HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/24/2003 - Regular
June 24, 2003
559
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
June 24, 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 June, 2003.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman McNamara called the meeting to order at 3:03 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 Reverend Bruce Tuttle, Cave Spring United
Methodist Church, Roanoke, Virginia. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all
present.
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
THE AGENDA
Mr. Mahoney added an item to the closed meeting pursuant to the Code of
June 24, 2003
560
Virginia, Section 2.2-3711A (7) consultation with legal counsel pertaining to pending
litigation, namely Dixie Caverns Landfill and General Electric.
Mr. Mahoney advised that the legislative work session with the Board may
be delayed since Pete Giesen will not arrive until 5:30 p.m. or 6:00 p.m.
IN RE:. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Recognition of Roanoke Valley Greenways Program for
winning the 2003 Virginia Environment Stewardship Award
Chairman McNamara advised that this award which was presented in
Richmond on June 19, 2003, to Jim Phipps, Chairman of the Greenways Commission
and Liz Belcher, Greenways Coordinator, was well deserved and thanked them for their
efforts. He also expressed appreciation to Congressman Bob Goodlatte who nominated
the Greenways Program for this award. Ms. Belcher advised that the citizens are
beginning to recognize the benefits of the greenways and use them extensively. She
thanked the Board for their efforts on behalf of the Greenways Program. Mr. Phipps
advised that greenways are a great asset to the valley and expressed appreciation to
the Board, Congressman Goodlatte, and his District Director, Pete Larkin, for their
support. Mr. Larkin advised that Congressman Goodlatte regretted that he could not
attend the meeting to offer his congratulations but he was very proud that this award
was given to the Roanoke Valley Greenways Program to recognize the work of the
County and the other supporters of the greenways.
June 24, 2003
561
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
1. Briefing on the results of a water and sewer user questionnaire.
(Gary Robertson, Utility Director; Joel Shelton, Intern)
Mr. Robertson reported that on April 14, the Utility Department mailed a
questionnaire to the County water and sewer customers regarding the proposed
Regional Water and Wastewater Authority. They were seeking feedback to help gauge
the level of support for the project and also determine the questions and concerns that
County citizens have about the Authority. On the questionnaire, customers were asked
to answer five questions about the Authority, ownership in the Sewage Treatment Plant,
and their willingness to attend neighborhood civic awareness meetings. He advised
that Joel Shelton, an intern who attends Virginia Tech and is working with the County
this summer, will inform the Board about the survey results.
Mr. Shelton advised that a total of 1,582 responses were received either
by mail or through the Utility Department’s website. This is a very good response for a
mail-in questionnaire. 90% of the respondents indicated that they would favor an equal
Water and Wastewater Authority if it provided the opportunity to lower their water bills
within 3-5 years. 87% of the respondents indicated that they believe it is important to
have equal ownership in the wastewater treatment facility. 62% of the respondents
expressed an interest in attending a neighborhood civic awareness meeting concerning
the Regional Water and Wastewater Authority. Overall, respondents supported the
Authority concept in overwhelming numbers and anticipated a number of benefits for
June 24, 2003
562
County residents which included: greater water availability in emergency situations,
increased efficiencies, cooperation with Roanoke City, and an eventual reduction in
water rates. The second part of the questionnaire included a ‘comments’ section which
was particularly useful to staff because it gave specific questions and concerns that the
citizens are having. This questionnaire is the beginning of the public education program
to keep citizens informed.
Supervisor Minnix advised that since 62% of the participants indicated that
they would attend a community meeting, he asked if any of these meetings had been
planned. Mr. Robertson advised that no dates have been scheduled but they are
working on the format for these meetings and plan to meet with all of the civic leagues.
He advised that there are twenty-one teams between Roanoke City and the County
working on various issues of the Authority and as these teams bring back information, it
will be made public. Supervisor Minnix advised that since communication is the key to
solving most problems, staff should utilize Channel 3 to distribute information and
continue their efforts to inform the citizens.
In response to Supervisor Flora’s inquiries, Mr. Robertson advised that the
Utility Department mailed questionnaires to approximately 20,000 customers, that 10
percent of those responded, and that duplicate questionnaires were probably not
returned by mail but some could have been emailed to the website. He also advised
Supervisor Flora that there was no useful geographic information gathered since only
about 1/3 of the citizens left their names and addresses on the questionnaires.
June 24, 2003
563
Supervisor Flora advised that he felt community meetings would be valuable since 62%
of the citizens responded affirmatively to this question. Mr. Robertson advised that this
percentage could have been higher because some of the citizens who responded “No”
were elderly and did not have transportation. He advised that alternate methods of
communication should be developed to meet the needs of citizens who are unable to
attend meetings.
Supervisor Altizer suggested that the Board be updated monthly, that
information be disseminated through Channel 3, and that citizens be kept informed on a
timely basis of the progress and the timetable.
Supervisor McNamara suggested that there should be a twenty-second
task force responsible for communications which would report to the Board at every
third meeting in either a work session or on television to update the citizens. Mr.
Robertson advised that Mr. Shelton is a member of one of the twenty-one teams which
is concerned with public education. Mr. Shelton advised that the Communications
Team is a joint Roanoke City and County team, and that they are working on ways to
keep citizens and employees updated on the issues.
Supervisor McNamara suggested that a member of the Communications
Team attend the next Board meeting for a work session to outline the external and
internal communications on the water Authority. After that work session, the Board
could be updated at every third or fourth meeting. Mr. Hodge advised that the Board
members had given the staff some excellent suggestions for communication and
June 24, 2003
564
requested time to evaluate them. He suggested that Roanoke City and the County
should schedule another joint meeting to update both localities on this subject.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Request to accept an unsolicited proposal from Northrop-
Grumman and authorization to proceed with Phase II scope of
project development which also invites competition from other
potential contractors. (Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County
Administrator)
R-062403-1
Mr. O’Donnell stated that Northrop-Grumman Mission Systems has
submitted a preliminary proposal to the County for the construction of a public safety
communications center/public safety building under the Public Private Education
Facilities and Infrastructure Act (PPEA). This submittal was discussed in a work
session on June 10, and staff representatives from Information Technology, Police, Fire
and Rescue, Finance and Administration have reviewed the proposal. The needs for
these facilities and communications upgrades have been well established in the CIP
process and in discussions between the Board members and staff.
Mr. O’Donnell advised that the proposal presents three options: (1) The
Base package consists of a Public Safety Communications Center, Information
Technology facilities and an Emergency Operations Center. This would include all
necessary dispatch and communications hardware and software in the facility, but does
June 24, 2003
565
not include upgrades to the radio system. (2) Option One consists of the base package
plus all new administrative space for both the Police and Fire and Rescue Departments.
(3) Option Two consists of the base package, option one, and upgrades to the radio
system necessary to prepare the County to move to a fully functional digital radio
system. Under the proposal it is possible to proceed with the base package and the
radio system upgrades without adding the administrative space for Police and Fire and
Rescue. If the Board moves to accept the preliminary proposal, a process of
competition is triggered. The County will place an advertisement in the Roanoke Times
and other newspapers, notifying the public that the County will accept additional
preliminary proposals from other firms. The initial proposal submitted by Northrop-
Grumman would be available for review by other firms and the public, except for
material deemed proprietary under the PPEA rules. It has been determined that the
financing and cost section of the Northrop-Grumman proposal is proprietary, as
revealing this information would harm the competitive process. The remainder of the
document will become public record if the resolution is approved.
Mr. O’Donnell advised that if the Board moves to accept the preliminary
proposal for publication and conceptual phase development, there is no obligation or
commitment on the part of the County at this point. The approval of the resolution only
authorizes the placement of the advertisements and the acceptance of additional
proposals, the authorization of a process of competitive negotiation, and the approval
for Northrop-Grumman to develop a detailed proposal for the construction of a facility
June 24, 2003
566
and upgrading of the public safety communications capacity of the County.
Mr. O’Donnell advised that through the process of looking at the County’s
public safety communications requirements, the need to upgrade radio communications
in the field, in addition to the main radio transmission equipment, is becoming apparent.
The current radio system, while adequate and fully functional when it was installed, will
not meet the standard necessary to protect the public’s safety in the upcoming years.
The PPEA process provides the necessary flexibility to determine how to meet these
communications needs, as well as the most crucial space needs, before committing
public funds to upgrade the County’s facilities or communications system.
Mr. O’ Donnell advised that since the section of the proposal dealing with
costs and fiscal impact has been determined to be proprietary under the rules of the
PPEA, it is not legally permissible to discuss costs or financing mechanisms in public at
this time. If approved for review, Northrop-Grumman will forward a check in the amount
of $45,000 to the County to pay for the County’s cost to review the next phase of
Northrop-Grumman’s proposal. Northrop-Grumman initially submitted a check for
$5,000 at the June 10th Board meeting to begin the review process.
Mr. O’Donnell advised that the Board has two alternatives: (1) Accept the
prepared resolution and move the process forward. The resolution allows until
September 15 for other interested firms to submit preliminary proposals and allows
Northrop-Grumman to move on to the development of a detailed proposal. It also
June 24, 2003
567
authorizes the use of competitive negotiation as a procurement mechanism. (2) Reject
the initial proposal submitted by Northrop-Grumman. If this option is chosen, the
County will need to consider other mechanisms to proceed with the upgrading of the
public safety communications capability, as this is a high priority need for the protection
of the public.
Mr. O’Donnell advised that staff recommends the approval of Alternative
#1 in order to move the Northrop-Grumman proposal to the next stage of development
and allow the County to review any alternative proposals that may be submitted by
additional firms. He referred to a tentative PPEA Process Schedule that he prepared
which indicates that there are several periods of time when the County can make a
decision to move forward or not. There is a typographical error in the schedule where
June, 2003 should be June, 2004. At this time, there is no obligation on the part of the
County and in the last few days, he has received correspondence from two firms that
are interested in submitting proposals which will make this a very competitive process.
Supervisor Church moved approval of the resolution with comments. He
advised that this project will take time and staff needs to fully communicate the need for
these facilities to the citizens to encourage their support.
Supervisor Minnix advised that he would support the motion and while he
understands the need to be prepared in the future to handle emergencies, the price is
not known at this time. Although much has to be done before the price can be
June 24, 2003
568
ascertained, the Board will have to find the funds. There may be some point where the
County cannot afford it the cost.
Supervisor Altizer advised that he would support the motion and that the
County was starting a mechanism to define the process, determine how extensive the
project will be and at some point, determine the funds necessary. He felt that the
consensus of the Board is that something must be done and that the citizens should be
kept informed about County facilities and critical services such as 911, the Fire and
Rescue Department, and Police Department.
Supervisor Flora advised that this will be the first facility proposed in the
state under this act which has only been in effect for approximately one year. He
advised that in looking at the schedule, a decision does not have to be made for another
year and he feels that the most important part of the process is the competitive
negotiations where the cost will be determined. He advised that he supports the
process and is looking forward to the County receiving as many proposals as possible
to get the best value for the taxpayers’ dollars.
Supervisor McNamara advised that the County is not removing the
competitive process by this action, not committing public funds at this time, and not
establishing the size, functionality or needs for a building. This process may be a
mechanism to build facilities in the future but even if that does not happen, the County
will benefit from a great deal of information. He expressed appreciation to the staff for
their hard work on this process.
June 24, 2003
569
Supervisor Church moved to approve Alternative #1 and to adopt the
resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 062403-1 ACCEPTING FOR PUBLICATION AND
CONCEPTUAL PHASE CONSIDERATION THE UNSOLICITED
PROPOSAL FROM NORTHROP-GRUMMAN FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS
CENTER UNDER THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE EDUCATION FACILITIES
AND INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2002
WHEREAS, the Public-Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002
(PPEA) allows the Roanoke County to create a public-private partnership to develop
projects for public use; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 051304-4 the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County adopted procedures for the implementation of the PPEA by Roanoke County;
and
WHEREAS, Northrop-Grumman Mission Systems has submitted an unsolicited
proposal under the provisions of the PPEA to construct an emergency
communications/public safety center for Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, the County Administrator has reviewed this unsolicited proposal and
has recommended to the Board of Supervisors this unsolicited proposal be formally
accepted for review,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That there is a public need for an emergency communications/public
safety center for Roanoke County.
2. That it chooses to accept the Northrop-Grumman Mission Systems
unsolicited proposal for publication andconceptual phase consideration.
3. That it will proceed to use procedures developed that are consistent with
procurement of other than professional services through “competitive negotiation”, since
doing so is likely to be advantageous to the County and the public based upon either (1)
the probable scope, complexity or urgency of need, or (ii) the risk sharing, added value,
increase in funding or economic benefit from the project would otherwise not be
available. The scope and complexity of the development of an emergency
communications center, information technology facility, and public safety center requires
an innovative approach, such as competitive negotiation, to the design and construction
of a new building as well as installing in that building up-to-date IT and communications
June 24, 2003
570
equipment, and software to integrate that equipment to address the public safety needs
of the citizens of Roanoke County. The replacement of an aging structure and obsolete
technology and equipment in conjunction with the scope and complexity of the
development of this project are such that competitive negotiation is necessary.
4. That the County Administrator, or an Assistant County Administrator, is
directed to post and publish the required notice thus allowing an opportunity for
competing preliminary proposals to be submitted. Due to the complexity of the proposed
project and the County’s desire to encourage competition, the notice shall state that
competing proposals must be submitted on or prior to September 15, 2003 to be
considered, rather than the minimum of 45 day allowed by the Commonwealth of
Virginia’s Public Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructure Act. The County
Administrator is also authorized and directed to take such other actions as may be
necessary to implement this resolution.
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
2. Request for approval of Vehicle Replacement Policy. (Anne Marie
Green, Director of General Services)
A-062403-2
Ms. Green advised that vehicle replacement has been handled in the past
through a combination of available funding in departmental budgets, special requests to
the Board, and occasional budget allocations. During the recent budget process, the
Board participated in a work session reviewing past practices, and directed staff to
prepare a vehicle replacement policy including a process and criteria for replacing
vehicles and funding mechanisms. The County Administrator designated the Director of
General Services to develop and administer a vehicle replacement policy. Under her
direction, a team comprised of the two assistant County Administrators and the heads of
impacted departments met for several months and drafted a policy for approving,
June 24, 2003
571
prioritizing and funding vehicle replacements. She advised that this policy had been
distributed to the Board members.
Ms. Green advised that they looked at the ranking system used in the past
but since newer vehicles tend to last longer, the mileages and ages for replacement
were moved up. She advised that the Team codified the informal process which has
been used in the past, and identified options for obtaining vehicles, including leasing
and purchasing program cars from dealers and rental agencies. Additionally, the policy
includes several recommended funding sources, and a process for ranking vehicles
which are being replaced. The Team used these criteria in recommending replacement
vehicles for the upcoming budget year.
Ms. Green advised that the policy identifies several funding sources: (1)
Departmental budgets – Many departments currently have vehicle replacement line
items in their budgets, which are used for the most critical needs. The Team
recommended keeping these funds in the department budgets. (2) Interest drop off
from refinancing bonds - During the adoption of the budget for the upcoming fiscal year,
the Board designated the interest drop off from refinancing bonds, $212,000, to fund
vehicle replacement. The Team would recommend that these funds continue to be
used to replace vehicles. (3) Proceeds from surplus auction – Currently, the proceeds
from auction of surplus goods are placed in the general fund, even though the cost of
the goods originally came from departmental budgets. The Team recommends that
these funds be placed in the vehicle replacement fund in the future.
June 24, 2003
572
Ms. Green requested that the Board adopt the Vehicle Replacement
Policy, thanked the Board for funds appropriated in the past, and advised that with the
current budget process, the County’s fleet is in a comparatively good situation. Some
new vehicles have been purchased and the process is working. The continued funding
will maintain the fleet at this level and when the fleet is operating effectively and
efficiently, it provides services to the citizens.
Supervisor Altizer moved approval of the staff recommendation and
advised that this is a win-win situation for the County and citizens. The County was
spending more for repairs than they paid for some of the vehicles and under this policy,
these vehicles can be sold for better prices. He commended the staff for developing
this policy.
Supervisor Flora asked Ms. Green to show him the criteria in the policy for
purchasing new vehicles. Ms. Green read this section of the policy as follows: The
Committee will review the cost of the proposed new or replacement vehicles and
determine whether a smaller and/or more economical vehicle should be substituted.
Included in the review should be a comparison of state contract prices, program car
prices from dealers and lease or lease/purchase options.
Supervisor Flora advised that he was concerned about the
appropriateness of the large SUV’s that have County decals or local government tags
Ms. Green advised that the Team will look at the type of vehicle and how it is used
when making replacements. She advised that there are four Ford Expeditions in the
June 24, 2003
573
County fleet and the Department of Community Development was in the process of
buying new vehicles but felt that the Ford Explorer was too large and bought a smaller
vehicle, the Ford Escape. Supervisor Flora advised that he thought the policy should be
more specific about the size and type of replacement vehicles and a need should be
demonstrated before purchasing a larger vehicle or a four-wheel drive. Ms. Green
advised that there were no four-wheel vehicles approved this year, and the Team
agreed that the replacement should be the most inexpensive vehicle and that
justification for four-wheel drive vehicles would have to be made. The Team did not put
specific criteria in the policy about the type or size of replacement vehicles but agreed to
consider the use of the vehicle when making these decisions.
In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Minnix regarding the policy of
replacing refuse trucks at 150,000 miles or eight years, Ms. Green advised that she did
know the exact mileage per year of the refuse trucks. However, if the truck mileage was
150,000 in six years, they would wait until the eighth year to replace it because
replacement can be for age or mileage. Ms. Green advised Supervisor Minnix that
County vehicles have gone beyond the required 150,000 miles many times. She also
advised Supervisor Minnix that the refuse fleet is in the best shape it has been in the
past 15 years due to the Board’s approval of the purchase of six automated trucks and
one rear-loader two years ago.
Supervisor Church asked if the vehicles for the Constitutional Officers are
subject to the County policy, and Ms. Green advised that they are but only the
June 24, 2003
574
Commissioner of Revenue and Sheriff have vehicles.
Supervisor Altizer moved to approve staff recommendation, adoption of
the vehicle replacement policy. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
3. Request to reappoint Special Assistant for Legislative Relations,
authorizing the continuation of an agreement, and appropriate
funding. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney)
A-062403-3
Mr. Mahoney reported that this action is to reappoint Pete Giesen as
Special Assistant for Legislative Relations, continue the previous agreement and
appropriate funds for this service. Supervisor McNamara advised that the funds should
be appropriated from the Board Contingency Fund since that was the initial source of
funding. There was no discussion
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve staff recommendation, reappoint
A. R. Pete Giesen, Jr., as Special Assistant for Legislative Relations and appropriate
$18,000 from the Board Contingency Fund. 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
June 24, 2003
575
Supervisor Minnix moved to approve the first readings and set the second
readings and public hearings for July 22, 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 an accessory apartment on .5 acres, zoned R-1 Low
Density Residential District, located at 3210 Lawndale Road,
Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon the petition of James C.,III
and Laura B. Parrish.
2. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to
operate a primary educational facility on 4.76 acres, zoned R-2
Medium Density Residential District, located at 3432 Poff Lane,
Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Elijah S.
Carroll.
3. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to
construct a drive-in restaurant on approximately .75 acres, zoned
C-2 General Commercial District, located near the intersection of
Brambleton Avenue and View Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial
District, upon the petition of Christopher H. Hanes.
June 24, 2003
576
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. First reading of ordinance authorizing acquisition of the assets of
the Suncrest Water Company, Inc., the creation of a special utility
service district, namely “Suncrest Heights Water and Sewer
District,” appropriating funds for the acquisition and construction
of water and sewer facilities therein, and imposing and allocating
certain fees or assessments with respect to the development of
property located therein. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director)
Mr. Robertson advised that the Suncrest Water Company, owner/operator
of the water, sewage collection and treatment systems that serve the Suncrest Heights
subdivision, has approached Utility Department staff several times in the last 10 years
regarding conveyance of ownership of the utilities to the County. Suncrest Heights is
located at the southern end of the Clearbrook community on U. S. Route 220. This
conveyance would include the water distribution system, well supply, sewage collection
system, wastewater treatment plant, all water and sewer easements and associated
real estate. The system currently serves 26 residential properties with 17 additional
vacant lots available for sale. A community meeting was held on Thursday, March 27,
2003, at Clearbrook Elementary School to discuss the alternatives available to the
residents of Suncrest Heights for the continuation of reliable water and sewer service.
Fifteen (15) property owners attended the meeting.
June 24, 2003
577
Mr. Robertson advised that staff has evaluated the water distribution,
sewage collection and wastewater treatment systems and has determined that work will
be required in the future to bring the infrastructure up to Roanoke County, state and
federal standards. It is estimated that approximately $200,000 would be required to
accomplish the short term improvements to the water and sewer systems. The
ordinance establishes a special water and sewer service area for the Suncrest Heights
subdivision with each participating property owner paying their share of the cost through
special water and sewer capital improvement fees. These fees are $2,600 and $3,900,
respectively, for a total of $6,500 per customer to help defray the cost of anticipated
water and sewer infrastructure improvements. The biggest liability for the County is the
wastewater treatment plant serving the subdivision and approximately $150,000 of the
capital would be necessary to eliminate it by installing a pumping station to connect the
sewer system to the County system.
Mr. Robertson advised that there are two alternatives: (1) Establish a
special water and sewer service area for the Suncrest Heights subdivision, which could
potentially serve 43 properties. Approve construction of a sewage pump station and
sewer force main, as well as water distribution system improvements. Monies
appropriated from the water and sewer surplus accounts would be used to construct water
and sewer infrastructure improvements estimated to cost $200,000. Those funds would
be returned from the $6,500 received per customer. (2) Do not approve acquisition of the
June 24, 2003
578
water and sewer facilities, which serve Suncrest Heights, from the Suncrest Water
Company.
Mr. Robertson advised that staff recommends that Alternative #1 be
approved and that the Board adopt the ordinance with the following conditions:
(1) Said ordinance shall approve appropriation of $200,000 from water and
sewer surplus accounts.
(2) Property owners with developed lots shall have the following payment
options: (a) Payment of entire $6,500 water and sewer capital improvement fee within 30
days of adoption of this ordinance. (b) Upon execution of a connection contract by
property owner, Roanoke County shall finance the $6,500 capital improvement fee in 120
equal monthly installments at an interest rate of 5% per annum. Property owners shall
agree to execute a promissory note and lien document to secure this installment debt. (c)
Any owner of improved real estate within this special utility service district, who does
not elect by agreement to participate by paying the cost of extending or improving the
public utility system to their property as provided in paragraph a. or b. above, the cost
of such improvements in the amount of $6,500 shall be assessed, imposed, and
apportioned as provided in Article 2, Chapter 24, Title 15.2 on their real estate taxes
and they would not be allowed to finance the fee. This assessment against each
property shall be reported to the Treasurer of Roanoke County, who shall enter the
assessment as provided for other real estate taxes.
June 24, 2003
579
(3) Payment of the assessments may be postponed for elderly or
permanently and totally disabled property owners until the sale of the property or the
death of the last eligible owner. In either event the entire amount of the assessment or
fee shall be paid no later than ten years from the creation of the Suncrest Heights
Water and Sewer Service District.
(4) If, and when, vacant lots are developed, a water and sewer capital
improvement fee of $8,125 would be paid without County financing. The $8,125 fee shall
incorporate the $6,500 fee for all water/sewer capital improvement and off-site fees plus
25%.
Supervisor McNamara advised that it seems that every time a water and
sewer district comes before the Board to be approved, the interest rate is different, and
the rate on this district is 5%. Mr. Robertson advised that all of the districts funded by the
County in the past have been at 8% interest except for two districts which were funded by
the State at different rates. He advised that the County has been using the 8% rate since
1966 but due to declining interest rates, they used 5% for this district. However, the
Board makes the final determination of the interest rate.
Supervisor Minnix advised that this is a win-win situation and although
the citizens have to pay $6,500, they have four options. He does not see a problem
with the 5% interest rate. In response to Supervisor Minnix’s inquiry about whether the
citizens are aware of the ramifications of paragraph (c), Mr. Robertson advised that
there are only two citizens who have not responded. The other citizens have agreed to
June 24, 2003
580
options 1 or 2 with one citizen who has his house for sale asking that the fee be paid
when the house sells. Also, there are two properties, one of which is vacant, and they
have been unable to reach the property owners. Another property is for sale and they
have sent letters to the owner and listing agent. Mr. Robertson confirmed for
Supervisor Minnix that the County has been in touch with everyone who lives in the
subdivision.
Supervisor Minnix moved to approve the first reading with Alternative #1
and set the second reading and public hearing for July 22, 2003. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Second reading of an ordinance to authorize conveyance of a
0.118 acre parcel of land to the Commonwealth of Virginia in
connection with improvements to Hardy Road for the Vinton
Business Center, Vinton Magisterial District. (Paul Mahoney,
County Attorney)
O-062403-4
Mr. Mahoney advised that there has been no change since the first
reading of the ordinance. There was no discussion.
June 24, 2003
581
Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 062403-4 AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF A 0.118
ACRE PARCEL OF LAND TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA IN
CONNECTION WITH IMPROVEMENTS TO HARDY ROAD FOR THE
VINTON BUSINESS CENTER IN THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Town of Vinton has undertaken various public improvements
associated with development of the Vinton Business Center, including the widening of
Hardy Road; and,
WHEREAS, the Hardy Road improvements have required the acquisition of
parcels of real estate from the adjacent property owners to provide adequate width for
the road project, with the conveyances being made to the locality in which the property
is located; and,
WHEREAS, by deed dated August 2, 2002, and recorded in the Clerk’s Office of
the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, as Instrument #200222848, Gerald H.
Clark and Ruby D. Clark conveyed a 0.118-acre parcel of land to Roanoke County,
Virginia, for said road widening; and,
WHEREAS, the Clarks have raised concerns about access to their property until
such time as the road improvements are completed; and,
WHEREAS, staff has coordinated with the Virginia Department of Transportation,
the Town of Vinton, and the Clarks to resolve the issue by conveyance of the 0.118-
acre parcel to the Commonwealth of Virginia, thus providing the Clark’s with public road
frontage; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of
Roanoke County, a first reading of this ordinance was held on June 10, 2003; and a
second reading was held on June 24, 2003.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke
County, the subject property has been, and hereby is, declared surplus and is being
made available for other public uses by conveyance to the Commonwealth of
Virginia for the Hardy Road improvements; and,
June 24, 2003
582
2. That conveyance of the parcel of land, consisting of 0.118 acre, adjacent
to Hardy Road along the front of the property of Gerald H. Clark and Ruby D. Clark
(Tax Map No. 71.07-1-44) in the Vinton Magisterial District of the County of Roanoke,
having been acquired by Roanoke County, Virginia, from the Clarks in deed dated
August 2, 2002, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk’s Office as Instrument #200222848,
to the Commonwealth of Virginia is hereby authorized and approved, subject to
specification that Gerald H. Clark and Ruby D. Clark shall have access to their adjacent
parcel (Tax Map No. 71.07-1-44), upon compliance with VDOT entrance permitting
requirements.
3. That the County Administrator or any assistant county administrator is
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of
Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish this conveyance of property, all of
which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney.
4. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption.
Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
2. Second reading of an ordinance authorizing and approving
execution of a lease agreement with NewPipe, Incorporated, for
office space in the Salem Bank and Trust Building, 220 East Main
Street, Salem, Virginia. (Anne Marie Green, Director of General
Services)
O-062403-5
Ms. Green advised that there has been no change since the first reading
of the ordinance. Supervisor Flora advised that recently he noticed a number of
antennas on the Salem Bank and Trust Building and inquired who receives the
revenues from them. Ms. Green advised that these revenues go into a separate fund
for the Salem Bank and Trust Building.
June 24, 2003
583
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 062403-5 AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING EXECUTION
OF A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH NEWPIPE, INCORPORATED, FOR
OFFICE SPACE IN THE SALEM BANK & TRUST BUILDING AT 220
EAST MAIN STREET, SALEM, VA, OWNED BY THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, is the owner
of several parcels of land, containing .68 acre, located at 220 East Main Street in the
City of Salem, Virginia, and designated on the Salem Land Records as Tax Map #106-
13-6, #106-13-2, and #106-13-1, and commonly referred to as the Salem Bank and
Trust Building; and,
WHEREAS, said property was purchased on May 15, 2001, subject to leases
with the County of Roanoke to provide office space for the Department of Social
Services and Blue Ridge Behavioral Health Care on the third, fourth, and fifth floors of
the building, and subject to a number of commercial leases for the first and second
floors of the building and the rooftop for antenna space; and,
WHEREAS, the County leased the property to the Roanoke County Industrial
Development Authority for the issuance of bonds to finance the purchase, and the
property was leased back to the County for operation of the premises and generation of
the revenue, through the existing leases, for payment of the debt service on the bonds;
and,
WHEREAS, one of the commercial leases assumed at the time of purchase was
with Trading Worldcom Incorporated/Seth Longo, for 300 square feet of office space in
Suite 212 on the second floor of the building, and said lease has expired; and,
WHEREAS, NewPipe, Incorporated (“NewPipe”), a new company being operated
by Seth Martin, formerly Seth Longo, has negotiated with staff to continue leasing the
premises for a period of one year from April 1, 2003, at a rental of $370.71 per month,
with the option to renew the lease for an additional year at $400.00 per month; and
WHEREAS, the lease agreement with NewPipe would include provision for
payment of back rent due on the premises by July 1, 2003; and,
WHEREAS, it would serve the public interest to continue leasing the premises to
NewPipe in order to have the office space occupied and maintained, and to generate
revenue to be applied to meeting the bond obligations; and
June 24, 2003
584
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition or conveyance of an interest in real estate, including leases, shall be
accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 27,
2003; and the second reading was held on June 24, 2003.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That lease of 300 square feet of office space in Suite 212 at the Salem
Bank and Trust Building, located at 220 East Main Street, Salem, Virginia, to NewPipe,
Incorporated for a period of one year at an annual rental of $4,448.52, payable monthly
in the amount of $370.71, commencing as of April 1, 2003, and ending on March 31,
2004, with the option for NewPipe to renew said lease for an additional period of one
year at an annual rental of $4,800.00, together with provision for payment by NewPipe
of back rent in the amount of $5,004.71, is hereby authorized and approved.
2. That the County Administrator or an Assistant County Administrator is
hereby authorized to execute a lease agreement on behalf of the Board of Supervisors
of Roanoke County and to execute such other documents and take such further actions
as are necessary to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be upon form and
subject to the conditions approved by the County Attorney.
3. That the funds generated by this lease shall be placed in the Salem Bank
and Trust Building revenue account.
4. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption.
Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
1. Board of Zoning Appeals (Appointed by District)
Supervisor Church advised that he will have a nomination at the next
meeting.
2. Court Community Corrections Program Regional Community
Criminal Justice Board
It was the unanimous consent of the Board to nominate Sheriff Gerald Holt
to serve an additional two-year term which will expire on July 1, 2005.
June 24, 2003
585
3. Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission
(Appointed by District)
Supervisor Church nominated Donna Wooldridge, Catawba District, to
serve an additional three-year term which will expire on June 30, 2006.
Supervisor Church advised that he will contact Robert List, Catawba
District, to determine if he would like to serve another three-year term.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
R-062403-6; R-062403-6.b; R-062403-6.c; R-062403-6.d
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 062403-6 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
June 24, 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 – June 10, 2003
2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Parks, Recreation and
Tourism Advisory Commission (Appointed by District), Roanoke Valley-
Alleghany Regional Commission, and Roanoke Valley Convention and
Visitors Bureau Board of Directors
3. Resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Elizabeth C. Angel
June 24, 2003
586
after twenty years of service
4. Resolution in support of participation in the Fifth Planning District
Regional Alliance and in support of the distribution mechanism of
Regional Competitiveness Funds
5. Resolution in support of rail alternatives to complement planned
improvement to Interstate 81
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.
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION R-062403-6.b EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY UPON THE
RETIREMENT OF ELIZABETH C. ANGEL, SHERIFF’S OFFICE
WHEREAS, Elizabeth C. Angel was employed by Roanoke County in the
Sheriff’s Office as a cook for the jail on April 4, 1983, and subsequently became a
Deputy Sheriff for Prisoners and Confinement; and
WHEREAS, Deputy Sheriff Angel retired from Roanoke County on June 1, 2003,
after twenty years and two months of service; and
WHEREAS, Deputy Sheriff Angel 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
ELIZABETH C. ANGEL
of Roanoke County to for more than twenty 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.
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 062403-6.c IN SUPPORT OF PARTICIPATION IN THE
FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT REGIONAL ALLIANCE AND SUPPORT
OF THE DISTRIBUTION MECHANISM OF REGIONAL
COMPETITIVENESS FUNDS
June 24, 2003
587
WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance was created in 1997 by
local governments to promote increased levels of inter-jurisdictional cooperation in order
to improve the region’s economic competitiveness; and
WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke is currently a participating member
government of the Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance; and
WHEREAS, the Regional Alliance is making application to re-qualify as a
regional competitiveness partnership under the 1996 Regional Competitiveness Act
(RCA); and
WHEREAS, the Regional Competitiveness Act requires that each participating
local government within the region must approve by resolution: (1) its intent to continue
participating in the Regional Alliance and (2) a methodology for the distribution of
incentive funds under the RCA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia agrees to participate in the Fifth Planning District Regional
Alliance with other local governments in the region; and furthermore, approves the
allocation of any regional competitiveness funds be paid to the Fifth Planning District
Regional Alliance to be used to help implement the regional programs and projects as
presented in the Regional Economic Strategy (adopted by the Alliance in July 2002).
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 062403-6.d SUPPORTING RAIL ALTERNATIVES TO
COMPLEMENT PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS TO INTERSTATE 81
WHEREAS, the I-81 corridor is increasingly the route of choice for trucks
traveling between the northeast and the south and southwest because of congestion on
I-95 and expanding shipments generated by the North American Free Trade Act; and
WHEREAS, two multi-national corporations, Halliburton and Fluor Corporations,
have submitted proposals to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to
expand the number of lanes and other appurtenances on I-81; and
WHEREAS, Norfolk-Southern Corporation estimates that seventy percent (70%)
of truck traffic on I-81 passes through Virginia to destinations south or north; and
WHEREAS, the minimal rail freight proposals included in the Star Solutions and
Fluor Public Private Partnership Act proposals do not adequately address rail freight
potential in the whole I-81 corridor; and
WHEREAS, these same proposals provide no option for passenger rail, although
upgrading the corridor's main rail line secures the passenger rail option; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia is now planning the future of the I-81
corridor, those decisions containing dramatic impacts for the future of western Virginia;
and
June 24, 2003
588
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia's decision on this corridor will
determine whether I-81 and connecting interstates will become a multi-state "East Coast
Truck By-Pass;" and
WHEREAS, the increased use of railroads to move freight will improve safety by
reducing dangerous vehicular congestion on I-81, improve energy conservation by
reducing the amount of diesel fuel consumed for freight transportation, and improve the
health of people and other forms of life in western Virginia by dampening the rate of
increase in diesel engine-generated toxic emissions along I-81; and
WHEREAS, the creation of additional freight rail capacity paralleling I-81, in
Virginia and Tennessee, may spur creation of new freight rail capacity nationwide,
resulting in more shipping options at lower cost for the Nation's businesses.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, does hereby express its support for the development and
promotion of rail freight and passenger service parallel to I-81, to complement limited
highway-widening and to move a large volume of the long-distance freight traffic from
trucks on I-81 to freight trains on dual track, high-speed rails parallel to I-81.
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
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. Statement of the Treasurer’s Accountability per Investment and
June 24, 2003
589
Portfolio Policy as of May 31, 2003
6. Report from VDOT of changes to the secondary road system in
May 2003
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 4:10 p.m., Supervisor McNamara moved to go into closed meeting
following the work sessions pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (1)
personnel matter, performance evaluation of County Administrator and County Attorney,
and Section 2.2-3711 A (7) consultation with legal counsel pertaining to pending
litigation, namely Dixie Caverns Landfill and General Electric. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session with the Commissioner of the Revenue to discuss
taxation and provision of other public services to Hill Drive (State
Route 1095). (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney; Nancy Horn,
Commissioner of the Revenue)
The work session was held from 4:25 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. and was
presented by Mr. Mahoney and Ms. Horn. Mr. Mahoney advised that Hill Drive is
located in Botetourt County and is subject to their zoning jurisdiction, but it is being
assessed for real estate taxes in Roanoke County. Approximately 20 lots or parcels are
June 24, 2003
590
affected and it appears that other County services are being provided including trash
collection, public education and voter registration. He would not recommend changing
the boundary lines which would necessitate costly surveys to resolve the situation. He
advised that after prior discussions with Ms. Horn and Mr. Jay Etzler, Commissioner of
the Revenue for Botetourt County, he would suggest that a correction of the appropriate
land books be made in both jurisdictions. This subject was brought forward by a citizen
who has requested that the situation be corrected because she can get a zoning permit
from Botetourt County but cannot get a permit from Roanoke County where she pays
taxes. Ms. Horne advised that Mr. Etzler was unable to attend this meeting but this
situation has been discussed with him on several occasions.
Mr. Mahoney advised that since there are similar situations along the
County’s boundaries with Montgomery and Floyd County, he wanted the Board’s input
before proceeding. Any correction of Hill Drive would have a significant impact on the
citizens and a public meeting would need to be scheduled to discuss these impacts.
Any corrections could be effective for the calendar and tax year commencing January 1,
2004.
It was the consensus of the Board that since 99 percent of the people in
that area seems to be satisfied with the situation as it exists, they did not want to go
forward with a boundary adjustment or have a community meeting. Mr. Mahoney was
directed to meet with the Botetourt County Attorney to find an administrative solution.
He was asked to keep the Commissioner of the Revenue and the Registrar informed
June 24, 2003
591
and attempt to find a long-range solution for the other similar situations along the
County’s boundaries.
2. Work session soliciting input for topics at the Board retreat.
(Elmer Hodge, County Administrator)
The work session was held from 5:00 p.m. until 5:10 p.m. Mr. Hodge
nd
asked if the Board members had any conflicts with the August 2 date for the retreat
and Supervisor Flora indicated that he had two conflicts. Mr. Hodge suggested that the
retreat could be held in November after the elections to allow the Supervisor-Elect from
the Cave Spring Magisterial District to attend with Supervisor Minnix. Supervisor
McNamara suggested that the retreat be held on Sunday, November 9, before the
Virginia Association of Counties’ (VACo) Conference at The Homestead. There was
agreement from the Board members on this date and Mr. Hodge advised that they
might be able to meet with some of the other localities on cooperative issues. He also
advised that the County and the City of Roanoke are receiving an award at the VACo
Conference for the Clearbrook Fire Station.
3. Work session with the Special Assistant for Legislative Relations
to consider initiatives for the 2004 Legislative Program. (Pete
Giesen, Special Assistant for Legislative Relations)
The work session was held 5:10 p.m. until 5:30 p.m. Mr. Giesen advised
that he sent a lengthy summary of the 2003 General Assembly Session to the
supervisors and that the session was very difficult due to the $2 million reduction in the
June 24, 2003
592
budget. He reported briefly on several issues including funding for the Smart Road,
funding for teacher raises, funding for Standards of Quality, the Interstate-81 upgrade,
and the continuation of the State Tax Code Study. He asked for the County priorities for
the 2004 Legislative Program. Chairman McNamara advised that these will be
discussed at the Board Retreat to be held in November; however, he felt that equitable
funding for the Smart Road and a cigarette tax remain County priorities.
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
The closed meeting was held from 5:30 p.m. until 6:50 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
R-062403-7
At 7:12 p.m., Supervisor McNamara moved to return to open session and
adopt the Certification Resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 062403-7 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS
HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members
knowledge:
June 24, 2003
593
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.
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS ITEM
Chairman McNamara announced that following the discussion in the
closed meeting concerning evaluation of County staff and with the unanimous consent
of the Board members, he was adding the following item to the agenda.
1. Resolution establishing salaries for the County Administrator
and County Attorney
Chairman McNamara advised that the resolution which was distributed to
the Board reflects that the salaries for the County Administrator and the County Attorney
will be increased by 2%, effective July 1, 2003. This increase is in conformity with the
raises for other County employees. There was no discussion.
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the resolution increasing the
salaries of the County Administrator and County Attorney by 2%, effective July 1, 2003.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
June 24, 2003
594
RESOLUTION 062403-8 ESTABLISHING SALARIES FOR THE
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby
establishes the salaries for the County Administrator and the County Attorney for Fiscal
Year 2003-2004.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the annual salary for the County Administrator shall be increased
from $126,990.04 to $129,529.84.
2. That the annual salary for the County Attorney shall be increased from
$108,128.65 to $110,291.22.
3. That the effective date for the establishment of these salaries shall be July
1, 2003.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution increasing the
salaries by 2%, 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 ordinance to obtain a special use permit to
operate a private kennel on 2.21 acres, located at 1459 Mountain
Heights Drive, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of
Randy Grisso. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner) Postponed until July
22, 2003 at the request of the petitioner
Chairman McNamara confirmed that this item has been postponed until
the Board meeting on July 22, 2003 at the request of the petitioner.
2. 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
June 24, 2003
595
Planner) Referred to the Planning Commission for further
consideration. This item is scheduled to be heard by the Board of
Supervisors on August 26, 2003.
Chairman McNamara confirmed that this item has been referred to the
Planning Commission for further consideration and will be heard by the Board at their
meeting on August 26, 2003.
3. Second reading of an ordinance declaring three parcels of real
estate to be surplus and donating same to Habitat for Humanity,
namely property located at 5441 Stearnes Avenue, Cave Spring
Magisterial District. (Gary Robertson, Utility Director)
O-062403-9
Mr. Hodge advised that he would give an overview of the sequence of
events concerning this item and that representatives from Habitat for Humanity (HFH),
the Builders’ Club, and many interested citizens were present. He introduced Ted
Susac from the Builders’ Club and advised that the Club members were recently
inducted into the County’s Senior Citizens Hall of Fame for volunteer work done at
Camp Roanoke. He expressed appreciation to them for their work throughout the
County and with HFH.
Mr. Hodge advised that this is an excellent project for the County and
HFH, and the County intends to make it an excellent project for the citizens who live in
the community. A community meeting was held Monday night to receive the citizens’
June 24, 2003
596
concerns and he believes most of their questions have been effectively answered. If
the Board chooses to donate this property to HFH, he suggested that the Board
approve the following five conditions: (1) The structure built on the lot will be a two-
story, three bedroom home, and one of the new HFH plans. (2) The house will include
an unfinished basement. (3) The driveway will be on the property and large enough for
two cars. (4) The landscaping will be complete prior to occupancy and comparable to
landscaping in the area. (5) The house will have a septic tank and if the land does not
perk, it will be connected to the County sewer at HFH’s cost.
Mr. Hodge advised that this project is the outcome of expressions by the
Board members for their preference to work with HFH. In the past, Supervisor Minnix
has helped with HFH projects on property worked on by Billy Branch and has suggested
that the County should do something to help. More recently, Supervisor McNamara
asked staff to look at the possibility of donating an unused well lot for the purpose of
building a Habitat House in Roanoke County. Mr. Hodge advised that HFH provides
funding, counseling, floor plans and materials, but this house would be a County project
and he hoped the community would also become part of it.
Mr. Hodge advised that this is not the first time that the County has done
projects of this type. In the late 1980’s, the County worked with the Oldfields area of the
County. More recently, the County worked with Total Action against Poverty (TAP) and
he referred to a report from Alvin Nash of the Blue Ridge Housing Corporation. The
County donated the Pinkard Court School to TAP which sold that property to Lowe’s on
June 24, 2003
597
Route 220 with the County’s permission. The proceeds from the sale of that property
have provided funding for loans for people to purchase houses, weatherization,
mortgage and rental assistance and to build four new homes in the County. There have
been no problems with these homes, communities or families. These projects have
worked well and the same can be done with HFH.
Mr. Hodge advised that from the beginning, the Board insisted that the
following conditions be met to ensure the quality and success of this project: (1)
Communicate the project goals to neighborhood residents and invite them to participate
in the project. (2) Make the Habitat house compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. (3) Encourage County staff to partner with HFH in all phases of the
project, from design selection to landscaping and construction. Mr. Hodge advised that
that County staff was receptive and agreed to take on this project. He apologized for
the County not communicating with the citizens on Stearnes Avenue prior to the first
reading of the ordinance meeting, but he reported that a community meeting was held
Monday night. He advised that he provided the Board with several attachments as
follows: (a) House plans for a single story house with 1,148 square feet, and two plans
for two-story houses with 1,200 square feet. If a basement is included, the two-story
house would have 1,800 square feet and the single story house would have 2,296. (b)
This attachment shows the lot size since there was some question as to whether the lot
was large enough. The lot is larger than several of the lots adjacent to it. This is
June 24, 2003
598
actually three smaller lots and it is 100 ft wide across the back and 99.93 feet across the
front. (c) This attachment is a list of property assessments on Stearnes Avenue.
Mr. Hodge introduced Karen Mason from HFH. Ms. Mason advised that
HFH is a non-profit Christian housing ministry and they seek to eliminate sub-standard
housing and to make decent housing a matter of conscience and action. They have
constructed over 120 homes in the community and the essence of HFH is its
partnership with qualified families and communities. If the donation is approved, they
look forward to a strong and successful partnership with Roanoke County, the County
employees who will construct the house, and the citizens of the Cresent Heights
neighborhood.
Mr. Ted Danzler advised that he is a member of the HFH Board of
Directors and the Building Committee, and that HFH follows the same rules and
regulations as all contractors. Their biggest hurdle is finding appropriate property on
which to build houses. Because their clientele are in the 25% of the median income in
the State of Virginia, they cannot get a loan through financial organizations. Two of the
biggest costs for HFH are for land and the infrastructure, and they try to keep the cost of
the house construction down by using volunteer labor and donations of materials. They
do get some governmental assistance with the infrastructure costs for streets, curb and
gutter, sidewalks, sewer and water. They receive community block grants, home funds
and Habitat International has a program for self-help ownership program funds. They
have received funding of approximately $350,000 that has increased the infrastructure
June 24, 2003
599
of the communities where they have built homes. When a piece of property is received,
HFH establishes a plat to ensure that the house and all necessary utilities can fit on the
property and meet the various code requirements, surveys the property, and develops a
house plan. They recently changed all of their house plans as a result of the City of
Roanoke’s development of their neighborhood design standards and HFH adopted the
majority of those standards. One of the most significant changes is that all houses will
now have air conditioning and the first air conditioned house that they are building is
located on Aspen Avenue in the City of Roanoke. Based upon discussions with the
County and citizen representatives at the community meeting last night, HFH will
commit to building a two-story house but they are concerned about the basement
because of the additional expense. The majority of the work is done by volunteers and
he acknowledged the assistance of the members of the Builders Club which is one of
the key groups to provide skilled leadership for the volunteers. He advised that they
have a group of about 70 volunteers to provide leadership assistance. They employ two
construction managers who provide the overall guidance and are responsible for the
organization of the site, the work crews and the scheduling. While a lot of work has to
be done by contractors, the majority of the work is done by volunteers with donated
materials so they can have an affordable house for qualified applicants. He thanked the
Builders Club members who were present today for their assistance.
Mr. Hodge advised that he was not ready to announce the name of a
donor at this time but he has been informed that there are people interested in donating
June 24, 2003
600
the basemen at no additional cost.
Mr. Robertson advised that the citizens were concerned about why this
well lot was not being kept by the County for emergencies. He explained that when
Spring Hollow Reservoir was constructed, the County made a commitment to retain
enough of the groundwater wells to have a supply of 3 million gallons per day (GPD)
using wells that produce over 100 gallons per minute (GPM). The wells to be donated
were originally constructed in the 1920’s or 1930’s and did not follow all of the
construction requirements of today. He explained that the location of the wells was
grandfathered and the wells never went through a 48 hour pump and draw down test to
determine an accurate capacity of the wells. The wells were originally permitted in 1977
and at that time, Well #1 had a reported capacity of 55 GPM and Well #2 had a reported
capacity of 25 GPM. The County has operated these wells since March, 1990, and
during that period of time, there were meters on the wells and controls to determine the
production which were reported daily and monthly and sent to the Health Department.
When the County operated Well #2 from 1990 to 1994, it averaged between 8 and 9
GPM. Operation of Well #2 ceased in 1994 because there were problems with air being
periodically pumped into the system which caused complaints. Well #1 was operated
until Spring Hollow Reservoir went into operation in January, 1996, with an average
production of 37 GPM. The County made their decision on which wells to keep as
standby as follows: (1) Quality of the water. There was not a problem with the water
quality. (2) Quantity of the water. The County felt that 37 GPM was marginal. (3)
June 24, 2003
601
Reliability of other sources of water in the area. This area is primarily served with
Spring Hollow water but the area could be served with water from Roanoke City and
three major standby wells with a combined output of over 1,000 GPM. The County may
have maintained a standby well that had lesser production because of the inability to get
water from Roanoke City to the area and there were no other groundwater wells to use
in case of emergency. The final reason that operation of the wells ceased was due to
their ages and the condition of the infrastructure which made it more difficult to maintain
them. When a well is designated standby, the County maintains power to the well,
keeps samples up to date and operates it on a monthly basis. At this time, the County
is maintaining 24 wells in standby mode which will provide the 3 million GPD that had
been considered a reasonable mount to supplement Spring Hollow Reservoir. The
wells have been declared surplus since 1996.
Chairman McNamara advised that it has been the practice of the Board to
allow citizens to yield their time to speak at a public hearing to another citizen but this is
not established Board policy. He advised that at a recent Board meeting, several
citizens asked to yield their time, and the Board considered changing their policy but
took no action on the matter. He advised that twenty citizens had requested to yield
their time to speak to Mr. Fred Corbett. He advised that it was the intention of the Board
to allow Mr. Corbett to speak as long as he needed to make his presentation.
Mr. Fred Corbett, 5511 Stearnes Avenue, gave a copy of his prepared
remarks to the Deputy Clerk and also presented signed petitions against the disposal of
June 24, 2003
602
the Roanoke County property on Stearnes Avenue. He advised that he had spoken to
the Board previously as President of the Cave Spring National Little League and usually
gave them good news about state tournaments that brought revenues into the County.
The State Senior League tournament will be held in the County this year with
approximately a $1.2 million economic impact. He advised that he supports and
promotes the County and its communities at all times.
Mr. Corbett advised that he was speaking on behalf of the citizens in the
Crescent Heights areas and asked all those who were present at the meeting to stand.
He advised that they support HFH and are not concerned about the class status of any
homeowner in the community. He advised that when property is not maintained or a
less expensive house is built, it lowers the value of all property. They would not have a
problem if the proposed HFH house would have an average value of the existing homes
built since 1951 or $97,230.
Mr. Corbett advised that the citizens question whether the lot is large
enough to build the house with a driveway and install the septic tank with the drain
fields. They have also concerned that the County is giving away property that belongs
to the taxpayers. The well lot was given to the County by the citizens of Crescent
Heights before Spring Hollow Reservoir was constructed. They gave the County the
pump, pump houses, tank and land in exchange for upgrading the distribution system
and installing fire hydrants.
June 24, 2003
603
Mr. Corbett advised that they feel the County should consider reserving
these wells to be used as an additional source of water in a drought. The Virginia
Department of Health records, supplied by the County, indicated that the two pumps
had a combined capacity of 80 GPM. The output was limited due to the size of the
pumps and the short depth. Although County staff has stated that these pumps were
producing less than the Health Department records, the wells have never been tested
and it is not known how much water they could produce. The citizens questioned why a
well lot in Windsor Hills that pumps 42 GPM is being kept as a reserve well and the
Stearnes Avenue wells, which produce 80 GPM, are being given away.
Mr. Corbett advised that they are also concerned that the County
destroyed the buildings on the property on Wednesday following the first reading of the
ordinance. The wells were left uncapped from June 11 until June 18 and runoff and
debris could have contaminated the groundwater. When the Board approved the first
reading of the ordinance, the citizens in the community had not been notified. The
community meeting held by the County was less than 24 hours ago and was scheduled
only after the citizens objected. There were concerns that the recent article in the
Roanoke Times about the Roanoke City Manager’s request for the County to offer more
help for the less fortunate is the reason for the speedy push to give away this lot without
studying the long-range consequences. HFH has built 117 homes, all in Roanoke City
Mr. Corbett advised that if the Board does approve this ordinance, they would like to be
assured that HFH will build a two-story, three bedroom home with a full basement as
June 24, 2003
604
Mr. Hodge informed them at the community meeting. He stated that Mr. Hodge
included the square footage in the basement to bring the value of the home up to
$87,000 to $90,00 based on $65 per square foot.
Mr. Corbett asked that the Board consider giving this lot back to the
citizens of Crescent Heights so the neighbors could maintain a small playground. He
also advised that if the County ever needed water, they could still put a well there. He
also asked about the neighbors purchasing the lot as a civic project with the County
donating the money to HFH, but was advised that this is not an option. He asked that
the Board not approve this ordinance or postpone approval until all of the citizen’s
concerns can be addressed. He asked that if the Board approves the donation, the
ordinance should specify that the home would be a three bedroom, two-story house,
with a full basement and have an accessed value of at least $95,000 to be compatible
with the average home in the community.
Ms. Jacqueline Butler, 4019 Wyoming Avenue, advised that she was a
Habitat house owner and worked two jobs while she helped to build her house. She
takes pride in her home and feels that this is a positive way to help people and
everyone should work together to accomplish it instead of opposing it.
Mr. Hodge advised that he thought it would be helpful if Mr. Robertson
could address some of the citizens’ concerns about the capacities of the wells. Mr.
Robertson clarified that the water system was not given to the County but Crescent
Heights was paid $60,000 and the citizens returned that amount to the County to
June 24, 2003
605
replace the distribution system. The County spent $177,000 putting in new water lines,
fire hydrants and water services to the community. He advised that Mr. Corbett felt that
the small output of the well was due to the small pumps. However, in January, 1992,
the pump was replaced in Well #1 with a 5 HP pump rated to pump 55 GPM, and even
with the new pump, the well only produces an average of 37 GPM. Well #2 produces 8
to 9 GPM and Well #1 produces approximately 37 GPM which is all these wells are
capable of producing. He explained that the wells are still intact and will not be
abandoned unless the Board decides to donate the property. The buildings were torn
down because even if the wells were used, the buildings would have to be replaced. He
advised that the well in Windsor Hills which pumps 42 GPM was being kept as a
reserve because it is located in an area which does not have a lot of other wells and it is
fairly easy to maintain.
Supervisor Flora inquired whether the proposed house will be on a septic
tank or County sewer system. Mr. Hodge responded that the houses on the side of the
road with this property are all on septic tanks and it could either have a septic tank or be
connected with County sewer at HFH’s cost. Mr. Robertson advised that the only
drawback to public sewer is that because of the location, it would have to be pumped to
get to the sewer. Mr. Hodge advised that there is enough room on the property for the
septic tank and drain fields. Supervisor Flora asked if the zoning ordinance required off-
street parking. Supervisor McNamara advised that Ms. Scheid, Chief Planner, who was
present was shaking her head “no”. Mr. Hodge advised Supervisor Flora that if the
June 24, 2003
606
Board approved the conditions, these restrictions would require HFH to build the house
to those standards and they have already agreed to do this. Supervisor Flora advised
regarding the community’s concern that the house be valued at least $95,000,
according to his calculations, this home will be in the $100,000 range. Mr. Hodge read
the accessed values on Stearnes Lane from the lowest to the highest, starting at
$62,200 and ending with $141,500.
Mr. Hodge advised that the well being kept as reserve in the Windsor Hills
area has 40 feet of road frontage instead of 99.9, and slopes backwards into a lower
area which can be accessed from the church’s adjacent parking area. The lot does not
appear to be a buildable lot.
Supervisor Altizer advised that the citizens were not contacted before the
first reading because this is the beginning process to get the item before the public. He
advised that Mr. Corbett mentioned that no HFH homes have been built in the County
and asked if the recent Roanoke Times articles had any impact on this item. Supervisor
Altizer advised that the decision to consider donating property to HFH was made during
the budget process which was months before the article in the Roanoke Times. He
advised that using the $65 per sq. ft. for a 1200 sq. ft. house, he calculated the value at
$100,000 house without any residual value given to a basement. He felt that property
values will not decrease but remain stable or increase. The finished product’s value will
be dictated by its square footage, the measurements, and its appearance. He is
convinced that the house’s value will be $100,000 with the conditions imposed and it will
June 24, 2003
607
be comparable with the house beside it assessed at $95,000, the house to the rear
corner assessed at $67,500 and houses across the street assessed at $101,000 and
$88,000. Therefore, he does not see anything negatively impacting the value of the
houses in the area.
Supervisor Church advised that Mr. Corbett mentioned houses were
assessed from $62,000 to $250,000 and asked about the higher evaluation. Mr. Corbett
responded that one house is assessed over $360,000 and the area considered
Crescent Heights includes everything between Starkey Road and Crescent Heights
Boulevard down to Buck Mountain Road. Supervisor Church advised that even if HFH
was not involved, he would be concerned if he lived in a home valued at $90,000 and
someone was building a $50,000 home. It leaves a bad perception if the pump houses
were torn down prematurely. In response to Supervisor Church’s request for the
original plans for the house, Mr. Hodge advised that the first reading is the beginning of
the process and HFH cannot develop plans without the willingness to donate the
property. HFH has already indicated that they have a variety of house plans and they
never intended to put one of the smaller homes on this lot.
Supervisor Church advised that whatever is built should be the average
home at this location. He was complimentary of the County‘s desire to be helpful but he
is concerned that this action sets a precedent for the type or style of houses which
might be built in the future. He did not feel that he is qualified to judge what type of
house should be built in other areas.
June 24, 2003
608
Ms. Mason advised that HFH evaluates the area and the surrounding
areas and determines what kind of house would be suitable. With the new designs,
they have more flexibility and can expand on their ability to place a home in many
different neighborhoods. HFH feels that this particular two-story, three bedroom design
will fit nicely in this neighborhood and also addressed the concerns of the community
and the County. The only thing that is not standard is the unfinished basement, but they
would agree to this as a condition.
Chairman McNamara recognized Mr. Corbett for comments. Mr. Corbett
advised that the community would not have any problems with the house being
constructed as described by Mr. Hodge and if the conditions are made a part of the
ordinance. He advised that the information he received from the Deputy Clerk from a
previous Board meeting contained pictures of a 981 sq. ft. house and 1,020 sq. ft.
house and they thought one of them would be put on this property. They did not feel
one of these would fit in the neighborhood and after receiving the information at the
community meeting last night, they did not have enough time to discuss and determine
if they agreed. They are aware that this property could be sold to a contractor and they
would have no control over the use. They do want to work with the County, are not
opposed to the HFH home with the specified conditions, and would welcome a new
neighbor. He indicated that those attending the meeting from the neighborhood were in
agreement.
June 24, 2003
609
Supervisor Church advised that he thought the perception was a large part
of this problem, and he was glad to see the willingness of all of the citizens to make this
project successful. He advised that there was a communications gap, that there cannot
be too much notice to citizens, and that they deserve timely and accurate information.
Supervisor McNamara advised that the process is working because the
reason for community meetings is to inform citizens and gather input. The Board
informally agreed to let staff determine where a Habitat house could be placed on a well
lot that was not needed for current or project needs. They wanted this done without
property values being impacted and with the home fitting into the neighborhood. He
thanked the staff and the citizens from Crescent Heights for their assistance and input
into the process.
Supervisor Minnix expressed appreciation to Mr. Corbett and the citizens
from Crescent Heights for their assistance. In response to Supervisor Minnix’s inquiry,
Mr. Hodge advised that with the basement added, the square footage would be 1,800.
Supervisor Minnix read the specifications for the two-story, three bedroom house as
contained in Attachment A, Enclosure 3, and advised that the house’s value will be over
$100,000. He was critical of staff because the citizens were not informed earlier and he
suggested that when future lots in the County are to be sold, the surrounding
community be notified immediately.
Supervisor Minnix moved to approve the ordinance with the following six
conditions: (1) The structure that will be built on the lot will be a two-story, three
June 24, 2003
610
bedroom home. (2) The building will include an unfinished basement. (3) The driveway
will be on site. (4) The lot will be landscaped in accordance with the surrounding homes.
(5) The building will have a septic tank and if this is not possible, it will be connected to
the County sewer system. (6) The building will have air conditioning.
Supervisor Flora asked if Supervisor Minnix would include in the motion
that the house be built in substantial conformity with the plans in the Board’s possession
and the conceptual plans that HFH has provided. Supervisor Minnix indicated that he
would make this the seventh condition and HFH was agreeable to this condition.
Supervisor Minnix moved to approve the second reading and adopt the
ordinance with the seven conditions: (1) The structure that will be built on the lot will be
a two-story, three bedroom home. (2) The building will include an unfinished basement.
(3) The driveway will be on site. (4) The lot will be landscaped in accordance with the
surrounding homes. (5) The building will have a septic tank and if this is not possible, it
will be connected to the County sewer system. (6) The building will have air
conditioning. (7) The building will be developed in substantial conformity with the plans
in the Board’s agenda and the conceptual plan (Attachment A, Enclosure 3). The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
June 24, 2003
611
Mr. Hodge advised that he and Mr. Corbett would like to address the
Board. Mr. Hodge advised that they have worked together many times and it seems
that the community has come together.
Mr. Corbett advised that he and his neighbors are appreciative of the time
that County staff and the Board took to hear their concerns and they look forward to
moving ahead with the project.
ORDINANCE 062403-9 DECLARING THREE PARCELS OF REAL
ESTATE TO BE SURPLUS AND DONATING SAME TO HABITAT FOR
HUMANITY; NAMELY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5441 STEARNES
AVENUE (TAX MAP NOS. 87.14-1-4, 5, AND 6)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of
Roanoke County, the subject property, having been made available for other public
uses before permitting disposition by sale or donation, is hereby declared to be surplus.
2. That a public notice regarding the donation of this surplus real estate was
advertised in the Roanoke Times & World News on June 10 and June 17, 2003; and
3. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of
Roanoke County, a first reading of this ordinance was held on June 10, 2003, and the
second reading and public hearing were held on June 24, 2003, concerning the
disposition of the following parcels of real estate identified as follows:
5441 Stearnes Avenue (3 lots)
Lot 19, Crescent Heights – Tax Map No. 87.14-1-4
.11 acre, Starkey – Tax Map No. 87.14-1-5
Lot 17, Crescent Heights – Tax Map No. 87.14-1-6
4. That said properties are hereby donated to Habitat for Humanity upon the
following conditions:
(1) The structure built on the lot will be a two-story, three bedroom
home.
(2) The building will include an unfinished basement.
(3) The driveway will be on site.
(4) The lot will be landscaped in accordance with the surrounding
homes.
(5) The building will have a septic tank and if this is not possible, it will
be connected to the County sewer system.
June 24, 2003
612
(6) The building will have air conditioning.
(7) The building will be developed in substantial conformity with the
plans in the Board’s agenda and the conceptual plan (Attachment
A, Enclosure 3).
5. That the County Administrator or any Assistant County Administrator is
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of
Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the conveyance of said property, all of
which will be on form approved by the County Attorney.
6. That this ordinance will be effective on and from the date of its adoption.
Supervisor Minnix moved to adopt the ordinance with seven conditions added.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
4. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 3.6 acres from R-1 Low
Density Residential and I-1 Conditional Industrial District to C-2
General Office District to construct and operate a
hotel/motel/motor lodge located at 7944 Plantation Road and 8008
Plantation Road, Hollins Magisterial District upon the petition of
Hollins Hospitality, LLC. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner)
O-062403-10
Ms. Scheid advised that this petition is to rezone two parcels to C-2
conditional for a Marriott Fairfield Inn Motor Lodge. The first parcel is .803 acres zoned
R-1 and the second parcel is 2.70 acres zoned R-1 with .41 acres of this parcel zoned I-
1 conditional. The conditions placed on the industrial portion were prohibition of outside
employees, building expansions, signage and outdoor storage for a lumber-drying,
cabinet shop and upholstery business. In order to have a motel, these conditions need
to be removed. This site is designated as Core and the request is consistent with the
June 24, 2003
613
2000 revision to the Roanoke County Community Plan. In 2000, the area around
Plantation Road and I-81 interchange was updated and incorporated into the 1998
Community Plan. The properties are identified as economic opportunity areas and the
proposed hotel/motel use is strongly supported by the Community Plan. She advised
that the Planning Commission approved the rezoning with two conditions: (1) The
property which is the subject of the rezoning will be developed in substantial conformity
with the Concept Plan, dated April 25, 2003, prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C.,
subject to any modifications required during site plan review or agreed to by Roanoke
County, including requirements related to buffering and screening the proposed use
from adjoining properties. (2) For 40 feet along the south/southwest property line,
adjacent to the Bach and Newbern property, there shall be tree plantings to screen the
view from Carvin Street.
Mr. Michael Pace, advised that he was the attorney representing Hollins
Hospitality, LLC which is owned by Granger MacFarlane and Jay Petel. He advised
that Mr. MacFarlane was present. He pointed out the two parcels zoned R-1 on the
concept plan and the front parcel, which is owned by Hollins Hospitality, on Plantation
Road. Hollins Hospitality is the contract purchaser of the 2.70 acre parcel which is the
Peters Farm Place subject to approval of this rezoning. He expressed his appreciation
of the Planning Commission’s recommendation of approval. He advised that there is no
reasonable expectation that this property will remain zoned residential in the
foreseeable future because of the pattern of development in the area. The question
June 24, 2003
614
was asked at the Planning Commission if there was going to be access from Carvin
Street. He advised that Carvin Street is closed and they do not own this property.
VDOT has also indicated that no access will be permitted from Carvin Street. They
have proffered that the property will be developed in substantial conformity with the
concept plan. Access is proposed from Plantation Road with the front parcel containing
the stormwater retention pond and the back parcel being developed as a Fairfield Inn
which is an upscale roadside development. He showed the Board a rendering of the
proposed four-story building.
There was no discussion and no citizens present to speak on this item.
Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance with conditions. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
Supervisor Minnix recognized that Mr. MacFarlane, a former State
Senator, was present and welcomed him to the meeting.
ORDINANCE 062403-10 TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION
OF A 3.6-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 7944
PLANTATION ROAD AND 8008 PLANTATION ROAD (TAX MAP NOS.
27.06-4-17 AND 18) IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM
THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R-1 AND I-1 TO THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF C-2 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE
APPLICATION OF HOLLINS HOSPITALITY, LLC
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 27, 2003, and the
second reading and public hearing were held June 24, 2003; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on June 3, 2003; and
June 24, 2003
615
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 3.6
acres, as described herein, and located at 7944 Plantation Road and 8008 Plantation
Road (Tax Map Numbers 27.06-4-17 and 18) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is
hereby changed from the zoning classification of R-1, Low Density Residential District,
and I-1, Conditional Industrial District to the zoning classification of C-2, General Office
District.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Hollins Hospitality, LLC.
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) The property which is the subject of the rezoning will be developed
in substantial conformity with the Concept Plan, dated April 25, 2003,
prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., subject to any modifications
required during site plan review or agreed to by Roanoke County,
including requirements related to buffering and screening the proposed
use from adjoining properties.
(2) For 40 feet along the south/southwest property line, adjacent to the
Bach and Newbern property, there shall be tree plantings to screen the
view from Carvin Street.
4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
Tax Map No. 27.06-4-17 – 0.83 acres
Beginning at Corner #1, said point located on the westerly right-of-way of
Plantation Road, said point also being the northeasterly corner of property of P D
Lodging Associates, LLC, (DB 1535, page 1697); thence leaving Plantation Road
and with P D Lodging, S. 60 deg. 43’ 35” W. 167.14 feet to Corner #2, said point
being the northeasterly corner of 1.29 acre portion of Lot 16, Waldron Court,
Section 1; thence leaving P D Lodging and with Waldron Court, Lot 16, Section
1, S. 59 deg. 40’ 00” W. 48.32 feet to Corner #A, said point being the
southeasterly corner of property of Florence Marie Peters; thence leaving
Waldron Court and with Peters, N. 30 deg. 45’ 00” W. 201.48 feet to Corner #6,
said point being the southwesterly corner of property of Georgia B. McDaniel;
thence leaving Peters and with McDaniel, N. 82 deg. 48’ 08” E. 259.27 feet to
Corner #7, said point located on the westerly right-of-way of Plantation Road;
thence leaving McDaniel and with Plantation Road, S. 18 deg. 29’ 47” E. 104.94
feet to Corner #1, the place of beginning.
Tax Map No. 27.06-4-18 – 2.705 acres
Beginning at Corner #3, said point being the northwesterly corner of 1.29 acre
portion of Lot 16, Waldron Court, Section 1, said point also located at the
June 24, 2003
616
terminus of Carvin Street, and said point also located on the southerly boundary
of property of Bach and Newbern (DB 1431, page 648); thence leaving Waldron
Court and Carvin Street and with Bach and Newbern for the following 2 courses:
N. 30 deg. 45’ 00” W. 453.23 feet to Corner #4; thence S. 58 deg. 50’ 00” E.
258.85 feet to Corner #5, said point being the northwesterly corner of Georgia B.
McDaniel property; thence leaving Bach and Newbern and with McDaniel for the
following course, S. 30 deg. 45’ 00” E. passing Corner #6 at 255.57 feet, in all
457.05 feet to Corner #4, said point located at the southwesterly corner of
property of Hollins Hospitality, LLC, said point also located on the northerly
boundary of 1.29 acre portion of Lot 16, Waldron Court, Section 1; thence leaving
Hollins Hospitality, LLC and with Waldron Court, Section 1, S. 59 deg. 40’ 00” W.
307.16 feet to Corner #3, the place of beginning.
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.
Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance with conditions. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
5. Second reading of an ordinance amending ordinance 011299-6
“Roanoke County Community Plan” by the adoption of Route
11/460 West Corridor Master Plan – Design Guidelines, and the
incorporation of development guidelines for this area, Catawba
Magisterial District, upon the petition of the Roanoke County
Planning Commission. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner)
O-062403-11
Ms. Scheid advised that Route 11/460 Master Plan Design Guidelines is a
project that the Planning staff developed during the last year and is modeled after the
Williamson Road Design Guidelines that were adopted several years ago. The goal is
June 24, 2003
617
for these guidelines to serve as a planning tool for new and existing developments
along Route 11/460 West Corridor as improvements are made by VDOT. There will be
a need for new signage, landscaping, access control and other things of that nature.
Some of the objectives of the 11/460 Master Plan are to: (1) proactively plan for quality
development along this important corridor; (2) encourage the consolidation of
contiguous parcels and access points; (3) promote the use of storm water best
management practices in the corridor; and (4) encourage the utility and implementation
of these guidelines through the use of financial incentives. These incentives would be
like those in the Williamson Road Master Plan with the 50/50 matching mini-grant
programs. Staff would like to extend that program to this area in order to help
implement these design guidelines and eventually extend the program to other areas of
the County. The Planning Commission has worked through a series of work sessions
and made a favorable recommendation to approve the guidelines at their meeting on
June 3.
Mr. Hodge advised that at a meeting with a business group in Vinton
which he attended with Supervisor Altizer, they expressed an interest in developing
guidelines for the Vinton area. Ms. Scheid advised that Vinton has expressed a lot of
interest; however, this would be their program using their funds through the Industrial
Development Authority. She has offered whatever staff support they need to
implement it. Supervisor McNamara advised that Brambleton Avenue should also be
considered for this program.
June 24, 2003
618
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 062403-11 AMENDING ORDINANCE 011299-6,
ROANOKE COUNTY COMMUNITY PLAN BY THE ADOPTION OF
A@
ROUTE 11/460 WEST CORRIDOR MASTER PLAN - DESIGN
GUIDELINES, AND THE INCORPORATION OF DEVELOPMENT
GUIDELINES FOR THIS AREA
WHEREAS, by Ordinance 011299-6 the Board of Supervisors adopted the
Community Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia; and
A@
WHEREAS, as a result of increased traffic along the Route 11/460 West corridor,
the Virginia Department of Transportation has prepared proposed roadway
improvements to provide increased carrying capacity and to address safety concerns;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has prepared amendments to the
Community Plan for Roanoke County entitled Route 11/460 West Corridor Master Plan
– Design Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, a Planning Commission Public Hearing on the proposed
amendments was held after advertisement and notice as required by 15.2-2204 of the
Code of Virginia, on June 3, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the first reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on
May 27, 2003, and the second reading and public hearing was held on June 24, 2003.
,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That Ordinance 011299-6 adopting the Roanoke County Community
A
Plan dated September 30, 1998, is hereby amended to include the following:
@
(A) The adoption of the Route 11/460 West Corridor Master Plan –
Design Guidelines which are attached hereto as Attachment A.
2. That the effective date of this Ordinance is June 24, 2003.
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Minnix, Altizer, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
June 24, 2003
619
Supervisor Flora
advised that he received a copy of the Regional Water
Supply Study from Black and Veatch and requested a work session to review this
information. Mr. Hodge advised that a work session will be scheduled.
Supervisor Church
advised that he is very proud of his son, Aaron
Church, a graduate of Northside High School and James Madison University, who lives
in Northern Virginia, and qualified on June 21 in Duluth, Minnesota, for the Olympic
Marathon Trials. The Olympic Marathon Trials will be held in Birmingham, Alabama, on
February 7, 2004, with 50 runners and only three will qualify to go to Athens, Greece for
the Olympics.
Supervisor McNamara
advised that they are proud of all the folks in the
Roanoke Valley. The Barber twins were at Cave Spring High School yesterday and
they are truly a class act.
Supervisor Minnix:
(1) He also praised the accomplishments of
Supervisor Church’s son and advised that he ran in the Lewis Gale 10K/5K with him last
year. He is a great athlete and a fine man. He wished him the very best. (2) He
advised that he will be working at the Roy Stanley Golf Tournament which will be held
this Friday and he encouraged everyone to attend.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
At 9:03 p.m., Chairman McNamara adjourned the meeting to July 7, 2003,
12:00 p.m., at the School Administration Center, to attend a School Construction
Committee Meeting.
June 24, 2003
620
Submitted by: Approved by:
________________________ ________________________
Brenda J. Holton Joseph P. McNamara
Deputy Clerk to the Board Chairman