - 3 Mbps VERIZON WIRELESS 256 - 768 Kbps 768 Kbps - 1.5 Mbps Wireless LTE Provider Mame Unload Speed Download 8)!ced AT&T MOBILITY, LLC. 768 Kbps - 1.5 Mbps 1.5 - 3 Mbps VERIZON WIREL$SS 256 - 768 Kbps 768 Kbps -1.5 Mbps Wireline Cable Provider Fume Unload Speed Download Speed COX COM AMCAT10NS 10 - 25 Mops 100 - 1000 Mbps COX COMMUNICATIONS 3 - 6 Mbps 10 - 25 Mbps Wireline DSL Provider Name Unload Sneed Download Sneed VERIZON 768 Kbps - 1.5 Mbps 3 - 6 Mbps 6 3/7/2016 I Property Location: 10174 BENT MOUNTAIN RD Parcel ID: 111.00-01-41.00-0000 Magisterial District: WINDSOR HILLS Account: 46110 Card 1 of I Pietometry a Tax Map 7 3/7/2016 ROANOKf: AWkIk t#E�11 Property Location: 10179 BENT MOUNTAIN RD Parcel ID: 111.00-01-41.00-0000 Magisterial District: WINDSOR HILLS Account: 46110 Card 1 of 1 Hybrid 6:, 3/7/2016 Itt)A'.Va)1 I L c1UN I Y Property Location: 10074 BENT MOUNTAIN RD Parcel I D : 111.00-02-43 , 00-0000 Magisterial District: WINDSOR HILLS Account: 46187 Card 1 of 1 Owner Name and Mailing Address: JAMES DARNELL W LIFE ESTATE P O BOX 279 FLOYD VA 24091 Current Property Assessment 2016 Total Building Value: 0 Total Land Value: 32700 Total Value: 32700 Narrative Description This property contains 2.48000 AC of land with a(n) NIA style building, Built about NIA, having primary NIA secondary NIA exterior and NIA roof cover, N/A bedroom(s), N/A full bath(s), NIA half bath(s), Property Characteristics Jurisdiction: COUNTY Legal Description: BENT MOUNTAIN Deeded Acreage: 2.48000 AC Neighborhood: 0059 / BENT MOUNTAIN SOUTHWEST Usti mated Acreage: 2.269706 AC Census Block: 511610306003057 Vacant Land: YES Land Use Program: NO Sales Information Most Recent Sales Sale Date Sale Price Leeal Reference Sales Description 7/3012015 0 D8201507209 FAMILY / RELATED PARTIES / TRUST 9/22/2006 49000 DB0200615779 QUALIFIED 1/12/2005 45000 DB0200500559 PERSONAL PROPERTY INCLUDED 1/26/2004 37000 D130200401222 PERSONAL PROPERTY INCLUDED 9/30/1996 27500 DB0015220136 PERSONAL PROPERTY INCLUDED 512811992 15000 DB0013680736 FAMILY / RELATED PARTIES / TRUST 1 3/7/2016 RODANOKE499ftckstINt% Property Location: 10074 BENT MOUNTAIN RD Parcel ID: 111.00-02-43.00-0000 Magisterial District: WINDSOR HILLS Account: 46187 Card 1 of 1 Zoning Information Split: NO Zoning Cade Zoning Description, County -AR County-AR/rlaric:ulturai! Residential Action No: Date - Ordinance. Name: AR 10074 Z/ 3M2016 Property Location: 10074 BENT MOUNTAIN RD Parcel ID: 111.00-02-43.00-0000 Magisterial District: WINDSOR HILLS Account: 46187 Card I of I Overlay Districts Emergency Communications; No Roanoke River Conservation: No Airport; No *Manufactured Housing: No Wellhead Protection: No Clearbrook Village: No Floodplain; No *For more Infonnation on Roanoke County Zoning, please call 540-772-2068 or visit htt :llwww.roanokecoun va. uv/ z Community Number: 510190 Flood Zane Information Flood Certificates FIRM Panel: Effective Date: Flood Zone: Floodway: 3 3!712016 ROAN 0Kf:� C t )IIN'''FY Property Location: 10074 BENT MOUNTAIN RD Parcel ID: 111.00-02-43.00-0000 Magisterial District: WINDSOR HILLS Account: 46187 Card 1 of 1 Building Areas Sub Area Sketched Area Finished Area Perimeter 317!2016 ROANlt )Kl_�l't It fi\ IV Property Location: 10074 BENT MOUNTAIN RD Parecl Ill: t 11.00-02-43.00-0000 Magisterial District: WINDSOR HILLS Account: 46187 Card 1 of I Trash Service: TUESDAY Bulk & Brush Pickup: B ROUTE Recycling: Map BRAMBLETON TEEN CENTER (10.71 miles) Recreational Center: Map CAMP ROANOKE (6,51 miles) Library: Man BENT MOUNTAIN BRANCH LIBRARY (0,51 miles) Elementary School: Middle School.- High chool: High School: BACK CREEK. CAVE SPRING CAVE SPRING Services Schools No Public Connection Website Water: No Public Connection Server: No Public Connection Police Station: Public Safety Center, 5925 Cove Rd, Roanoke VA Fire Station: Map BENT MOUNTAIN 5 317/2016 ROAN )Kl- c-OkIN. IY Property Location: 10074 BENT MOUNTAIN RD Parcel ID: 111.00-02-43.00-0000 ]Magisterial District: WINDSOR HILLS Account: 46187 Card 1 of 1 Broadband Providers Wireless 4G Provider Name Upload Sneed Download Sneed AT&T MOBILITY, LLC. 768 Kbps - 1.5 Mbps 1.5 - 3 Mbps VERIZON WIRELESS 256 - 768 Kbps 768 Kbps - 1.5 Mbps Wireless LTE Provider Name Unload Speed Download Sneed AT&T MOBILITY, LLC. 768 Kbps - 1.5 Mbps 1.5 - 3 Mbps VERIZON WIRELESS 256 - 768 Kbps 768 Kbps - 1.5 Mbps Wireline Cable Provider name Unload Speed Download Specd COX COMMUN' ICATIONS 10 - 25 Mbps 100 - 1004 Mbps Wireline DSI.. Provldcr name Upload Speed Download Speed VERIZON 768 Kbps - 1.5 Mbps 3-6Mbps 6 3/7/2016 b ROANOaKI. C:cllthlY' Property Location: 10074 BENT MOUNTAIN RD Parcel ID: 111.00-02-4100-0000 Magisterial District: WINDSOR HILLS Account: 46187 Card 1 of 1 Pictometry Tax Map 61-) do 10074 7 3/7/2016 P,QANC>KE- tit 1r, IN `rte Property Location: 10074 BENT MOUNTAIN RD Parcel ID: 111.00-02-43.00-0000 Magisterial District: WINDSOR HILLS Account: 46187 Card I of I Hybrid s 317/2016 Ko, • • ƒ ƒ Lo ƒ ƒ � ƒ < / ƒ ƒ / / ƒ Lo � < ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ � ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ < ƒ ƒ < ƒ ƒ < < < < ƒ ƒ ƒ I < < / < / ƒ � ƒ ƒ < ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ < � ƒ � \ « 7c) } I � § ) \ / 6 o g ( \_ �\ § � � w _ o O f ƒ f ƒ \ _ y �) §) \; [§ � \ 6 k f 2] \ 9) A R p J » 5 c / < y) { - O f e \ 0 = R / = k « « I �� C) D&. o x o 2 < 3 § § a < / , (�` ƒ ƒ I ± O > � > ± � � I ± O > � I ± � «_ 3 co \\ ^ � \ \ 0 2 iN G 2 \ \ / \ / \ \ LL \ � ,a ------ \CI p 2 J» 2 2 2/ A 3 _ = 5 e _ / / / \ LL ( / j \ / ƒ / ACTION NO. ITEM NO. F.3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: December 20, 2016 The petition of Property Catalyst Group to obtain a Special Use Permit in an 1-1, Low Intensity Industrial District for the construction of a mini -warehouse facility on approximately 3.97 acres located at the intersection of Plantation Road and Hitech Road, Hollins Magisterial District Philip Thompson Deputy Director of Planning Thomas C. Gates County Administrator Consent agenda item for first reading of an ordinance. BACKGROUND: The first reading on this ordinance is accomplished by adoption of this ordinance in the manner of consent agenda items. The adoption of these items does not imply approval of the substantive content of the requested zoning actions; rather, approval satisfies the procedural requirements of the County Charter and schedules the required public hearing and second reading of these ordinances. The second reading and public hearing on this ordinance is scheduled for January 24, 2017. The title of this ordinance is as follows: 1. The petition of Property Catalyst Group to obtain a Special Use Permit in an 1-1, Low Intensity Industrial, District for the construction of a mini -warehouse facility on approximately 3.97 acres, located at the intersection of Plantation Road and Hitech Road, Hollins Magisterial District. Page 1 of 2 DISCUSSION: There is no discussion on this agenda item. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact on this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends as follows: 1. That the Board approve and adopt the first reading of this rezoning ordinance for the purpose of scheduling the second reading and public hearing for January 24, 2017. 2. That this section of the agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth as Item(s) 3, and that the Clerk is authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this action. Page 2 of 2 Countv of Roanoke For Staff Use Only Community Development Date received: Received by: Planning & Zoning o App],kation fee: PC/BZAdate: 5204 Bernard Drive `1() P 0 Box 29800 Placards issued: SOS dare: Roanoke, VA 24018 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 Case Number ` ALL APPLICANTS Check type of application filed (check all that apply) ❑ Rezoning X Special Use L] Variance Q Waiver ll Administrative Appeal ❑ Camp Plan (15.2-2232) Review Applicants name/address w/zip Phone: 540-654-8653 Mork. 549 -493 -9988 - Property Catalyst Group Cell #: 131 Kirk Ave SW Roanoke, VA 24011 Fax No.: ese-e47��,e Owner's name/address w/zip Phone #: Harris Corporation c/o Jed Dennison work: 7635 Plantation Rd Roanoke, VA 24019 Fax No. #: Property Location 0 Plantation Road Magisterial District: HOIIInS Community Planning area: Peters Creek --Hollins Tax Map'-: 027.10-09-06.00-0000 Fxi sting Zoning: 11—Light Industrial District Size of parcel(s): Acres: 3.97 Existing Land Use: Vacant REZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WAIVER AND COMP PLAN (15.2-2232) REVIEW APPLICANTS (RIS/W/CP) Proposed zoning: 11 --Light Industrial District with Special Use Permit Proposed Land Use: Mini Warehouse Does the parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes C)( No ❑ IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimum criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes X No ❑ IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes ❑ No ❑ n/a VARIANCE, WAIVER AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL APPLICANTS 07W/AA) Variance/Waiver of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zoning O Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to ° Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): of the Roanoke County Zoning OrMice Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to 1.7 Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILL NOT 4bi ACCrMAP 4VIANY RESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE.Community beV2iop>ri°� R/SIW/CP V/AA R/SAY/CP V/AA R/SIWICP VI Consultation 8 1/2" x I V concept plann fee Application Metes and bounds description Pro f Justification fji Water and sewer application Adjoining property owners I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the propetY or�ther's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent f the owner. f Owner's Signature 2 JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT WAIVER OR COMP PIAN (t5.2-2232) REVIEW . REQUESTS Applicant Property Catalyst Group The Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use permit waiver or community plan (15.2-2232) review requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety, and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. see attached narrative Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan, see attached narrative Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the properly itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. see attached narrative 3 Plantation Storage Special Use Permit Request for Parcel 027.10.09-06.00-0000 Proposed Use: Mini -warehouse Statement of Justification 1) The purpose of this special use permit request is to allow a mini -warehouse use on the above referenced tax parcel. Based on thorough market study and consideration of specific characteristics, this site is well-suited to accommodate this use. To best serve the community and aesthetics of the immediate area, the multi -story climate control design has been selected. The multi -story climate control concept caters to the aesthetics of commercial corridors with a high quality facade and minimal entry points. This is vastly divergent from the typical row -warehouse style, which the use specific design standards are primarily focused on. This request furthers the Roanoke County Zoning ordinance by providing an appropriate use in a transitional area. When developed and managed appropriately, mini -warehouse properties are a desirable commercial use to serve the community. The use is particularly appropriate given recent apartment development in the neighborhood. Another factor that supports mini -warehouse development is the aging demographics within the 24019 zip code. With a 43.9 median age, the zip code is 38% older than the national average. As the aging demographic downsizes housing options and experience life events, mini -warehousing demand becomes inherent. The secondary use of recreational vehicle storage also provides a needed service to the surrounding community. This use will not only accommodate non -county residents by virtue of proximity to 1-81, but will decrease the instances of illegal RV storage within residential neighborhoods of the county. The site's regional access will assist in alleviating this code enforcement issue over a majority of the northern portion of the county. 2) The proposed uses conform to the general guidelines and policies contained within the Roanoke County Community Plan, which encourages commercial growth in appropriate locations. The plan will allow for appropriate commercial development that will not only provide real estate tax revenue, but will also provide needed services to county residents. At the subject location, the planned improvements will act as a valuable transition from the surrounding limited industrial uses into the Core designation's commercial service uses. The Williamson Road Hollins Village Design Guidelines (WRHVDG) have been given strong consideration in determining the most appropriate development plan for this site. The proposed building architecture is being designed to blend in with the Hollins area by incorporating quality building features that are generally consistent with the WRHVDG. A prominent and functional drive-through canopy will provide cover from the elements to customers, while a secondary portico will direct patrons to the business office area. These building features, along with two pyramidal end -cap roofs, illustrate the most substantial architectural elements requested within the WRHVDG. In terms of building material, the facade incorporates recommended masonry elements with EIFS elements all above the recommended 6' threshold. The site layout has been designed to accommodate various user categories and minimize views of rear RV storage from Plantation Road. This is accomplished by building placement and adherence to the use -specific design standards involving landscaping buffer. One free- standing monument sign will be provided for this development. The monument sign will have a base to match the building architecture and will be landscaped to be consistent with the design guidelines. Exterior building and pole mounted lighting will be a maximum of 25' in height in accordance with the Roanoke County zoning ordinance. 3) No negative impacts to the county infrastructure are anticipated with this development. All improvements will be planned and constructed in accordance with Roanoke County, Western Virginia Water Authority, and VDOT standards. In addition, the developer plans to work with VDOT and Roanoke County to pragmatically complete proposed right of way improvements associated with the Plantation Road Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Streetscape Improvement Project. CONCEPT PLAN CHECKLIST A concept plan of the proposed project must be submitted with the application. The concept plan shall graphically depict the land use change, development or variance that is to be considered. Further, the plan shall address any potential land use or design issues arising from the request. In such cases involving rezonings, the applicant may proffer conditions to limit the future use and development of the property and by so doing, correct any deficiencies that may not be manageable by County permitting regulations. The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Site plan and building permit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development regulations and may require changes to the initial concept plan. Unless limiting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent permitted by the zoning district and other regulations. A concept plan is required with all rezoning, special use permit, waiver, community plan (15.2-2232) review and variance applications. The plan should be prepared by a professional site planner. The level of detail may vary, depending on the nature of the request. The County Planning Division staff may exempt some of the items or suggest the addition of extra items, but the following are considered minimum: ALL APPLICANTS X a. Applicant name and name of development X b. Date, scale and north arrow X c. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions X d. Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties X c. Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. X f. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties X g. All property lines and easements X h. All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights X i. Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the development X j. Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces Additional information required for REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS X k. Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site X 1. Any driveways, entrances/exits, curb openings and crossovers X in. Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals X n. Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections X o. Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants X p. Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed X q. If project is to be phased, please show phase schedule I certify that all items required in the checklist above are complete. a ture ofscant t Da e VINISMA'A1NnO03NONtl021 G N �u Z e `� SNI-nOH NOIlO(Ia1SNOO UOd ION E a 3g g� W AHvNlvgl NH�d2i31SHW o o - 5da OVO?J NOIltllNVldO _ - �_ - 3EXHO-LS NOIiViNV]d o o w -IJ \ oWE o LU � o o � y 1 do Q o — ' Allk a s w a .p 5, o� lJfr 4 F O o Lu"., Zo w mg �1 a ms a K rc v os >dpi as I Q !� w _241�a I� b v �1 > rc I QK a w 3�lila SSdJJV �c'.a - - w � � w �jjw � wl III �%a 3NI'I ua3aoaa =� , c X`. apo Ui 94 h I / r - - qim z we wa o o z ted&3 =; sp §a4 w �` �' *g s go v� zg <_ p ��� r n a n e H VMD' un AlKnOD EXONVOU E[,DV'aOJLS NOIILVJKV I��1"I"�1111,r t xMl - gilt" :amara n � I��1"I"�1111,r t Community Developmentz Planning & Zoning Division Z 3 NOTICE TO APPLICANTS FOR REZONING, SUBDIVISION WAIVER, PUBLIC STREET WAIVER, OR SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITION PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE PROCEDURE The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver or Special Use Permit petition if new or additional information is presented at the public hearing. If it is the opinion of the majority of the Planning Commissioners present at the scheduled public hearing that sufficient time was not available for planning staff and/or an outside referral agency to adequately evaluate and provide written comments and suggestions on the new or additional information prior to the scheduled public hearing then the Planning Commission may vote to continue the petition. This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the new or additional information and provide written comments and suggestions to be included in a written memorandum by planning staff to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall consult with planning staff to determine if a continuance may be warranted. POTENTIAL OF NEED FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSES AND/OR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver, or Special Use Permit petition if the County Traffic Engineer or staff from the Virginia Department of Transportation requests further traffic analyses and/or a traffic impact study that would be beneficial in making a land use decision (Note: a list of potential land uses and situations that would necessitate further study is provided as part of this application package). This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the required traffic analyses and/or traffic impact study and to provide written comments and/or suggestions to the planning staff and the Planning Commission. If a continuance is warranted, the applicant will be notified of the continuance and the newly scheduled public hearing date. Effective data: April 99, 2005 Plantation Storage Name of Petition Petr ner's Signature Y/095 h 4 o e TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS FOR 0 PLANTATION ROAD Roanoke County, Virginia B&A PROJECT #04160070.00 DATE: DECEMBER 8, 2016 AND ASSO ATES INC I REFLECTING TDMCRFRC)W PLANNERS ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Phone (540) 772-9580 POTENTIAL SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC; Project Details: +I- 66,000 S.F. of gross building size +1- 400 Total storage units ITE Trip Generation Manual — Land Use: 151 Mini -Warehouse This trip generation calculation was based on the proposed land use shown on the masterplan prepared by Balzer and Associates (Exhibit A). The policies and procedures found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, were employed to determine the potential site generated traffic volumes for the proposed development. Traffic volumes for the average weekday and weekday peak hours of the adjacent street traffic are provided and illustrated in the Table and Figure below, respectively. Trip Summar : 66,000 s.f. +/- (Average Rate of 2.5 per 1,000 sf. of Gross Floor Area (Weekday)) 165 Vehicle Trips per Day 17 Vehicle Trips in the Peak Hour (Average Rate of 0.26 per 1,000 s. f. of Gross Storage Unit (Peak Hour)) Entrance Trip Breakdown. 17 Total Trips in the Peak Hour 9 Vehicle Trips Entering 8 Vehicle Trips Exiting 220 Land Mini -Warehouse Description Mini -warehouses are buildings in which a number of storage units or vaults are rented for the stor- age of goods. They are typically referred to as "self -storage" facilities. Each unit is physically sepa- rated from other units, and access is usually provided through an overhead door or other common access point. Additional Data Truck trips accounted for 2 to 15 percent of the weekday traffic at the sites where data were avail- able. Vehicle occupancy ranged from 1.2 to 1.9 persons per automobile on an average weekday. Peak hours of the generator— The weekday P.M. peak hour was between 12:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. The Saturday peak hour was between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. The Sunday peak hour was between 1:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. For the purpose of this land use, the independent variable "occupied storage units" is defined as the number of units that have been rented. The sites were surveyed between 1979 and 2008 in California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jer- sey and Texas. Source Numbers 113, 212, 403, 551, 568, 642, 708, 724 Trip Generation, 9th Editfon ® Institute of Transportation Engineers PLANTATION STORAGE Adiaceut Property Owners of Subiect Parcel: Tax Map #: 027.10-0906.00-0000 Roanoke County Owner: Core -Hollins Hospitality LLC Property Address: 0 Plantation Road Tax Parcel: 027.06-06-01.00-0000 Zoning: C2C Owner: Autumn Investments LLC Property Address: 7702 Plantation Road Tax Parcel: 027.06-06-02.00-0000 Zoning: I1 Owner: ESA Developers LLC Property Address: 7518 Plantation Road Tax Parcel: 027.10-09-07.00-0000 Zoning: I1 Owner: Harris Corporation Property Address: 7671 Enon Drive Tax Parcel: 027.10-09-03.00-0000 Zoning: I1 Owner: HiTech Road LLC Property Address: 7562 Hitech Road Tax Parcel: 027.10-11-02.00-0000 Zoning: 11 Owner: Clayton A Fralin Property Address: 7543 Plantation Road Tax Parcel: 027.06-0516.00-0000 Zoning: I1 Owner: Harris Corporation Property Address: 7635 Plantation Road — Unit 7625 Tax Parcel: 027.06-0515.00-0000 Zoning: 11 AND ASSOCIATES €NC REFLECTING TOMORROW Legal Description of Tract 10-A - Roanoke County Tax Parcel #:027.1009-06.00-0000 Beginning at corner #21 located along the Southerly right of way of Hitech Road at the Northeast corner of Tract A-1 -A Instrument #201603590; thence with Hitech Road N45'1 3'00"E 391.59 feet to point #4; thence with a curve to the right having a radius of 248.55 feet, an arc distance of 89.96 feet, and a chord hearing and distance of N55°35'05" E 89.47 feet to point #22; thence N83°49'46"E 22.74 feet to point #23; thence S70°38'28"E 22.53 feet to point #24 along the Westerly right of way Plantation Road; thence with Plantation Road S18°14'20"E 60.00 feet to point #25; thence N71 °45'40"E 6.00 feet to point #26; thence S18°14'20"E 327.61 feet to point #27; thence leaving Plantation Road and with the Northerly line of T.M. #027.10-09-07.00 S4513'00"W 338.93 feet to point #28; thence leaving T.M. #027,10-09-07.00 and with the Easterly line of Tract A -1 -A N44050'31'VV 400.00 feet to the Point and Place of Beginning, containing 3.9714 acres and being Tract 10-A as shown on "Resubdivision and Combination Plat for Harris Corporation" recorded as instrument #201603590. Tract 10-A lying in Roanoke County, Virginia PLANNERS - ARCHITECTS . ENGINEERS + SURVEYORS ROANOKE - RfCNMOND • NEW RIVER VALLEY a SHENANDOAH VALLEY e HARRISONRURG 1208 Corporate Circle • Roanoke, Virginia 24018 • (540) 772-9580 • FAX (540) 772-8050 www.balzer.cc �(q �V Y v ob'o .Ud a' tiW yO.O.N��.O �tD 2J �'N W I'i ��'✓�� WEti`0,Ot 2 ` � — — — — a�w�wwwWIt! � of z l M n3� rt^: 'y'34i�1r ie .,G<;4: WW, ¢UW p•oa > 4 � zem'n^o m �Q a. � imE 4. �me� M Q ;N 3 W j ��b?a? d sem,, mi N¢ro g c) p w W o Ui 'n 2o3 H k p � � > .... Uo'nn............ 3 AgzP. S o ...... I cc r�\,SbK 2 zaw � Of �'= Ul r - vSI 2W O wtie >a I okA - Q "T R, H ti —)y rTi K m�o WEti`0,Ot 2 ` � — — — — a�w�wwwWIt! � of z l M n3� rt^: 'y'34i�1r ie .,G<;4: WW, ¢UW p•oa > 4 � JLCL^ Q¢Om^Nn. 4'Jf pg 2N I ',_ z M O w W ow yza z� zem'n^o m hry N 4. �me� M Q ;N 3 W WWw tititip.� WW WW �S k p O .. .... > .... Uo'nn............ 3 AgzP. S ...... I 0 hN4 o4i O1 I 1 —K �• M (C/1C t6 N l II \ r�'4 t O JLCL^ Q¢Om^Nn. 4'Jf pg 2N I ',_ z M O w W ow yza z� � :;E� /;/0, „nO,Lb.bbN m�� :�d22,.o�xq 4 O NW 22>x W 2 W Ho g CO O M/,na 3A AVO NON3 yjm �`Wo3 I zem'n^o m hry N mmnhm� �me� M M N W WWw WW WW W3 W� Z0vm�n^r,^ 2'np7 hN4 o4i � :;E� /;/0, „nO,Lb.bbN m�� :�d22,.o�xq 4 O NW 22>x W 2 W Ho g CO O M/,na 3A AVO NON3 yjm �`Wo3 I 0 i 4^ > a pL O 3 O 9 Or N N _ O 2 L fro U O0 .. " o E S o -E O O) 'E 0 N .. .) Q O =; N i? m ID n pj O U ug _ n 0 N Q Q pp N O) s s nes-0$ n O W d d H O Q l o �;o / U a O U a O O U O U O a U O U O U a a a a > a p O 3 N N Z +� O r Lo C4 �_ _ O L N o - O o oa (U .. O) O O) c p .. fOA -09 (O N U �? m E — o N N =;O m - n o n O U) O Q O Q .. m .N U U s°s O W d d H O Q l n_esn5 9 N N U O N U Q > a p O 3 O 5 O E (N o - 0)O O Eo o - - U \ O W O c 0 N E N U 0 In o o N ——— o o N (O Z O m — o -0 2 p J -- in 0 ui N -0 � N m a d c - U� CLO .. U m o 0 N Q Q N p� N ,§s nesn5 O W d d H O Q l 9 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. H.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: December 20, 2016 Ordinance amending Chapter 21, Article III, Section 21-39 of the Roanoke County Code, requiring tax exempt entities to reestablish eligibility for tax exempt status of real property on a triennial basis; and enacting a new Chapter 21, Article II, Section 21-23, requiring tax exempt entities to reestablish eligibility for tax exempt status of personal property on a triennial basis Peter Lubeck Senior Assistant County Attorney Thomas C. Gates County Administrator An ordinance to resolve a conflict between the Code of Virginia and the Code of Roanoke County regarding how often Roanoke County may require tax exempt entities to reestablish their tax exempt status, and for which categories of property such re- establishment is required. This proposed ordinance updates the Code of Roanoke County so that it is consistent with the Code of Virginia. BACKGROUND: Section 58.1-3605 of the Code of Virginia, which was last updated in 1995, authorizes a locality to adopt an ordinance requiring tax exempt entities to file applications, triennially, to reestablish their eligibility for tax exempt status for real and personal property. Chapter 21, Article III, Section 21-39 of the Code of Roanoke County, which was enacted in 1983, requires tax exempt entities to file applications, biennially, to reestablish their eligibility for tax exempt status for real property. Further, the County Code presently does not require tax exempt entities to reestablish tax exempt status for personal property. Page 1 of 2 DISCUSSION: The proposed ordinance updates the Code of Roanoke County, so that it is consistent with the Code of Virginia. Tax exempt entities will be required to file with the Commissioner of Revenue, triennially, applications to retain tax exempt status of real and personal property. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact directly associated with this item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this ordinance. Page 2 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2016 ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21, ARTICLE III, SECTION 21-39 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, REQUIRING TAX EXEMPT ENTITIES TO REESTABLISH ELIGIBILITY FOR TAX EXEMPT STATUS OF REAL PROPERTY ON A TRIENNIAL BASIS; AND ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 21, ARTICLE II, SECTION 21-23, REQUIRING TAX EXEMPT ENTITIES TO REESTABLISH ELIGIBILITY FOR TAX EXEMPT STATUS OF PERSONAL PROPERTY ON A TRIENNIAL BASIS WHEREAS, Section 58.1-3605 of the Code of Virginia, which was last updated in 1995, authorizes a locality to adopt an ordinance requiring tax exempt entities to file applications, triennially, to reestablish their eligibility for tax exempt status for real and personal property; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Code, which was enacted in 1983, is inconsistent with the Code of Virginia because it requires tax exempt entities to file applications, biennially, to reestablish their eligibility for tax exempt status for real property; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Code presently does not require tax exempt entities to reestablish tax exempt status for personal property; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 6, 2016; and the second reading was held on December 20, 2016. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Section 21-39 of Chapter 21, Article III of the County Code is hereby amended as follows: Sec. 21-39 RmrTriennial reestablishment of exempt status. Page 1 of 3 (a) Any person, firm, corporation or other legal entity, except the commonwealth, any political subdivision thereof or the United States, owning real estate situate, lying and being in the county, which real estate is exempt from local taxation pursuant to chapter 36, title 58.1 (§ 58.1-3600 et seq.), of the Code of Virginia, shall,— file triennially an application with the commissioner of revenue as a reauirement for retention of the exemot status of the Drooerty. ^A_P:IP,or,.;rn f^r (b) Each person, firm, corporation or other legal entity subject to subsection (a) above ;h;;" may be given sixty (60) days' written notice, by the office of the commissioner of the revenue, of the requirement to reestablish exempt status, and thereafter shall file an application, fG,r -Onh eepaFat8 Piece ^F PaFnol of Fool stat ��med-fe-k�e-exem t, f te ti9R, on a form obtained from the office of the commissioner of the revenue, listing each piece or parcel of real estate claimed to be exempt. Such application shall contain, among other information, the exact legal name of the owner of such property and the precise usage of the pieces or parcels of real estate claimed to be exempt. The €;�h-such-separate application shall be filed on or before December 31 of the year immediately preceding the ��al—triennial period for which such exemption is sought to be reestablished. LgLAny person, firm, corporation or other legal entity failing to comply with all and singular the terms and provisions of this section shall lose his or its entitlement to real estate tax exempt status for the triennial "i�al-period for which such reestablishment does not occur as herein provided. (Ord. No. 83-83, § 1,5-12-83; Ord. No. , 12-20-2016) State Law reference - Authority for above section, Code of Virginia, § 58.1-3605. 2. That a new Section 21-23 of Chapter 21, Article 11 of the County Code, which was previously reserved, is hereby enacted as follows: Sec. 21-23. - Triennial reestablishment of exempt status. (a) Any person, firm, corporation or other legal entity, except the commonwealth, any political subdivision thereof or the United States, owning personal property which is exempt from local taxation pursuant to chapter 36, title 58.1 ($ 58.1-3600 et seg.), of the Code of Virginia, shall file triennially an application with the commissioner of revenue as a requirement for retention of the exempt status of the property. Page 2 of 3 (b) Each person, firm, corporation or other legal entity subject to subsection (a) above may-s4� be given sixty (60) days' written notice, by the office of the commissioner of the revenue, of the requirement to reestablish exempt status, and thereafter shall file an application, on a form obtained from the office of the commissioner of the revenue. Such application shall contain, among other information, the exact legal name of the owner of such Property and the precise usage of the personal property claimed to be exempt. Such application shall be filed on or before December 31 of the year immediately preceding the triennial period for which such exemption is sought to be reestablished. (c) Any person, firm, corporation or other legal entity failing to comply with all and singular the terms and provisions of this section shall lose his or its entitlement to personal property tax exempt status for the triennial period for which such reestablishment does not occur as herein provided. (Ord. No. , 12-20-2016) State Law reference — Authority for above section, Code of Virginia, $ 58.1- 3605. 3. That any provision of the Roanoke County Code not specifically amended above shall remain in full force and effect as adopted. 4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. Page 3 of 3 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. 1.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: December 20, 2016 Ordinance accepting the conveyance of sixteen (16) parcels of unimproved real estate to the Board of Supervisors, for the extension of Ivyland Road, Vinton Magisterial District Philip Thompson Deputy Director of Planning Thomas C. Gates County Administrator Second reading and public hearing of an ordinance to accept sixteen parcels of real estate in preparation for the addition of Ivyland Road to the State Secondary System of Highways. BACKGROUND: Ivyland Road is a private road off of Rutrough Road The sixteen parcels being accepted are needed to prepare Ivyland Road for acceptance into the State Secondary System DISCUSSION: This item involves the acceptance of the following real estate, being conveyed to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, for roadway improvements, specifically the construction of Ivyland Road to State standards: (1) Donation of 0.0006 acre of Roanoke County Tax Map No. 80.03-01-15.00 as shown on the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit X; being a portion of the property conveyed to Sharon E. Starkey by deed dated December 8, 2009 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Instru. # 201000974. Page 1 of 6 (2) Donation of 0.0033 acre of Roanoke County Tax Map No. 80.03-01-14.00 as shown on the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit B"; being a portion of the property conveyed to William T. Cassell and Melanie J. Cassell by deed dated February 20, 2014 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Instru. # 201401725. (3) Donation of 0.0047 acre of Roanoke County Tax Map No. 80.03-01-13.00 as shown on the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit C"; being a portion of the property conveyed to Russell N. Poindexter by deed dated June 23, 1987 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Deed Book 1269, page 1136. Quitclaim of all interest in 0.0041 acre portion of property designated "Deed Overlap" adjacent to right-of-way conveyance of Roanoke County Tax Map No. 80.03-01-13.00 as shown on the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit C"; being a portion of the property conveyed by O.0 and Lucy Huffman by plat dated June 19, 1939 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Plat Book 2, Page 130. (4) Donation of 0.0382 acre of Roanoke County Tax Map No. 80.03-01-12.00 as shown on the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit D"; being a portion of the property conveyed to Delores Poindexter, Tony Reid Poindexter, Douglas C. Poindexter, Jr., Linda Poindexter Moyer, Judy Paulette Roberts and Ricky Lee Poindexter by deed dated January 25, 2003 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Instru. # 200302747. Quitclaim of all interest in 0.0255 acre portion of property designated "Deed Gap" adjacent to right-of-way conveyance of Roanoke County Tax Map No. 80.03-01-12.00 as shown on the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit D"; being a portion of the property conveyed by O.0 and Lucy Huffman by plat dated June 19, 1939 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Plat Book 2, Page 130. (5) Donation of 0.0433 acre of Roanoke County Tax Map No. 80.03-01-11.00 as shown on the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit E"; being a portion of the property conveyed to Dacal-Teijeiro Properties, LLC by deed dated August 22, 2013 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Instru. # 201311777. Quitclaim of all interest in 0.0152 acre portion of property designated "Deed Overlap" adjacent to right-of-way conveyance of Roanoke County Tax Map No. 80.03-01-11.00 as shown on the exhibit attached hereto as Page 2 of 6 "Exhibit E"; being a portion of the property conveyed by O.0 and Lucy Huffman by plat dated June 19, 1939 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Plat Book 2, Page 130. (6) Donation of 0.0336 acre of Roanoke County Tax Map No. 80.03-01-10.00 as shown on the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit F"; being a portion of the property conveyed to Russell N. Poindexter by deed dated April 16, 1986 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Deed Book 1235, page 635. Quitclaim of all interest in 0.0182 acre portion of property designated "Deed Overlap" adjacent to right-of-way conveyance of Roanoke County Tax Map No. 80.03-01-10.00 as shown on the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit F"; being a portion of the property conveyed by O.0 and Lucy Huffman by plat dated June 19, 1939 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Plat Book 2, Page 130. (7) Donation of 0.0321 acre of Roanoke County Tax Map No. 80.03-01-09.00 as shown on the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit G"; being a portion of the property conveyed to Bruce L. Leftwich by deed dated July 14, 1992 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Deed Book 1372, page 300. Quitclaim of all interest in 0.0163 acre portion of property designated "Deed Overlap" adjacent to right-of-way conveyance of Roanoke County Tax Map No. 80.03-01-09.00 as shown on the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit G"; being a portion of the property conveyed by O.0 and Lucy Huffman by plat dated June 19, 1939 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Plat Book 2, Page 130. (8) Donation of 0.0719 acre of Roanoke County Tax Map No. 80.03-01-08.00 as shown on the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit H"; being a portion of the property conveyed to Kenneth H. Roberts, Ruth Roberts Wharton Jordan and Deborah H. Pulley by deed dated March 12, 1952 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Deed Book 470, page 351, Will Book dated November 27, 1990 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Will Book 44, page 1854 and Will Book dated February 23, 1991 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Will Book 44, page 1855. Quitclaim of all interest in 0.0161 acre portion of property designated "Deed Overlap" adjacent to right-of-way conveyance of Roanoke County Page 3 of 6 Tax Map No. 80.03-01-08.00 as shown on the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit H"; being a portion of the property conveyed by O.0 and Lucy Huffman by plat dated June 19, 1939 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Plat Book 2, Page 130. (9) Donation of 0.0835 acre of Roanoke County Tax Map No. 80.03-01-06.00 as shown on the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit I"; being a portion of the property conveyed to John N. Leffell and Melissa R. Leffell by deed dated November 5, 2008 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Instru. # 200900189. Quitclaim of all interest in 0.0075 acre portion of property designated "Gap" adjacent to right-of-way conveyance of Roanoke County Tax Map No. 80.03-01-06.00 as shown on the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit I"; being a portion of the property conveyed by O.0 and Lucy Huffman by plat dated June 19, 1939 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Plat Book 2, Page 130. (10) Donation of 0.0189 acre of Roanoke County Tax Map No. 80.00-02-17.00 as shown on the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit J"; being a portion of the property conveyed to Angela Ann Taylor, Dorothea Christina Taylor and Carolyn P. Barlow by deed dated August 15, 2003 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Instru. # 200308550 and 200322197. (11) Donation of 0.0395 acre of Roanoke County Tax Map No. 80.03-01-05.00 as shown on the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit K'; being a portion of the property conveyed to Anthony D. Preston and Annie H. Preston by deed dated January 29, 2004 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Instru. # 200405232. Quitclaim of all interest in 0.0069 acre portion of property designated "Gap" adjacent to right-of-way conveyance of Roanoke County Tax Map No. 80.03-01-05.00 as shown on the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit K"; being a portion of the property conveyed by O.0 and Lucy Huffman by plat dated June 19, 1939 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Plat Book 2, Page 130. (12) Donation of 0.0579 acre of Roanoke County Tax Map No. 80.03-01-03.00 as shown on the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit L"; being a portion of the property conveyed to Dorothea Christina Taylor and Carl H. Legans by deed dated March 23, 2001 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Deed Book 1690, page 921. Page 4 of 6 Quitclaim of all interest in 0.0065 acre portion of property designated "Deed Overlap" adjacent to right-of-way conveyance of Roanoke County Tax Map No. 80.03-01-03.00 as shown on the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit L"; being a portion of the property conveyed by O.0 and Lucy Huffman by plat dated June 19, 1939 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Plat Book 2, Page 130. (13) Donation of 0.1197 acre of Roanoke County Tax Map No. 80.03-01-02.00 as shown on the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit M"; being a portion of the property conveyed to Victoria M. Poindexter by deed dated September 287 1995 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Deed Book 1488, page 1853. Quitclaim of all interest in 0.0405 acre portion of property designated "Deed Overlap" adjacent to right-of-way conveyance of Roanoke County Tax Map No. 80.03-01-02.00 as shown on the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit M"; being a portion of the property conveyed by O.0 and Lucy Huffman by plat dated June 19, 1939 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Plat Book 2, Page 130. (14) Donation of 0.0501 acre of Roanoke County Tax Map No. 80.03-01-01.01 as shown on the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit N"; being a portion of the property conveyed to Frank H. English and Sylveria K. English by deed dated November 30, 1981 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Deed Book 1180, page 219. Quitclaim of all interest in 0.0197 acre portion of property designated "Deed Overlap" adjacent to right-of-way conveyance of Roanoke County Tax Map No. 80.03-01-01.01 as shown on the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit N"; being a portion of the property conveyed by O.0 and Lucy Huffman by plat dated June 19, 1939 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Plat Book 2, Page 130. (15) Donation of 0.0887 acre of Roanoke County Tax Map No. 80.03-01-01.00 as shown on the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit O"; being a portion of the property conveyed to Douglas C. Poindexter and Cheryl R. Poindexter by deed dated July 31, 1979 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Deed Book 1134, page 301. (16) Donation of 0.0492 acre of Roanoke County Tax Map No. 80.03-01-01.02 as shown on the exhibit attached hereto as "Exhibit P"; being a portion of the property conveyed to Tony R. Poindexter by deed dated September Page 5 of 6 23, 2008 of record in the Clerk's Office, Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, Instru. # 200813260. Acceptance of this property is a necessary step in the process to have Ivyland Road accepted by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) into its Secondary System of State Highways as a Rural Addition roadway. There have been no changes since the first reading held on December 6, 2016. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve this ordinance to accept sixteen parcels of real estate. Page 6 of 6 � M ql O M CO) I PROPERTY OF STEVEN L. LEFTWICH LOT 5 WILCLARE CORPORATION P. B. 8, PG. 64 0.514 ACRES OINSTRUMENT #200705421 TAX No. 080.03-01-16.00 CWA 14/ IPF 68.39' S 3710'00" E EXISTING is RIGHT-OF-WAY r+i N S 37'13'51" E 320.00' m u FE O D tA PROPERTY OF SHARON STARKEY LOT 6 WILCLARE CORPORATION P.B. fr PC. 64 0.567 ACRES D.B. 1082 PC. 4 INSTR. 11201000974 TAX No. 080.03-01-15.00 PROPERTY OF WILLIAM & MELANIE CASSELL LOT 7 WILCLARE CORPORATION P. B. 8, PG. 64 0.708 ACRES INSTRUMENT #201401705 TAX No. 080.03-01-14.00 #.3160 #3166 3 e M O' M 10 0) N N3819'38"W 66.48' CURVE "A p ws N38'19'38"W p 52.59' O 25.05' N 37'10'00" W 52 .45 N 37'10'00" W IVYLAND RD. 30" OAK "END STA TE - - J EDGE OF PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE" SIGN PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS C. & CHERYL POINDEXTER 1.85 ACRES D.B. 1134, PG. 301 TAX No. 080.03-01-01.00 1.07'-/ RTE. 775 0 EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY-\ 77.54' S 37'10'00" E Q �CcCl'Q� P/Oi 01 +0�L 0'5 T � 40 OAK Fa "p It 9scy sG ToOX" G �jF A9 Op O.C. AND LUC'YHUFFMANMAP 79 gr0� ��FQ P.B. 2 PG, 130 BLDG. EXHIBIT TA " SHOWING RIGHT -OF- WA Y TO BEA CQUIRED RIGHT—OF—WAY BEING CONVEYED AREA= 27.94S.F. 0.0006Ac. TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY BY CURVE DA TA SHARON STARKEY '" ROANOKE COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL #80.03-01-15.00 CURVE ;I SITUATED ALONG IVYLAND ROAD4 R=460.00' p L=10.95' VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT z sNw" " D=5.4748" ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA °o CH=N37.38'44"W CHORD DIST.=10.95' SCALE: 1"= 30' DATE: JUNE 24, 2016 188 PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY OF SHARON STARKEY LOT 6 WILCLARE CORPORATION P. B. 8, PG. 64 0.567 ACRES D.B. 1082, PG. 4 TAX No. 080.03-01-15.00 INSTR. # 201000974 1: #,3160 :1 W-1 FC - EDGE Q OF N38'19'38"W Q PAVEMENT 52.59' W N 37'10'0 1.07' IVYLAND RD. s 37'13 51„ E 320.00' EDGE OF PAVEMENT CQ� PROPERTY OF WILLIAM & MELANIE CA SSELL LOT 7 IYILC LARE CORPORATION P.B. R, PG. 64 0.708 ACRES 17VSTR UMENT #201401705 TAX No. 080.03-01-14.00 3 #3166 M O rn N38'19'38"W CURVE "A" 66.48' Q :r $I •�11 W v a to Lp N N EXISTING RIGHT—OF—WAY /RTE. 775 77.54' S 37'10'00" E PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS C. & CHERYL POINDEXTER 1.85 ACRES D.B. 1134, PG. 301 TAX No. 080.03-01-01.00 }N co I cc to rn PROPERTY OF RUSSELL N. POINDEXTER 1.02 ACRES D.B. 1269, PG. 1136 TAX No. 080.03-01-13.00 `hle<q'�FF��Oi 00, 4, OF 0,94,0/ Op SG9 gsF'�S O,yeY `Si F kc' q s 5vr F�FF PROPERTY OF DELORES FOINDEXTER, et al 0.6 ACRES INSTRUMENT #200302747 TAX No. 080.03-01-12.00 STORY VINYL #3176 CURVE "B" L 50' 4' CHAIN LINK FENCE —\ CWA #3 D 43.62' GAP N 33'29'15" W Q RIGH T - OF- WA Y TO BEACQUIRED AREA= 142J55.F. 0.0033 AC. BLDG. O. C'. AND L UCY HUFFMANT MAP EXHIBIT 'B" P.B. 2 PG. 130 SHOWING RIGHT—OF—WAY BEING CONVEYED TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY BY William & Melanie Cassell ROANOKE COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL #80.03-01-14.00 Alvo SITUATED ALONG IVYLAND ROAD G VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT E. z ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1"= 30' DATE: SEPTEMBER 7, 2016 las PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 36" OAK Q W D_ U N 28 W CURVE DA TA CURVE ';4" R=460.00' L=10.95' D=1'21'48" T=5.47' CH=N37'38'44"W CHORD DIST.=10.95' CURVE '$" R=460.00' L=15.31' D=1'54'24" T=7.66' CH=N36'00'38"W CHORD DIST.=15.31' CURVE 'C" R=460.00' L=119.06' D=14'49'47" T=59.86' CH=N27'38'33"W CHORD DIST.=118.73' Z O r=o PROPERTY OF Y o t o m w o COi �aMo Lj(n W a a O Z -'-0 p 00 N J of ki U m 9Qp�SyTop� tis G��' Q mza� o � 2 (o x z - J cl� O YL "B" STORY VIN � 3 1 #3176 PROPERTY OF WILLIAM & MELANIE CASSELL LOT 7 WILCLARE CORPORATION P. B. 8, PG. 64 0.708 ACRES INSTRUMENT #201401705 TAX No. 080.03-01-14.00 #3166 EDGE Qj OF „ Q, PAVEMENT CURVE A a IVYLAND ROAD S85'16'16"E 14.69' 0 EDGE OF PAVEMENT 40" OAK a PROPERTY OF aRUSSELL N. POINDEXTER _0 1.02 ACRES M D.B. 1269, PG, 1136 TAX No. 080.03-01-13.00 4' CHAIN LINK I zl FENCE I a CWA IJ 0 L 43.62' N33'29'15" yy 35.1 GAP N 2876'! Q PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS C. & CHERYL PROPERTY OF Soli p0, til+ W N. N DELORES POINDEXTER, et al 1 4,0/ o,Q sG FOF�s'ptie'�s� w 0)- 1 0.6 ACRES 9Qp�SyTop� tis G��' � rn c INSTRUMENT #200302747 TAX No. 080.03-01-12.00 A pp Z cl� �j aLn YL "B" STORY VIN z CURVE 1 #3176 CURVE "C" 4' CHAIN LINK I zl FENCE I a CWA IJ 0 L 43.62' N33'29'15" yy 35.1 GAP N 2876'! Q w 36" OAK�, PIPE/F ONLINE . 14.4' FROM DEED CORNER EXHIBIT r.C,f 0.C. AND LLTC YTIUFFMANMAP P. R. 2 PG. 130 SHOWING RIGHT—OF—WAY BEING CONVEYED TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY BY Russell N. Poindexter ROANOKE COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL #80.03-01-13.00 Alva SITUATED ALONG IVYLAND ROAD G VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT z ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1"= 30' DATE: SEPTEMBER 7, 2016 las PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 019,4 IlE, DZW N20'13'39"W 5.71' �d Y Q o BUJ= No '�j� j UQo a=Zoo�m 4 o 2 ^m z a� ti CURVE DA TA / / //71/�- "A" /V //711r- .Q" K=4bU.UU L=10.95' D=1'21'48" T=5.47' CH=N37'38'44"W CHORD DIST.=10.95' K=4bU.UU L=15.31' D=1'54'24" T=7.66' CH=N36'00'38"W CHORD DIST.=15.31' CURVE 'C" R=460.00' L=119.06' D=14'49'47" T=59.86' CH=N27'38'33"W CHORD DIST.=118.73' PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS C. & CHERYL POINDEXTER 1.85 ACRES D.B. 1134, PG. 301 TAX No. 080.03-01-01.00 RIGHT -OF -WA Y TO BEA CQUIRED AREA = 203.22 S.F. 0.0047AC. DEED OVERLAP AREA= 177. r8S.F. 0.0041 AC. w 36" OAK�, PIPE/F ONLINE . 14.4' FROM DEED CORNER EXHIBIT r.C,f 0.C. AND LLTC YTIUFFMANMAP P. R. 2 PG. 130 SHOWING RIGHT—OF—WAY BEING CONVEYED TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY BY Russell N. Poindexter ROANOKE COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL #80.03-01-13.00 Alva SITUATED ALONG IVYLAND ROAD G VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT z ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1"= 30' DATE: SEPTEMBER 7, 2016 las PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 019,4 IlE, DZW N20'13'39"W 5.71' �d Y Q o BUJ= No '�j� j UQo a=Zoo�m 4 o 2 ^m z a� ti CURVE DA TA / / //71/�- "A" /V //711r- .Q" K=4bU.UU L=10.95' D=1'21'48" T=5.47' CH=N37'38'44"W CHORD DIST.=10.95' K=4bU.UU L=15.31' D=1'54'24" T=7.66' CH=N36'00'38"W CHORD DIST.=15.31' CURVE 'C" R=460.00' L=119.06' D=14'49'47" T=59.86' CH=N27'38'33"W CHORD DIST.=118.73' PROPERTY OF WILLIAM & MELANIE CASSELL LOT 7 WILCLARE CORPORATION P.B. 8, PG. 64 0.708 ACRES INSTRUMENT #200619462 INSTRUMENT #201401705 TAX No. 080.03-01-14.00 I3166 CURVE 'A" GRA VEL DRIVE of W o o X �r Q r2 T z �s U Y ¢ 01 � Y J o m o iw mz VI rn F- a - 77.54' c} S 37'10'00" E S 37'13'51" E \ 263.21' W N \O 'N ME PROPERTY OF DELORES POINDEXTER, ET AL 0.6 ACRES INSTRUMENT #200-3302747 TAX No. 080.03-01-12.00 CURVE 'B" 1 STORY VINYL #3176 PATIO 4' CHAIN LINK FENCE " U lO N 33'29'15" W N 2816'05" GAP W 56.79' 'S'0'1'00, °'1' F °R'o °A, Oq S& C,r, SGS A A °R 79)3}°�S lob> 610 IVYLAND ROAD CURVE DATA EXISTING PROPERTY OF 30' PRESCRIP71VE R/W Docal-Teijeiro, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY Properties, LLC - CURVE 'B" 0.87 ACRES BY Instr. No. 200809976 Delores Poindexter, Tony Reid Poindexter, 3 Instr. No. 201311777 Douglas C. Poindexter Jr., Linda Poindexter Moyer, CH=N37.38'44"W TAX No. 080.03-01-11.00 CHORD DIST.=10.95' L N N CURVE 'B" GRA WL D N R=460.00' R=460.00' 0 M N20' 13'39 "W L=119.06' ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA °oo D=1'54'24" D=14'49'47" EDGE OF PAVEMENT 46.28' N 20 M N2p7339 30"� 4S.On' W _ DEED 68 "W .85 A\/COI AO_ EDGE OF PAVEMENT 0 70 36" OAK 5 o. PIPE/F ONLINE PROPERTY OF �o� 14.4' FROM — DOUGLAS C. &CHERYL DEED CORNER S 22'17'51" E 145.00' POIINDEX SER P94tr1.85 /Ig D.B. 1134, PG. 301 TAX No. 080.03-01-01.00 #316.x7 0, C. AND LUCY HUFFMAN MAP RIGHT -OF -WA Y TO BEA CQUIRED P. a. 2 PG. 130 AREA= I, 665.48 S.F. 0.0382Ac. PROPERTY OF DEED GAP FRANK H. & SYLVERIA K. AREA= III2.I4S,F, 0.0255Ac. ENGLISH ,ol78z 1.00 ACRES EXHIBI7* TV D.B. 1180, PG. 219 TAX No. 080.03-01-01.01 SHOWING CURVE DATA RIGHT-OF-WAY BEING CONVEYED CURVE 'A" TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY R=460.00' L=10.95' BY D=1'21'48" Delores Poindexter, Tony Reid Poindexter, T=5.47' Douglas C. Poindexter Jr., Linda Poindexter Moyer, CH=N37.38'44"W Judy Paulette Roberts And Ricky Lee Poindexter CHORD DIST.=10.95' ROANOKE COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL #80.03-01-12.00 oANo,Y� CURVE 'B" CURVE 'C" SITUATED ALONG IVYLAND ROAD � R=460.00' R=460.00' VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT z " L=15.31' L=119.06' ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA °oo D=1'54'24" D=14'49'47" SCALE: 1"= 30' DATE: SEPTEMBER 7, 2016 1838 CH=N3' CH=N36'00'38"W CH=N26' CH=N27'38'33"W PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHORD DIST.=15.31' CHORD DIST.=118.7 N�RCogA( OF SON fN�PORq 710% SDl �iS/ p Dq rcD NffRS y TP pFOR MgRCH 6, U 97.1Yoft kfR & --ddl— #3176 PROPERTY OF DELORES POINDEXTER, et al 0.6 ACRES INSTRUMENT #200302747 TAX No. 080.03-01-12.00 N20'13'39"W 5.71' CURVE A PROPERTY OF DACAL-TEIJEIRO, PROPERTIES, LLC DEED OR 15.68' FROM 0.87 ACRES IPF ONLINE - 3 Instr. No. 201311777 a TAX No. 080.03-01-11.00 M N 3' GRAVEL DIW CURVE 19 "Z RIGHT-OFWA Y TO BEACQUIRED RUSSELL AREA= 1, 885.33 S.F. 0.0433 Ac. DEED OVERLAP U 1 AREA = 862.38 S. F. 0.0152 Ac. PROPERTY OF DACAL-TEIJEIRO, PROPERTIES, LLC DEED OR 15.68' FROM 0.87 ACRES IPF ONLINE - 3 Instr. No. 201311777 a TAX No. 080.03-01-11.00 M N 3' GRAVEL DIW CURVE 19 "Z w oo PROPERTY OF RUSSELL N. POINDEXTER 1.00 ACRES U 1 D.B. 1235, PG. 635 TAX No. 080.03-01-10.00 PIPE/F ONLINE s wXOf 1 STORY VINYL DEED CORNERW /3184 vQUO Q��nocn S WOOD FfOTNC. FENCE � Z i SORY BRICK mz a N18'37'26"W O o a 101.80' c� O w oo DEED OVERLAP J PAVED DRIVE S 20'56'18" E = 0 „ 97.50' 24 TREE U 1 o w ro o PIPE/F ONLINE s wXOf a_ o DEED CORNERW vQUO Q��nocn Z Ln � oo_ FfOTNC. Q p DO- o i SORY BRICK mz & p n O o a 13181 O PROPERTY OF FRANK H. & SYLVERIA K. ,}'3165 U. C. A ND L UC Y HLTFFMA N MA P ENGLISH P.B. , PG. 130 1.00 ACRES D.B. 1180, PG. 219 TAX No. 080.03-01-01.01 EXHIBIT "E" SHOWING RIGHT—OF—WAY BEING CONVEYED TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY BY Dacal—Teijeiro, Properties, LLC ROANOKE COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL #80.03-01-11.00 Alvp SITUATED ALONG IVYLAND ROAD G VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT z ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1"= 30' DATE: JUNE 24, 2016 las PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CURVE A 97.00' —N 20'56'18" W — \EDGE OF PAVEMENT PROPERTY OF VICTORIA M. POINDEXTER 2.00 ACRES D.B. 1488, PG. 1853 TAX No. 080.03-01-02.00 IVYLAND ROAD EXIS77NG 30' PRESCRIPTIVE R/1N CURVE DA TA R=460.00' L=119.06' D=14'49'47" T=59.86' CH=N27'38'33"W CHORD DIST.=118.73' CURVE '$" R=120.00' L=3.36' D=1'36'13" T=1.68' CH =N 19'25' 33"W CHORD DIST.=3.36' I � n C N 1 �' O O .o Zo O o . o � � � � N � J 'oo N DEED CORNER 15.68' FROM IPF ONLINE CURVE "A"-\ - - 25.79' EDGE OF PAVEMENT 1 STORY BRICK & VINYL #3181 PROPERTY OF- RUSSELL FRUSSELL N. POINDEXTER 1.00 A CRSS D.B. 1235, PG. 635 TAX No. 080.03-01-10.00 1 STORY VINYL #3184 WN WOOD FENCE S 2013'57", E Y1111115 7MATel : • /���/1 24" TREE PROPERTY OF FRANK H. & SYLVERIA K. ENGLISH 1.00 ACRES D.B. 1180, PG. 219 TAX No. 080.03-01-01.01 CURVE DATA CURVE A " R=120.00' L=3.36' D=1'36'13" T=1.68' CH=N19'25'33"W CHORD DIST.=3.36' CURVE 'B" R=120.00' L=1.76' D=0'50'25" T=0.88' CH=N18*12'14"W CHORD DIST .=1.76' N 20'56'18" W 97.00' DEED IVYLAND ROAD EXISANG 30' PRESCRIPTIVE RIW NqLCLAReRID1. SON CORP Rq n U I y� DATfO/N RS g S)' Tp PAR RCy 6, RveyORSKfR & �974 PROPERTY OF BRUCE L. LEFTWICH 1.5 ACRES D.B. 1372, PG. PG. 300 TAX No. 080.03-01-09.00 r iLO 1 STORY VINYL #3190 4' CHAIN LINK IPF BEARS FENCE N70V223"E 15.00' FROM DEED CORNER CURVE "B" N 18'37'26"W N 17'47'02"W 32.87' 75.83 57.43'} S 20'56'18" E EDGE OF PAVEMENT J O.C. AND LUCYHUFFMANMAP P.B. 2 PG. 130 PROPERTY OF VICTORIA M. POINDEXTER 2.00 ACRES D.B. 1488, PG. 1853 TAX No. 080.03-01-02.00 EXHIBIT "F" SHOWING RIGHT—OF—WAY BEING CONVEYED TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY BY Russell N. Poindexter ontvok ROANOKE COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL #80.03-01-10.00 r SITUATED ALONG IVYLAND ROAD z VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA lase SCALE: 1"= 30' DATE: JUNE 24, 2016 PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RIGHT -OF -WA Y TO BEACQU/RED AREA= f,464.63S.F. 0.0336Ac. DEED OVERLAP AREA= 793.95 S. F. 0.0182 Ac. EXHIBIT "F" SHOWING RIGHT—OF—WAY BEING CONVEYED TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY BY Russell N. Poindexter ontvok ROANOKE COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL #80.03-01-10.00 r SITUATED ALONG IVYLAND ROAD z VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA lase SCALE: 1"= 30' DATE: JUNE 24, 2016 PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EDGE OF PAVEMENT PROPERTY OF VICTORIA M. POINDEXTER 2.00 ACRES D.B. 1488, PG. 1853 0. C AND L UCY HUFFMAN MAP TAX No. 080.03-01-02.00 P.B. 2 PC,. 1-330 RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BEACQUIRED AREA= i,398.07S.F, 0.032f Ac. DEED OVERLAP EXHIBIT "G" AREA= 711.44 S.F: 0.0163Ac. SHOWING RIGHT—OF—WAY BEING CONVEYED TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY BY CURVE DA TA Bruce L. Leftwich ROANOKE COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL #80.03-01-09.00 goANo CURVE A" SITUATED ALONG IVYLAND ROAD ° R=120.00' F a:w L=1.76' VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ° D=0'50'25" ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA °v �` T=0.88' SCALE: 1"= 30' DATE: JUNE 24, 2016 189 CH=N18'12'14"W CHORD DIST.=1.76' PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT hit CLgReR1Qj4jV co'? OF, PROPERTY OF s ° 7tC'V. ;Rs geYy PO p"OR BRUCE' L. LEFTVYICH N MgRCN 6,U s�r°RSkeR & Ln 1.5 A CRES 0)r— -PROPERTY D.B. 1372, PG. PG. 300 PROPERTYOF *h RUSSELL N. POINDEXTER TAX No. 080.03-01-09.00 1.00 ACRES PROPERTY OF D.B. 1235, PG. 635 KENNETH H. ROBERTS, TAX No. 080.03-01-10.00 RUTH ROBERTS WHARTON JORDAN and 1 STORY VINYL 1 STORY DEBORAH H. PULLEY 2.46 ACRES M VINYL W.B. 44, PG. 1854 and W.B. 544 PG. 1855 LO #3190 GARAGE TAX No. 080.03-01-08.00 1 STORY VINYL #3184 N W �I s IPF BEARS s �+ j al IVYLAND ROAD 4 CHAIN LINK a to Exisnnrc N70'0223 E �^ FENCE z 30' PRESCRIPTIVE R1W WOOD 15.00' FROM J FENCE o DEED CORNER CURVE "A" U N18'37'26"W N18'37'26"W N17'47'02"W N17'47'02"W 101.80' ��87' 75.83' ro _ 70.13' `O DEED OVERLAP �o 97.00' 57.43' 53.00' DEED 78.00' N 20'56'18" W S 20'56'18" E S 16"11'18" E OVERLAP N 16'11`18" W L - - m EDGE OF PAVEMENT PROPERTY OF VICTORIA M. POINDEXTER 2.00 ACRES D.B. 1488, PG. 1853 0. C AND L UCY HUFFMAN MAP TAX No. 080.03-01-02.00 P.B. 2 PC,. 1-330 RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BEACQUIRED AREA= i,398.07S.F, 0.032f Ac. DEED OVERLAP EXHIBIT "G" AREA= 711.44 S.F: 0.0163Ac. SHOWING RIGHT—OF—WAY BEING CONVEYED TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY BY CURVE DA TA Bruce L. Leftwich ROANOKE COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL #80.03-01-09.00 goANo CURVE A" SITUATED ALONG IVYLAND ROAD ° R=120.00' F a:w L=1.76' VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ° D=0'50'25" ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA °v �` T=0.88' SCALE: 1"= 30' DATE: JUNE 24, 2016 189 CH=N18'12'14"W CHORD DIST.=1.76' PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY OF KENNETH H. ROBERTS, W)LCL S EE CIORPOR r SUBD/14S/01V RUTH ROBERTS WHARTON JORDAN AND D �oNM Rc& sYR�yPARKER & DEBORAH H. PULLEY H 6, 1974ORS PROPERTY OF 2.46 ACRES BRUCE L. LEFTWICH o 1.5 ACRES Ln W.B. 44, PG. 1854 and W.B. 44 PG. 1855 rn D.B. 1372, PG. PG. 300 0 ``� TAX No. 080.03-01-08.00 TAX No. 080.03-01-09.00 r 3 PROPERTY OF JOSH N. LEFFELL & to W ate' o MELISSA K. St.CLAIR 1 STORY . h 1 STORY VINYL I VINYL d �t�� INSTRUMENT #200617031 #3190 LGARAGE I IWLAND ROAD TAX No. 080.03-01—T66..OY EXISANG N15'30'30"W 2 1S `D 30' PRESCRIPTIVE RlIf 18'26' FRAME z 4' CHAIN LINK CURVE "A" CURVE "B" EDGE #3198 s FENCE ,p PAVEMENT N17'4 '02"W N17'47'02"W N13'S2'20"W � QP N15'30'30"W 75.B3' 70.13' %86.88' ,yo 145.86' c� S 12'25'18" E 160.00' DEED OVERLAP—/GAP 0.83' 53.00' a S 16'11'18" E77 EDGE OF PAVEMENT PROPERTY OF VICTORIA M. POINDEXTER 2.00 ACRES D.B. 1488, PG. 1853 TAX No. 080.03-01-02.00 C4 I N r CWA /1J IPF ONLINE 9.73' FRO1W DEED CORNER PROPERTY OF DOROTHEA CHRISTINA TAYLOR & CARL H. LEGANS 0.5248 ACRES D.B. 1690, PG. 921 TAX No. 080.03-01-03.00 0. C. AND LUCY HUFFMAN MAP P. B. 2 PG. 130 EXHIBIT .rH1. SHOWING RIGHT—OF—WAY BEING CONVEYED TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY BY Kenneth H. Roberts, Ruth Roberts Wharton Jordan and Deborah H. Pulley ROANOKE COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL #80.03-01-08.00 SITUATED ALONG IVYLAND ROAD VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1"= 50' DATE: JUNE 24, 2016 PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT L103.30' (ACTUAL) 3 104.00' (DEED) o N 15'09'46" IN s a M OI s CD DEED OVERLAP to 1 STORY IN �al 03197 C4 I N r CWA /1J IPF ONLINE 9.73' FRO1W DEED CORNER PROPERTY OF DOROTHEA CHRISTINA TAYLOR & CARL H. LEGANS 0.5248 ACRES D.B. 1690, PG. 921 TAX No. 080.03-01-03.00 0. C. AND LUCY HUFFMAN MAP P. B. 2 PG. 130 EXHIBIT .rH1. SHOWING RIGHT—OF—WAY BEING CONVEYED TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY BY Kenneth H. Roberts, Ruth Roberts Wharton Jordan and Deborah H. Pulley ROANOKE COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL #80.03-01-08.00 SITUATED ALONG IVYLAND ROAD VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1"= 50' DATE: JUNE 24, 2016 PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 15' ROAD EASEMENT L=15.02' D.B. 1049, PG. 707 D=3'54'42" RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BEACQUIRED T=7.51' AREA= A3,133.53 S.F. 0.0719AC. 3 DEED OVERLAP CHORD DIST.=15.02' AREA= 702..35S.F. 0.0161 AC. C4 I N r CWA /1J IPF ONLINE 9.73' FRO1W DEED CORNER PROPERTY OF DOROTHEA CHRISTINA TAYLOR & CARL H. LEGANS 0.5248 ACRES D.B. 1690, PG. 921 TAX No. 080.03-01-03.00 0. C. AND LUCY HUFFMAN MAP P. B. 2 PG. 130 EXHIBIT .rH1. SHOWING RIGHT—OF—WAY BEING CONVEYED TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY BY Kenneth H. Roberts, Ruth Roberts Wharton Jordan and Deborah H. Pulley ROANOKE COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL #80.03-01-08.00 SITUATED ALONG IVYLAND ROAD VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1"= 50' DATE: JUNE 24, 2016 PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT N PROPERTY OF ANTHONY D. & ANNIE H. PRESTON 1.019 ACRES IM INSTRUMENT /200405232 M TAX No. 080.03-01-05.00 BENCHMARK RAILROAD SPIKE IN APCO POLE 1303-315 ELEVA7101V = 100.00 CURVE DATA CURVE ';4 " CURVE 'B" R=220.00' R=180.00' L=15.02' L=5.14' D=3'54'42" �s T=7.51' s 3 CH=S14'41'25"E CHORD DIST.=15.02' 1 STORY VINYL �al #3199 N PROPERTY OF ANTHONY D. & ANNIE H. PRESTON 1.019 ACRES IM INSTRUMENT /200405232 M TAX No. 080.03-01-05.00 BENCHMARK RAILROAD SPIKE IN APCO POLE 1303-315 ELEVA7101V = 100.00 CURVE DATA CURVE ';4 " CURVE 'B" R=220.00' R=180.00' L=15.02' L=5.14' D=3'54'42" D=1'38'10" T=7.51' T=2.57' CH=N15'49'41"W CH=S14'41'25"E CHORD DIST.=15.02' CHORD DIST.=5.14' PROPERTY OF KENNETH H. ROBERTS, RUTH ROBERTS MARTON JORDAN and DEBORAH H. PULLEY 2.46 ACRES W.B. 44, PG. 1854 and W.B. 544 PG. 1855 TAX No. 080.03-01-08.00 EDGE OF PAVEMENT N � CURVE #3199 m a T ®RIGHT-OF-WAY s a Qe N15'30'30"W ~'�d W a o V Z cd 18.2s' 7 777 0.83', i i% O Q -5 D PRESTON 1.019 PROPERTY OF JOSH N. LEFFELL & MELISSA R. LEFFELL 0.52 ACRES L\TSTW UMENT #200900189 TAX No. 080.03-01-06.00 IVYLAND ROAD EXIS77NG JO' PRESCRIPTIVE R/1N L91 CWA �/1 IPF ONLINE 9.73' FROM DEED CORNER coroc. s w �' O �u i o1 Q AfJ197 PROPERTY OF DOROTHEA CHRISTINA TAYLOR & CARL H. LEGANS 0.5248 ACRES D.B. 1690, PG. 921 TAX No. 080.03-01-03.00 1 STORY FRAME #3198 S 1 CONC. S IN N15 -30'30"W 145.86'T S 12°2518" F/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT O.C. AND LLIC YHUFFMANMAP P. B. 2 PG. 1330 I EXHIBIT "I" N 11'29'54" W - 130.39' (DEED) 131.09' (ACTUAL) S #32p8 I"LCLA Ef RI DI AN OF ENFOn OSON RA IVSIG�NffSNBY TN ORPDATEDR&sU9� PARKERMARCN �OR& PROPERTY OF ANGELA ANN TAYLOR and DOROTHEA CHRISTINA TAYLOR SUBJECT TO CAROLYN P. BARLOW LIFE ESTATE 0.947 ACRES INSTRUMENT #200322197 TAX No. 080.00-02-17.00 > N � 1 STORY VINYL #3199 m a T ®RIGHT-OF-WAY � ? U) m a z 000 ,� 0/W P GAP W GR z�oayy� v+ 160.00' N 69'09'16" E 3.38' SHOWING RIGHT—OF—WAY BEING CONVEYED TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY � o 1 STORY VINYL #3199 m a T ®RIGHT-OF-WAY � ? U) m OJ w (� o PROPERTY OF ~'�d W a o V Z cd ANTHONY D. & ANNIE H. o O Q -5 D PRESTON 1.019 ACRES n z r Y m U ox z INSTRUMENT #200405232 a - TAX No. 080.03-01-05.00 SHOWING RIGHT—OF—WAY BEING CONVEYED TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY BY Josh N. Leffell & Melissa R. Leffell ROANOKE COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL #80.03-01-06.00 goANo SITUATED ALONG IVYLAND ROAD ° VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1"= 30' DATE: JUNE 24, 2016 189 PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CURVE DA TA CURVE A R=180.00' L=5.14' D=1'38'10" T=2.57' CH=S14'41'25"E CHORD DIST.=5.14' Q TOBEA CQU/RED ®RIGHT-OF-WAY AREA= 3,636.013. F. 0.0835AC. DEED GAP AREA= 327,57S.F. 0.0075AC. BY Josh N. Leffell & Melissa R. Leffell ROANOKE COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL #80.03-01-06.00 goANo SITUATED ALONG IVYLAND ROAD ° VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1"= 30' DATE: JUNE 24, 2016 189 PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CURVE DA TA CURVE A R=180.00' L=5.14' D=1'38'10" T=2.57' CH=S14'41'25"E CHORD DIST.=5.14' GRAVEL RVEE 0.Z CURVE DATA l i WZ 0. m Vl n �O �, 'A �0 �a� CURVE 4" CURVE 3" VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT D 1 N Z N n v7 cn zc Z� 0 0 �:.- -0-<� M orn o < c) fl m 0 m ON n F- (,� 00 ;0Q p Q cn Z D O O, w o Cil Z GAP O ��T ti CURVE "A" F PROPERTY OF JOSH N. LEFFELL & MELISSA R. LEFFELL im D 0.52 ACRES U) m INSTRUMENT #200900189 m `s TAX No. 080.03-01-06.00 9 bZ� E PAID ORIv� N 68 0. C. ANDT UCYHUFFMANMAP P.D. 2 PG. 130 Lp /j cp0. o, GRAVEL DRIW 41 PROPERTY OF ANGELA ANN TAYLOR AND DOROTHEA CHRisrmA TAYLOR SUBJECT TO N ti CAROLYN P. BARLOYY L/FE ESTATE o 0.947 ACRES INSTRUMENT 11200322197 TAX No. 080.00-/02-17.00 ti 1 A2 Xj stsa / CURVE "B" PROPERTY OF DARRICK A. & LINDA M. JONES 16.379 ACRES EXHIBIT "J" D.B. 1658, PG. 1506 TAX No. 080.00-02-16.00 SHOWING INSTRU. # 200916239 RIGHT-OF-WAY BEING CONVEYED TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY BY Angela Ann Taylor and Dorothea Christina Taylor SUBJECT TO D Zmm a m p o m C) -u z K:m D D :;u =-j ;1(A o 2 sf ° Z 0 W — 0 J { . Z �0>A m m A Ip RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BEACQUIRED AREA=823.468.F, O.O I89Ac. Carolyn P. Barlow Life Estate CURVE DATA ROANOKE COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL #80.00-02-17.00 gOANO SITUATED ALONG IVYLAND ROAD a CURVE 4" CURVE 3" VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT :�w z R=25.00' R=45.00' 7 °v L=32.03' L=198.73' ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA D=73.23'52" D=253.02'04" SCALE: 1"= 30' DATE: JUNE 24, 2016 189 T=18.63' T=60.78'CH=N21.11'26"E CH=S68'37'40"E PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHORD DIST.=29.88' CHORD DIST.=72.33' PROPERTY OF KENNETH H. ROBERTS ET ALS 2.46 ACRES W.B. 44, PG. 1854 TAX No. 080.03-01-08.00 EDGE OF PAVEMENT N15'30'30"W CURVE 'a)' ;4 "" M �,1 M CONC. S�W s 0 c� xJ197 O.C. AND L[ICY HUFFIV/ANN/AP P.B.2 PG. 130 PROPERTY OF JOSH N. LEFFELL & MELISSA R. LEFFELL 0.52 ACRES INSTRUMENT #200900189 TAX No. 080.03-01-06.00 IVYLAND ROAD EXIS71NG 30' PRESCRIP71VE RIW O 1 STORY FRAME #3198 S 1 CONC. S IN S 12'25'18" E 160.00' N 11'29'54" W - 130.39' (DEED) 131.09' (ACTUAL) s 1 STORY VINYL #3199 GAP W/LCLgR,R OI�p OF SUB SON FN ORATIO DlV/S/ON OgTE�NEFRs ABY 7: P. P OR MgRCy 6 U1Vj4 RSKeR & PROPERTY OF ANGELA ANN TAYLOR and DOROTHEA CHRISTINA TAYLOR SUBJECT TO CAROLYN P. BARLOW LIFE ESTATE 0.947 ACRES INSTRUMENT #200322197 TAX No. 080.00-02-17.00 > N � � � o I � N O Q a z u pew GRAo 210 � IPF N AZO% ao 3.38' Cf EDGE OF PAVEMENT 'n I �PROPERTY OF PROPERTY OF CWA #1 ANTHONY D. &ANNIE H. DOROTHEA CHRISTINA IPF ONLINE TAYLOR 9.73' FROM PRESTON & CARL H. LEGANS DEED CORNER 1.019 ACRES 0.5248 ACRES INSTRUMENT#200405232 D.B. 1690, PG. 921 BACKC'REEK TAX No. 080.03-01-03.00 EXHIBIT rrK.r TAX No. 080.03-01-05.00 SHOWING RIGHT—OF—WAY BEING CONVEYED TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY BY CURVE DATA CURVE A CD 0 0)Q oo `° N p '2 o �? ��o0, O J (If H W Q a o N w z m o CDCD � o 0Q� M ° o oof oY �mzU) U ox z � a - Q p R=220.00' L=6.28' D=1'38'10" T=3.14' CH=S14'41'25"E CHORD DIST.=6.28' Anthony D. Sc Annie H. Preston RIGHTOF-WA Y TO REACQUIRED ROANOKE COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL #80.03-01-05.00 AREA= 1,719.33S.F. 0.039SAc. SITUATED ALONG IVYLAND ROAD F VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT DEED OVERLAP ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA AREA= 298.48S.F. 0.0069Ac. SCALE: 1 "= 30' DATE: JUNE 24, 2016 PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 i0 O�0 0 to b+ ri M 1 STORY FRAME #3198 S 1 CONC. S IN S 12'25'18" E 160.00' N 11'29'54" W - 130.39' (DEED) 131.09' (ACTUAL) s 1 STORY VINYL #3199 GAP W/LCLgR,R OI�p OF SUB SON FN ORATIO DlV/S/ON OgTE�NEFRs ABY 7: P. P OR MgRCy 6 U1Vj4 RSKeR & PROPERTY OF ANGELA ANN TAYLOR and DOROTHEA CHRISTINA TAYLOR SUBJECT TO CAROLYN P. BARLOW LIFE ESTATE 0.947 ACRES INSTRUMENT #200322197 TAX No. 080.00-02-17.00 > N � � � o I � N O Q a z u pew GRAo 210 � IPF N AZO% ao 3.38' Cf EDGE OF PAVEMENT 'n I �PROPERTY OF PROPERTY OF CWA #1 ANTHONY D. &ANNIE H. DOROTHEA CHRISTINA IPF ONLINE TAYLOR 9.73' FROM PRESTON & CARL H. LEGANS DEED CORNER 1.019 ACRES 0.5248 ACRES INSTRUMENT#200405232 D.B. 1690, PG. 921 BACKC'REEK TAX No. 080.03-01-03.00 EXHIBIT rrK.r TAX No. 080.03-01-05.00 SHOWING RIGHT—OF—WAY BEING CONVEYED TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY BY CURVE DATA CURVE A CD 0 0)Q oo `° N p '2 o �? ��o0, O J (If H W Q a o N w z m o CDCD � o 0Q� M ° o oof oY �mzU) U ox z � a - Q p R=220.00' L=6.28' D=1'38'10" T=3.14' CH=S14'41'25"E CHORD DIST.=6.28' Anthony D. Sc Annie H. Preston RIGHTOF-WA Y TO REACQUIRED ROANOKE COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL #80.03-01-05.00 AREA= 1,719.33S.F. 0.039SAc. SITUATED ALONG IVYLAND ROAD F VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT DEED OVERLAP ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA AREA= 298.48S.F. 0.0069Ac. SCALE: 1 "= 30' DATE: JUNE 24, 2016 PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WjL UcRIDI CLgR COP OF SUBOI S0� ENGIN ERSje ONBy T p NP OR A�0' UARCH s uR9 4ORSKER & BENCHMARK RAILROAD SPIKE IN APCO POLE 11303-315 ELEVA710N = 100.00 PROPERTY OF KENNETH H. ROBERTS, e 3 RUTH ROBERTS YMARTON JORDAN and //^°j • DEBORAH H. PULLEY 2.46 ACRES W.B. 44, PG. 1854 and W.B. 544 PG. 1855 = TAX No. 080.03-01-08.00 IVYLAND ROAD N 1r2s'S4" w EXIS71NG 130.00' EDGE OF PAVEMENT 30' PRESCRIPTIVE R/1N DEED OVERLAP S 16'18'26" E 93.02' (ACTUAI 78.00" (DEED; N17'47' CURVE A " r a LO PROPERTY OF VICTORIA M. POINDEXTER 2.00 ACRES D.B. 1488, PG. 1853 TAX No. 080.03-01-02.00 15' ROAD EASEMENT D.B. 1049, PG. 707 O.C. AND LUCYHUFFMANMAP P.B. 2 PG. 130 S APCO / s CURVE 'B" 1 STORY VINYL #3197 PROPERTY OF DOROTHEA CHRISTINA TAYLOR & CARL H. LEGANS 0.5248 ACRES D.B. 1690, PG. 921 BACK CPEEK ITAX No. 080.03-01-03.00 EXHIBIT rrL rr 38.23 0 R-1 CWA /I � IPF ONLINE 9.73' FROM DEED CORNER PROPERTY OF JOSH N. LEFFELL & MELISSA R. LEFFELL 0.52 ACRES INSTRUMENT #200900189 TAX No. 080.03-01-06.00 #3198 3 CURVE 'B" � 29.87' c� L=14.57' N 11'29'54" W o D=1'38'10" 130.39' (DEED) �i6 O in 9 M 1 01 CoNC. S/W N CURVE A " r a LO PROPERTY OF VICTORIA M. POINDEXTER 2.00 ACRES D.B. 1488, PG. 1853 TAX No. 080.03-01-02.00 15' ROAD EASEMENT D.B. 1049, PG. 707 O.C. AND LUCYHUFFMANMAP P.B. 2 PG. 130 S APCO / s CURVE 'B" 1 STORY VINYL #3197 PROPERTY OF DOROTHEA CHRISTINA TAYLOR & CARL H. LEGANS 0.5248 ACRES D.B. 1690, PG. 921 BACK CPEEK ITAX No. 080.03-01-03.00 EXHIBIT rrL rr 38.23 0 R-1 CWA /I � IPF ONLINE 9.73' FROM DEED CORNER PROPERTY OF JOSH N. LEFFELL & MELISSA R. LEFFELL 0.52 ACRES INSTRUMENT #200900189 TAX No. 080.03-01-06.00 #3198 3 CURVE 'B" � 29.87' c� L=14.57' N 11'29'54" W o D=1'38'10" 130.39' (DEED) a 131.09' (ACTUAL) rn to CoNC. S/W O1 W S to M #3199 PROPERTY OF ANTHONY D. & ANNIE H. PRESTON 1.019 ACRES INSTRUMENT #200405232 TAX No. 080.03-01-05.00 RIGHT -OF- WA Y TO BEA CQUIRED AREA = 2, 521.5 r S.F. 0.0579 AC. DEED OVERLAP SHOWING AREA= 283.04S.F, 0.0065AC. RIGHT—OF—WAY BEING CONVEYED TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY BY Dorothea Christina Taylor & Carl H. Legans ROANOKE COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL #80.03-01-03.00 ANpx� SITUATED ALONG IVYLAND ROAD G VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT z ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA °oo SCALE: 1"= 30' DATE: JUNE 24, 2016 1898 PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CURVE DA TA CURVE A" CURVE 'B" R=180.00' R=220.00' L=14.57' L=6.28' D=4'38'20" D=1'38'10" T=7.29' T=3.14' CH=N15'27'52"W CH=S14'41'25"E CHORD DIST.=14.57' CHORD DIST.=6.28' 41L 4?N CCIDh% OP vv S E SNC 70Ng SION F A 1F0. R DS ¢ T P POR 44RC& s R r 4R1 ER ¢ 19j4 PROPERTY OF RUSSELL N. POINDEXTER 1.00 ACRES D.B. 1235, PG. 635 a TAX No. 080.03-01-10.00 a o' � p N DEED CORNER 15.68' FROM IPF ONLINE - EDGE OF PAVEMENT/ S 20'56'18" E N18'37'2 55/I.91 C/ O.C. AND LUCY NUFFMANMAP P.B. 2 PG. 130 PROPERTY OF BRUCE L. LEFTWICH 1.5 ACRES D.B. 1372, PG. PG. 300 TAX No. 080.03-01-09.00 IPF BEARS N70*02 23"E 15.00' FROM DEED CORNER PROPERTY OF KENNETH H. ROBERTS, RUTH ROBERTS WHARTON JORDAN and DEBORAH H. PULLEY 2.46 ACRES W.B. 44, PG. 1854 and W.B. 544 PG. 1855 TAX No. 080.03-01-08.00 1 STORY VINYL 1 STORY VINYL IVYLAND ROAD X3190 GARAGE 7 STORY VINYL £XI$11N6 #3184 30' PRESCRIPTIVE R/1N s 4' CHAIN LINK �a WOOD FENCE FENCE e� R DEED 2013'57" E B I O S 15'28'57" E S 16'18'26" E OVERLAP o 120.00' 78.00" (DEED) C4 s 24" TREE STORY BRICK de WNYL opo ,{3181 `l o 104.56' 145.95' CURVE "B" PROPERTY Of- VICTORIA FVICTORIA M. POINDEXTER 2.00 ACRES D.B. 1488, PG. 1853 PT TR 6DIV OFHUFFMANLAND BACK CREEK TAX No. 080.03-01-02.00 EXHIBIT "M" a� 3 154.60' t7 corSTORY CURVE "C" (A 'INYL LO PROPERTY OF 15' ROAD EASEMENTOOROTHEA CHRISTINA D.B. 1049, PG. 707 TAYLOR do CARL H. LEGANS 0.5248 ACRES D.B. 1690, PG. 921 TAX No. 080.03-01-03.1 RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BEACQUIRED AREA= 5,2 12.93 S.F. 0. 1197AC. DEED OVERLAP AREA= 1, 764. 17 S. F. 0.0405 AC. SHOWING RIGHT—OF—WAY BEING CONVEYED TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY BY Victoria M. Poindexter ROANOKE COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL #80.03-01-02.00 SITUATED ALONG IVYLAND ROAD VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1"= 50' DATE: JUNE 24, 2016 PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CURVE DATA CURVE ';4 " CURVE 'B" R=80.00' R=80.00' L=2.24' f D=136'13" D=0'50'25" T=1.12' T=0.59' 1 CH=N18'12'14"W CHORD DIST.=2.24' CHORD DIST.=1.17' N1 PROPERTY OF FRANK H. & SYLVERIA K. ENGLISH 1.00 ACRES D.B. 1180, PG. 219 TAX No. 080.03-01-01.01 104.56' 145.95' CURVE "B" PROPERTY Of- VICTORIA FVICTORIA M. POINDEXTER 2.00 ACRES D.B. 1488, PG. 1853 PT TR 6DIV OFHUFFMANLAND BACK CREEK TAX No. 080.03-01-02.00 EXHIBIT "M" a� 3 154.60' t7 corSTORY CURVE "C" (A 'INYL LO PROPERTY OF 15' ROAD EASEMENTOOROTHEA CHRISTINA D.B. 1049, PG. 707 TAYLOR do CARL H. LEGANS 0.5248 ACRES D.B. 1690, PG. 921 TAX No. 080.03-01-03.1 RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BEACQUIRED AREA= 5,2 12.93 S.F. 0. 1197AC. DEED OVERLAP AREA= 1, 764. 17 S. F. 0.0405 AC. SHOWING RIGHT—OF—WAY BEING CONVEYED TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY BY Victoria M. Poindexter ROANOKE COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL #80.03-01-02.00 SITUATED ALONG IVYLAND ROAD VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1"= 50' DATE: JUNE 24, 2016 PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CURVE DATA CURVE ';4 " CURVE 'B" R=80.00' R=80.00' L=2.24' L=1.17' D=136'13" D=0'50'25" T=1.12' T=0.59' CH=N19'25'33"W CH=N18'12'14"W CHORD DIST.=2.24' CHORD DIST.=1.17' CURVE 'C" R=180.00' L=14.57' D=4'38'20" T=7.29' CH=N15'27'52"W CHORD DIST.=14.57' '0LCL, M!R/D/qN 0 SON fNGNF 4PONBY`'S/0N F q �D. FRS & TP OR MgRCy s � 9�YQRS kFR PROPERTY OF ONC S W DELORES IVYLAND ROAD POINDEXTER, et al 0.6 ACRES .� INSTRUMENT #200302747 EXISANG TAX No. 080.03-01-12.00 0 FENCE N �,a'n 3 DEED _� D=16"24'28" OVERLAP Q U rn 2.00 ACRES CH=N30°07'25"W f��l I STORY BRICK uj D.B. 1488, PG. 1853 GRAVEL DIW N GAP 45. CuRVE WJ i o' a = o � L) o o�W X��o W u a V C,< 00 �(A Z L o 0-JOm � o C.0 z ox O a 0 04 N 3165 N & i80 PROPERTY OF Ducal-Teijeiro, Properties, LLC 0.87 ACRES Instr.No. 200809976 Instr. No. 201311777 TAX No. 080.03-01-11.00 RIGHT -OF -WA Y 7.0 BEACQUIRED AREA= 2180.24S.F. 0.0501 Ac. DEED OVERLAP AREA= £59.48 S.F. 0.0197Ac. PROPERTY OF RUSSELL N. POINDEXTER 1.00 ACRES D.B. 1235, PG. 635 DEED CORNER TAX No. 080.03-01-10.00 15.68' FROM IPF ONLINE I 1 STORY NNYL 3184 { � EDGE OF PAVEMENT Il 1T c� S 22'17'51" E 145.00' rn M///2,�1'3,39"w N18'3726"W N18'37'26"W 74.56' 55.91' 104.56' PAVED DRIVE EDGE OF PAVEMENT CURVE B" CURVE "C" 24" TREE 3 PIPE/F ONLINE ONC S W S IVYLAND ROAD Iv TAX No. 080.03-01-01.01 .� WOOD EXISANG o FENCE 30' PRESCRIPTIVE R/1N �,a'n L=120.28' DEED LO D=16"24'28" OVERLAP Q U { � EDGE OF PAVEMENT Il 1T c� S 22'17'51" E 145.00' rn M///2,�1'3,39"w N18'3726"W N18'37'26"W 74.56' 55.91' 104.56' PAVED DRIVE EDGE OF PAVEMENT CURVE B" CURVE "C" 24" TREE 3 PIPE/F ONLINE ONC S W rn p PROPERTY OF Iv TAX No. 080.03-01-01.01 VICTORIA M. DEED FROM CURVE B" z RIGHT-OF-WAY BEING CONVEYED o POINDEXTER ER L=120.28' L=12.40' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY D=16"24'28" D=1°41'31" T=60.55' rn 2.00 ACRES CH=N30°07'25"W f��l I STORY BRICK uj D.B. 1488, PG. 1853 CHORD DIST.=12.40' & WIN YL N TAX No. 080.03-01-02.00 rn R=80.00' VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT E. 13181 z ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA z `" PROPERTY OF 0 T=1.12' SCALE: 1"= 30' DATE: JUNE 24, 2016 188 0 CH=N19°25'33"W PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FRANK H. & SYLVERIA K. M ENGLISH 0. C. AND LUCYHUFFMANMAP P.B. z PG. 130 1.00 ACRES W D.B. 1180, PG. 219 }orrNn PT TRACT 6 BACK CREEK CURVE DATA EXHIBIT Iv TAX No. 080.03-01-01.01 0 SHOWING CURVE ;I" CURVE B" z RIGHT-OF-WAY BEING CONVEYED R=420.00' R=420.00' TO L=120.28' L=12.40' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY D=16"24'28" D=1°41'31" T=60.55' T=6.20' BY CH=N30°07'25"W CH=N21'04'25"W Frank H. & Sylveria K. English CHORD DIST.=119.86' CHORD DIST.=12.40' ROANOKE COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL #80.03-01-01.01 Alvo CURVE 'C" SITUATED ALONG IVYLAND ROAD R=80.00' VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT E. L=2.24' z ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA z D=1'36'13" T=1.12' SCALE: 1"= 30' DATE: JUNE 24, 2016 188 CH=N19°25'33"W PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHORD DIST.=2.24' IPF BEARS "G 14 7 ' FROM T 9yAgP DEED CORNER OF °�9°y`�T�o o Fs 0 °o 83 N36'03'09"W 27.59' r, y. "END STATE MAINTENANCE SIGN PROPERTY OF TONY R. POINDEXTER 0.554 ACRES LOT B TAX No. 080.03-01-01.02 INSTR. N 200813260 O � A s � tiPOq 2 q Q (FA �)- y O1, ,9 q 4 sa�o�Fs cS o' i '0 O1 O O 30" OAK ,1.19 0. 161 -1 40" OAK—/ O. C AND LUCY LIUFFMAN MAP P. B. 2 PG. 130 PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS C. & CHERYL R. POINDEXTER EDGE OF PAVEMENT 1.318 ACRES D. B. 1134, PG. 301 LOTA TAX No. 080.03-01-01.00 INSTR. # 200812862 LOTH RIGHT -OF -WA Y TO BEA CQUIRFE AREA= 3,864.34 S.F. 0.0887AC. 36" OAK PIPf/F ONLINE 14.4' FROM DEED CORNER EXHIBIT "O" PROPERTY OF CURVE "C'- SHOWING FRANK H. & SYLVERIA K. ENGLISH RIGHT—OF—WAY BEING CONVEYED 1.00 ACRES D.B. 1180, P0. 218 TO TAX No. 080.03-01-01.01 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY BY Douglas C. & Cheryl R. Poindexter ROANOKE COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL #80.03-01-01.00 SITUATED ALONG IVYLAND ROAD VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1"= 50' DATE: JUNE 24, 2016 PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4' CHAIN LINK PENCE D ;v mm z Z m o ;d � Dm0Oo Z D O Z Z M D O 3011 = pr co cav c�Lu0 ,4m.z 4o -0m A ;0;0 U1 ;K m i� 2 G ss 9° oq &0 �Fsg'L �o'.�`�s 0� °O a� � o •OO PROPERTY OF O 1 0(-T-Ijdro, Properties, LLC 0.67 ACRES Inst,. No. 200809976 TAX No. 080.03-01-11.00 CURVE DA TA H=32U.U0- L=12.70' D=2'16'29" T=6.35' CH=S37'11'24"E ORD DIST.=12.70' CURVE C" R=420.00' L=12.40' D=1'41'31" T=6.20' CH=N21'04'25"W CHORD DIST.=12.40' CURVE B" R=420.00' L=120.28' D=16'24'28" T=60.55' CH=N30'07'25'W CHORD DIST.=119.86' 0q O �G s � opo Q EDGE Of PAVEMENT p o �%( 99�POq o o, 9PF s�l��� o q �� Fy po Y `9 W °� y� 9oP s Pq O0g, 2OO Ff ❑ 0 y9 eP ° c °, S py \ A i pi PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS C. & CHERYL R. POINDEXTER EDGE OF PAVEMENT 1.318 ACRES D. B. 1134, PG. 301 LOTA TAX No. 080.03-01-01.00 INSTR. # 200812862 LOTH RIGHT -OF -WA Y TO BEA CQUIRFE AREA= 3,864.34 S.F. 0.0887AC. 36" OAK PIPf/F ONLINE 14.4' FROM DEED CORNER EXHIBIT "O" PROPERTY OF CURVE "C'- SHOWING FRANK H. & SYLVERIA K. ENGLISH RIGHT—OF—WAY BEING CONVEYED 1.00 ACRES D.B. 1180, P0. 218 TO TAX No. 080.03-01-01.01 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY BY Douglas C. & Cheryl R. Poindexter ROANOKE COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL #80.03-01-01.00 SITUATED ALONG IVYLAND ROAD VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1"= 50' DATE: JUNE 24, 2016 PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4' CHAIN LINK PENCE D ;v mm z Z m o ;d � Dm0Oo Z D O Z Z M D O 3011 = pr co cav c�Lu0 ,4m.z 4o -0m A ;0;0 U1 ;K m i� 2 G ss 9° oq &0 �Fsg'L �o'.�`�s 0� °O a� � o •OO PROPERTY OF O 1 0(-T-Ijdro, Properties, LLC 0.67 ACRES Inst,. No. 200809976 TAX No. 080.03-01-11.00 CURVE DA TA H=32U.U0- L=12.70' D=2'16'29" T=6.35' CH=S37'11'24"E ORD DIST.=12.70' CURVE C" R=420.00' L=12.40' D=1'41'31" T=6.20' CH=N21'04'25"W CHORD DIST.=12.40' CURVE B" R=420.00' L=120.28' D=16'24'28" T=60.55' CH=N30'07'25'W CHORD DIST.=119.86' IPF BEARS S5538'18� vG 14.73' FROM T 9,y, oP DEED CORNER Oq� yo se Q PTt °�9C'A Oq0 U' 0 'O °o N36'03'09"W 27.59' y. "END STATE MAINTENANCE" SIGN e0a� PROPERTY OF TONY R. POINDEXTER 0.554 ACRES cora 30" OAK �6�9 TAX No. 080.03-01-01.02 INSTR. # 200813260 569Ny01 V1 �1 w� 0, V1 40" OAK >19�y'S PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS C. & CHERYL R. POINDEXTER 1.318 ACRES D.B. 1134, PG. 301 LOT A TAX No. 080.03-01-01.00 INSTR. N 200812862 O � A s � tiPOq O.C. ANDLUCYHUFFMANMAP Y. B. 2 PG. 130 2 q Q (FA ')- y o 1-01 cSoi °>- os �> 00 !o QP� EDGE OF PAVEMENT `F? O 00• P A 00,F ' O 7P 0 0 '0 � 0 0 \0,. $ 0 0-1 00 00 ep 9;Po v 'ysys> o p ��9s, nQa FP-,_ + � PO , s P �`-&( oq p o F �9 o o�2�Fy s n c c% F > 9 2 s0� �oPFs Q op Cts 0 T �G P� sFgP T ° C<1 % of o� ; o� tiFPr� oov°Ao �o c, 0 IS,>s o� fe 0 D , z Am Z m o 22 � D m 0O o Z D O Z Z [) m m D O =R'mv stn 4m�z AAS U1 ;K m i� 4' CHAIN LINK ® FENCE EDGE OF PAVEMENT 9 LOTB RIGHT -OF -WA Y TO BEA CQUIRE AREA= 2, 144.97 S. F, 0.0492 AI 36" OAK PIPf/� ONLINE 14.4' FROM DEED CORNER EXHIBIT „P„ CURVE "C'- PROPERTY OF SHOWING FRANK H. & SYLVERIA K. ENGLISH RIGHT-OF-WAY BEING CONVEYED 1.00 ACRES D. B. 1180, PG. 218 TO TAX No. 080.03-01-01.01 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ROANOKE COUNTY BY Tony R. Poindexter ROANOKE COUNTY TAX MAP PARCEL #80.03-01-01.02 SITUATED ALONG IVYLAND ROAD VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA SCALE: 1"= 50' DATE: JUNE 24, 2016 PREPARED BY ROANOKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT a� � o �O PROPERTY OF 1 Oacal-Teilsiro, Properties, LLC 0.87 ACRES Instr. No. 200809976 TAX No. 080.03-01-11.00 CURVE DA TA H=32U.U0- L=12.70' D=2'16'29" T=6.35' CH=S37'11'24"E ORD DIST.=12.70' CURVE C" R=420.00' L=12.40' D=1'41'31" T=6.20' CH=N21'04'25"W CHORD DIST.=12.40' CURVE B" R=420.00' L=120.28' D=16'24'28" T=60.55' CH=N30'07'25'W CHORD DIST.=119.86' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2016 ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE CONVEYANCE OF SIXTEEN (16) PARCELS OF UNIMPROVED REAL ESTATE TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, FOR THE EXTENSION OF IVYLAND ROAD, VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, sixteen (16) adjacent land owners desire to donate portions of their property in fee simple to the County of Roanoke for right-of-way purposes to improve the roadway and construct a cul-de-sac at the terminus of Ivyland Road as part of Roanoke County's Rural Addition Project funded in partnership with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT); and WHEREAS, Sharon E. Starkey; William T. and Melanie J. Cassel; Russell N. Poindexter; Delores Poindexter, Tony Reid Poindexter, Douglas C. Poindexter, Jr., Linda Poindexter Moyer, Judy Paulette Roberts, and Ricky Lee Poindexter; Dacal-Teijeiro Properties, LLC; Russell N. Poindexter; Bruce L. Leftwich; Kenneth H. Roberts, Ruth Roberts Wharton Jordan, and Deborah H. Pulley; John N. Leffell and Melissa R. Leffell; Angela Ann Taylor, Dorothea Christina Taylor, and Carolyn P. Barlow; Anthony D. Preston and Annie H. Preston; Dorothea Christina Taylor and Carl H. Legans; Victoria M. Poindexter; Frank H. English and Sylveria K. English; Douglas C. Poindexter and Cheryl R. Poindexter; and Tony R. Poindexter have freely and voluntarily executed deeds conveying portions of their properties to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, thus allowing the Board of Supervisors to obtain ownership of the property required for purposes of road construction upon approval of this ordinance and recordation of the deeds; and Page 1 of 7 WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that conveyance of real estate interests to the County of Roanoke be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 6, 2016, and the second reading and public hearing was held on December 20, 2016. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the donation from Sharon E. Starkey of approximately 0.0006 acre of real estate for purposes of location and construction of Ivyland Road as shown on exhibit entitled "Exhibit A" showing right-of-way being conveyed to Board of Supervisors, Roanoke County by SHARON E. STARKEY, Roanoke County tax map parcel #80.03-01- 15.00, situated along Ivyland Road, Vinton Magisterial District, Roanoke County, Virginia, dated June 24, 2016, is hereby authorized and approved. 2. That the donation from William T. and Melanie J. Cassel of approximately 0.0033 acre of real estate for purposes of location and construction of Ivyland Road, as shown on exhibit entitled "Exhibit B" showing right-of-way being conveyed to Board of Supervisors, Roanoke County by WILLIAM T. AND MELANIE J. CASSEL, Roanoke County tax map parcel #80.03-01-14.00, situated along Ivyland Road, Vinton Magisterial District, Roanoke County, Virginia, dated June 24, 2016, is hereby authorized and approved. 3. That the donation from Russell N. Poindexter of approximately 0.0047 acre of real estate for purposes of location and construction of Ivyland Road, as shown on exhibit entitled "Exhibit C' showing right-of-way being conveyed to Board of Supervisors, Roanoke County by RUSSELL N. POINDEXTER, Roanoke County tax map parcel Page 2 of 7 #80.03-01-13.00, situated along Ivyland Road, Vinton Magisterial District, Roanoke County, Virginia, dated June 24, 2016, is hereby authorized and approved. 4. That the donation from Delores Poindexter, Tony Reid Poindexter, Douglas C. Poindexter, Jr., Linda Poindexter Moyer, Judy Paulette Roberts and Ricky Lee Poindexter of approximately 0.0382 acre of real estate for purposes of location and construction of Ivyland Road, as shown on exhibit entitled "Exhibit D" showing right-of- way being conveyed to Board of Supervisors, Roanoke County by DELORES POINDEXTER, TONY REID POINDEXTER, DOUGLAS C. POINDEXTER, JR., LINDA POINDEXTER MOYER, JUDY PAULETTE ROBERTS and RICKY LEE POINDEXTER, Roanoke County tax map parcel #80.03-01-12.00 situated along Ivyland Road, Vinton Magisterial District, Roanoke County, Virginia, dated June 24, 2016, is hereby authorized and approved. 5. That the donation from Dacal-Teijeiro Properties, LLC of approximately 0.0433 acre of real estate for purposes of location and construction of Ivyland Road, as shown on exhibit entitled "Exhibit F showing right-of-way being conveyed to Board of Supervisors, Roanoke County by DACAL-TEIJEIRO PROPERTIES, LLC, Roanoke County tax map parcel #80.03-01-11.00, situated along Ivyland Road, Vinton Magisterial District, Roanoke County, Virginia, dated June 24, 2016, is hereby authorized and approved. 6. That the donation from Russell N. Poindexter of approximately 0.0336 acre of real estate for purposes of location and construction of Ivyland Road, as shown on exhibit entitled "Exhibit F" showing right-of-way being conveyed to Board of Supervisors, Roanoke County by RUSSELL N. POINDEXTER, Roanoke County tax map parcel Page 3 of 7 #80.03-01-10.00 situated along Ivyland Road, Vinton Magisterial District, Roanoke County, Virginia, dated June 24, 2016, is hereby authorized and approved. 7. That the donation from Bruce L. Leftwich of approximately 0.0321 acre of real estate for purposes of location and construction of Ivyland Road, as shown on exhibit entitled "Exhibit G' showing right-of-way being conveyed to Board of Supervisors, Roanoke County by BRUCE L. LEFTWICH, Roanoke County tax map parcel #80.03-01- 09.00 situated along Ivyland Road, Vinton Magisterial District, Roanoke County, Virginia, dated June 24, 2016, is hereby authorized and approved. 8. That the donation from Kenneth H. Roberts, Ruth Roberts Wharton Jordan and Deborah H. Pulley of approximately 0.0719 acre of real estate for purposes of location and construction of Ivyland Road, as shown on exhibit entitled "Exhibit H" showing right- of-way being conveyed to Board of Supervisors, Roanoke County by KENNETH H. ROBERTS, RUTH ROBERTS WHARTON JORDAN, AND DEBORAH H. PULLEY, Roanoke County tax map parcel #80.03-01-08.00, situated along Ivyland Road, Vinton Magisterial District, Roanoke County, Virginia, dated June 24, 2016, is hereby authorized and approved. 9. That the donation from John N. Leffell and Melissa R. Leffell of approximately 0.0835 acre of real estate for purposes of location and construction of Ivyland Road, as shown on exhibit entitled "Exhibit I" showing right-of-way being conveyed to Board of Supervisors, Roanoke County by JOHN N. LEFFELL AND MELISSA R. LEFFELL, Roanoke County tax map parcel #80.03-01-06.00, situated along Ivyland Road, Vinton Magisterial District, Roanoke County, Virginia, dated June 24, 2016, is hereby authorized and approved. Page 4 of 7 10. That the donation from Angela Ann Taylor, Dorothea Christina Taylor and Carolyn P. Barlow of approximately 0.0189 acre of real estate for purposes of location and construction of Ivyland Road, as shown on exhibit entitled "Exhibit X showing right- of-way being conveyed to Board of Supervisors, Roanoke County by ANGELA ANN TAYLOR, DOROTHEA CHRISTINA TAYLOR, AND CAROLYN P. BARLOW, Roanoke County tax map parcel #80.00-02-17.00, situated along Ivyland Road, Vinton Magisterial District, Roanoke County, Virginia dated June 24, 2016, is hereby authorized and approved. 11. That the donation from Anthony D. Preston and Annie H. Preston of approximately 0.0395 acre of real estate for purposes of location and construction of Ivyland Road, as shown on exhibit entitled "Exhibit K' showing right-of-way being conveyed to Board of Supervisors, Roanoke County by ANTHONY D. PRESTON AND ANNIE H. PRESTON, Roanoke County tax map parcel #80.03-01-05.00 situated along Ivyland Road, Vinton Magisterial District, Roanoke County, Virginia, dated June 24, 2016, is hereby authorized and approved. 12. That the donation from Dorothea Christina Taylor and Carl H. Legans of approximately 0.0579 acre of real estate for purposes of location and construction of Ivyland Road, as shown on exhibit entitled "Exhibit U showing right-of-way being conveyed to Board of Supervisors, Roanoke County by DOROTHEA CHRISTINA TAYLOR AND CARL H. LEGANS, Roanoke County tax map parcel #80.03-01-03.00 situated along Ivyland Road, Vinton Magisterial District, Roanoke County, Virginia, dated June 24, 2016, is hereby authorized and approved. Page 5 of 7 13. That the donation from Victoria M. Poindexter of approximately 0. 1197 acre of real estate for purposes of location and construction of Ivyland Road, as shown on exhibit entitled "Exhibit M" showing right-of-way being conveyed to Board of Supervisors, Roanoke County by VICTORIA M. POINDEXTER, Roanoke County tax map parcel #80.00-01-02.00, situated along Ivyland Road, Vinton Magisterial District, Roanoke County, Virginia, dated June 24, 2016, is hereby authorized and approved. 14. That the donation from Frank H. English and Sylveria K. English of approximately 0.0501 acre of real estate for purposes of location and construction of Ivyland Road, as shown on exhibit entitled "Exhibit N" showing right-of-way being conveyed to Board of Supervisors, Roanoke County by FRANK H. ENGLISH AND SYLVERIA K. ENGLISH, Roanoke County tax map parcel #80.03-01-01.01, situated along Ivyland Road, Vinton Magisterial District, Roanoke County, Virginia, dated June 24, 2016, is hereby authorized and approved. 15. That the donation from Douglas C. Poindexter and Cheryl R. Poindexter of approximately 0.0887 acre of real estate for purposes of location and construction of Ivyland Road, as shown on exhibit entitled "Exhibit O" showing right-of-way being conveyed to Board of Supervisors, Roanoke County by DOUGLAS C. POINDEXTER AND CHERYL R. POINDEXTER, Roanoke County tax map parcel #80.03-01-01.00, situated along Ivyland Road, Vinton Magisterial District, Roanoke County, Virginia, dated June 24, 2016, is hereby authorized and approved. 16. That the donation from Tony R. Poindexter of approximately 0.0492 acre of real estate for purposes of location and construction of Ivyland Road, as shown on exhibit entitled "Exhibit P" showing right-of-way being conveyed to Board of Supervisors, Page 6 of 7 Roanoke County by TONY R. POINDEXTER, Roanoke County tax map parcel #80.03- 01-01.02 situated along Ivyland Road, Vinton Magisterial District, Roanoke County, Virginia, dated June 24, 2016, is hereby authorized and approved. 17. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator are hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the donation of this real estate to the County of Roanoke, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney. Page 7 of 7 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. 1.2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: December 20, 2016 TAS Design, Inc. to rezone approximately 1.49 acres to remove/amend a proffered condition on property zoned C - 1C, Low Intensity Commercial, District with condition and to obtain a special use permit to allow a multi -family residential use greater than 50% of the gross floor area on site, located at 2602 Washington Avenue, Vinton Magisterial District (POSTPONED AT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER) Philip Thompson Deputy Director of Planning Thomas C. Gates County Administrator Page 1 of 1 STAFF REPORT Petitioner: TAS Design, Inc. Request: Rezone to amend a proffered condition and obtain a Special Use Permit for Multifamily Use over 50% on 1.49 acres in a C-1, Low Intensity Commercial, District Location: 2602 Washington Avenue Magisterial District: Vinton Proffered Conditions: 1. The petitioner agrees to develop the subject property in substantial compliance (Existing - to be with the site plan dated 22 November 1985 attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and amended) agrees to modify such plans to accommodate Roanoke County site plan requirements. Suggested Conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in general conformance with the architectural (Special Use Permit) renderings prepared by TAS Design, Inc. dated September 6, 2016. 2. The maximum number of apartments shall be limited to 18. 3. Free standing light poles, including fixture, shall not be more than 18 feet above grade. All exterior lights shall be down -lit or shielded so as not to direct glare onto adjoining streets or residential properties. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: TAS Design, Inc. is requesting to rezone approximately 1.49 acres to amend a proffered condition on property zoned C -1C, Low Intensity Commercial District with condition and to obtain a Special Use Permit to allow a multi- family residential use greater than 50% of the gross floor area on site. The 2005 Comprehensive Plan indicates that the Future Land Use Designation of this parcel is Transition. Transition is a future land use area that encourages the orderly development of highway frontage parcels. Transition areas generally serve as developed buffers between highways and nearby or adjacent lower intensity development. Intense retail and highway oriented commercial uses are discouraged in transition areas, which are more suitable for office, institutional and small-scale, coordinated retail uses. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Multi -Family Residential Use is allowed in C-1 with the following regulations: Sec. 30-82-11. Multi -family Dwelling. (A) Intent. The following minimum standards are intended to accommodate multi -family dwellings, ensuring adequate separation and other design characteristics to create a safe and healthy residential environment while protecting adjoining uses which are less intensive. (B) General standards: Minimum front yard setback: Thirty (30) feet from any street right-of-way for all structures. 2. Minimum side yard setback: Twenty (20) feet for principal structures. 3. Minimum rear yard setback: Twenty-five (25) feet for principal structures. 4. Additional setbacks in the form of a buffer yard shall be required in accordance with Section 30-92 where the property adjoins a less intensive zoning district. 5. The minimum separation between multi -family buildings shall be twenty (20) feet. 6. Reserved. 7. Standards for open space and recreational areas required below: Shall be in addition to any buffer yard required under Section 30-92 of this ordinance; Shall be in addition to and not be located in any required front, side or rear yard setback; C. Shall have a horizontal dimension of at least fifty (50) feet, except that areas with a horizontal distance of not less than twenty (20) feet shall be counted as open space provided such areas contain facilities such as, but not limited to, bikeways, exercise trails, tot lots, gazebos, picnic tables, etc.; Shall not include proposed street rights-of-way, open parking areas, driveways, or sites reserved for other specific uses; and, Shall be of an appropriate nature and location to serve the residents of the multi -family development. 8. Provisions must be made for vehicular access and turn around for regularly scheduled public service vehicles such as trash collection. (F) General standards in the C-1 and C-2 districts, independent of the general standards above: The multi -family use shall be allowed in conjunction with a civic, office or commercial use type. 2. The multi -family use may account for up to fifty (50) percent of the gross floor area on the site. A special use permit shall be required if the multi -family use accounts for more than fifty (50) percent of the gross floor area on the site. Building plan review is required for any new structure. 2. ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS Background — 2602 Washington Avenue is currently vacant. The parcel, along with the vacant parcel across Spring Grove Drive, underwent a rezoning from residential to commercial in 1985. The rezoning had one proffered condition for substantial conformance to a site plan. The petitioner met with staff and the Zoning administrator concluded that the proposed layout is not in substantial conformance with the proffered site plan, which is what precipitated this rezoning request. Topography/Vegetation — The site is relatively flat, but drops off steeply in the rear with a major water 2 course running through it. Surrounding Neighborhood — The subject parcel is surrounded by R-1, Low Density Residential, zoning to the north and south; R-1 and AG -3, Agricultural/Rural Preserve to the east; and C-1, Low Intensity Commercial, and R-1 to the west. Most of the surrounding properties include single family homes. William Byrd High School borders the property to the east, while a vacant property borders it to the west. A variety of commercial uses exist along Route 24 as you head west from the subject property. Community Meeting — A community meeting was held at William Byrd Middle School on November 10, 2016. Approximately 40 citizens attended. Staff gave a brief presentation and the petitioner fielded questions. Concerns included the proposed use, increased traffic, existing traffic issues with the school and requests to VDOT that have gone unanswered regarding Spring Grove Drive, and whether or not these units are intended as low income housing. The petitioner stated that the apartments will be market rate apartments. 3. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Site Layout/Architecture — The proposed site plan shows a three story building to consist of 5,522 sq. ft. of office space on the first floor, 18 multi -family residential units, and 63 parking spaces. The 18 apartments are shown on the first, second, and third floors. Ten (10) of the apartments are shown with a 3 -bedroom layout while eight (8) are shown with a 2 -bedroom layout. The 3 -bedroom apartments are approximately 975 square feet in size while the 2 -bedroom apartments are approximately 849 square feet in size. There will be up to two (2) two apartments on the first floor that would be ADA compliant. Architectural renderings of the building and floor layouts are provided in the application. Access/Traffic Circulation — The site currently has no access. The proposed site plan shows one access from Spring Grove Drive similar to the existing proffered site plan. VDOT has commented on this petition and concurred that a traffic study is not required for this request. Screening & Buffering — A 10 -foot planting strip will be required between the parking lot and Washington Avenue (Route 24) and Spring Grove Drive. A Type B buffer will also be required along the north and east property lines where R-1 zoning abuts the C-1 zoning. Economic Development — Economic Development supports the request to develop office and residential uses at this location. Fire & Rescue — Fire flow and access requirements would be addressed during the site plan review process. Stormwater Management — County ordinance requires a developer with a 100 -acre drainage area adjacent to a proposed development provide a flood study. The Flood Study would include pre- and post - development conditions. The Flood Study would be required as part of the site plan review process. Water & Sewer — Water and sewer will be provided by the Town of Vinton. 4. CONFORMANCE WITH ROANOKE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The 2005 Comprehensive Plan indicates that the Future Land Use Designation of this parcel is Transition. Transition is a future land use area that encourages the orderly development of highway frontage parcels. Transition areas generally serve as developed buffers between highways and nearby or adjacent lower intensity development. Intense retail and highway oriented commercial uses are discouraged in transition areas, which are more suitable for office, institutional and small-scale, coordinated retail uses. Suitable land use types include office and institutional uses where a high degree of architectural design and environmentally sensitive design is encouraged. Garden apartments with a density of 12 to 24 units per acre are also included as a suitable land use type in a Transition future land use designation. 5. STAFF CONCLUSIONS TAS Design, Inc. is requesting to rezone approximately 1.49 acres to amend a proffered condition on property zoned C-1 C, Low Intensity Commercial District with condition and to obtain a Special Use Permit to allow a multi -family residential use greater than 50% of the gross floor area on site. The site underwent a rezoning to commercial in 1985, but has remained vacant ever since. The proposed project is in conformance with the goals and objectives of the Transition Future Land Use Designation which encourages a developed buffer between major roadways, such as Washington Avenue, and nearby residential uses. Staff has suggested special use permit conditions that deal with conformance to the architectural renderings, limits on the number of apartments, and exterior lighting. Additional conditions dealing with signage, and screening of outdoor mechanical (HVAC) equipment should also be considered. CASE NUMBER: 10-1212016 PREPARED BY: Tara Pattisall HEARING DATES: PC: 1215116 BOS: 12/20/16 ATTACHMENTS: Application Materials Aerial Map Zoning Map Future Land Use Map Ordinance 1085-42 with Proffered Site Plan C-1 Zoning District Regulations Transition Future Land Use Description Type B Buffer Requirements 4 County of Roanoke Community Development Planning & Zoning 5204 Bernard Drive P O Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018 (540) 772-2068 FAX (540) 776-7155 For Staff Use I Date received: I Received by: p iea ion fee: ry, PCtB, datc: i PIaear& issued: Applicants name/address w/zip Phone: rA`a 166S,T-w9�� C. Work: %t3 BOS date: R Fax No.: Owner's name/address w/zip Pbone #: 5go- )M3- 02-5ct A in -T -L bo OA Work: Case Number — I t 0 ALL APPLICANTS CI eck type of application filed (check all that apply) Rezoning 5Special Use ❑ Variance ❑ Waiver ❑ Administrative Appeal id Comp Plan (15.2-2232) Review Applicants name/address w/zip Phone: rA`a 166S,T-w9�� C. Work: %t3 2.,5j 'r B(V ne IRJD Cell #: R Fax No.: Owner's name/address w/zip Pbone #: 5go- )M3- 02-5ct A in -T -L bo OA Work: P.©, DoyC q0 Fax No.#: Property Location © 2- N,.c tYD Magisterial District: V TWO Community Planning area: movyo G® f Tax Map No.: o� Existing Zoning; G Size of parcel(s): Acres: 1 Existing Land Use: aLk REZONING;SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WAIVER AND COMP PLAN (15.2-2232) REVIEW APPLICANTS (R/5/W/CP) Proposed Zoning: C 1 _ Proposed Land Use: a1�z C G �•�� DCS 1 ; 11l_ Does th parcel meet the minimum lot area, width, and frontage requirements of the requested district? Yes 'No.J IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST. Does the parcel meet the minimrun criteria for the requested Use Type? Yes Nof. IF NO, A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FIRST If rezoning request, are conditions being proffered with this request? Yes . i No' VARIANCE, WAIVER AND ADMINI'S'TRATIVE APPEAL APPLICANTS (V/W/AA) Variance/Waiver of Section(s) of the Roanoke County Zonin ice in order to: 9 Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision to !. Appeal of Interpretation of Section(s): of the Roanoke County Zo rdinance . Appeal of Interpretation of Zoning Map to Is the application complete? Please check if enclosed. APPLICATION WILT' OT B q� Faf jjED IZ Y OF THESE ITEMS ARE MISSING OR INCOMPLETE. 4 RIS/WICP V/AA RJS/W/CP VIAA I VIAA Consultation 8 1/2" x 11" concept plan Application Application Metes and bounds description cable Justification Water and sewer application roperty owners I hereby certify that I am either the owner of the property pr the o er's agent or contract purchaser and am acting with the knowledge and consent f the owner. 'i Owner's Signature 2 JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONFNO, SPECIAL USE PERMIT WAIVER OR COMP PLAN {15.2-2132) REVIEW REQUESTS Applicant The Planning Commission will study rezoning, special use permit waiver or community plan (15.2-2232) review requests to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of public health, safety; and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Use additional space if necessary. Please explain ]low the request furthers the purposes of the Roanoke County Ordinance as well as the purpose found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance. Crnlr.AAW� (:,Re5 K bV,-V LL0 V MC- &4 T Rl g;E'k T146 Putwo-s-& &r -t-R6 1Ra�luokrr Lou&)Ty 0K()xF0Ar1JCG- SI/ &eCOrraA)G A0,6 OF 4 Titt%f0&:�T-:5M) rROM C,(C- To V6 KI T t>G-Qv�-Op rvlcvo r, `rt4-r C>'F.L6�' Aik)b 460-5 A T7+T .5 (,0Mf>0k 5 J ; G1;.c.QMet, roe 6C)rnTlUyl)-r Wc'16 -rA3 T SS M r-)Ceb V-;6 D sV eL.opmerj e Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Roanoke County Community Plan, ��,vzovS �PPO`�� Pctq� e� ccpr �y �r�p�uJ� A Rcs37j�;wrra- C�ra•1Pa��1�'�. Please describe the irnpaet(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area, as well as the impacts oil public services and facilities, including waterlsewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and fire and rescue. Tree t X.T 1:-e, LUlkike 3r L� IM AM UIU DSvetop6n 6TA V 6. Vr10LF C*, E tc TMV5�L6 AL-avUc, T4F 6W- Kar* -N4 C- P P --Pr-"' Tie- Cfzel< vw-xt�L asci - A (A PC -06z- 'XS App Rm't 7 g XO 5"R F J- . Tia dv ACI' j )4A i, Mtr-- &kYr 'f 610,0= '-U LL �e uP Tc� i wo ADS R 5zD�N i a.L v .YS v - A b �lP 3 CONCEPT PLAN CHECKLIST A concept plan of the proposed project must be submitted with the application. The concept plan shall graphically depict the land use change, development or variance that is to be considered. Further, the plan shall address any potential land use or design issues arising from the request. In such cases involving rezonings, the applicant may proffer conditions to limit the future use and development of the property and by so doing, correct any deficiencies that may not be manageable by County permitting regulations. The concept plan should not be confused with the site plan or plot plan that is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Site plan and building permit procedures ensure compliance with State and County development regulations and may require changes to the initial concept plan. Unless limiting conditions are proffered and accepted in a rezoning or imposed on a special use permit or variance, the concept plan may be altered to the extent permitted by the zoning district and other regulations. A concept plan is required with all rezoning, special use permit, waiver, community plan (15.2-2232) review and variance applications. The plan should be prepared by a professional site planner. The level of detail may vary, depending on the nature of the request. The County Planning Division staff may exempt some of the items or suggest the addition of extra items, but the following are considered minimum; ALL APPLICANTS ✓ a. Applicant name and name of development b. Date, scale and north arrow c. Lot size in acres or square feet and dimensions ✓ d. Location, names of owners and Roanoke County tax map numbers of adjoining properties e. Physical features such as ground cover, natural watercourses, floodplain, etc. f. The zoning and land use of all adjacent properties g_ All property lines and easements h. All buildings, existing and proposed, and dimensions, floor area and heights i. Location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the development j. Dimensions and locations of all driveways, parking spaces and loading spaces Additional in00 rmation required. for REZONING and SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICANTS k. Existing utilities (water, sewer, storm drains) and connections at the site 1. Any driveways, entrancesiexits, curb openings and crossovers m. Topography map in a suitable scale and contour intervals n. Approximate street grades and site distances at intersections o. Locations of all adjacent fire hydrants p. Any proffered conditions at the site and how they are addressed q. If project is to be phased, please show phase schedule I certify that all items required in the checklist above are complete. Q) b 1(' Signature of applicant D to County Zoning CIC Low Intensity Commercial District w/ Conditions Please cont -act Planning s,md Zoning aai(540)772-2068 fo k` it11'oi-tlladoti about con(itioltN Pd►r this properf)" ik,linimuiq T,ot Arca w/ Private Sewer & Water; 43,560 sq, ft. av/ Public Sewer or Water: 15,000 sq. ft. w/ Public Sewer & Water: 15,000 sq. ft. ilii►iraan€aa Street Frontage ovl Private Sewer & Water: 100 ft, w/ Public Sewer or Water: 75 & wl Public Sewer & Water: 75 ft. Maximum WidthMopth raitim NIA �setliaclt .fiedil8ii•CiiiLllt;a Front Yard: 30 (6) ft. Side Yard: 10 (7) ft. Rear Yard: 15 ft, Accessory 11mildings Side yard at Front Building Line 10 (3) ft. Side yard at Rear Building Lige 3 ft. Rear Yard: 3 ft. Allowable Coverageand freight: Main Building: 50% Maxinium Lot Coverage: 80% Accessory Building Coverage: N/A % Maximum Building Height: 45 (5) ft, Max Accessory Bldg, Height: 15 ft. ]Votes: () (I) Where the principol itructnrL is 1►lobe 01a11 151f feet frolli tilt` sti'eet, accessory buildings quay be locsted 151) feet i'rom the street aaiid.25 .f'ee't 1'i'0111 ainy side pi•olle"O' li€le (2) ]Where the principal structure is mare tliau 150 feet frolli (lie street, accessor), buildings anliy $e.loctited 45o feet frolll the street and U feet from any sidle property lime (3) Accessory boildiings must he located behind the.froat building Bate. (4) Aeressory structilres i.liatiy liave a niashimin height of 25. fed if They comply with the setback regtdrem. eats for principal '.tti'uciidl•es (5) Principal strlletures : wlien ad)oinbig property is zoned R-1 or R-2, 45 feet, hwindhig rooftop tilechanicall equipment, Nalximain bright may be increased provided each required sidle algid rear yard] ad R-1. or R-2 districts is inereaased 2 F'e`et for each foo( of ad.ditiollal foot in Height over '15 feet. laa111 locaadons height is linliinitedl unless n(lierli'ise restriclvd by this ordinance (C,) or 20 feet if the Iii rking is located behiaad (lie front Building line (7) Ntu.st be 10 feet on any one side, with a coarlbined.total on botli sides cif sit leaist 25 feet (3) Actual height of principal structure (9) All rtructiia'm when adjoining property is zoned Residenti.11, 45 feet, #nclii(ilaig rooftop ulecha llical equipment. 1NI'l-dinuin height njay he inere.asedl provided each required side and rear yard adjoinhig, 11A or 11-2 districts is igiere,ased 2 feet for eFieb foot" of additional foul ill height over 45 feet. I1) all locations height is unlimited finless otlierwise vestrietedl by this ordimiliee %WA V0 Community Development z Planning &Zoning Division 1836 NOTICE TO APPLICANTS FOR REZONING, SUBDIVISION WAIVER, PUBLIC STREET WAIVER, OR SPECIAL USE PERMIT PETITION PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE PROCEDURE The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver or Special Use Permit petition if new or additional information is presented at the public hearing. If it is the opinion of the majority of the Planning Commissioners present at the scheduled public hearing that sufficient time was not available for planning staff and/or an outside referral agency to adequately evaluate and provide written comments and suggestions on the new or additional information prior to the scheduled public hearing then the Planning Commission may vote to continue the petition. This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the new or additional information and provide written comments and suggestions to be included in a written memorandum by planning staff to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall consult with planning staff to determine if a continuance may be warranted. POTENTIAL OF NEED FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSES AND/OR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY The Roanoke County Planning Commission reserves the right to continue a Rezoning, Subdivision Waiver, Public Street Waiver, or Special Use Permit petition if the County Traffic Engineer or staff from the Virginia Department of Transportation requests further traffic analyses and/or a traffic impact study that would be beneficial in making a land use decision (Note: a list of potential land uses and situations that would necessitate further study is provided as part of this application package). This continuance shall allow sufficient time for all necessary reviewing parties to evaluate the required traffic analyses and/or traffic impact study and to provide written comments and/or suggestions to the planning staff and the Planning Commission. If a continuance is warranted, the applicant will be notified of the continuance and the newly scheduled public hearing date. Effective date; April 79, 2005 Tbb D 51" N!:z ;�.—w Petitioner's Si ature to D to 0 z 0 REVISIONS N F N F ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN �0 m a � Q F3y W S� T EMERALD CREEK 2602 WASHINGTON AVE VINTON, VIRGINIA VZWIDIAIA'NOIWZA 3AV NOISMINSVM ZOOZ A33'dD (11V'd3W3 SNOISTA3H z oQ z u cn Z � 4 an .moo®* I� J F I J ©o o '111,111111111111 � 1 t z oQ z u cn Z � 4 an VINXEMIA 'NOINIA 3AV NOISNXHS M Z09r. >13321D (]]V2i3W3 SNOISIA911 Z NV'ld 11001:1 NIVW W1111W wrn 'W, 00 -T �C" 'na ro O IP it 0 :!4j I VINIDIIIA'NOINIA A" NOIDNIHSVM I09Z >I33b:) Ql"3W3 SNOISIAgH VINISHIA'NOINIA 3AV NOISNIHS M L09i )13321D GIV'd3W3 SNOISIA3L � aN� 5 Z2< 'w Y W 0 O pmZN VINID-dlA'NOlNIA 3AV N010NIHSVM Z09Z >I33a3 alra3w3 SNOISIA3L mac•' NC7a 21 o O nb' O vi w z m e G N p : z N CD O 3 .9 S5 Q i coo a N co O e l' ed }. m N CCD a mac•' z x \: n vn , § U)§ [ L £ - ! - o\ ; s F& 7 m-$ \ k # 0 � % m ` , / 11:11 x m / 6 § a p ¢ o, � e ] m c:u m m o© 2 -u e CL $ R / w Q \ w@ ro m % \ 7 \ ; - - \ - � . � � � � . � � sill O fnO 10 3 R u ' w n N X o�m Z o a- .0 a v mj a m ty 7 _ N -� C7 N W C fA E rt rn z n z n � z s� -a -+ z z 0 \„ VIRGINIA: Page 1 of 2 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY A 1.49 acre parcel of land ) generally located at the interser-tion of Va. Rt. 24 & Spring Grove ) FINAL ORDER Drive - being Parcel "A" } within the Vinton } Magisterial District ) TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: WHEREAS, your Petitioner R. W. Bowers did petition the Board of County Supervisors to rezone the above -referenced parcel of land from R-1 District to B-1 District for the purpose of 5 WHEREAS, after due legal notice, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing of the petition on Oct L r 1.5 19_8__, at which time, all parties in interest were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, after due legal notice, the Board of County Supervisors did hold a public hearing of the petition on Cemb1Q at which time, all parties in interest were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, after full consideration, the Board of County Supervisors determined that the rezoning be APPROVED WITH PROFFERED CONDITIONS NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED that the aforementioned parcel of land, which is contained in the Roanoke County Tax 61.32-01-60 Maps as Parcel and recorded in Deed Book 1107 Paae 599 and legally described below, be rezoned from District to B_1 District. Page 2 of 2 Legal Description of Property: The following description is for Parcel "A" 110_ 7 BEGINNING at Corner #l, being the southwesterly corner of the Roanoke County School Board Property, Deed Book 810, Page 545 (William Byrd High School), said corner also being on the northerly right-of-way of Virginia Route #24; thence leaving Roanoke County School Board Property and with Virginia Route 24 for the following 2 courses, S 51" 44' 55' w, 198.69 feet to Corner #2; thence with a curve to the right, which said curve is defined by a delta angle of 4" 36' 24", a radius of 1335.40, an arc of 107.37, a chord of 107.34 and bearing S 54° 03' 07".W, to Corner #3; thence leaving Virginia Route 24 with a curve onto the easterly side of Spring Grove Drive, which said curve is defined by a delta angle of 83" 50' 55", a radius of 25.00 feet, an arc of 36.59, a chord of 33.41 and bearing N 81" 43' 05" W. to Corner #4; thence continuing with Spring Grove Drive to Corner #4; thence continuing with Spring Grove Drive, N390 47' 38" W, 235.89 feet to Corner #5, said point being the southwestly corner of the remaining property of R. W. Bowers; thence leaving Spring Grove Drive and with R. W. Bowers following Wolf Creek N 73" 32' 50" E, 361.85 feet to Corner #6, said corner being on the southerly boundary of Roanoke County School Board Property (William Byrd High School); thence leaving Bowers and with School Board Property, S 37" 58' 17" E, 130.00 feet to Corner #l, the place of BEGINNING and containing 1.49 acres, as shown on plat prepared by Buford T.Lumsden & Associates, P.C. - Engineers -Surveyors, dated 13 September 1985, attached hereto and made a part thereof. BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be transmitted to the Secretary of the Planning Commission and that he be directed to reflect that change on the Official Zoning Map of Roanoke County. ADOPTED on motion of Supervisor NiCKFNS and upon the following recorded vote: AYES: BRITTLE, NICKENS, MINTER, BURTON, AND MCGRAW NAYS: NAYS ABSENT: NONE Deputy ri Ut u %art} Q Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: County Assessor D partment of Development VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY A agre parcel of land, ) generally located at the ) PROFFER intersection of Va. Rte. 24 ) OF and Spring Grove Drive ) CONDITIONS within the Vinton i Magisterial District j TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: Being in accord with Sec. 15.1-491.1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia and Sec. 21-11 of the Code of Roanoke County, the Petitioner R. W. Bowers hereby voluntarily proffers to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,' Virginia the following conditions to the rezoning of the above -referenced parcel of land. 1. The petitioner agrees to develop the subject property in substantial compliance with the site plan dated %2 November 1985 attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and agrees to modify such plan to accomodate Roanoke County site plan requirements. Respectfully submitted, Petitioner 4,M MAA14SCIO40 mAA KiNa 1M PO r tZO -5HOWN • 20 *lyl MAX.4 00 to ja 4 r \`�9 t' � �,� \ ,� ,���f � � ' ,moi •rrr i \ i f PARCEL A PARCEL ' ay ( ?. 4*(,p AGS �. ,a-- - Wy Kms: 2 --5— — EXe5l. 4�lrl. eEWEA 'ictl.l�, FCS,-''�t'�;E [� �.,,tYC:�'"t� • .\� � � � � � j`� 4i lk\ s � EXHIBIT "C" PLAN SHOWING PROPERTY TO BE REZONED FROM R-1 TO B-1 ` VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA PROPERTY OF. R. k BOWERS SCALE: l " = 1 OO 1 DATE: 12 N DY., 141" C-1 District Regulations SEC. 30-53. C-1 LOW INTENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. Sec. 30-53-1. Purpose. (A) The purpose of the C-1 low intensity commercial district is to provide for the development of attractive and efficient office and commercial uses in the urban service area which serve both community and county -wide needs. The C-1 district allows for varying intensities of office and commercial development as part of either a planned office complex or, to a limited degree, small scale office and commercial uses. The C-1 districts are most appropriately found along or near major arterial streets where existing commercial development has occurred and/or where commercial zoning has been established, or near existing residential development where it would serve as a logical buffer strip between conflicting land use types. Land uses permitted in the C-1 district are generally consistent with the recommendations set forth in the transition and core land use categories of the comprehensive plan. Site development standards are intended to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses. (Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-22-08, Ord. No. 111213-15, § 1, 11-12-13) 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. Residential Uses Accessory Apartment * Home Beauty/Barber Salon * Home Occupation, Type I * Multi -family Dwelling * Two-family Dwelling * 2. Civic Uses Administrative Services Clubs Cultural Services Day Care Center * Educational Facilities, College/University Educational Facilities, Primary/Secondary * Guidance Services Park and Ride Facility * Post Office Public Parks and Recreational Areas * Safety Services * Utility Services, Minor 3. Office Uses Financial Institutions General Office Medical Office 4. Commercial Uses Agricultural Services * Antique Shops Bed and Breakfast Business Support Services Business or Trade Schools Communications Services Consumer Repair Services Personal Improvement Services Personal Services 2 C-1 District Regulations C-1 District Regulations Studio, Fine Arts Veterinary Hospital/Clinic 5. Miscellaneous Uses Amateur Radio Tower Parking Facility * (B) The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to section 30-19. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. 1. Civic Uses Religious Assembly Utility Services, Major 2. Office Uses Laboratories 3. Commercial Uses Automobile Rental/Leasing Commercial Indoor Sports and Recreation Restaurant, Drive-in or Fast Food Restaurant, General Retail Sales 4. Industrial Uses Landfill, Rubble Recycling Centers and Stations 5. Miscellaneous Uses Broadcasting Tower 3 C-1 District Regulations Outdoor Gatherings * (Ord. No. 82493-8, § 2, 8-24-93; Ord. No. 042799-11, § 2, 4-27-99; Ord. No. 042203-13, § 1, 4- 22-03; Ord. No. 042208-16, § 1, 4-22-08, Ord. No. 111213-15, § 1, 11-12-13) Sec. 30-53-3. Site Development Regulations. General Standards. For additional, modified, or more stringent standards for specific uses, see Article IV, Use and Design Standards. (A) Minimum lot requirements. 1. Lots served by private well and sewage disposal system; a. Area: 1 acre (43,560 square feet). b. Frontage: 100 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. 2. Lots served by either public sewer or water, or both: a. Area: 15,000 square feet. b. Frontage: 75 feet on a publicly owned and maintained street. (B) Minimum setback requirements. 1. Front yard: a. Principal structures: 30 feet, or 20 feet when all parking is located behind the front building line. b. Accessory structures: Behind front building line. 2. Side yard: None. 3. Rear yard: a. Principal structures: 15 feet. b. Accessory structures: 3 feet. 4. Where a lot fronts on more than one (1) street, front yard setbacks shall apply to all streets. (C) Maximum height of structures. El C-1 District Regulations 1. Height limitations: a. Principal structures: When adjoining property zoned R-1 or R-2, forty-five (45) feet, including rooftop mechanical equipment. The maximum height may be increased, provided each required side and rear yard adjoining the R-1 or R-2 district is increased two (2) feet for each foot in height over forty-five (45) feet. In all other locations the height is unlimited unless otherwise restricted by this ordinance. b. Accessory structures: 15 feet. (D) Maximum coverage. Building coverage: 50 percent of the total lot area. 2. Lot coverage: 80 percent of the total lot area. (Ord. No. 62293-12, § 10, 6-22-93; Ord. No. 052411-9, § 1, 5-24-11) Transition: A future land use area that encourages the orderly development of highway frontage parcels. Transition areas generally serve as developed buffers between highways and nearby or adjacent lower intensity development. Intense retail and highway oriented commercial uses are discouraged in transition areas, which are more suitable for office, institutional and small-scale, coordinated retail uses. Land Use Types: Office and Institutional - Planned office parks and independent facilities in park -like surroundings are encouraged. A high degree of architectural design and environmentally sensitive site design is encouraged. Retail - Small-scale planned and clustered retail uses. Multifamily Residential - Garden apartments at a density of 12 to 24 units per acre. Single -Family Attached Residential - Planned townhouse communities of 6 or more units per acre. Parks - Public and private recreational facilities. These facilities should be linked to residential areas by greenways, bike and pedestrian trails. Land Use Determinants: EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN - Locations where limited commercial uses exist. EXISTING ZONING - Locations where commercial zoning exists. ACCESS - Locations where properties have direct frontage and access to an arterial or major collector street. SURROUNDING LAND USE - Locations which serve as a logical buffer strip between conflicting land use patterns. ORIENTATION - Locations which are physically oriented toward the major street. URBAN SECTOR - Locations served by urban services. 2-4 I March 22, 2011 Figure 2.2-2 Type B Buffer Chapter 2: Landscaping "Row" should not be construed as meaning that the plants must be uniformly planted. TYPE B BUFFER OPTION 1: 30' Buffer For every 100' consisting of: One row of large evergeens trees (5) One row of large evergreen shrubs (16-18) One row of large deciduous shrubs (22-24) Roanoke County Design Handbook OPTION 2: 20' Buffer For every 100' consisting of: One row of large deciduous trees (4) One row of large evergreen shrubs (16-18) 6' Screening PLAN VIE ELEVATIC ACTION NO. ITEM NO. J.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: All open appointments BACKGROUND: December 20, 2016 Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards Deborah Jacks Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Thomas C. Gates County Administrator 1. Board of Zoning Appeals (appointed by District) The Windsor Hills Magisterial District representative has passed away. Mr. Karr's five (5) -year term expires June 30, 2016. 2. Budget and Fiscal Affairs Committee (BFAC) (appointed by District and At - Large) The following District appointments remain open: Hollins Magisterial District Cave Spring Magisterial District At -Large (2) openings 3. Clean Valley Council (At Large) Adam Cohen has resigned his appointment to the Clean Valley Counsel. His three- year term expired June 30, 2015. Page 1 of 2 4. Economic Development Authority (EDA) (appointed by District) The following four-year term expired on September 26, 2015: a) Greg Apostolou, representing the Hollins Magisterial District is eligible for reappointment FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: There is no staff recommendation associated with this agenda item. Page 2 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2016 RESOLUTION 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 December 20, 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 4 inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes — November 22, 2016 2. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to Hansford Leake, Finance Manager, upon his retirement after more than five (5) years of service 3. Confirmation of appointments to the Blue Ridge Behavioral Board of Directors; Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority 4. Request to accept and allocate grant funds in the amount of $11,667 from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services to the Roanoke County Police Department for fiscal year 2016-2017 Page 1 of 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. K.2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: December 20, 2016 Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to Hansford B. Leake, Finance Manager, upon his retirement after more than five (5) years of service Deborah Jacks Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Thomas C. Gates County Administrator Recognition of the retirement of Hansford B. Leake BACKGROUND: Hansford Leake, Finance Manager, retired on November 1, 2016, after five years and five months of service with Roanoke County's Finance Department. Mr. Leake cannot attend today's Board meeting and his quilt and resolution will be mailed to his home. DISCUSSION: There is no discussion associated with this agenda item. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. Page 1 of 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. Page 2 of 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2016 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO HANSFORD B. LEAKE, FINANCE MANAGER, UPON HIS RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN FIVE (5) YEARS OF SERVICE WHEREAS, Hansford B. Leake was employed by Roanoke County on June 13, 2011; and WHEREAS, Mr. Leake retired on November 1, 2016, after five (5) years and five (5) months of devoted, faithful and expert service to Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, during Mr. Leake's tenure as Finance Manager, he has served with professionalism and dedication in providing services to the citizens of Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, during Mr. Leake's time with Roanoke County he was responsible for overseeing and providing excellent customer services to the Roanoke County Departments, Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority, and the Roanoke County School system as related to all payroll functions and services; and WHEREAS, Mr. Leake was responsible for providing excellent customer service to the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority for their accounting records, monthly financial reports and annual audit; and WHEREAS, Mr. Leake was an important member of the Roanoke County finance audit team; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to HANSFORD B. LEAKE for more than five (5) years of capable, loyal and Page 1 of 2 dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and productive retirement. Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. K.3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: December 20, 2016 Confirmation of appointments to the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors and the Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority Deborah Jacks Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors Thomas C. Gates County Administrator Confirmation of appointments BACKGROUND: Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare: Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare has recommended the appointment of Daniel R. O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator to fill the vacancy of Linda Manns who has served her final three-year term. Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority: The following one-year terms expire on December 31, 2016: Sheriff Eric Orange Chief Deputy Sheriff Steve Turner (alternate) Rebecca Owens Daniel R. O'Donnell (alternate) Joseph P. McNamara Martha B. Hooker (alternate) Page 1 of 2 DISCUSSION: It is the consensus recommendation of the Board to appoint the following: Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare: Daniel R. O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator to a three-year term, which will expire December 31, 2019 Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority: The following one-year terms to expire on December 31, 2017: Sheriff Eric Orange Chief Deputy Sheriff Steve Turner (alternate) Rebecca Owens Daniel R. O'Donnell (alternate) Joseph P. McNamara Martha B. Hooker (alternate) FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with this agenda item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the recommendations. Page 2 of 2 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. KA AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: December 20, 2016 Request to accept and allocate grant funds in the amount of $11,667 from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services to the Roanoke County Police Department SUBMITTED BY: Howard Hall Chief of Police APPROVED BY: Thomas C. Gates County Administrator ISSUE: Request to accept and allocate grant funds in the amount of $11,667 from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) to the Roanoke County Police Department. BACKGROUND: The Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) is making federal Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) funds available for Policing in the 21 st Century grants to improve collaboration between law enforcement agencies in Virginia and the communities they serve. DISCUSSION: The DCJS awarded the Roanoke County Police Department (RCPD) a grant to host a regional training program on constitutional policing and fair and impartial policing for sworn personnel. RCPD plans to incorporate several of the core elements of this training into the basic law enforcement academy training curriculum. The grant is a one- time grant for the amount of $11,667. Page 1 of 2 FISCAL IMPACT: Awarded grant funds total $11,667 which includes a required local match of 10%. The RCPD will meet the match of $1,167 through hosting the training at the South County Library. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends accepting and allocating grant funds in the amount of $11,667 from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services to the Roanoke County Police Department. Page 2 of 2 0 0 � 0 � � J Q � G q r4 2 � M LL \ j 0 77 ƒ g 00 N a ,m u k ƒ . C � '7p o E $ g CL o m m 2 m a a u k k 2 t / Ln c § u a a ) % , % » ; k Q 0) 2 k \ 00 \ \ / e a ¥ m { \ rn / \ $ r M co k k / _ 7 _ \ U / E k \ / \ \ .E § ( 2 = � o m e o k \ 0 \ jrn j \ \ \ 1 m § a ) \ % V)\ j ) ƒ41 ; \ ; \ e 2 o \ § •@ o \ < < $ J a a 2 COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CHANGES IN OUTSTANDING DEBT Changes in outstanding debt for the fiscal year to date were as follows: Outstanding June 30, 2016 Additions Deletions General Obligation Bonds $ 4,497,704 $ - $ - VPSA School Bonds 95,149,806 8,159,100 Lease Revenue Bonds 81,150,705 - 2,740,000 Submitted By Approved By $ 180,798,215 $ Rebecca E. Owens Director of Finance Thomas C. Gates County Administrator Outstanding December 20, 2016 $ 4,497,704 86,990,706 78,410,705 $ 10,899,100 - $ 169,899,115 r i � O N 00 � f9 E LU Y z ® Z '� 03 Q w U '0 ® w O LL ® m L -L ® c N .- z 6 :) ®1 W ® E u) L 00 0 O Ll 0c N 00 � E Ll 99 C W ,6 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0" \ o 0 C 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ 0 0 0 0 o o \ o � V �M(O d' a LO 0(00000rMrd'N a d'nN0(00 e M rf')rrd•O Mr�r� V OOr V Or Uf NOMV V M ® 00 r O j r O r N M O O O V m m c D 4 o f o? Lo 4 d' 6 rr r 0 LO MN V M O 0T rl, V I, LO 00LnV O O T00 o0 v. _^ 00 SMO Cl) � V 0LO 0N(00 LOM O LOO r, L, r O (9 Cl)V 010 0 n n LO O M CO O C\! r r M 00 M 00 1� r 00 PA - C CO ClN V LSY N M O O M N0000 TT c) 0) M C:),17 0f') 09 ate+ Cl) Cl) N N 00 .N_. N N 0 ._. .M_.._. N ._. f9 N N fA N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ - 0 0 0 0 0 \ o +' r d- O L0 0 e N d' V O O r d- O N d' LO a 00o) (O ^ O r C N OON00 O MN 0011 OLO V 00 f')00 0 001-M000 LO V M ('M O N E r N m 0 00 0 V MO O L o V O N O co O M N N 00 N� O M M M rMr(MM(M N N V V I: V M r rLO D a OIlN LO r CD LO LO OOV 00V Nr0 V00 NM0N nLO LO LO V M(Or(O rMMOOr LO O 0L0 L00(00 00 00 (D Nn00 coM 00 rC ( cl nLQ 01 000 � �r OOM - 00 � On LO Mn 0000(00 n00(O LO 00N 000r�M r LO r 1l 0(O r 00 P M O OM N O OMN M r n -LO 00 V - LO 0 fM N M N V N LO C'') Ali r V LO 00 r 00 r (D o N N f Cl) f M N � N r W r N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O l f) Lf') O O O O O N O O O M O O O O O O O O O LO O ® O I, r 0 ® O r (O O (O O � O O O O O f M (O O LQ I O% 0 0 o 0 0 N ® O f V O N 00 (O N fM 1, 0 00 LO 0 V N V r LO 00 LO _- O OMLO 00 (D � 0) LO d' LO LOO V 00(00 M fMrNN LO V 00 0 0)- Cl) I� N 0 V V N MLO r M ®% V ® - 00MN MOM(O Nf -7,q7 NT GD r Cl) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 " 0 0 0 \ -( 0 0( 0 0 0( 0 0 - 0 0(( 0 \ o V 20L0 a 00 (Ori OMNNO V M a N MMMr e 0 LO r OV P OOV M fM OrIrIN LO ® 00 LO d'0004 P V N0M fNr V OV 00V LOCO r I'N00 LO n 0004 ^ MMM rCl) IfM ClNOM(O V N Ld N r N N V U) LO 00 V V nN 00 (D O LO MONNM LO 00 Co LO V V N 00 1- L0 0 Cl) r CO N O r� I- N LO CO ® M N M N LO �_ n (D 00 1- N0V ro0�o0 C'' I,NOO C'' 0) nV NN V 0 (O(O O MCO n00 nn V NMOLO V 000 M L2 (o r N MON000 �% (O rl0 r, r001l Cl) Cl) ® f900r(O LO N 00 (O r N N r N Cl) It r d' V r 00 (h r (D00 N _) rMr r 00 Efl N LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O LO LO O ClO O ON 000 OOOOOOOOr L')0 ® Cr, I, O LO r M O 0 (O O O O O O O r 0 0 0 0 (O 0 0 0 o 0 0 M (= O N co LQ +' LOCl) 0000 Lo CD L000LO 0000- V00 LOMN LO LO (O 000�V M P I, ON OLON Lf') I- L01l0 Mr I, Nr 001,000- Cl) Or 00 CO d'NN LO 00 V LSO cc�I,fN CO) DCO(O Nr fd- 0= � m M N M rn 0) X 0) LO � O N N X O N H N> J O N 'p N M a X LL o5 (XO 'Np X V) @ m OO 0) N X X N O H O 0)CO m E LL N N Y' O N d H ~ 0) U '6 LXO O '6 U 0) al N 2) LL) X O U 0 7 O X Y 1) J O H O LL '6 LL (0 p� U c J (0 0 I-- U X O D O- M J O- =� a> of O 49 U V) J H U M C O N N N c m p T E @- N N 0) "c @ N rn a) N O U d@ � j -O U a N LU 6(� a) : C7 �� j (��O-i O mY o o a �o).(—'mE@u).��omY�a�'ia)aEu�Y� By N 0) N m O p 0 7@ O LXO Y O LXp Y .� LOp 0) O C L F- m and d a_ a_ UJU Co LL F-D2F-0 <-i a_I C) a_ 5; N a m M co a 0 O N Cl) N � O i j N O Ef.T LU Q > �e z ® t6 O Z -0O co Q4)U,o ® U) LL:3=� ® L -L ®co0) H 0 � — Z e (D a :) (Dw ® E w -r- 0 O co a) mr_ 0. O ® Lt_ u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 L 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 0( 0 C o MM O. In V M MV V MCOON O 00 n N OMO ® LnrM 0) NMI'OOo 00 N (-:' iCD ((O L6 oLAO OCL.() 06 �O(OM O)O� .4O _ rr N N N Cl) N (O O O (O M O N O ()n �^ NN 0Q Lnn N MMn LnN V M ("M N MM cvojMN M MMMnM LL) N ® M CD Ln N 06 T U') N r V (O N N 'IT. r S r V N U)N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,f 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V M N M O O r o r, O M N o O O M O co Lf 7 LqO ® V N Il co N r't 0 0 Q 1 O O co O ON r'(OO f(O Ln V NMI�MOO O eN r M r r r o M M N.01)) N MN L()o0 00(`')Ln Nr N r, r, CD O (O V Ln O (O 00 00 M O Cl) 00 00 00 V (O ® M Ln 00 In Ln N o0 V 00 O LC) MCN T N V (O L() n N n Cl) o O L 0 00 LM o n00 N M00 Ln V N V N r LO N M L T In � 0) O O Cl) O O V (O to O V U') O O O O I, ® O O ® Cl) O Cl) Cl) 00 O N V (O O L. ') ® O N N O O o 00 L. () LQ O ® O M N O O Cl) I, U) o _- Cl) 00 - M Cl) N M V o0 O LA _- M U) T V 00 00 M o Ln M Ln V V U') n r P O to Ln W 04 MO n OO r N V V M r V LL) N o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0go o (O O N O O Cl) O N V M Cl) 0 0 1 0 V O I,00 � rM0 W oI,M 6) or oMr oM O NO POO NMM 00 N(O(O V000 O NV Ln � MN Cl) r00r NN MMMN LA T U') CD co V O Cl) M V (O O 00 U)0or O N r M N N ^ n M n � V n 00 00 'j - (D (O ® V N00(O(M CDU)r NM 00 Ln (D 06 (D (D r rN(O(OM T rz LO Nr W (DI M LQ Cl l - N N N I, r r r r r LO 00 r�0 o(ON Or V Moor Cl) ® OO ® MN OM(O CD L.f)(OO V O LL ON N ON N oO U') 00 W OnoMO 00 N N O r Ln O U') M 00 M y 00 O U) T (9 Tr CD u-)(O oo toMOLnn M LS) O U') U') ® N 00 n M N V V M r M NT N U 2-1 - Q) Y E _� N NO Q O U) co @ Q) C O d N O U •6 O O U V) Q V) V) E M —� w a�N iNm m 0 co c E o ® ina o ami �U "� oU oLL n n o -r-2 Wo 0) (n 0) = cmxs o c > > Z) a) a) 'Z-0, m CO (n 2 Z -U LL c c ® a) a) CO -0 > U te@ m m 75 0 >> co coO � N O O co -uO a) a) L L 'O a) - a) � O L •O O D � �� UUw 0� z(n3:OwO 5;m \ m $ � o \ / E L� / �k/& 2 c At( -)k I \ƒ o=5cc4 0 oEw �k 0 n I 7 } / ƒ ƒ 2 3 ■ $ ® 2 e @ \ � S 7 o C a co m > CD co / > m f � S / 2 ®2 $ e a o \ § 2 ) D K (5 �a o CD o r \ k \ k 00 § � � 0 G CD 0 2 \ �^ \ a ® a e ®CD CD �\ % m � � � ( \ \04 co D \ Cl) CD 0 $ �R « CL) $ Lf) \ C14 § / R iz k ) \ j F- 75 \ / j k \ 5 W O V ()i O N M i W O U C= E 7 U CO C 1�. O .o N C ci W d Q 7 E V 0) C > O O L Z x pLUo @ .,Cc Y) 0) � Q C:-0 LL V3 >O 9 c LL > W f6 0 z O 0) C C o W(� LLJ 7 t O O C 0) CO > W LL 0) 5 -C co O W LL .6 W O_ E O 0 e e e e o o e o 0 0 o e e e e 0 e e e o 0 0 0 0 o e 8CDr M 00 n00 CD V 0000 ^ M00C 4MN O O 000000 c LP) V t M 00 ^ (D a) M co 0 N V 00000 000000 M O W O n n 0 CO N V V 46 n co M V co 7 O 1pj 0 0— O N O o' M Ol c W U C 00 MN CO MN V N O0M0MO OOOO O N co r, 0 0 0 CD V 0 N N O LO r L`') N n CD 0) 00 r CD CD 0 Cfl 0 n M O Cfl W - Cl! LP) Cfl ^ 0 O W N CO 00 ^ 00 M Op LO 00 LO M 00 00 V M M O V co t�Nn Cl) CO M O r � N CD n M M P N O m 04 C14 r, N 00 e e e a e e a e e e e a e e e e e e a e e e e e e e E MCD V ra CDO M co co CoO M ONCD NrO 00 OOMOn 0 O O N 00 V 00 n CD N 00 co 4) co O O M O O 4) 0 0 0 q U.®n O CV 00r 0 MOOD �004)OnO C (m 00000 0 O M co It co V M V V V Cl) M M V V V N CO VLU Cr1 0w a- O 1�. O C`') T - O 4) N N O 00 00 O M r V O N O O N O CD O 00 0) CO C4 m 0 OO O 0 m C` ) 00 M LO N CD co V O O n CD 0 0� 0 N OC r N O N co n Cfl L`') eM O M C7) C® W N r O C' J O V N N V LP) M N CO V 0 00 46 00 O W N co 0 co co N co n Cl) CP 0 n o r V N C� N 00 Cp r O N C' J Cn V ® n 0 N N P r 00 O 0 V 4) L CV m m M L N LCa N 7 X U1�. O CO co N V N O 4) r OM 00 CO M CO n M ON OM n O CO O N 0 N M co m n N O 0 n O V co V 4) M co O O 0 Lr N ^ Cn 00 M - �_ O r M O N 00 M M M M M Cfl Cfl 0 i- T O 0 0 0 CA n M07 V 0 � 0 ^ O CD CD Ocy. N V 0 CD N 0 CO 4) M CCy 4) N M n O 0 O 0 n 0 co co co 0 V LO 0 Co 0 Co m 4) (3i V 0') M M 4) 00 N j r, ^ r N �2 V n CD V V N co co M e e e a e e a e o o e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e rCDM CON LC) LO CN CD V 00 nNn CD OO 00 0000 OOn I, ¢u N N r 4) V N Cl) 0 n C7? M M O N 00 O O ^ O O V O N M UCl) 0 0 qj LP) M ^ 00 co n 0 O Cfl co M O 0 O m 0 0m n �C O C`') m V C'") Cl) Cl) C'7 V Cl) Cl) 0') C'0 Cl) co V V OM C'0) N CO V � 0.0 1U 0NrCl) CO -M 0 MOO 00 N N 'ITM CC) - O LL) 00Nr000 It W 00 co co 00 N co 0 0 Coo V C`') M N N m co M 0 0 00 V O V C`') 0 n V n 00 00 O P V O 00 0 n O0 O N 0 co 0) CWj M r 'D N L Cfl O LP) C6. V V 0 V I- Cn M 00 L N O N M CD N LO ^ Cn 00 m co N V 00 O N n N n n 0 Co - 00 r O 4) V 0 V Cfl O N C'7 r-� M 00 Cl) ® V r,,� C`'7 N C' J M LO N LL) N O U1�. ca n00 CO 0;r Cl) CD 004)0 0 co O04)O 0 000 nONr O 0 V Cn V V V 0 N n M M co 0 N M CD 4) 0 M N n O LO Cfl M 4) - co Cl) 00 CO co V Cfl n n Cfl N M N 4) Oc0 W O n C3! r Ll) 0 O N Cfl Cyj 4) 4) n O V O V M r O N C'7 CO V CO N r N N 00 n LO N n V ^ O Cfl r r M W V CD r co O co 00 V 0 0 O Lo N O N Z ^ N T 00 CD V V r co M O C O C O W C C @ W O 0 C_ N N 9 U 76 O U O C u)E U N "N6 CO Q - U) 0) N < U Q @ C C U 'C O _ CD W O W 0- -a C Q CD E N0 21 d U £ fn - X Q U) W O w @ -O i Cn 0) 7 N U W N 0) En 0) c N > C CO E N 0 O `r. O C) iZ W W N@ U LL O ® '@ co U 0) C w N "6 Cil N i @ _" .i C NFn .i >aa m °-6_0 X D e`°n mom m °v ==U) main W N mCD CD ° m v w W N c S °U) m 2 �° U f6 2 f6 ca C CD T CO O @ O C 7 N N CO C) Cn W 7 W 0 0 O CO J CD Lu (u U(5 M JLL c)< a. (.f mW�(..9 a 0- U) c)a<n � 5 00 N V O M W 0 0 E 7 0 O C LU O .o N c O W M d Q e0 E V (0 C > w O O a Z LUo0@Q_NwU 0 0) Q U -0 LL V3 >O 9 cLL> W f6 a1 z O 0) C D o w(w 7 t C O 0 > E IL W 0) W co O > LL .6 W O_ E O U U0 0 o e o 0 0 o e o 0 0 0 0 0 o e o o a e Ln Cp CD N n r` ® 000 O O O0 CO r` M -'TQ O V O 0) r n r ^ L!) L!) CO O O O O re 4) O 00 N W00 CD CD gy r r` O CD L6 r` r` 4) O O O O r, CO N 00 n o .W 4) N r P M r Op N a0 N Ch > 0 a co N O^ 00 V^ 0 O CO 00 0 ^ O O O n 00 N M L!) N V 00 N Cr" -00 co L!) r N M CD �C4 LO >000(I ^ OPV r BOO C14C V O M M 5 v M V M -k O L() t Q ... ^ Z:, 00 00 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 I o 0 0 0 0 0 o a o o a V N O O (0 00 V C2 r` ® M N (`') 0 0 0 0 N 4)0 V LL? Orr V i� r Cl) CD 0000 O r CD N 0 Ula LD 000 (y MCD V Mn�OOOO 00 Ln 00 C'? LU c V m n V r V 0 M N Q N � w a O LU 0000i� nn CoO ® N M00 O000 M N LO I\ 000 O C0 m O N � co p0 p0 � In n 00 LL) Com°) W O 0 Cfl LO V V I LL) ^ M 0 00 N M CD 0 0 0 W O V co 00 Cl) N 0 LO n N 00 00 00 n N Ll) i, _ rl M 00 r N N f Q C O U Ali w r` 'IT OCO n M O LO O C`') O O n M L1) CO (D N V O P O O V V ® V OLLf)O O 00N ® O N C 0 ly c0 O 0) Ch 04 00 n 00 Lo M n N M C� V V cn V 00 N V 00 ^ 00 00 O 0 O m 0 N n 0 LO ® 0 V '1 -0 N r` 0 0 Ln co N M 00 CD LO 0 0 0 7 N Cl) P N n N O M V N M 0 0 N 0 0 8 a o 0 o a I o 0 0 0 0 0 o a o o a a E co(Am P N 000 N CD V 00000 ® M 0 0) 00 10 M 00 r` 0 0 00 ® Ll) M CO O O O W L!) O 0 C? '0 N 00 O O 00 L!) 0 O O 0 00 O O O (y V CO LU �7 V CO C4 � V r M n � LL) co V V P M V M M � O L e N 00 O W m V V O V V V n O O O W V 00 N la W O V 00 co^co co O co a) V M 00 V N i, N LQ - CA 00 N CO N gWj U r` 0 r` M N O 00 O 00 N 00 00 p 00 L!) RT W O CO 0 O ® n O00 M CO CO O N 4) 00 � Y W 0lr� LO co co n O V N CD 00 0 O C E N N M M CD a. 0_ 0 U U ca r` r` O Iq N n n O CD co O O O O O 00 0 n fD 00 O CDO co V ON O co 'IT 00000 V 0 n O 00 O _0M— It MO V n LD 00004)OM 00 CLO 00 CB M W N 0') P 00 00 W LM N D N 00 CO O co N V CO°) -O N CD 0 0 V LO V Ln 00 co M 00 V Ln 0 LO 0 N M LO co NO M NM 0 0 N N C O N C W a1 O_ O- 7 O O @ U DU cu W 7 O (D 7 a U) O W CDO aC e� y 0_ O N ON p= b U W p w> O > N p pW c 0) C w w w > O p 0) m ' a di m 0) C 3 co:) @ c 0 0 G i m t i O O D C) N N LLl N C W H H a Ci M d U W U O_ O- 7 O DU cu W g> 0) 6 U U aC = m OO p .N. "6 C+'3 O U@ T D m W N N > C N J 0) _0 C w w 0 0) C 3 co:) @ E CDi6 _ 7 C9) C) N N LLl N C W H H ® YO TU @ m m U o aa) c� ~ 0) 2 U)"6 V O' - w@O W C 0 X WC E L< N W 0) C 0 N o w om m o Z C7 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. 0.1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ISSUE: December 20, 2016 Work session to update the Board of Supervisors on the Crash Reporting Center Howard Hall Chief of Police Thomas C. Gates County Administrator Status update on implementation of the Crash Reporting Center BACKGROUND: The Roanoke Crash Reporting Center opened in September, 2016 and has been taking reports of property damage crashes from Roanoke County and Roanoke City since that time. DISCUSSION: The agenda for this work session is as follows: 1. Implementation of the Crash Reporting Center (Howard B. Hall, Chief of Police) 2. Issues and concerns with tow operators (Howard B. Hall, Chief of Police; County Attorney Ruth Ellen Kuhnel) Page 1 of 1 O �n a, M�d0 c m 0 cc 00"-,%% U �C U � Q U � to C: U •— O � DC � O O Q = cn O � U � O U U ro � � O O a� ca C: }' O O DC a) U E O E i > CD .— Mo Ew Q O Q — 0 D El !0E AF N E N 0 � V N � C6 N E C6 � C6 V _0 C6 � E Q 0 ° O CL Oo c V N C 0 o O QU V O O u _0 EO O +-+ +-) (3) Q 6 Ln >.. E O o Q- U V " =3O ca � U a LL El !0E AF 4- U L _ Q 0) C6 CT 0 � •� L.G� ro •2L > ,0 V V 0 cn b O U M a V C s C -0ro � 4-a -0 w •� " . _ +, -C 0 4-J4-1� s a� ° o a� o 4-0 M . =3 c� .0 C6 U •� of � U a '� •- C: QW) L V V 0- �--I = m ca ca (3) N M E C6 E V p v N M0 .+s_.+ O ca ca -0 ::3 ro Ou 'C •� O a) m .� E 0 r O ww 'v > > O > O 0 O> u" o 0 V C a � > Q Q0 . E CL L- � a -J 0 _� L M :cc U ( 3) 4-J ca — aJ 0 0 Ln 1 jE 4-J Ln Ln (3)0 -C »�ca `= Ol LM ro 4-J �+1 VM00 >M0`nQ Ln N ca -0a� �, E 0 ' �--I ��00 ��ON� 000 _0 00 =3 p l0 QJ0 N Q -E4_� Q O >O0� WOC c �� O V ,c00p : �a) �N z 4-J LOO �NmE VVO>�0 0o N V > "—a) 0 1�; —� Q ca m COO 0 fu 0 0 0>'-O a..r 0 0 C6� V 4- a-1 r- -0 � f� > V ca w c w r O ' � 0 C - E fu 0 � I� a--+ 0 V — Ln =3 rl 'V~ >'�'� 0 Ln 0 Q O 0 -0 w U0 U 0 0 m a ca ca 0 " V N m m 01 N o (� U V ° DC � V Q0 U ° V � U 0 z° ca 12 s m L V 41 m rI rn M Q0 ry)-I 00 co O .N O U 4- 0 4t oro m � o rl N r -I Ln _N U F O 0 m I 2 Lr) z 2 � cn 0 z o H r - 0 m O No +j N LU 00 00 m o Lri Q6 rn rn � rn r - 0 m O No +j N LU N M v N ���m � M N .-I .-I M lD 00 r -I O N M rr) Om N N � N N m ON N 00 N 0) [ti• N C N U N t t dA O t N � U — ("ti• f0 Q � i C C f0 N U U O Q N E0C N +�+ `- O Ln Ln i O >- U m O U 40 `n c O Q O cn C 0 E O +, +' i O C O co E t a•.' Q O U C C 4� 0 � N i O >- N E � 4 0 0 f0 N O O0 M C 4 (� U 4' co E O U U C t N 0 4� N = N O E OO a a•' w 0 cn N 00 N 0) 0 L a� om a� U L N L 0 Q. Q N EO H N'1 N as c 3