The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9/23/2003 - Regular September 23, 2003 799 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 September 23, 2003 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of September, 2003. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman McNamara called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph McNamara, Vice-Chairman Richard C. Flora, Supervisors Michael W. Altizer, Joseph B. “Butch” Church, H. Odell “Fuzzy” Minnix MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge,County Administrator;Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk to the Board; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by Pastor Myron Atkinson, Penn Forest Wesleyan Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS September 23, 2003 800 Mr. Hodge requested that a briefing be added to the agenda on the community meeting held on September 22, 2003, concerning the proposed Methadone Clinic at Ogden Road and Colonial Avenue. IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Proclamation declaring October 5 through October 11, 2003, as Mental Illness Awareness Week in Roanoke County Chairman McNamara presented the proclamation to the following representatives of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI): Charles Wohlford, Vice President; June Poe, Past President; and Shonna Allen, Editor of NAMI’s quarterly paper. Mr. Wohlford thanked the Board for their support and invited them to attend the Catawba Hospital Symposium on October 15, 2003, from 1:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. 2. Recognition of the Finance Department for receiving the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for fiscal year 2001-2002 Ms. Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance, advised that the County has received the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the County’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for fiscal year ended June 30, 2002. This is the nineteenth consecutive year that they have received this award. She introduced the following members of the Finance Department: Diane Hyatt, Geraldine Barber, Margaret Bacon, Elizabeth Atkinson, Lisa Greer, and Karen McMillan. September 23, 2003 801 She expressed appreciation to Rosemary Trussel and Danial Morris who assisted in the preparation of the report but are no longer employed with Roanoke County. She also thanked Penny Hodge and David Atkins with the Roanoke County Schools for their contributions and congratulated them on receiving a Certificate of Achievement for the Schools’ financial report for the year ended June 30, 2002. Ms. Owens thanked the Board for their support and recognition. Ms. Diane Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer, commended the finance staff and particularly Ms. Owens because this award is representative of the first filing of financial statements since GASB-34 accounting pronouncements were implemented which was the first major restructuring of governmental financial statements that has occurred in the last twenty years. Chairman McNamara presented the award to Ms. Owens and Ms. Hyatt and expressed his appreciation to the members of the Finance Department. Each of the supervisors congratulated the staff. Mr. Hodge expressed his appreciation and continued confidence in the excellent work of the Finance Department. IN RE: BRIEFING 1. Briefing to update the Board on the community meeting held on September 22, 2003, concerning the proposed Methadone Clinic at Ogden Road and Colonial Avenue Mr. Hodge advised that a community meeting was held on September 22 with the citizens in the area of Ogden Road and Colonial Avenue where a former September 23, 2003 802 doctor’s office is under consideration for a methadone clinic. Mr. Hodge advised that occasionally, the County will receive anonymous inquiries for property with certain characteristics such as size and zoning for various uses. In this case, it was a group of doctors who wanted to open a clinic somewhere in the Roanoke Valley. Mr. Hodge advised that the County is aware of the need for a substance abuse clinic for substance abuse but stated that to help some citizens at the expense of other citizens is not the best way to provide support. He indicated that there were approximately 200 people at the meeting and they had offered very good questions and suggestions regarding finding a proper location. Staff has concluded that this is not the proper place for the clinic because it is too close to schools, is in the middle of a neighborhood, and the intensity of the use is different from the family clinic that was approved in 1988 for this location. Staff is working to compile answers to the questions asked at the community meeting and Mr. Hodge advised that Janet Scheid, Chief Planner; Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; and Mr. Mahoney were present to answer questions. Mr. Hodge advised that Supervisor Minnix formed a task force committee at the community meeting to work with County staff. Mr. Hodge asked that the Board support the staff’s opposition to this location, authorize the staff to work with the clinic to find a suitable location, and approve the first reading of the ordinance on the agenda to clarify the definition of such operations in the zoning ordinance. September 23, 2003 803 Supervisor Minnix advised that the County is approaching a crossroads concerning drugs, and at the meeting last night Mr. Ron Atkins alluded to the fact that a great deal of the crime experienced throughout the U. S. is probably 80% to 90% drug related. The proposed clinic at Ogden Road and Colonial Avenue poses a very serious problem and although this proposed location is in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, another district could be selected for a similar purpose in the future. Supervisor Minnix advised that he felt this clinic should be in an appropriate location but this location is not appropriate because of its proximity to schools, minimum security, and the fact that the clinic will provide both methadone maintenance and detox treatment. Supervisor Minnix reported that a recovering addict at the community meeting advised that treatment centers are essential but this clinic will be located in the wrong place. This person gave examples from his experience of the dangers of what could happen with 200 to 300 people coming every day to the clinic in this location. Supervisor Minnix advised that the County will have little control over this environment and he feels that the clinic needs to be in a medical complex such as Roanoke Memorial, Carilion, or Lewis-Gale where it can be regulated with a physician on staff at all times since it is understood at this time that the proposed clinic will only have a physician on staff on a part-time basis. Supervisor Minnix advised that restrictions need to be placed on these facilities so that the citizens can have the opportunity to be part of the decision to allow them to be located in their community since their lives will be affected. He asked for the September 23, 2003 804 Board’s approval of the first reading of the ordinance to require a special use permit in these situations and to forward the ordinance to the Planning Commission for their review and action. Mr. Hodge introduced Mark Graham, Chairman of the Citizens Task Force. Mr. Graham advised that the citizens need the Board’s leadership and asked them to be their advocate in finding a solution to this very serious problem that affects the entire County and not just this community. He advised that an out-of-state for-profit company is seeking to implement a methadone treatment clinic in a residential neighborhood surrounded by schools, single family homes, and apartments. He advised that the location of this proposed clinic is unacceptable to the citizens. He advised that there are citizens in the County who are addicted to opium-based drugs, heroine, OxyContin, and other substances who need help and will possibly be drawn to this treatment center. He explained that as Supervisor Minnix mentioned, a recovering addict at the community meeting reported that because of inaccessibility and other factors, this location is absolutely the worst place for a methadone treatment clinic. Mr. Graham advised that the members of the task force and the 200 citizens at the community meeting are all opposed to the clinic being located on this property. Mr. Graham introduced the following members of the task force: (1) Wanda Hancock; (2) Betty Noble; (3) Merri Romberg; (4) Don Sublette; (5) Allen Trigger; (6) Cindy Webster; (7) Dr. David Brady, physiatrist, and (8) Mr. Wayne Moore. Mr. Graham advised that the task force is asking the County to find an September 23, 2003 805 appropriate location for this clinic which will satisfy the communities’ concerns as well as provide for those citizens who will seek treatment at the clinic. He asked that the Board support the agenda item for a special use permit so that this situation can be resolved now and will not be a factor in the future. He advised that two members of the task force would like to speak to the Board. Ms. Romberg advised that as a parent, she is concerned that this is the wrong location because it is in a residential area and close to many schools. She advised the proposed clinic would be 1.2 miles from Fishburn Park Elementary School and Virginia Western Community College, .1 miles from New Visa Montessori School, .5 miles from Green Valley Elementary School, and 1.4 miles from North Cross School. The public transportation routes that will bring citizens to the clinic will also be the same bus stops for children waiting to be transported to school. She thanked the Board for their consideration and asked that the clinic not be allowed in this residential area. Dr. Brady advised that the citizens in this residential area are concerned about the activities conducted around methadone clinics. Data was presented at the community meeting that the crime rate does increase and that there may be offenses against the facility itself. With the drug problem currently in Southwest Virginia reaching what appears to be epidemic proportions and causing a tremendous amount of pain and suffering, it is felt that these patients should be treated in an appropriate setting where they can be medically managed with the right to confidentiality. He advised that from data presented by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner and other sources, most September 23, 2003 806 methadone complicated deaths are due to an overdose or abuse. Methadone and other drug abuses are increasing tremendously in Southwestern Virginia with 62 deaths in 2002 and by July 1, 2003, the number of deaths has reached 30 and is expected to more than double before the end of this year. The County and citizens need to be open to having treatment clinics but they should look at non-profit based treatment options which are best for the patient and the community. He advised that the citizens are opposed to placing this methadone clinic in a residential area because of the adverse affects that the citizens may suffer in that area and also because the patients may suffer from being scrutinized while going to and from the clinic. Mr. Graham advised that he had failed to introduce Mr. RonKeith Adkins who is a member of the task force. Mr. Adkins is a long-time business person and realtor in the community and brings his expertise and concern to the committee. He advised that the citizens are looking to the Board to solve this serious problem and make sure that this issue does not negatively impact the County in the future. Supervisor Church advised that even though this location is not in his district, he is still affected by this problem. He advised that this Board has been very conscientious about zoning issues but is still criticized when they impose conditions. He feels that this situation should never have happened and that the current Board members were not serving when the zoning ordinance was approved. He advised that he is not sure about the legalities but he believes that there is a proper location for this facility and he is willing to help accomplish it. September 23, 2003 807 Supervisor Altizer advised that he visited the location and has absolutely no doubt that this is an inappropriate location. He would hope that the news media reports that the citizens of Roanoke County are not against the people who are seeking help but are showing their concern for how this facility will affect families, individuals and neighborhoods. He feels that there is a more appropriate place for the facility. Supervisor McNamara advised that the Board will do everything within its power to help with the situation now and avoid it in the future. He advised that he was unable to attend the community meeting due to a Board-related appointment and since he would have been unable to attend a meeting for the next two nights, he did not want to delay the meeting. He asked that the Board approve the first reading of the ordinance on the agenda which will change the situation as it now exists and send it to the Planning Commission for action. Supervisor Minnix thanked each member of the Task Force for their dedication and willingness to undertake this project. This is an example of the County government functioning at its very best with its citizens being involved. Supervisor Flora suggested that when seeking an appropriate location for these facilities in the future, objective criteria should be established first. Part of the criteria could be that the facility will not be located within one and one-half miles of any school in the County or will not be located within a mile of any residential neighborhood. He acknowledged that the need for the clinic exits but he did not think there would be a suitable location in Southwest Virginia or his district. September 23, 2003 808 Mr. Hodge advised that this is the first clinic that has been proposed in Southwest Virginia and the Roanoke area. He agreed with Supervisor Flora that criteria should be established which would place it in an area near a medical facility or in a more business related area rather than near schools or in a residential area. He reported that staff is not planning to shift the clinic from one district to another but rather to keep it out of areas where it is not suitable. He will keep the Board informed about the situation. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Request to approve a contract with the City of Roanoke, City of Salem, County of Botetourt and Town of Vinton for the upgrade and expansion of the present sewage treatment facility. (Gary Robertson, Utility Directory, and Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) A-092303-1 Mr. Robertson advised that the five valley governments (City of Salem, City of Roanoke, Town of Vinton, and the Counties of Roanoke and Botetourt) have been working on a plan for upgrading and expanding the wastewater treatment facility since 1999. The five partners have agreed on a cost sharing plan and the necessary improvements to increase wet weather flow capacity at the treatment plant. Construction drawings for the $47 million dollar project have been completed and divided into three contracts (A, B & C). Contract A has been bid and is in the process of September 23, 2003 809 being approved for construction. Contracts B and C will be bid in late fall 2003 and early winter 2004. Roanoke County’s share of the project will be $11.3 million. The plant was expanded from 35 million gallons per day (MGD) to 42 MGD with the 1994 improvements. This upgrade will increase the capacity to at least 55 MGD and possibly to 62 MGD under certain conditions. Mr. Robertson advised that prior to awarding the construction contract, a new agreement between the five partners’ jurisdictions must be executed. This agreement has been reviewed, negotiated, and approved by County staff and other partnering jurisdictions. Mr. Robertson reported that the project will be financed with a subsidized loan from the Virginia Water Quality Revolving Fund, to be issued through the Virginia Resources Authority (VRA). As part of the new wastewater treatment contract, the percentage for which the County is responsible is reduced from 29.2% to 24.5%. The City will reimburse the County $706,345 to retroactively change this percentage for the first upgrade. Mr. Robertson advised that in July, 2002, the County received a check of $545,164 from Roanoke City as a reimbursement in the first upgrade. The County was required by VRA to use this check to downsize the County’s previous VRA loan. Later this evening, the Board will hold a public hearing on borrowing $11.3 million to finance the County’s portion of this upgrade. Mr. Robertson advised that there will be some expenses that do not qualify for reimbursement through the loan program, such as easement acquisition. September 23, 2003 810 There is approximately $500,000 of County sewer funds remaining in the capital account for the completed phases of the wastewater treatment plant upgrade. These funds can be moved to this new upgrade and used to pay for these non-qualifying expenses. Mr. Robertson advised that staff recommends authorizing the Chairman execute the agreement upon form approved by the County Attorney. There was no discussion on this matter. Supervisor Flora moved to approve the staff recommendation, authorize the Chairman of the Board to execute the agreement, upon form approved by the County Attorney. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA Supervisor Minnix moved to approve first readings and set the second readings and public hearings for October 28, 2003. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None 1. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to construct a mini warehouse facility and offices located one- half mile from Plantation Road on Angel Lane, Catawba September 23, 2003 811 Magisterial District, upon the petition of MJH Development 2. First reading of an ordinance to rezone 99.38 acres from PTD (Planned Technology District) to PTD with revised proffered conditions, located in the 2100 block of Hardy Road, Vinton Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Town of Vinton 3. First reading of an ordinance to amend the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, Section 30-36-2(A) Agricultural/Village Center, 30-51-2(A) Neighborhood Commercial, 30-53-2(A) C-1 Office and 30-54-2(A) C-2 General Commercial to remove “medical office” as a permitted use in each district and amend Section 30-36-2(B) Agricultural/Village Center, 30-51-2(B) Neighborhood Commercial, 30-53-2(B) C-1 Office and 30-54- 2(B) C-2 General Commercial to add “medical office” as a use allowed only by Special Use Permit upon the petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission IN RE: APPOINTMENTS 1. Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Advisory Committee Supervisor Church appointed Ms. Barbara Fasnacht to serve as the Catawba District representative. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA R-092303-2; R-092303-2.c September 23, 2003 812 Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None RESOLUTION 092303-2 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for September 23, 2003 designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 5, inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes - September 9, 2003 2. Confirmation of committee appointment to the Industrial Development Authority 3. Request to accept water and sanitary sewer facilities serving Orchard Park, Section 4 4. Resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Sandra K. Sutherland, Social Services Department, after twenty-two years of service 5. Request to accept and appropriate grant in the amount of $7,275 from the State Department of Education for the adult literacy and basic education program That the Clerk to the Board is hereby 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 resolution. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the Consent Resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None RESOLUTION 092303-2.c EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY UPON THE RETIREMENT OF SANDRA K. SUTHERLAND, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES WHEREAS, Sandra K. Sutherland was employed by Roanoke County on September 23, 2003 813 December 1, 1980, as an Eligibility Worker in the Department of Social Services; and WHEREAS, Ms. Sutherland retired as a Customer Service Representative from Roanoke County on September 1, 2003, after twenty-two years and nine months of service; and WHEREAS, Ms. Sutherland has exhibited great flexibility in providing an array of social services, and was very empathic with her clients; and WHEREAS, Ms. Sutherland was always a citizen advocate and was compassionate and caring about her clients’ situation while striving to find resources to meet their needs; and WHEREAS, Ms. Sutherland has served with professionalism and integrity, and through her employment with Roanoke County, has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens. 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 SANDRA K. SUTHERLAND for more than twenty-two years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy, restful, and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None IN RE: REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Request to hold a public hearing on October 28, 2003, for citizen comments concerning a proposed amendment to the Roanoke County Charter seeking authority to levy a cigarette and tobacco tax. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney) It was the consensus of the Board to schedule the public hearing for October 28, 2003. IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Annie Krochalis, Patterson Avenue, advised that she supports the County leadership pursuing negotiations on another site for the Methadone Clinic and September 23, 2003 814 does not want to see a lawsuit filed at taxpayers’ expense. She also asked that the Board identify the criteria used in any decision because their actions will set a precedent in future matters of land use. IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor McNamara moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Future Capital Projects 5. Accounts Paid – August 2003 6. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for the month ended August 31, 2003 7. Statement of the Treasurer’s accountability per investment and portfolio policy as of August 31, 2003 IN RE: CLOSED MEETING At 4:12 p.m., Supervisor McNamara moved to go into closed meeting pursuant to the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended) Section 2.2-3711 A (5) discussion concerning prospective businesses or industries where no previous announcements September 23, 2003 815 have been made; Section 2.2-3711 A (30) discussion of the terms or scope of a contract pertaining to Explore Park where discussion in open session would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the County; Section 2.2-3711 A (30) discussion of the award of a public contract involving the expenditure of public funds, including interviews of bidders or offerors, and discussion of the terms or scope of such contract where discussion in an open session would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body, namely public safety center; and Section 2.2-3711 A (7) consultation with legal counsel pertaining to probable litigation, namely methadone clinic. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None IN RE: CLOSED MEETING The closed meeting was held from 4:20 p.m. until 5:32 p.m. IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION R-092303-3 At 7:03 p.m., Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the Certification Resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None RESOLUTION 092303-3 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA September 23, 2003 816 WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public hearing and request to adopt a resolution for the issuance of bonds through the Virginia Resources Authority (VRA) for an amount not to exceed $11,300,000 for improvements to the wastewater treatment facility and appropriation of funds. (Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer) R-092303-4 Ms. Hyatt advised that at the afternoon meeting today, the Board approved the contract with the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, County of Botetourt and Town of Vinton for the upgrade and expansion of the present wastewater treatment September 23, 2003 817 facility. These improvements total $47.6 million, with Roanoke County’s share being $11.3 million. The County has been approved for a subsidized loan through the Virginia Water Quality Revolving Fund to be issued through the Virginia Resources Authority. The bonds will be for a thirty-year term with an interest rate of 4.75%. As part of the bond sale process, the County is required to hold a public hearing on the issuance of the bonds and adopt a resolution authorizing the sale of the bonds. Ms. Hyatt advised that the first debt payment will be due October 2006, which is six months after the anticipated completion date. Accumulated interest expense will be due at this time; however, the County will need to accrue and expense interest expense on an annual basis. The first principal payment will be due in April 2007. Annual payments from that point forward will be $821,460. Ms. Hyatt advised that based upon a previously estimated $9 million for the County’s portion of construction costs, the Board approved and implemented the first sewer rate increase of 8.36% effective September 1, 2002. It was anticipated that the Board would approve a second sewer rate increase of 8.36% effective January 1, 2004. This increase is still needed; however with the pending Authority formation, it can be delayed until July 1, 2004, and factored into the new rates for the Authority. If the Authority is not formed, the County will need to revisit an additional sewer rate increase in fiscal year 2004. Because the County’s portion of the construction cost has now increased to $11.3 million, there may be a need for an additional sewer rate increase which is estimated at 3% in 2007-08, when the full debt service payments begin. September 23, 2003 818 Ms. Hyatt advised that there will be some expenses that do not qualify for reimbursement through the loan program, such as easement acquisitions and land costs. There is approximately $550,000 of County sewer funds remaining in the capital account for the completed phases of the wastewater treatment facility upgrade. These funds can be appropriated to this new upgrade and used to pay for these non-qualifying expenses. After the public hearing has been held, Ms. Hyatt advised that the staff recommends the following: (1) Adopt a resolution that authorizes the issuance of up to $11.3 million in bonds through the Virginia Resources Authority. (2) Appropriate $11.3 million of bond proceeds to the wastewater treatment facility upgrade. (3) Appropriate any remaining funds from the earlier phases of the wastewater treatment facility upgrade to this new upgrade. There was no discussion and no citizens were present to speak on this item. Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None RESOLUTION 092303-4 OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, SEWER REVENUE BOND, SERIES 2003, IN THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $11,300,000, AND SETTING FORTH THE FORM, DETAILS AND PROVISIONS FOR THE PAYMENT THEREOF September 23, 2003 819 RECITALS The Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County of Roanoke, Virginia A. (the "County") has determined that it is necessary and desirable to issue its Sewer Revenue Bond, Series 2003, in the maximum principal amount of $11,300,000 (the "Bond"), and to use the proceeds thereof, along with other available funds, if any, to (i) finance the County's portion of upgrades to the Roanoke Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility and (ii) pay the costs of issuance of the Bond (the "Project"). On September 23, 2003, the Board held a public hearing on the issuance B. of the Bond in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.2-2606 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code"). The Bond will be sold by the County to the Virginia Resources Authority C. ("VRA), as administrator of the Virginia Water Facilities Revolving Fund, pursuant to the terms of a Financing Agreement (the "Financing Agreement") between the County and VRA, to be dated as of a date specified by VRA. The Bond will be issued as a "Parity Bond" as defined in the Financing D. Agreement dated as of December 1, 1996 (the "1996 Financing Agreement") between the County and the Virginia Water Facilities Revolving Fund, acting by and through VRA and the Financing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2000 (the "2000 Financing Agreement") between the County and VRA. The Bond will be secured by a pledge of the revenues (as more particularly defined in the Financing Agreement, the "Revenues") derived by the County from the ownership and operation of its wastewater system (as more particularly defined in the Financing Agreement, the "System"). The Bond will be secured on parity with the County's outstanding Sewer Revenue Bond, Series 1996 ( the "1996 Bond") and Sewer Revenue Bond, Series 2000 (the "2000 Bond"), with respect to the pledge of Revenues. The foregoing arrangements will be reflected in the Financing Agreement, E. a form of which has been presented to this meeting and filed with the County's documents. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia that: Election to Proceed Under Public Finance Act of 1991. The Board hereby 1. elects to issue the Bond under the provisions of the Public Finance Act of 1991, Chapter 26, Title 15.2 of the Virginia Code (the "Public Finance Act") without regard to the requirements, restrictions or other provisions contained in the Charter of the County. Authorization of Bond and Use of Proceeds. The Board hereby finds and 2. determines that it is advisable and in the best interest of the County to contract a debt and to issue the Bond in the maximum principal amount of $11,300,000, and to award and sell the Bond to VRA, all pursuant to the Public Finance Act and the terms of this Resolution and the Financing Agreement. Such issuance, award and sale of the Bond September 23, 2003 820 are hereby authorized and approved. The Bond shall be known as the "County of Roanoke, Virginia, Sewer Revenue Bond, Series 2003." The proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bond shall be used, together with other available funds, if any, to pay the costs of the Project. Details of Bond. The Bond shall be issued as a single bond in fully 3. registered form and shall be dated the date of its issuance and delivery. The County Administrator is authorized and directed to determine and approve all of the other final details of the Bond, including without limitation, the maximum principal amount authorized to be advanced thereunder, the interest rate, the maturity or payment dates and amounts and the final maturity date; provided, however, that (i) the maximum principal amount authorized to be advanced under the Bond shall not exceed $11,300,000, (ii) the interest rate on the Bond shall not exceed three and seventy-five hundredths percent (3.75%) per annum, (iii) the Bond shall have a substantially level maturity or payment schedule from and after the date on which the first payment of principal is due thereunder, and (iv) the final maturity date of the Bond shall be no later than December 31, 2026. The County Administrator's approval of such details shall be evidenced conclusively by the due execution and delivery to VRA of the Bond on the County's behalf. Pledge of Revenues. The Bond shall be a limited obligation of the County 4. and, except to the extent payable from the proceeds of the sale of the Bond or the income, if any, derived from the investment thereof, is payable exclusively from the Revenues of the System which the County hereby pledges to the payment of the principal of and interest on the Bond pursuant to the terms of the Financing Agreement. The Bond will be issued as a Parity Bond as defined in the 1996 Financing Agreement and 2000 Financing Agreement, and will be secured on parity with the 1996 Bond and the 2000 Bond with respect to the pledge of Revenues. Neither the Commonwealth of Virginia nor any of its political subdivisions, including the County, shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on the Bond or other costs incident to it except from the revenues and any other money or property pledged for such purpose, and neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth of Virginia or any of its political subdivisions, including the County, is pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest on the Bond or other costs incident to it. The issuance of the Bond does not directly, indirectly or contingently obligate the Commonwealth of Virginia or any of its political subdivisions, including the County, to levy any taxes for the payment of the Bond. Form of Bond. The Bond shall be in substantially the form attached as 5. Exhibit A to the Financing Agreement, with such variations, insertions or deletions as may be approved by the Chairman of the Board (the "Chairman") or the Vice Chairman of the Board (the "Vice Chairman"). There may be endorsed on the Bond such legend or text as may be necessary or appropriate to conform to any applicable rules and September 23, 2003 821 regulations of any governmental authority or any usage or requirement of law with respect thereto. Evidence of Approval. The Chairman's or Vice Chairman's approval or 6. determination of all of the details and provisions of the Bond that he has been authorized and/or directed to approve under this Resolution shall be evidenced conclusively by his execution and delivery of the Bond on the County's behalf. Redemption of Bond. The Bond shall be subject to optional redemption at 7. the direction of the County, without penalty or premium, in whole or in part, at any time, upon the terms set forth in the Bond and the Financing Agreement. Execution and Delivery of Bond. The Chairman or Vice Chairman is 8. authorized and directed to execute the Bond. The Clerk of the Board (the "Clerk") or the Deputy Clerk of the Board (the "Deputy Clerk") is authorized and directed to affix the seal of the County to the executed Bond and to attest it and then to deliver the Bond or cause the Bond to be delivered to VRA upon payment of the first principal advance thereunder. An authorized representative of VRA shall enter the amount and date of each principal advance as provided in the Certificate of Advances attached to the Bond when the proceeds of such advance are delivered to the County. Registration, Transfer and Exchange. The Board appoints the Chief 9. Financial Officer as its registrar and transfer agent to keep books for the registration and transfer of the Bond and to make such registrations and transfers on such books under such reasonable regulations as the County may prescribe. Upon surrender for transfer or exchange of the Bond at the office of the Chief Financial Officer, the County shall cause the execution and delivery in the name of the transferee or registered owner, as applicable, of a new Bond for a principal amount equal to the Bond surrendered and of the same date and tenor as the Bond surrendered, subject in each case to such reasonable regulations as the County may prescribe. If surrendered for transfer, exchange, redemption or payment, the Bond shall be accompanied by a written instrument or instruments of transfer or authorization for exchange, in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to the Chief Financial Officer, duly executed by the registered owner or by his or her duly authorized attorney-in-fact or legal representative. A new Bond delivered upon any transfer or exchange shall be a valid limited obligation of the County, evidencing the same debt as the Bond surrendered and shall be entitled to all of the security and benefits of this Resolution to the same extent as the Bond surrendered. Charges for Exchange or Transfer. No charge shall be made for any 10. exchange or transfer of the Bond, but the Chief Financial Officer may require payment by the holder of the Bond of a sum sufficient to cover any tax or any other governmental charge that may be imposed in relation thereto. September 23, 2003 822 Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bond. If the Bond has been 11. mutilated, lost, stolen or destroyed, the County shall execute and deliver a new Bond of like date and tenor in exchange and substitution for, and upon delivery to the Chief Financial Officer and cancellation of, such mutilated Bond, or in lieu of and in substitution for such lost, stolen or destroyed Bond; provided, however, that the County shall execute, authenticate and deliver a new Bond only if its registered owner has paid the reasonable expenses and charges of the County in connection therewith and, in the case of a lost, stolen or destroyed Bond (i) has filed with the Chief Financial Officer evidence satisfactory to him or her that such Bond was lost, stolen or destroyed and that the holder of the Bond was its registered owner and (ii) has furnished to the County indemnity satisfactory to the Chief Financial Officer. If the Bond has matured, instead of issuing a new Bond, the County may pay the Bond without surrender upon receipt of the aforesaid evidence and indemnity. Approval of Financing Agreement. The Financing Agreement is approved 12. in substantially the form presented to this meeting, with such changes, insertions or omissions as may be approved by the Chairman or Vice Chairman, whose approval shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery of the Financing Agreement on the County's behalf, and the Chairman or Vice Chairman is authorized to complete the Financing Agreement with the final terms and details of the Bond as determined pursuant to paragraph 3. The Chairman or Vice Chairman is authorized to execute and deliver the Financing Agreement and such other documents and certificates as such officer may consider necessary in connection therewith. Further Actions; Authorized Representative. The Chairman, the County 13. Administrator and the Chief Financial Officer and such officers and agents of the County as may be designated by any of them are authorized and directed to take such further actions as they deem necessary regarding the issuance and sale of the Bond and the execution, delivery and performance of the Financing Agreement, including, without limitation, the execution and delivery of closing documents and certificates. All such actions previously taken by such officers and agents are ratified and confirmed. The Chairman, County Administrator and the Chief Financial Officer are designated the County's Authorized Representatives for purposes of the Financing Agreement. Filing of Resolution. The County Attorney is authorized and directed to file 14. a certified copy of this Resolution with the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, pursuant to Sections 15.2-2607 and 15.2-2627 of the Virginia Code. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. 15. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None September 23, 2003 823 2. Public hearing and request to adopt a resolution for the issuance of general obligation school bonds through the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) for an amount not to exceed $23,000,000 to finance certain capital projects for public school purposes. (Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer) R-092303-5 Ms. Hyatt advised that previously the Board had approved applying to the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) for the funding for renovations at Mountain View Elementary School, Herman L. Horn Elementary School, Oak Grove Elementary School, the architectural and engineering work at Northside High School, and improvements to the stadium and playing fields at Cave Spring High School and Hidden Valley High School. As part of this application process, a public hearing must be held. The first debt payment for this borrowing will not occur until the 2004-05 fiscal year and has been factored into the debt capacity for school capital improvements. Future County budgets will include the annual debt service. Debt payments are estimated to be approximately $2,175,000 per year. After the public hearing is held, Ms Hyatt advised that staff recommends that the Board adopt a resolution that authorizes the issuance of VPSA bonds in the Fall 2003 bond sale for an amount not to exceed $23,000,000. Supervisor Minnix thanked the citizens of Roanoke County for allowing the September 23, 2003 824 County to have schools that rank among the highest 15% in the nation. The Blue Ribbon Commission challenged the Board to embrace a program of $120 million in improvements to the schools and the County is about halfway through the program. In response to Supervisor Minnix, Ms. Hyatt advised that the County has appropriated approximately $75 million of the proposed $120 million. Supervisor Minnix advised that he was proud of Roanoke County for being willing to undertake this task and very grateful to the citizens for shouldering the financial burden. Supervisor McNamara pointed out that Supervisor Minnix is the only current member who was on the Board when the Blue Ribbon Commission made their recommendations. There was no discussion and no citizens present to speak on this item. Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None RESOLUTION 092303-5 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $23,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA TO BE SOLD TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the "County") has determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow not to exceed $23,000,000 and to issue its general obligation school bonds to finance certain capital projects for school purposes. September 23, 2003 825 WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on September 23, 2003, on the issuance of the Bonds (as defined below) in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.2-2606, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code"). WHEREAS, the School Board of the County has requested by resolution the Board to authorize the issuance of the Bonds and has consented to the issuance of the Bonds. WHEREAS, the Bond Sale Agreement (as defined below) shall indicate that $22,000,000 is the amount of proceeds requested (the "Proceeds Requested") from the Virginia Public School Authority (the "VPSA") in connection with the sale of the Bonds. WHEREAS, the VPSA's objective is to pay the County a purchase price for the Bonds which, in VPSA's judgment, reflects the Bonds' market value (the "VPSA Purchase Price Objective"), taking into consideration such factors as the amortization schedule the County has requested for the Bonds, the amortization schedules requested by other localities, the purchase price to be received by VPSA for its bonds and other market conditions relating to the sale of VPSA's bonds. WHEREAS, such factors may result in the Bonds having a purchase price other than par and consequently (i) the County may have to issue a principal amount of Bonds that is greater than or less than the Proceeds Requested in order to receive an amount of proceeds that is substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested, or (ii) if the maximum authorized principal amount of the Bonds set forth in section 1 below does not exceed the amount of the discount (plus an amount equal to the Proceeds Requested) the purchase price to be paid to the County, given the VPSA Purchase Price Objective and market conditions, will be less than the Proceeds Requested. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA: 1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board hereby determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and to issue and sell general obligation school bonds of the County in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $23,000,000 (the "Bonds") for the purpose of financing certain capital projects for school purposes. The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and sale of the Bonds in the form and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution. 2. Sale of the Bonds. It is determined to be in the best interest of the County to accept the offer of VPSA to purchase from the County, and to sell to the VPSA, the Bonds at a price determined by the VPSA and accepted by the Chairman of the Board or the County Administrator and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution. The County Administrator and the Chairman of the Board, or either of them, and such officer or officers of the County as either of them may designate, are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the Bond Sale Agreement with the VPSA providing for the sale of the Bonds to the VPSA in substantially the form on file with the County September 23, 2003 826 Administrator, which form is hereby approved ("Bond Sale Agreement"). 3. Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be issuable in fully registered form in denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples thereof; shall be dated the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds; shall be designated "General Obligation School Bonds, Series 2003" (or such other designation as the County Administrator may approve) shall bear interest from the date of delivery thereof payable semi-annually on each January 15 and July 15 (each an "Interest Payment Date"), beginning July 15, 2004, at the rates established in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Resolution; and shall mature on July 15 in the years (each a "Principal Payment Date") and in the amounts established in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Resolution. The Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Payment Dates are subject to change at the request of VPSA. 4. Principal Installments and Interest Rates. The County Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to accept the interest rates on the Bonds established by the VPSA, provided that each interest rate shall be no more than ten one-hundredths of one percent (0.10%) over the interest rate to be paid by the VPSA for the corresponding principal payment date of the bonds to be issued by the VPSA (the "VPSA Bonds"), a portion of the proceeds of which will be used to purchase the Bonds, and provided further, that the true interest cost of the Bonds does not exceed six percent (6%) per annum. The County Administrator is further authorized and directed to accept the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds and the amounts of principal of the Bonds coming due on each Principal Payment Date ("Principal Installments") established by the VPSA, including any changes in the Interest Payment Dates, the Principal Payment Dates and the Principal Installments which may be requested by VPSA provided that such aggregate principal amount shall not exceed the maximum amount set forth in paragraph one and the final maturity of the Bonds shall not be later than 21 years from their date. The execution and delivery of the Bonds as described in paragraph 8 hereof shall conclusively evidence such Interest Payment Dates, Principal Payment Dates, interest rates, principal amount and Principal Installments as having been so accepted as authorized by this Resolution. 5. Form of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be initially in the form of a single, temporary typewritten bond substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. 6. Payment; Paying Agent and Bond Registrar. The following provisions shall apply to the Bonds: (a) For as long as the VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds, all payments of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be made in immediately available funds to the VPSA at or before 11:00 a.m. on the applicable Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption, or if such date is not a business day for Virginia banks or for the September 23, 2003 827 Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or before 11:00 a.m. on the business day next preceding such Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption; (b) All overdue payments of principal and, to the extent permitted by law, interest shall bear interest at the applicable interest rate or rates on the Bonds; and (c) SunTrust Bank, Richmond, Virginia, is designated as Bond Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bonds. 7. Prepayment or Redemption. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due on or before July 15, 2013, and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2013 are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due after July 15, 2013 and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature after July 15, 2013 are subject to prepayment or redemption at the option of the County prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after July 15, 2013 upon payment of the prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as percentages of Principal Installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or redemption: Dates Prices July 15, 2013 to July 14, 2014, inclusive........................................... 101% July 15, 2014 to July 14, 2015, inclusive........................................... 100.5 July 15, 2015 and thereafter.............................................................. 100; Provided, however, that the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities as described above without first obtaining the written consent of the registered owner of the Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for prepayment or redemption. The County Administrator is authorized to approve such other redemption provisions, including changes to the redemption dates set forth above, as may be requested by the VPSA. 8. Execution of the Bonds. The Chairman or Vice Chairman and the Clerk or any Deputy Clerk of the Board are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Bonds and to affix the seal of the County thereto. The manner of such execution may be by facsimile, provided that if both signatures are by facsimile, the Bonds shall not be valid until authenticated by the manual signature of the Paying Agent. 9. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit. For the prompt payment of the September 23, 2003 828 principal of, and the premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as the same shall become due, the full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year while any of the Bonds shall be outstanding there shall be levied and collected in accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation sufficient in amount to provide for the payment of the principal of, and the premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as such principal, premium, if any, and interest shall become due, which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or amount and in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose. 10. Use of Proceeds Certificate; Non-Arbitrage Certificate. The Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator, or either of them and such officer or officers of the County as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Non-Arbitrage Certificate, if required by bond counsel, and a Use of Proceeds Certificate setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable regulations relating to the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds. The Board covenants on behalf of the County that (i) the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in such Use of Proceeds Certificate and the County shall comply with the covenants and representations contained therein and (ii) the County shall comply with the provisions of the Code so that interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds will remain excludable from gross income for Federal income tax purposes. 11. State Non-Arbitrage Program; Proceeds Agreement. The Board hereby determines that it is in the best interests of the County to authorize and direct the County Treasurer to participate in the State Non-Arbitrage Program in connection with the Bonds. The County Administrator and the Chairman of the Board, or either of them and such officer or officers of the County as either of them may designate, are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect to the deposit and investment of proceeds of the Bonds by and among the County, the other participants in the sale of the VPSA Bonds, the VPSA, the investment manager, and the depository substantially in the form on file with the County Administrator, which form is hereby approved. 12. Continuing Disclosure Agreement. The Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator, or either of them, and such officer or officers of the County as either of them may designate are hereby authorized and directed (i) to execute a Continuing Disclosure Agreement, as set forth in Appendix F to the Bond Sale Agreement, setting forth the reports and notices to be filed by the County and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 and (ii) to make all filings September 23, 2003 829 required by Section 3 of the Bond Sale Agreement should the County be determined by the VPSA to be a MOP (as defined in the Continuing Disclosure Agreement). 13. Filing of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be filed with the Circuit Court of the County. 14. Further Actions. The County Administrator, the Chairman of the Board, and such other officers, employees and agents of the County as either of them may designate are hereby authorized to take such action as the County Administrator or the Chairman of the Board may consider necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and any such action previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed. 15. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone .777 acres from I-1, Industrial District, to C-2, General Commercial District, to operate a retail sales facility located on Plantation Road, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the petition of EP Properties, LC. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) O-092303-6 Ms. Scheid advised this is a petition to rezone industrial property to commercial. Although the Economic Development Department would like to preserve the industrial zoning, they do not object to this rezoning request because it will facilitate the expansion of an existing County business on a relatively small parcel in a corridor September 23, 2003 830 that is currently mixed with commercial and industrial uses. The petitioner’s business, Carpetland, is located on Williamson Road and the petitioner plans to re-locate the business in a larger facility on Plantation Road. The petitioner feels that the close proximity to I-81 will be a benefit to the business. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this rezoning. Mr. Lee Osborne, counsel for the petitioner, advised that Gene Podell, the principal member and manager of EP Properties and owner of Carpetland, and John Morris, Hughes Associates Architects, were present to answer any questions. Mr. Osborne clarified that the business is not moving to a larger facility but it will actually be slightly reduced in size which is necessitated by the size of the lot. Mr. Osborne advised that Mr. Podell feels that this facility will be adequate for their retail needs. There was no discussion and no citizens present to speak on this item. Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None ORDINANCE 092303-6 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A .777-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED ON PLANTATION ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 27.06-5-10) IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF I-1 TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2 UPON THE APPLICATION OF EP PROPERTIES, LC WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 26, 2003, and the second reading and public hearing were held September 23, 2003; and, September 23, 2003 831 WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on September 2, 2003; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing .777 acres, as described herein, and located on Plantation Road (Tax Map Number 27.06-5-10) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of I-1, Industrial District, to the zoning classification of C-2, General Commercial District. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of EP Properties, LC. 3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the northwest corner of the property of Page Distributing Company, Inc. and First Union National Bank of Virginia being Tax Map #27.06-5-2 and along the northerly side of Plantation Road (VA Route 115) N. 17° 08’ 53” W. 170.85 feet to a point; thence leaving said Plantation Road N. 60° 40’ 12” E. 192.84 feet to a point; thence S. 16° 55’ 48” E. 180.00 feet to a point; thence S. 60° 40’ 12” W. 192.14 feet to the Place of Beginning, and containing .777 acres as more particularly shown on “Plat Showing Rezoning Exhibit of Tax #27.06-5-20, Property of Page Distributing Company, Inc. 0.777 acres (DB 1364, page 234) currently Zoned I-1, Being Rezoned to C-2 Situated along Plantation Road, Hollins Magisterial District, Roanoke County, Virginia,” and prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., Engineers-Surveyors-Planners, dated July 10, 2003. 4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None 2. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone .37 acres from AVC, Agricultural Village District with Conditions, to C-2, General Commercial District with conditions, to operate a retail sales facility located on 5999 Franklin Road, S.W., Cave Spring September 23, 2003 832 Magisterial District, upon the petition of Richard Anderson. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) O-092303-7 Ms. Scheid advised that this petition is to rezone property with a building that was constructed in 1920. At a previous rezoning, the property was limited by proffer to the sale of antiques, and the current owner is requesting that the property be rezoned to C-2, General Commercial, with several proffers. The Planning Commission has recommended approval with the following proffers: (1) Use of the property will be restricted to the sale and storage of the following: oriental/persian rugs, area rugs and flooring materials and antiques. (2) Signage shall be limited to a maximum of 140 square feet. (3) No off-premises signage shall be installed. Mr. Anderson, petitioner, advised that he was in the process of selling the property and was present to answer questions. Supervisor Minnix advised that this property is located on Rt. 220 South, and since it is in close proximity to the Clearbrook Overlay District, he would like to add another proffer that this zoning would also adhere to the restrictions in the Clearbrook Overlay District. Ms. Scheid advised that the Clearbrook Overlay District zoning would apply only if there were renovations or site redesign and the petitioner is not planning to do this. Supervisor Minnix advised that his intent is to apply the Clearbrook Overlay District zoning so that if the property is sold, the Board would have the September 23, 2003 833 opportunity to review the action. He advised that the goal of the Clearbrook Overlay District zoning was to develop the commercial area while keeping control of the type of industry that would be located there. Supervisor Minnix moved to approve the ordinance with the added condition. Chairman McNamara asked Mr. Mahoney if the Board could add the proffer or if it had to be submitted by the petitioner. Mr. Mahoney advised that at first he thought this was a special use permit where the Board could add conditions, but since this is a conditional rezoning. the petitioner is required to sign the proffered conditions and submit them prior to the Board meeting and commencement of the public hearing. Supervisor Minnix asked Mr. Anderson if he was familiar with the provisions of the Clearbrook Overlay District and if he would voluntarily proffer that the property would remain within the guidelines of that zoning. Mr. Anderson advised that he thought the Clearbrook Overlay District was primarily for landscaping, type and style of the buildings. Supervisor Minnix advised that the district also deals with resale of the property, and he thought it would be best to postpone this rezoning until the petitioner and staff could review the Clearbrook Overlay District zoning. Chairman McNamara advised that Supervisor Minnix has made a motion to lay the action on the table. Supervisor Minnix advised that he would take the action off the table after the petitioner has met with staff to explain the Clearbrook Overlay District. Chairman McNamara asked Mr. Mahoney if this action to lay the item on the table would necessitate another public hearing. Mr. Mahoney suggested that the Board September 23, 2003 834 could continue the public hearing until October 28, 2003, or consider the public hearing requirement had been met at tonight’s meeting, and continue the rezoning until October 14, 2003. In that period of time, staff could advise the applicant about the Clearbrook Overlay District and the petitioner could execute a written proffer to be added at that time. In response to Chairman McNamara’s inquiry, Mr. Mahoney advised that if the applicant submits new proffered conditions, another public hearing would be required. Supervisor Church suggested that staff could discuss the situation with Mr. Anderson at a later time during the meeting to resolve the matter so that the issue would not have to be postponed. Ms. Scheid advised that the petitioner has a contract on the property that has to close on September 30 contingent upon the rezoning. Mr. Mahoney advised that the Board could expand the Clearbrook Overlay District which would require a totally different action and take sixty days. Supervisor McNamara advised that he is concerned that this property is not part of the Clearbrook Overlay District which had fees associated with it in return for water and sewer. He questioned whether this action should be postponed to comply with a zoning district that is located a half mile from the property. Supervisor Minnix advised that he wanted to provide protection for the development of this area and in the future, the Clearbrook Overlay District might extend to the Franklin County border. He advised that this business would fit without any difficulty under the guidelines of the Clearbrook Overlay District but he was not suggesting that the boundaries of the district be expanded at this time. His concern with September 23, 2003 835 this rezoning is the possibility that if the property is sold, there will be no way to restrict its future development. Chairman McNamara requested Mr. Mahoney’s advice on how to proceed. Mr. Mahoney advised that since this is a conditional rezoning, the Board cannot add a new condition at this time. The applicant has to submit his conditions in writing prior to the commencement of the public hearing. Since the public hearing has started and the Board does not have the written proffer from the petitioner, the suggested condition cannot be added to the ordinance. Mr. Hodge advised that since the petitioner has a deadline of September 30, and Supervisor Minnix wishes to have the property in compliance with the Clearbrook Overlay District, the Board has the option of delaying this item, accepting the rezoning as presented, or asking the petitioner to express a general willingness to abide by the added condition. However, Mr. Hodge and Mr. Mahoney both advised that this condition would not be enforceable. Supervisor Minnix advised that he wants a guarantee that this development will be in accordance with the Clearbrook Overlay District and if an additional meeting is necessary, he would be agreeable. He advised that he did not feel comfortable approving the request without the added condition. If this property is rezoned without adhering to the Clearbrook Overlay District, he felt it would be defeating the purpose of that district. Supervisor Altizer asked Mr. Mahoney what restrictions the new owner September 23, 2003 836 would have to comply with if the rezoning is approved. Mr. Mahoney advised that the restrictions would be those in the proffers in the draft ordinance being discussed and these proffers are attached to the property and any subsequent purchaser. He also explained the property is subject to two kinds of restrictions: (1) The restrictions that are applicable to all property in C-2, General Commercial, zoning. (2) The three conditions proffered by the petitioner in writing. Supervisor Altizer asked if the new purchaser could sell anything except what is specified in the proffers in the ordinance. Mr. Mahoney advised that any subsequent purchaser would be limited to the sale of items specified in the proffers. Mr. Mahoney agreed with Supervisor Altizer that if the new owner wanted to sell anything other than what is being proffered, he would have to come back to the Board for approval. Supervisor Church advised that he was concerned that this is the second reading of an ordinance and the petitioner is now being informed that another condition could possibly be added. He asked if it would be possible for the petitioner and Ms. Scheid to discuss the matter and come up with a solution tonight. Chairman McNamara advised that it is a matter of legality, as mentioned by Mr. Mahoney, that the public hearing has been held and while a proffer cannot be offered, the petitioner can make a good-faith offer to follow the guidelines. Supervisor Minnix asked Mr. Mahoney for his guarantee that in the event Mr. Anderson sells the property, the new owner will have to return to this Board to get permission to do anything except what is proffered. Mr. Mahoney advised that Proffer September 23, 2003 837 #1 limits the use of this property to those items described and if a subsequent purchaser wants to do something else other than the sale and storage of oriental/persian rugs, area rugs, flooring materials and antiques, he would have to come back to the Board for approval to amend, delete, alter or change that condition. Supervisor Minnix inquired if Mr. Anderson decides to sell something other than what is listed in proffer #1, does he have to come back to the Board for approval. Mr. Mahoney advised that if Mr. Anderson is found to be selling things other than those items listed in the proffer, an enforcement action would have to be taken against him. Supervisor Minnix asked Mr. Anderson if he would agree to add one condition to the ordinance that for any significant change in your place of business such as enlarging the facility, the petitioner would come to the Board for approval. Mr. Anderson advised that because of zoning requirements, he would be required to seek approval for actions of this sort. Mr. Mahoney advised that the petitioner could replace the building with another if he meets the requirements of the C-2 zoning. Supervisor Minnix advised that this is why he wants the new structure to comply with the guidelines of the Clearbrook Overlay District. Supervisor Minnix asked the petitioner if he would be comfortable coming back to the Board for approval if he wanted to change the size of the facility. Mr. Anderson advised that he would agree. Supervisor Minnix asked if he would make this a condition of the rezoning. Mr. Anderson reminded Supervisor Minnix that he could not add another condition to the property at this time as stated by Mr. Mahoney previously. September 23, 2003 838 Mr. Anderson advised that he had worked with the Clearbrook community by volunteering his time and making donations to every auction and Clearbrook School, and he believes that the purchaser of the property will follow through in a similar manner. Ms. Scheid advised that there are no plans to expand the building. Supervisor Minnix advised that he was attempting to have the property comply with the guidelines set up for the development of the Clearbrook area. He asked Mr. Mahoney that in the event the property is sold, would the new owner have to come back to the Board for permission before using the property for retail. Mr. Mahoney advised that as long as the new owner complied with proffer #1, they would not have to come before the Board. Supervisor Minnix agreed that this was correct but asked Mr. Mahoney to assure him that if a different type business goes into this facility, the owner would have to come before the Board for approval. Mr. Mahoney advised that if a business such as an ice cream store moved into the facility, the owner would have to come before the Board with a rezoning request. There were no citizens present to speak on this item. Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None ORDINANCE 092303-7 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A .37-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 5999 FRANKLIN ROAD (TAX MAP NO.98.04-2-20) IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL September 23, 2003 839 DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AVC WITH CONDITIONS TO THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF C-2 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE APPLICATION OF RICHARD ANDERSON WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 26, 2003, and the second reading and public hearing were held September 23, 2003; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on September 2, 2003; and WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing .37 acres, as described herein, and located at 5999 Franklin Road (Tax Map Number 98.04-2-20) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of AVC, Agricultural Village District, with conditions, to the zoning classification of C-2, General Commercial District, with conditions. 2. That this action is taken upon the application of Richard Anderson. 3. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby accepts: (1) Use of the property will be restricted to the sale and storage of the following: Oriental/Persian rugs, area rugs and flooring materials and antiques. (2) Signage shall be limited to a maximum of 140 square feet. (3) No off-premises signage shall be installed. 4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows: BEGINNING at an iron on the west side of U. S. Route 220 at the southerly corner of the .20 acre tract being herein described; thence with a new division line through the property of Howard T. Campbell estate, N. 63° 35’ W. 30 feet to an iron; thence N. 6° 27’ W. 79.7 feet to an iron; thence N. 15° 26’ W. 130 feet to an iron; thence still with a new division line N. 66° 08’ E. 60.8 feet to an iron on the west side of a driveway, which driveway is not included in the real property hereby conveyed; thence S. 23° 43’ E. 93.35 feet to an iron on the west side of U. S. Route 220; thence with the west line of U. S. Route 220, S. 3° 37’ W. 186.3 feet to the Beginning and containing .20 acre and being as more fully shown on survey made by T. P. Parker, SCE, dated 12 June 1965. 5. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. September 23, 2003 840 On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None 3. Second reading of an ordinance to amend the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, Section 30-93, Signs, upon the petition of the Roanoke County Planning Commission. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner, and David Holladay, Senior Planner, Zoning Administrator) Referred to the Planning Commission at the July 22, 2003 meeting. O-092303-8 Ms. Scheid advised that this is a revision to the Sign Ordinance and that the planning staff, at the request of the Planning Commission, began working on these revisions in 2002. Several months ago, the Board directed staff to work with the sign industry and the Planning Commission on these revisions, and they have reached a consensus. Much progress has been made and these revisions have been included in the Board’s packet as Draft #7. The biggest issue of concern in these revisions has been the off-premise sign section or billboard section. A consensus has been reached with the billboard industry to cap the number of billboard in Roanoke County and allow the consolidation and reconstruction of non-conforming billboards. The majority are non-conforming due to their location in agricultural and residential zoning districts. The consensus is to allow those non-conforming boards to be consolidated and reconstructed so that two boards can be combined into one new reconstructed September 23, 2003 841 billboard. Over time, this should bring about a decrease in the number of billboards in the County. The cap will continue to go down as each board is replaced so that if the cap is 150 today, in three or four years, it will be 145 and three years later, 140. The cap will never go back up and will continue to decrease. New billboards would still be allowed to be constructed in places that are in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Scheid advised that staff has worked with the billboard industry to minimize the impact on their businesses while recognizing that many of the billboards are non-conforming, and to achieve the goal that the Planning Commission established of reducing the number of non-conforming billboards in the County. Ms. Scheid advised that another revision to the ordinance is to allow tri- vision signs which were discussed at the last work session with the Board. The ordinance specifies the time the image may be displayed and the twirl time of the sign. The last change to the ordinance was made at the Planning Commission’s last work session when they voted to prohibit back-lit signs in residential areas since they felt these signs were more commercial in character. Ms. Scheid advised that Mr. Mahoney, and Mr. Dicks, from Lamar Advertising Co., were present to answer questions. Supervisor Altizer advised that he was appreciative of the staff’s work and the sign industry’s participation in this process. He inquired how many schools and churches would be affected by the prohibition of back-lit signs in residential areas. Ms. Scheid advised that she did know the exact number but this was discussed by the Planning Commission at great length. The Planning Commission felt that it is a problem September 23, 2003 842 since these signs are more commercial and not consistent with the environment and atmosphere that they want for the R-1 single family districts. She advised that the churches and schools which use these signs will become non-conforming as a result of this change. Supervisor Altizer advised that his concern was that the sign industry was given time to participate in the process while schools and churches were not afforded the same opportunity since this revision was approved at the Planning Commission meeting on September 2, 2003. He recommended that paragraph #7, page 12, “No back-lit signs will not be permitted in R-1” be removed before the sign ordinance is approved. Supervisor Minnix applauded the efforts of the staff and sign industry to arrive at this workable document. In response to Supervisor Minnix’s question concerning the requirements that “no establishment shall be allowed more than five signs,” Ms. Scheid advised that a business can have four signs in addition to the sign containing the name of the business. Supervisor Church advised that he was also concerned about the back-lit prohibition and he would not support the ordinance with this restriction. Mr. Chip Dicks, representing Lamar Advertising Company, expressed appreciation to Ms. Scheid, Mr. Holladay, Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Hodge for their creativity in working with the sign industry to craft the off-premise sign provisions in the ordinance. He suggested that this approach will reduce the number of non-conforming structures while allowing the protection of private property rights for the companies that September 23, 2003 843 have outdoor advertising signs in the County. Mr. Dicks advised that the back-lit sign restriction is an on-premise sign issue and was not part of the sign industry’s overall review. He advised that all of the members of the sign industry were consulted and they support the ordinance as presented with respect to the off-premise sign revisions. Ms. Twila Briscoe, 319 Clubhouse Drive, advised that she owns two childcare centers in the Hollins District and presented a petition of business owners from the Peters Creek Road exit to Plantation Road objecting to the billboard posted on Williamson Road advertising a Gentleman’s Club in West Virginia. They are unaware of what are the appropriate billboard guidelines and this is the first time they have noticed a distasteful billboard in the community. Chairman McNamara referred the petition to Mr. Mahoney and asked that he respond to Ms. Briscoe. Mr. Robert R. Frydrych, 6014 Williamson Road, spoke of his concern about restricting businesses to five signs and asked how the number of signs is determined. Ms. Scheid advised that the restriction to five signs is already in the sign ordinance and is not a part of this revision. Ms. Scheid advised that open and close signs, directional signs of certain sizes, street signs, no trespassing signs, and flags are not considered advertising signs. Mr. Frydrych advised that he felt that every sign in the Kroger store windows would be considered an advertising sign. Ms. Scheid advised that advertising signs must be visible from the public right-of-way and many stores have signs that are not visible from the right-of-way but are visible as you approach the stores on foot. In response to Mr. Frydrych’s questions, Ms. Scheid advised that the Zoning September 23, 2003 844 Administrator makes the determination as to what signs are acceptable as set out in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Frydrych’s requested a copy of the sign ordinance, and Chairman McNamara asked Ms. Scheid to provide that to him. Mr. Frydrych advised that restricting businesses to five signs prohibits the retail industry from having the flexibility to place signs due to product or competition changes in front of their businesses as necessary. He advised that the County has been penalizing the retailers on Williamson Road for these type of signs. He believes that the sign ordinance is anti-retail and discriminatory. The set back on one side of Williamson Road is different from the other side which puts some retailers at a disadvantage if they have to put these signs within their property lines. Mr. Frydrych advised that he was also concerned about item 30-93-9 concerning glare since there is no meter to measure the glare and feels this section needs to be clarified. He advised that the directional signs are being reduced from 5 sq. ft. to 3 sq. ft. which limits the ability of retailers to advertise. The ordinance specifies that stick-up signs on the roadway cannot be put in the right-of-way but exempts many organizations such as political groups, churches, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Boy Scouts, and he questioned if they may put signs wherever they wish. He would like to see more consideration given to the retail industry. He advised that the previous speaker may object to the billboard in the Hollins area but he feels that a billboard is an expression of free speech. Supervisor Church advised that he agreed with Supervisor Altizer’s September 23, 2003 845 suggestion that the back-lit sign prohibition in residential areas be removed from the ordinance. He also expressed agreement with Mr. Frydrych concerning the many signs at the Kroger Stores which are visible from the right-of-way but he does not want the Board to have the reputation of hurting legitimate retail businesses, churches and schools. He advised that on Routes 419 and 221, there are probably 50 to 100 signs in the right-of-way and median which may or may not be illegal. He suggested that the restriction to five advertising signs needs more review. Supervisor Minnix advised that Ms. Scheid and the sign industry are satisfied with the document, both having altered their positions, and they have accomplished what the Board requested. Although the ordinance is not perfect and will not satisfy everyone, he will support it. Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the ordinance with the deletion of Paragraph 7 of Sec. 30-93-13. District Regulations (B) “Backlighted signs shall not be permitted in the R-1 zoning district.” Supervisor Flora advised that he intends to support the motion and he commended the efforts to reach a compromise. He does not see a problem with removing the restriction on back-lit signs in residential areas since churches and schools are the only ones affected as there is no other legally permitted use of signs in the R-1 district. Supervisor McNamara advised that he would support the motion. He felt that removal of the back-lit restriction is appropriate since this revision of the sign September 23, 2003 846 ordinance has been on-going for at least six to eight months and this restriction was just presented to the Board at this meeting. Supervisor Church advised caution and asked that the sign inspectors use common sense and logic especially when dealing with independent business owners who depend upon advertising. He expressed thanks to Ms. Scheid and the sign industry representatives. Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the ordinance with the deletion of Paragraph 7 of Sec. 30-93-13. District Regulations (B) “Backlighted signs shall not be permitted in the R-1 zoning district.” The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None ORDINANCE 092303-8 TO AMEND SECTION 30-93. SIGNS OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a work session and public hearing on the proposed sign ordinance amendments on April 1, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County held a work session and public hearing on May 27, 2003, and referred this matter back to the Planning Commission for review; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a work session and public hearing on this matter on September 2, 2003; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: September 23, 2003 847 1. That Section 30-93. Signs of the Roanoke County Code be amended to read and provide as follows: SEC. 30-93. SIGNS. Sec. 30-93-1. Purpose. (A) These regulations are intended to define, permit and control the use of signs. They have been established by the board to achieve the following community goals and objectives: 1. Protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. 2. Promote the economic growth of Roanoke County by creating a community image that is conducive to attracting new business and industrial development. 3. Distribute equitably the privilege of using the public environs to communicate private information. 4. Permit reasonable legibility and effectiveness of signs and to prevent their over-concentration, improper placement and excessive height, bulk, density, and area. 5. Promote the safety of persons and property by requiring that signs not create a hazard due to collapse, fire, decay, or abandonment. 6. Ensure that signs do not obstruct fire-fighting efforts, and do not create traffic hazards by confusing or distracting motorists or by impairing drivers' ability to see pedestrians, obstacles, or other vehicles or to read traffic signs. 7. Provide for the reasonable advertising of business and civic products and services, with recognition of the effects of signage on the character of the community. 8. Control visual clutter, and encourage high professional standards in sign design and display. 9. Establish clear procedures for the administration and enforcement of this September 23, 2003 848 ordinance. Sec. 30-93-2. Permitted Signs. (A) Any sign displayed in Roanoke County shall be comply with: 1. All provisions of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance; and, 2. All applicable provisions of the Uniform Statewide Building Code and all amendments thereto; and 3. All state and federal regulations pertaining to the display of signage. (B) If any two (2) or more sections of the above referenced regulations are in conflict, the provision that provides the most restrictive standard shall apply. Sec. 30-93-3. Exempted Signs. (A) The following signs shall be exempted from regulation, and may be displayed within Roanoke County without obtaining a sign permit. However, an electrical permit shall be required for any sign requiring or incorporating electrical service: 1. Official traffic signs or similar regulatory devices, identification, directional or any other signs owned, erected and maintained by a duly constituted governmental body. 2. Signs required to be displayed or maintained by law or governmental order, rule or regulation. 3. Memorial tablets or signs, provided they are displayed by a public or quasi-public agency. 4. Directional signs provided that each such sign does not exceed five (5) three (3) square feet per sign, and no such sign shall contain any advertising matter. 5. Street address signs, not exceeding ten (10) square feet in size. 6. Non-illuminated signs, not more than three (3) square feet in area warning trespassers or announcing property as posted. 7. Signs displayed on a truck, bus, or other vehicle while in use in the normal September 23, 2003 849 conduct of business. This section shall not be interpreted to permit the parking for display purposes a vehicle to which a sign is attached or the use of such a vehicle as a portable sign. 8. Flags and insignias of any government except when displayed in connection with commercial purposes. 9. On-premises real estate signs in residential or agricultural zoning districts not exceeding five (5) square feet in area, or on-premises real estate signs in commercial or industrial zoning districts not exceeding sixteen (16) square feet in area. On-premises real estate signs larger than these exempted allowances may be installed as temporary signs in accordance with Section 30-93-8(B). 10. Clocks that display time and temperature through the use of mechanical means or the controlled display of lights, provided these devices do not display any other message. 11. Political campaign signs provided that they are located outside of the public right-of-way, and are removed within fourteen (14) days after the campaign. 12. Signs displayed between Thanksgiving and Christmas associated with the sale of Christmas trees and wreaths. 13. Signs on the inside of establishments, except those signs specified in Sections 30-93-4(A)5. and 7., which shall not be excluded. 14. On-premises agricultural product signs associated with the seasonal and/or incidental sale of such products on property where the primary land use is residential or agricultural, provided such signs do not exceed four (4) square feet in area. 15. Signs that are displayed by or promote civic, religious, educational or charitable organizations or causes, provided such signs are displayed no longer than thirty (30) days per calendar year. Sec. 30-93-4. Prohibited Signs. (A) The following signs are prohibited within Roanoke County: 1. Any sign that due to its size, location, color, or illumination obscures a sign September 23, 2003 850 displayed by a public authority for the purpose of giving traffic or safety instructions or directions. 2. Any sign that contains or consists of pennants, ribbons, spinners, or other similar moving devices. 3. Any sign, except an official public notice, which is nailed, tacked, posted, or in any other manner attached to any utility pole, or structure supporting wire, cable, or pipe; or to public property of any description. 4. Any sign located within a public right-of-way, except for signs displayed by a duly constituted governmental authority. 5. Flashing or revolving lights, or beacons intended to direct attention to a location, building or service, or any similar device otherwise displayed that imitates by its design or use, emergency service vehicles or equipment. 6. Any sign that simulates an official traffic sign or signal, and which contains the words "STOP," "GO," "SLOW," "CAUTION," "DANGER," "WARNING," or similar words. 7. Any sign or portion thereof that rotates, or otherwise moves through the use of electrical or wind power. This prohibition does not include the changing of messages on electronic message boards. 8. Signs advertising activities or products that are illegal under federal, state, or county law. 9. Any sign that obstructs any building door, window, or other means of egress. 10. Any electrical sign that does not display the UL, ETL, CSA, or ULC label, unless such sign is constructed, installed, and inspected in accordance with Section 30-93-9(B). 11. Signs or sign structures that are erected on, or extend over, a piece of property without the expressed written permission of the property owner or the owner's agent. 12. Any sign that due to its size, location or height obstructs the vision of motorists or pedestrians at any intersection, or similarly obstructs the vision of motorists entering a public right-of-way from private property. September 23, 2003 851 13. Portable signs. 14. Roof signs. Sec. 30-93-5. Sign Permits. (A) Except as provided in Section 30-93-3, no sign may be erected or displayed in Roanoke County without an approved sign permit. Applications for a sign permit may be obtained from the Roanoke County Department of community development. Signs that are not visible from a public right-of-way do not have to conform to the provisions of Section 30-93-13, District Regulations, and the square footage of such signs shall not be included when calculating allowable signage on a lot. (B) Any owner of a parcel of land upon which a sign is to be displayed, or any authorized agent of such owner may apply for a sign permit. (C) Every application for a sign permit shall include a sketch of the property indicating the lot frontage. The application shall also indicate the square footage of all existing signs on the property, and the area, size, structure, design, location, lighting, and materials for the proposed signs. In addition, the administrator may require that the application contain any other information that is necessary to ensure compliance with, or effectively administer, these regulations. (D) A non-refundable sign permit fee is due and payable with the filing of a sign permit application. More than one sign on one building or group of buildings located on the same parcel of land may be included on one application provided that all such signs be applied for at one time. A single temporary sign permit may be used for more than one temporary sign or for up to four (4) thirty-day display periods per calendar year, provided the temporary signs requested are for the same business. (E) After the issuance of an approved sign permit, the applicant may install and display any such sign or signs approved. Once installed, the administrator may inspect the sign(s) for conformance with the approved sign permit and this ordinance. If the displayed sign(s), due to size, location, height, or number do not conform to the information on the approved sign permit, or the applicable standards of this ordinance, the administrator shall notify the applicant in accordance with Section 30-21. September 23, 2003 852 (F) Any sign permit issued shall be null and void if any sign for which the permit was issued is not installed in accordance with the permit within six (6) months of the date the permit was approved. (G) Maintenance, repair, or restoration of nonconforming signs shall be in accordance with Section 30-93-11. If the value of such work exceeds fifty (50) percent of its replacement value, it shall only be authorized after the approval of a sign permit application. (Ord. No. 042799-11, § 1d., 4-27-99) Sec. 30-93-6. Measurement of Sign Area and Distances. (A) Sign area shall be calculated as follows: 1. The area of a suspended, attached, or projecting sign, where the letters, numerals, or symbols are on a sign surface which is hung or affixed to a structure, shall be the total area of the hung or affixed surfaces. 2. The area of an attached sign where the sign consists of words, symbols, or numerals painted on or affixed to a wall, fence, or other building element shall be the entire area within a continuous perimeter enclosing the extreme limits of each word, group of words, symbol, numeral, groups of symbols, or groups of numerals, where the symbols or numbers are meant to be read as a unit. 3. The area of a freestanding sign shall be the total area of all surfaces (excluding poles or other support structures) visible from the public right- of-way. For double or multi-faced signs, only the area of surfaces visible at any one time, at any one point on the public right-of-way shall be measured when calculating sign area. 4. The area of monument-type freestanding signs shall be determined by (1) the size of the copy area, (2) visual breaks in the structural components of the sign, and/or (3) variation in the monuments color scheme. (B) The minimum separation between freestanding signs shall be the shortest distance between two (2) signs, measured in a straight line. (C) In situations where these criteria do not provide guidance in determining sign area or minimum separation the administrator shall make the determination. September 23, 2003 853 Sec. 30-93-7. Calculation of Allowable Sign Area on Corner Lots. (A) On corner lots, the front shall be either (a) the side fronting the street providing major access, or (b) the side which the main entrance of the structure faces. In situations where neither of these methods clearly distinguishes the front, the administrator shall make a determination. (B) For commercial or industrial uses, the front shall not be a primarily residential street. (C) On corner lots where a building or buildings face more than one street, sign area shall be allowed for front lineal footage as indicated in the district regulations, and for one-half the side street frontage, provided: 1. The side street does not front on a primarily residential area; 2. Sign area as determined by each frontage is placed only on the frontage from which it is determined. Sec. 30-93-8. Temporary Signs. (A) Any person wishing to display a temporary sign must apply for a sign permit pursuant to Section 30-93-5. Except as provided in subsections (B) and (C) below, pertaining to real estate and construction signs, temporary signs shall comply with the following standards: 1. Each business or use on a lot shall be allowed to display a one (1) temporary sign a maximum of four (4) times per at any time during a calendar year. Each business or use wishing to display a temporary sign must apply for a temporary sign permit. Temporary sign permits shall expire at the end of each calendar year. No business may display temporary signage for more than one hundred twenty (120) days per calendar year. Businesses that wish to display temporary signage in excess of these provisions may apply for a permanent sign permit which shall be evaluated against the applicable district standards. 2. Only one (1) portable sign may be displayed on a lot or at a shopping center, at any one time. Any portable sign displayed shall have a minimum sign setback of forty (40) feet from the centerline of any public right-of- way, or fifteen (15) feet from any front property line, whichever is greater. 32. No business or establishment shall display more than two (2) temporary September 23, 2003 854 signs simultaneously and the total square footage of any temporary signs displayed at one time shall not exceed sixty (60) square feet. In commercial zoning districts, the total square footage of any temporary sign shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet. In all other zoning districts, the total square footage of any temporary sign shall not exceed sixteen (16) square feet. (B) Real estate signs greater than sixteen (16) square feet in commercial or industrial zoning districts or greater than five (5) square feet in agricultural or residential zoning districts may be installed on a lot provided that each such sign does not exceed ninety-six (96) square feet in area, and has a minimum sign setback of fifteen (15) feet from any public right-of-way. All real estate signs must be removed within fourteen (14) days after the property has been sold or leased. (C) On premises construction signs may be installed on active construction sites. No construction sign shall exceed ninety-six (96) square feet in area. Any such sign must have a minimum sign setback of fifteen (15) feet from any public right-of- way. All construction signs must be removed from a construction site prior to the issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance for the building or project. Sec. 30-93-9. Illuminated Signs. (A) Unless otherwise prohibited, Ssigns may be illuminated either through the use of backlighting or direct lighting provided the following standards are met: 1. Information on any illumination proposed as part of a sign must be provided by the applicant on the sign permit application. 2. No light from any illuminated sign shall cause direct glare into or upon any building other than the building to which the sign is related. 3. No light from any illuminated sign shall cause direct glare on to any adjoining piece of property, or any adjoining right-of-way. (B) Any sign containing electrical components shall conform to current UL, ETL, CSA, or ULC standards and display a label from one of these recognized testing labs; or as an alternative, shall be designed and constructed to standards that would allow one of the above referenced labels to be affixed and thereafter inspected by Roanoke County to insure compliance with these standards. Sec. 30-93-10. Projecting and Suspended Signs. September 23, 2003 855 (A) No projecting or suspended sign shall extend more than six (6) feet from any wall or other structure to which it is affixed, nor shall any such sign have a setback of less than fifteen (15) feet from the nearest public right-of-way. (B) The bottom edge of any projecting or suspended sign must be at least seven (7) feet above the ground if located above any publicly accessible walkway or driveway. (C) No projecting or suspended sign shall project or suspend over an adjoining lot, without the expressed written consent of the adjoining property owner. Sec. 30-93-11. Repairs of Nonconforming Signs. (A) Any sign which was lawfully in existence at the time of the effective date of this ordinance which does not conform to the provisions herein, and any sign which is accessory to a nonconforming use, shall be deemed a nonconforming sign and may remain except as qualified in subsection (C), below. No nonconforming sign shall be enlarged, extended, structurally reconstructed, or altered in any manner; except a sign head may be changed so long as the new head is equal to, or reduced in height, sign area, and/or projection, and so long as the sign is not changed from an on-premises sign to an off-premises sign. (B) The addition of lighting or illumination to a nonconforming sign, shall constitute an expansion of a nonconforming structure, and shall not be permitted under these regulations. (C) Nonconforming signs may remain, provided they are kept in good repair, except for the following: 1. A nonconforming sign which is destroyed or damaged to the extent exceeding fifty (50) percent of its replacement value shall not be altered, replaced or reinstalled unless it is in conformance with these sign regulations. If the damage or destruction is fifty (50) percent or less of its replacement value, the sign may be restored within ninety (90) days of the damage or destruction, but shall not be enlarged in any manner. 2. A nonconforming on-premises sign shall be removed if the structure or use to which it is accessory is destroyed or demolished to the extent exceeding fifty (50) percent of the principal structure's value. 3. Whenever a change of zoning occurs by petition of the owner, contract purchaser with the owner's consent, or the owner's agent upon a lot which contains a nonconforming on-premises sign, such sign shall not be September 23, 2003 856 permitted without being modified in such a manner as to be in full compliance with these sign regulations. (C) Off-premises nonconforming signs may remain, provided they are kept in good repair. For purposes of this Ordinance, “good repair” of an off-premises sign subject to Chapter 7 of Title 33.1 of the Code of Virginia, means compliance with the “Criteria for Maintenance and Continuance of a Nonconforming Sign”, set out in 24VAC30-120-170 of the Outdoor Advertising Sign Regulations. Off-premises signs are defined as “outdoor advertising signs” under Chapter 7 of Title 33.1 of the Code of Virginia. Failure of the owner of a nonconforming off premises sign subject to Chapter 7 of Title 33.1 of the Code of Virginia to keep the off-premises sign in “good repair” shall subject the owner to revocation of the state outdoor advertising permit and the County sign permit for the sign structure. However, the provisions of subparagraph (E) of this section shall control in the event of destruction of, or damage to, an off-premises nonconforming sign. (D) On-premises nonconforming signs may remain, provided they are kept in good repair but shall be removed if the structure or use to which it is accessory is destroyed or demolished to the extent exceeding fifty (50) percent of the principal structure's value. Whenever a change of zoning occurs by petition of the owner, contract purchaser with the owner's consent, or the owner's agent upon a lot which contains a nonconforming on-premises sign, such sign shall not be permitted without being modified in such a manner as to be in full compliance with these sign regulations. (E) On-premises and off-premises nonconforming signs may remain, provided they are kept in good repair, except that an off-premise or on-premise nonconforming sign which is destroyed or damaged to the extent exceeding fifty (50) percent of the current replacement cost new of the entire sign or structure shall not be altered, replaced or reinstalled unless it is in conformance with these sign regulations. If the damage or destruction is fifty (50) percent or less of the current replacement cost new of the entire sign or structure, the sign may be restored within ninety (90) days of the damage or destruction, but shall not be enlarged or extended in any manner. For purposes of this section, “current replacement cost new” means the current replacement cost new of similar building materials as were used in construction of the destroyed or damaged sign structure. Sec. 30-93-12. Damaged or Neglected Signs. September 23, 2003 857 (A) The Building Commissioner of Roanoke County shall have the authority to order the removal, without compensation, of any sign or sign structure that due to neglect or damage poses a clear danger to the health, safety and welfare of the public. Sec. 30-93-13. District Regulations. (A) AG-3 and AG-1 Zoning Districts. 1. Lots within an AG-3 and AG-1 districts shall be allowed a maximum signage allocation not to exceed one-quarter (0.25) square foot of sign area per one (1) lineal foot of lot frontage. 2. The following signs shall be allowed in the AG-3 and AG-1 districts subject to the regulations contained herein: Business Signs. Each permitted business shall be allowed a maximum of fifty (50) square feet of sign area, provided that the total signage on the lot does not exceed the allowable maximum as defined in (1) above. Businesses that request sign permits for lots that meet or exceed their allowable sign allocation shall be allowed a maximum of twenty-five (25) square feet of signage. Identification Signs. A maximum of thirty (30) square feet shall be allowed per use. Home Occupation Signs. A maximum of two (2) square feet shall be allowed per home occupation, or group of home occupations within one (1) home. Historic Site Signs. A maximum of fifteen (15) square feet shall be allowed per sign. Temporary Signs. Temporary signs shall be allowed in accordance with Section 30-93-8. 3. No freestanding sign shall be allowed on any lot having less than two hundred (200) feet of lot frontage the minimum required lot frontage for the zoning district of the property. The required minimum separation for freestanding signs on a lot or lots under single ownership or control shall be two hundred fifty (250) feet. No freestanding sign shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of any other freestanding sign on an adjacent or adjoining lot. September 23, 2003 858 4. Any freestanding sign erected must have a minimum sign setback of forty (40) feet from the centerline of any public right-of-way, or fifteen (15) feet from any front property line, whichever is greater. Minimum sign setback from front property line: fifteen (15) feet 5. No freestanding sign shall exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. Maximum sign height: fifteen (15) feet. 6. No establishment shall be allowed more than four (4) signs. (B) AR, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 and R-MH Zoning District Regulations. 1. Lots within AR, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, and R-MH districts shall be allowed a maximum signage allocation not to exceed one-quarter (0.25) square foot of sign area per one (1) lineal foot of lot frontage. 2. The following signs shall be allowed in the AR, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 and R- MH districts subject to the regulations contained herein: Business Signs. Each permitted business in a residential district shall be allowed a maximum of thirty (30) square feet of sign area, provided that the total signage on the lot does not exceed the allowable maximum as defined in (1) above. Businesses that request sign permits for lots that meet or exceed their allowable sign allocation shall be allowed a maximum of twenty-five (25) square feet of signage. Identification Signs. A maximum of thirty (30) square feet shall be allowed per use. Historic Site Signs. A maximum of fifteen (15) square feet shall be allowed per sign. Temporary Signs. Temporary signs shall be allowed in accordance with Section 30-93-8, except that portable signs shall be prohibited. 3. No freestanding business sign shall be allowed on any lot having less than two hundred (200) feet of lot frontage the minimum required lot frontage for the zoning district of the property. The required minimum separation for all freestanding signs on a lot or lots under single ownership or control shall be two hundred fifty (250) feet. No freestanding sign shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of any other freestanding sign on an adjacent or September 23, 2003 859 adjoining lot. 4. Any freestanding sign erected must have a minimum sign setback of forty (40) feet from the centerline of any public right-of-way, or fifteen (15) feet from any front property line, whichever is greater. Minimum sign setback from front property line: fifteen (15) feet 5. No freestanding sign shall exceed ten (10) feet in height. Maximum sign height: ten (10) feet. 6. No establishment shall be allowed more than two (2) signs. 7. Backlighted signs shall not be permitted in the R-1 zoning district. (C) AV Village Center and NC Neighborhood Commercial District Regulations. 1. Lots within AV and NC districts shall be allowed a maximum signage allocation not to exceed one (1) square foot of sign area per one (1) lineal foot of lot frontage. 2. The following signs shall be allowed in AV and NC districts subject to the regulations contained herein: Business Signs. Each permitted business in AV and NC districts shall be allowed a maximum of four hundred (400) square feet of sign area, provided that the total signage on the lot does not exceed the allowable maximum as defined in (1) above. Businesses that request sign permits for lots that meet or exceed their allowable sign allocation shall be allowed a maximum of twenty-five (25) square feet of signage. Identification Signs. Identification signs shall be subject to the same regulations as business signs within this district. Historic Site Signs. A maximum of fifteen (15) square feet shall be allowed per sign. Temporary Signs. Temporary signs shall be allowed in accordance with Section 30-93-8. 3. No on-premises freestanding sign shall be allowed on any lot having less than one hundred (100) feet of lot frontage the minimum required lot frontage for the zoning district of the property. The required minimum September 23, 2003 860 separation for freestanding signs on a lot or lots under single ownership or control shall be two hundred fifty (250) feet. No freestanding sign shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of any other freestanding sign on an adjacent or adjoining lot. 4. Any freestanding sign erected must have a minimum sign setback of forty (40) feet from the centerline of any public right-of-way, or fifteen (15) feet from any front property line, whichever is greater. Minimum sign setback from front property line: fifteen (15) feet 5. No freestanding sign shall exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. Maximum sign height: fifteen (15) feet 6. No establishment shall be allowed more than four (4) signs. (D) C-1 Office District Regulations. 1. Lots within a C-1 district shall be allowed a maximum signage allocation not to exceed one-half (0.5) square foot of sign area per one (1) lineal foot of lot frontage. 2. The following signs shall be allowed in the C-1 Office District subject to the regulations contained herein: Business Signs. Each permitted business in a C-1 district shall be allowed a maximum of five hundred (500) square feet of sign area, provided that the total signage on the lot does not exceed the allowable maximum as defined in (1) above. Businesses that request sign permits for lots that meet or exceed their allowable sign allocation shall be allowed a maximum of twenty-five (25) square feet of signage. Identification Signs. Identification signs shall be subject to the same regulations as business signs within this district. Historic Site Signs. A maximum of fifteen (15) square feet shall be allowed per sign. Temporary Signs. Temporary signs shall be allowed in accordance with Section 30-93-8. 3. No on-premises freestanding sign shall be allowed on any lot having less than one hundred (100) feet of lot frontage the minimum required lot September 23, 2003 861 frontage for the zoning district of the property. The required minimum separation for freestanding signs on a lot or lots under single ownership or control shall be two hundred fifty (250) feet. No freestanding sign shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of any other freestanding sign on an adjacent or adjoining lot. 4. Any freestanding sign erected must have a minimum sign setback of forty (40) feet from the centerline of any public right-of-way, or fifteen (15) feet from any front property line, whichever is greater. Options for sign setbacks and height shall be as follows: Option 1 Minimum sign setback from front property line: ten (10) feet Maximum sign height: ten (10) feet Option 2 Minimum sign setback from front property line: fifteen (15) feet Maximum sign height: fifteen (15) feet 5. No freestanding sign shall exceed fifteen (15) feet in height. 65. No establishment shall be allowed more than four (4) signs. (E) C-2 General Commercial District Regulations. 1. Lots within a C-2 district shall be allowed a maximum signage allocation not to exceed one and one-half (1.50) square feet of sign area per one (1) lineal foot of lot frontage. 2. The following signs shall be allowed in the C-2 General Commercial District subject to the regulations contained herein: Business Signs. Each permitted business in a C-2 district shall be allowed a maximum of five hundred (500) square feet of sign area, provided that the total signage on the lot does not exceed the allowable maximum as defined in (1) above. Businesses that request sign permits for lots that meet or exceed their allowable sign allocation shall be allowed a maximum of twenty-five (25) square feet of signage. Identification Signs. Identification signs shall be subject to the same regulations as business signs within this district. September 23, 2003 862 Historic Site Signs. A maximum of fifteen (15) square feet shall be allowed per sign. Temporary Signs. Temporary signs shall be allowed in accordance with Section 30-93-8. 3. No on-premises freestanding sign shall be allowed on any lot having less than one hundred (100) feet of lot frontage the minimum required lot frontage for the zoning district of the property. The required minimum separation for freestanding signs on a lot or lots under single ownership or control shall be two hundred fifty (250) feet. No freestanding sign shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of any other freestanding sign on an adjacent or adjoining lot. Notwithstanding the above, the administrator may waive, in writing, the two hundred fifty-foot separation requirement between freestanding signs provided the administrator finds the following standards are met: a. No more than one (1) freestanding sign shall be allowed for each two fifty (250) feet of lot frontage, or portion thereof, under single ownership or control. b. The new freestanding sign is a monument sign with a maximum height of fifteen (15) feet and a maximum width of ten (10) feet. c. The placement of the sign in the desired location does not promote visual sign clutter on the property or surrounding area. d. In exchange for the placement of the new freestanding sign in the desired location, the applicant or property owner proposes, and agrees in writing to undertake, significant improvements to existing signage on the property. These improvements shall be designed to reduce existing sign clutter, enhance sign design, and promote the overall visual appearance of the property. e. All other sign ordinance requirements regarding the placement and size of the sign are met. 4. Any freestanding sign erected must have a minimum sign setback of forty (40) feet from the centerline of any public right-of-way, or fifteen (15) feet from any front property line, whichever is greater. September 23, 2003 863 Options for sign setbacks and height shall be as follows: Option 1 Minimum sign setback from front property line: ten (10) feet Maximum sign height: ten (10) feet Option 2 Minimum sign setback from front property line: fifteen (15) feet Maximum sign height: twenty-five (25) feet 5. No freestanding sign shall exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height. 65. No establishment shall be allowed more than five (5) signs. (F) I-1 and I-2 Industrial Zoning District Regulations. 1. Lots within I-1 and I-2 districts shall be allowed a maximum signage allocation not to exceed one and one-half (1.5) square feet of sign area per one (1) lineal foot of lot frontage. 2. The following signs shall be allowed in the I-1 and I-2 districts subject to the regulations contained herein: Business Signs. Each business in an industrial zoning district shall be allowed a maximum of three hundred (300) square feet of sign area, provided that the total signage on the lot does not exceed the allowable maximum as defined in (1) above. Businesses that request sign permits for lots that meet or exceed their allowable sign allocation shall be allowed a maximum of twenty-five (25) square feet of signage. Historic Site Signs. A maximum of fifteen (15) square feet shall be allowed per sign. Identification Signs. Identification signs shall be subject to the same regulations as business signs within this district. Temporary Signs. Temporary signs shall be allowed in accordance with Section 30-93-8. 3. No on-premises freestanding sign shall be allowed on any lot having less September 23, 2003 864 than one hundred (100) feet of lot frontage the minimum required lot frontage for the zoning district of the property. The required minimum separation for freestanding signs on a lot or lots under single ownership or control shall be two hundred fifty (250) feet. No freestanding sign shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of any other freestanding sign on an adjacent or adjoining lot. 4. Any freestanding sign erected must have a minimum sign setback of forty (40) feet from the centerline of any public right-of-way, or fifteen (15) feet from any front property line, whichever is greater. Options for sign setbacks and height shall be as follows: Option 1 Minimum sign setback from front property line: ten (10) feet Maximum sign height: ten (10) feet Option 2 Minimum sign setback from front property line: fifteen (15) feet Maximum sign height: twenty-five (25) feet 5. No freestanding sign shall exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height. 65. No establishment shall be allowed more than five (5) signs. Sec. 30-93-14. Special Signage Districts and Regulations. (A) Off-Premises Signs. Off-premises signs shall be allowed in the C-2, I-1, and I-2 Districts provided the following location and design standards are met: 1. No off-premises sign shall be located within a five hundred-foot radius of an existing off-premises sign, or an off-premises sign for which a valid permit has been obtained, but has not yet been erected. 2. No off-premises sign shall be located within two hundred (200) feet of any residential zoning district, public square, park, school, library, or religious assembly property. 3. No off-premises sign shall be allowed to be installed on any roof structure, nor shall any such sign exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height above the abutting road. 4. Side by side, double and multi-decker off-premises signs shall not be September 23, 2003 865 permitted. 5. Any off-premises sign must have a minimum sign setback of forty (40) feet from the centerline of any public right-of-way, or fifteen (15) feet from any front property line, whichever is greater. Any off-premises sign shall have a minimum side and/or rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet. 6. The maximum size of any off-premises sign on a lot shall be three hundred seventy-eight (378) square feet plus ten (10) percent for embellishments. (A) Off-Premises Signs. As of September 23, 2003, a cap shall be placed on the total number of off-premises sign structures in Roanoke County, including all conforming or nonconforming off-premises signs, as defined in this section. 1. Consolidation; Reconstruction of Existing Nonconforming Sign Structures. Existing off-premise sign structures that are nonconforming may be consolidated and reconstructed only in accordance with this section. a. Applications to consolidate or reconstruct an existing off- premises sign structure shall be made to the Department of Community Development. b. Applications to consolidate and reconstruct an existing nonconforming off-premises sign structure will be approved if approval of the building permit application will result in a reduction of the number of total off-premises sign structures in the County, thereby reducing the cap on the total number of off- premise sign structures in the County by the number of the nonconforming off-premise sign structures being removed. c. The applicant for a building permit application may consolidate two single face billboard structures into one double faced structure, which may be a monopole structure. d. No building permit application for the consolidation and reconstruction of an off-premises sign that is nonconforming will be approved unless it is accompanied by a demolition permit for an existing non-conforming off-premises sign, or combination of non- conforming off-premises signs, of at least equal sign area. September 23, 2003 866 e. No permit for a consolidated and reconstructed off-premises sign that is nonconforming shall be issued until the existing off- premises sign(s), on the above mentioned demolition permit, are removed. f. The Department of Community Development will review each application submitted under this section to confirm that the square footage of sign area of any consolidated and reconstructed sign structure does not exceed the square footage of the sign area on the sign structure being demolished pursuant to this section, however, the Department shall consider the size of the existing sign face on the consolidated and reconstructed sign structure so that the second sign face being added is approximately the same size as the existing sign face on the consolidated and reconstructed sign structure. If the existing sign structure is being converted into a double faced monopole, the sign area of the consolidated and reconstructed sign shall not exceed 378 square feet, plus ten (10) percent for embellishments, and the height and setback of the sign shall remain the same, or be made more conforming. g. A permit issued by the County to consolidate and reconstruct a nonconforming off-premise sign structure in accordance with this section shall expire five years from the date of issuance. 2. Conforming Off-Premises Signs. a. Legally established off-premises signs, located within the C-2, I-1 and I-2 zoning districts, which meet the location and design standards in this section shall be considered conforming off- premises signs. All other off-premises signs shall be considered non-conforming. b. Tri-vision changeable messages shall be allowed on existing and replaced off-premises signs, located within the C-2, I-1 and I-2 zoning districts, which meet the location and design standards in this section. The minimum dwell time that an image must remain September 23, 2003 867 visible shall be ten (10) seconds. The maximum twirl time between image changes shall be three (3) seconds. c. Off-premises signs shall be conforming and be allowed in the C-2, I-1, and I-2 Districts provided the following location and design standards are met: 1. No off-premises sign shall be located within a five hundred- foot radius of an existing off-premises sign, or an off- premises sign for which a valid permit has been obtained, but has not yet been erected. 2. No off-premises sign shall be located within two hundred (200) feet of any residential zoning district, public square, park, school, library, or religious assembly property. 3. No off-premises sign shall be allowed to be installed on any roof structure, nor shall any such sign exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height above the elevation of the nearest edge of the abutting road, from which the sign is visible. 4. Side by side, double and multi-decker off-premises signs shall not be permitted. 5. Any off-premises sign must have a minimum sign setback of forty (40) feet from the centerline of any public right-of-way, or fifteen (15) feet from any front property line, whichever is greater. Any off-premises sign shall have a minimum side and/or rear yard setback of fifteen (15) feet. 6. The maximum size of any off-premises sign on a lot shall be three hundred seventy-eight (378) square feet plus ten (10) percent for embellishments. d. No application for construction of a conforming off-premises sign will be approved unless it is accompanied by a demolition permit for an existing conforming or nonconforming off-premises sign, or combination of off-premises signs, of at least equal sign area. September 23, 2003 868 e. No permit for a conforming off-premises sign will be issued until the existing off-premises sign(s) on the above-mentioned demolition permit, are removed. (B) Shopping Centers. Within shopping center square footage that existed prior to the adoption of this ordinance, new or existing businesses may modify or replace their existing attached signs provided the area of the modified or new signage is equal to or less than the original displayed signage. Modifications to freestanding signs shall be in accord with the district regulations. In addition, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 30-93-13(E)2., within enclosed shopping centers exceeding two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) gross floor area, businesses that request sign permits for lots that meet or exceed their allowable sign allocation shall be allowed a maximum of one hundred (100) square feet of signage, provided the business has a minimum gross floor area of thirty-two thousand (32,000) square feet, and the sign displayed shall be located a minimum of three hundred (300) feet from the closest public right-of-way. (C) Planned Developments. A signage plan shall be submitted as part of any proposal for a Planned Residential Development (PRD), Planned Commercial Development (PCD), or Planned Technology Development (PTD) as authorized elsewhere in this ordinance. The signage plan shall be part of the required preliminary development plan. All signage plans shall be of sufficient detail to allow the commission and board to judge the compatibility of the proposed signage with the character of the proposed PRD, PCD or PTD. At a minimum, all signage plans shall provide information on the general size, location, style, color, and materials of all signs proposed. In evaluating the PRD, PCD or PTD proposal, the commission and board shall consider the appropriateness of the proposed signage plan in relation to the character of the proposed development, and the surrounding area. (D) Airport Overlay District. The allowable height of signs within any established Airport Overlay District shall be governed by the height restriction for that district, or the height restriction imposed by the applicable district regulation, whichever is more restrictive. (E) Lots without Public Street Frontage. Lots without public street frontage that existed upon the effective date of this ordinance shall be allowed signage based upon the applicable district regulations as provided for in Section 30-93-13 of this September 23, 2003 869 ordinance. Permitted signage shall be calculated based upon the frontage width of the lot that parallels the nearest public street. (F) Clearbrook village overlay district. Signage within the Clearbrook village overlay district should be planned, designed and installed to complement a buildings architectural style. All signage within the Clearbrook village overlay district shall comply with C-1 office district regulations with the following exceptions: 1. Lots within the Clearbrook village overlay district shall be allowed a maximum signage allocation not to exceed one (1) square foot of sign area per one (1) lineal foot of lot frontage. 2. Signage placed on a building wall shall occupy less than five (5) percent of the facade of that wall. 3. All freestanding signs shall be of a monument design and shall meet the following criteria: a. Monument signs, including their structure, shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height, or ten (10) feet in width. b. Signs shall be channel lit, ground lit, or top lit with a shielded light source so as not cast light onto the path of traffic or on any adjacent road or property. 4. No establishment shall be allowed more than three (3) signs. 5. A maximum of two (2) directional signs shall be allowed per lot, and no directional sign shall exceed two (2) square feet in size. 6. The following signs shall be prohibited in the Clearbrook village overlay district: a. Off-premises signs. b. Temporary signs. c. Portable signs. d. Roof signs. (Ord. No. 42694-12, § 25, 4-26-94; Ord. No. 72595-9, § 1, 7-25-95; Ord. No. 042799- 11, § 1d., 4-27-99) Sec. 30-93-15. Variances. September 23, 2003 870 (A) Requests for variances to these sign regulations shall follow the procedures outlined in Section 30-24 of the Zoning Ordinance. The bBoard of zZoning aAppeals, in considering any variance request, shall follow the guidelines of this section, and section 15.2-2309 of the Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended. The power to grant variances does not extend to an economic hardship related to the cost, size or location of a new sign, or to the convenience of an applicant, nor should it be extended to the convenience of regional or national businesses which propose to use a standard sign when it does not conform to the provisions of this section. (Ord. No. 042799-11, § 1a., 4-27-99) Sec. 30-28, Definitions Freestanding sign: A sign which is supported by structures or supports in or upon the ground, and is permanently affixed to the ground, and is independent of any support from any building. Portable sign: A freestanding temporary self-supported sign that is designed to be moved easily, and is not permanently affixed to the ground, including but not limited to portable changeable message cabinets and sandwich signs. Replacement cost value: The cost of restoring a damaged building or structure to its original condition. Replacement cost value shall include reasonable estimates of the cost of materials and labor, and shall be compared with the assessed value as determined by the county assessor current cost of materials and labor of the entire structure to determine the percentage of the cost of improvements. Roof sign: A sign attached to a building, wall, or the roof of a building in which the sign height exceeds the highest point of the building. Temporary sign: Any sign structure which is not permanently , other than a portable sign, which is temporarily affixed to the ground, a building or other structure, including, but not limited to banners and flags, and/or an on-premise sign applying to a seasonal or brief activity such as, but not limited to, summer camps, horse shows, yard sales, Christmas tree sales, business promotions, auctions and carnivals. For the purposes of these regulations, on-premises real estate signs and signs displayed on active construction projects shall be considered temporary when displayed in accordance with Section 30-93-8. 2. That this ordinance shall be effective from and after is adoption. September 23, 2003 871 On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance with the deletion of Paragraph 7 of Sec. 30-93-13. District Regulations (B) “Backlighted signs shall not be permitted in the R-1 zoning district”, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara NAYS: None IN RE: RECOGNITION Chairman McNamara recognized Eric Call, Assistant Scoutmaster, and members of Troop 352, Locust Grove United Methodist Church in Salem, who attended the meeting to work on their citizenship and community merit badges. IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Rick Gordon, 1661 Skyview Road, advised that he had been unable to get a trash can for the past year and a half for 1468 Deborah Lane which is an unoccupied house that he owns. He distributed copies of a letter from Ms. Green, General Services Director, telling him that the County provides trash pickup to residential customers which means occupied dwellings and does not provide cans or service to homes under construction or that are being renovated. He advised that the home is vacant but there is no construction being done. Chairman McNamara asked Mr. Hodge to meet with Mr. Gordon to resolve the situation. IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Church: (1) He advised Donnie Daniels of Cherokee Hills that he is referring his concerns about paving the roads in his neighborhood to Arnold Covey, and he will contact Mr. Daniels when more information is received. (2) He advised that there are two more community meetings to be held in the County September 23, 2003 872 concerning the proposed Regional Water and Wastewater Authority as follows: September 25 at Glenvar High School and September 30 at Northside High School. (2) He advised that while Hurricane Isabel spared the Roanoke Valley, other areas such as Williamsburg and Richmond were not so fortunate. There are thousands of people without power, water and homes, and he encouraged all citizens to do what they can to help others. Supervisor Altizer: He asked that Mr. Hodge schedule a meeting with Mr. Burgess, Botetourt County Administrator, Supervisor Flora, and other Botetourt County Board members to discuss the Hill Drive situation. Supervisor McNamara: (1) He asked Mr. Hodge for a status report on a citizen’s complaint of barking dogs on Bighorn Road. This situation has been ongoing and has involved some enforcement activities and he would like an update. (2) He advised that there are several County/City water authority meetings upcoming and that the citizens attending these meetings have been quite positive. There continues to be progress on the authority. Mr. Hodge advised that in response to requests for assistance with the aftermath of Hurricane Isabel in Richmond, the County sent fire and rescue personnel. The County also sent a truck and driver from the General Services Department. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman McNamara adjourned the meeting at 8:23 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: September 23, 2003 873 ________________________ ________________________ Brenda J. Holton Joseph P. McNamara Deputy Clerk to the Board Chairman September 23, 2003 874 This page intentionally left blank