HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/25/2020 - Regular - DRAFT
August 25, 2020
341
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of August 2020. Audio and video recordings
of this meeting will be held on file for a minimum of five (5) years in the office of the
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
Before the meeting was called to order, a brief moment of silence was
observed. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Radford called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. The roll call
was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman David F. Radford; Supervisors Martha B. Hooker,
Paul M. Mahoney, Phil C. North and P. Jason Peters
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Daniel R. O’Donnell, County Administrator; Richard
Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Rebecca Owens,
Assistant County Administrator; Peter S. Lubeck, County
Attorney; Amy Whittaker, Public Information Officer and
Deborah C. Jacks, Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney added item D.5 Ordinance
designating the Brambleton Center (located at 3738 Brambleton Ave. in the Cave
Spring Magisterial District) as a voter satellite office for absentee voting in person.
There were no objections.
August 25, 2020
342
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution approving the Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority's
Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation (Daniel R.
O'Donnell, County Administrator; Frank Smith, President and
CEO of Roanoke Valley Broadband)
Mr. O’Donnell outlined the request for resolution. In attendance from
Roanoke Valley Broadband were Frank Smith, President and CEO, Mike McEvoy,
citizen representative and Chairman of RVBA Board and William Amos, Retired
Corporate Officer and Senior Vice President of Engineering and Product Development,
General Electric and current Board member for GO Virginia.
Mr. Amos spoke on behalf of approving the Articles of Incorporation with
the two (2) new citizen representatives.
Mike McEvoy was in attendance to address any questions.
Supervisor Mahoney thanked Mr. McEvoy for the memo because one of
the issues he was concerned about was the debt issue; the representations in the
memo was very helpful.
Supervisor North thanked Mr. McEvoy for the email clarifying some foggy
areas. He commented it is his hope that you never have to look at bonding or bank
loans and that every project that you pursue would pay for itself. His other concern was
in regard to revenue growth over the next three years; thank you for that information.
Just a couple of things, and this might be a question for Mr. Lubeck, if you have not
seen this document, he encouraged him to look it over because there may be the need
to put some of the information in there or wording into the resolution we are about to
consider. It is last minute, but need to think about that rather quickly. Mr. Lubeck
commented he will spend some time with it.
Supervisor Radford asked with regard to the two (2) added Board
members, did they ever consider them being in an advisory position versus voting
member. What was the rationale behind that? Mr. McEvoy stated they wanted to
cement the relationship with both organizations. They are regional players in the area
and can provide some technical expertise. Mr. Smith has a good relationship with both
entities now and is not concerned about calling them up and asking their opinion. We
think they have the vision, especially with regard to telehealth. Carilion is really making
strides in that area and the research park. All of those things are going to need
broadband support and they kind of know where those things are going and can help us
make some good decisions. Also, just to cement the business relationship.
Relationships are an important part of business. When we first started, we talked to
Carilion and we did not have a track record.
August 25, 2020
343
They stated they were supportive, but we are not going to put our network
with you guys until they can see what we are going to do. A lot of this is about building
some confidence and making sure they understand we would like to have their business
and they need to feel confident that we know what we are doing and they can make a
good decision. Part of it is taking advantage of their expertise; they have some really
smart people that can help us.
Supervisor Radford then stated when we had the work session with Mr.
Smith a couple of weeks ago, one of the questions he started off in the very beginning
was we have a quasi-governmental authority with government money and we are
bringing in citizens to possible vote to increase debt. He added that was sort of eating
away with him and the representation they are coming to us as technical advisors. Mr.
McEvoy stated they can put controls in place, with regard to debt, that we are making a
sound decision. It is hard to overstate how important Virginia Tech and Carilion are to
our regional economy. If you remember, when we started the Broadband Authority, it
was an idea that came from the business community. They felt like the incumbent
providers may be investing more in the area. We are too small to be a first tier
community with regard to investment. We are too large to get a lot of the grants that the
Federal government has been directing at rural areas and they really had some
concerns we were not progressing as far as broadband infrastructure and he thinks that
was insightful because he is not sure what we would do today if we had not invested in
the Broadband Authority, not only the investments that the local governments made but
also the incumbent providers have upped their game. They have added capacity; they
really realized they are going to have to do more in the Roanoke Valley. With the
current pandemic, he is not sure we would be in the position to continue working with
40% of their employees working from home, in fact, in some areas they are more
productive. He added that he sees this as continuing to work on economic development
of the region; attracting new businesses and making sure they understand we have the
infrastructure in place to satisfy their needs. He thinks it is probably one of the best
things the Roanoke Valley has done.
Supervisor Hooker stated the Board appreciates what they been doing
and she has been a long-time supporter of the Authority. She asked about the longevity
of the two new positions. These two individuals may not want to serve indefinitely, so
what happens after that. Mr. McEvoy stated there are currently five (5) members on the
Board of Directors of the Broadband Authority. Four (4) of them are appointed by each
of the member localities. The fifth member is the citizen member, which he is. If he
were to resign or needed to be replaced, the four (4) appointed members nominate a
new member and then each of the four (4) member localities approve. Essentially the
two (2) new members are just citizen members and they could leave, the four (4)
appointed members of the Board would nominate a replacement and the member
localities would vote.
August 25, 2020
344
Supervisor North stated he understood the example, but when someone
from Carilion or Virginia Tech leaves, do you go back to those two (2) entities to look for
replacements. The nominating group is the remaining members of the Board and
obviously they would want to talk to the entities about someone continuing, but if there
was another priority that made sense, the Board may opt to go somewhere else.
Supervisor Peters commented 2016 was a little contentious when we were
trying to do this to begin with and appreciate you sticking with us and am glad to see it
working out as well as it has been. He added the Board had held a lot of discussion
about broadband in our rural areas. He does not spend a lot of time betting on the VATI
grants. Some of this could be met by the Broadband Authority. I truly believe that and
believe in what they are doing. He was very concerned about the debt. He encouraged
the Authority to provide a debt policy and early on giving plenty of time for all the
localities to review. He understands that debt may be needed down the road, but as he
shared before, out of all the Authorities that we have, this is the one that could,
depending on the providers that could come in here and tried to undercut the
Broadband Authority, but does not think will happen but is a concern that he does have.
The other thing, piggybacking on Supervisors Hooker and North, you represent the
Water Authority because there is a relationship there and there will probably always
have a relationship with the Water Authority and now we are adding Carilion and
Virginia Tech and his other concern, can we not make those positions a relationships
versus having a citizen at large. Mr. McEvoy stated they are just citizen members of the
Board, but again he thinks the expertise and business that both of those entities bring
would cause his to continue to support the relationship and making sure we have the
best representatives we can get. Both of the individuals suggested are pretty sharp and
will add a lot. Supervisor Peters stated he understands that but his concern is what
happens if they leave in six (6) months and then we have a citizen at large and are we
really connecting to Carilion and Virginia Tech so that someone is on deck ready to
build and expand that relationship. Mr. McEvoy stated they could look at a policy
decision on the Board of Directors to try to continue that relationship.
Mr. Lubeck, County Attorney, commented he is looking at the amended
Articles of Incorporation and believes what we have here is a bit of a hybrid where the
individuals nominated by Virginia Tech and Carilion and that person is removed or no
longer continues to serve, that Virginia Tech and Carilion would nominate a
representative and that individual would then be confirmed by the members as stated by
Mr. McEvoy.
Supervisor Hooker inquired what does being a part of this process do for
Virginia Tech and Carilion? Are we hoping to expand and grow to meet their needs?
How is this of mutual benefit? Mr. Smith responded there are a couple of things. They
are heavily engaged with both parties on projects. The good thing is we are looking at
how we can serve the Valley. Broadband is good, but how we can do things that are
unique, provide additional coverage and additional choice.
August 25, 2020
345
To Supervisor Peters’ point, he just found out that the Roanoke Regional
Chamber and Roanoke Valley Allegheny Commission did a study on how we are
broken up as a region. Seventy-five present (75%) of our serving areas is considered
rural and twenty-five percent (25%) is suburban-urban core, which is an interesting
makeup. We have a unique situation so having both Virginia Tech and Carilion both
working with the Authority are looking at adding from a research and development
standpoint, new services and technologies that we can bring to the area to address all
areas of our market. We are also looking at new ways to address network issues has
an advantage for us and with Carilion, they have been working with Dr. Steven Morgan,
who is the Chief Medical Information Officer and is a peer of Keith Perry who is the CIO.
They work together as part of the senior team under Ms. Agee. We are looking at
different things as far as both telehealth, telemedicine (there is a difference), but the
point is there are opportunities to be able to service and develop new services. In
addition, they have been working with additional partners that we are bringing into the
area who are looking at different coverage models. We are working with them to take
the marketing buzz and turn it into technology that we can actually apply here and use
the existing network to grow it.
Supervisor Peters asked Mr. Lubeck what page was the information he
just apprised the Board, with Mr. Lubeck stating page 11 out of 332 to today’s agenda
and page 4 of ten of the document, under Article III.
Supervisor Radford stated the Authority has offered some additional
information that we did not have last time and he thinks the revenue information is good
to know and now you are talking about putting some controls on future debt. So, is it
the pleasure of the Board to try to add those items to the existing resolution?
Supervisor North stated the Board should consider adopting the resolution
as proposed subject to Mr. Lubeck’s review of any additions and inclusion as discussed
in Mr. McEvoy’s comments and any pertinent parts that need to be put in there.
Mr. Lubeck stated the two options before the Board are to move forward
today with a good faith reliance on the statements they have made today Certainly, if
we incorporate any of the assurances into the preliminary recitals of our resolution, they
would not be binding. Our Board would have no power to make the Authority make
those changes. Or, the Board can postpone and allow the Authority to make the
changes they are considering.
Mr. Daniel R. O’Donnell, County Administrator, commented the concern
he would have with the second option would be then it would have to go back to every
other governmental body. Mr. Lubeck confirmed. Mr. O’Donnell recommended going
forward and passing what was presented and then you have two of the Roanoke Valley
Broadband Authority members right here and we will get those policies changed.
Supervisor Peters moved to approve the resolution and reiterated that the
Board would like to see a debt policy, sooner rather than later.
August 25, 2020
346
RESOLUTION 082520-1 APPROVING THE ROANOKE VALLEY
BROADBAND AUTHORITY’S AMENDED AND RESTATED
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority (the Authority”), is an
authority formed and existing in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 54.1 of Title
15.2 of the ode of Virginia, 1950, as amended, the Virginia Wireless Services Act §§
15.2-5431.1-15.2-5431.37 (the "Act"); and,
WHEREAS, by concurrent resolutions adopted October 21, 2013, the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia ("Roanoke County"), the Board of Supervisors
of Botetourt County, Virginia ("Botetourt County"), the Council of the City of Roanoke,
Virginia ("Roanoke City"), and the Council of the City of Salem, Virginia ("Salem City")
adopted Articles of Incorporation (the "Articles") of the Roanoke Valley Broadband
Authority (the "Authority") pursuant to the provisions of the Act; and,
WHEREAS, the Authority has organized itself and operated successfully under
the Articles and has established itself as an effective agent in the Roanoke Valley for its
primary network infrastructure; and,
WHEREAS, the Authority has established its significant network footprint in the
Roanoke Valley and now serves major education and research institutions in the
Innovation District of the City of Roanoke and mission critical enterprises across all the
localities of the Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority; and,
WHEREAS, the Authority's revenues continue to increase with the addition of
service providers utilizing its open access carrier grade fiber optic network; and,
WHEREAS, the Authority continues to expand its network and serve the
Roanoke Valley to support its mission and mandate; and,
WHEREAS, the Authority continues to examine and evaluate new service areas
and delivery methods to support the economic development and well-being of the
Roanoke Valley; and,
WHEREAS, the Authority has lobbied the Virginia General Assembly for the
ability to increase the number of its Members and has received an amendment to the
Act permitting the increase of its Members from five (5) to seven (7); and,
WHEREAS, the Authority is considering the addition of Members representing
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and Carilion Clinic; and,
WHEREAS, the Authority is following the procedure for amendment contained
within the current Articles of Incorporation; and,
WHEREAS, the Authority, through its Board of Directors, has resolved to amend
and restate its Articles of lncorporation so as to allow additional membership in keeping
with the recent changes to the Act enacted by the Virginia General Assembly; and,
WHEREAS, the Authority now seeks approval from the governing bodies of each
of its member localities to amend, restate and file with the Virginia State Corporation
Commission its Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation substantially in the
following form:
August 25, 2020
347
AMENDED AND RESTATED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATI ON
OF THE
ROANOKE VALLEY BROADBAND AUTHORITY
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, the Board of Supervisors of
Botetourt County, Virginia, the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, and the Council
of the City of Salem. Virginia (the "Locality Members"), have by concurrent resolutions
adopted the following Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of the Roanoke
Valley Broadband Authority, pursuant to the Virginia Wireless Services Authorities Act
(Chapter 54.1, Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended), (the "Act"). The
Authority shall exist for a term of fifty (50) years from the date of the adoption of the
concurrent resolutions as a political subdivision.
ARTICLE I
NAME AND ADDRESS
The name of the Authority is the Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority (the
"Authority") and the address of its principal office is 601 South Jefferson Street, Suite
110, Roanoke, VA 24011. The location of the principal office may be changed by the
concurrence of three-fourths (3/4ths) of the Authority members present at any regular
meeting, provided that the clerk of the governing body of each Locality Member has
been notified of the contemplated relocation in writing at least thirty (30) days before
such meeting.
ARTICLE II
CREATING JURISDICTIONS
These Amended and Restated Articles of lncorporation shall not be further
amended or changed without the express agreement of the governing body of each
Locality Member. None of the following actions shall be taken or permitted to occur by
the Board of the Authority without the affirmative vote of a majority of the Individual
Members from each incorporating political subdivision creating the Authority:
I. The inclusion of additional political subdivisions in the Authority.
2. Additional agreements with political subdivisions other than Authority members,
entities, or persons, local universities and colleges, local hospital systems, the
Town of Vinton, and the Western Virginia Water Authority for the expansion of
services or network, or wireless infrastructure.
ARTICLE III
MEMBERS, TERMS OF OFFICE
August 25, 2020
348
The Authority will be governed by a Board consisting of seven (7) Individual Members,
four (4) of which have been appointed or confirmed by the Locality Members. The fifth
(5th) Individual Member is a Citizen Member who has been recommended by the
Members and confirmed by the Locality Members. The sixth (6th) Individual Member
shall be a Citizen Member nominated by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University and confirmed by the Locality Members. The seventh (7th) Individual Member
shall be a Citizen Member nominated by Carilion Clinic and confirmed by the Locality
Members.
The term of office of the Authority Members shall be for four (4) years. Members may
serve additional terms as appointed or nominated by their governing body. The initial
thth
terms of office for the sixth (6) and seventh (7) Citizen Members shall be staggered with
the initial terms being for approximately 2 and 4 years ending December 12 in the
appropriate year.
The names and addresses, and terms of office of the current Members of the Board of the
Authority and the two (2) new Citizen Members are as follows:
Name and address
Designator Term expires
I. Jay Taliaferro Salem 12/12/23
City Manager's Office
114 North Broad Street
Salem, VA 24153
2. Dan O'Donnell Roanoke County 12/12/21
County Administrator's Office
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, VA 24018-0798
3. Gary Larrowe Botetourt County 12/12/23
County Administrator’s Office
57 S. Center Drive, Suite 200
Daleville, VA 24083
4. Michael McEvoy Broadband Authority 12/12/21
Western Virginia Water Authority
601 S. Jefferson Street
Roanoke, VA 24011
August 25, 2020
349
5. Robert S. Cowell, Jr. Roanoke City 12/12/23
City Manager’s Office
Room 364, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24011
6. Scott F. Midkiff, Ph.D Virginia Tech 12/22/22
Vice President for Information Technology and Chief Information Officer
Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Vice President for Information Technology (0169
Burrus Hall, Suite 314, Virginia Tech
800 Drillfield Drive
Blacksburg, VA 24061
7. Robert K. Perry (Keith) Carillion Clinic 12/12/24
Senior Vice President and CIO
Carilion Clinic
451 Kimball Ave.
Roanoke, VA 24016
The governing body of each Locality Member shall be empowered to remove, at
any time, without cause, the Individual Member appointed by it and appoint a
successor Individual Member to fill the unexpired portion of the removed Member's
term. Vacancies on the Board shall be filled for the unexpired term in the same
manner as the appointment of the Individual Member being removed from or
vacating the Board was made.
Each Individual Member shall be reimbursed by the Authority for the amount of actual
expenses in performance of duties as an Individual Member of the Authority.
Each Individual Member of the Board shall have one equal vote in all matters
before the Authority. Individual Members may resign at any time.
ARTICLE IV
PURPOSE
The purpose of the Authority is to provide qualifying communication services as
authorized by Article 5.1 (§ 56-484.7: 1 et seq.) of Chapter 15 of Title 56 of the 1950
Code of Virginia, as amended and to provide such other services as provided by law
and Chapter 54.1 of Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. Such
August 25, 2020
350
services are to be provided to the geographic areas of the County of Roanoke, the
County of Botetourt, the City of Roanoke, the City of Salem, Virginia and to such
other service areas as the Board may adopt from time to time to establish local
governmental network(s) to meet the communication needs of Locality
Members, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and Carilion Clinic
and their affiliates and subsidiaries and in accordance with the contracts and
agreements by and between this Authority and other private or public entities as the
Authority may agree in writing upon the terms and conditions established pursuant to
such contracts.
ARTICLE V
POWERS, GENERAL OPERATI ONS
The Authority shall have all the powers granted by Section 15.2-5431.11 of the 1950
Code of Virginia, as amended.
The general business of the Authority, including the issuance of revenue bonds and
refunding bonds as permitted by the Act and the expenditure of funds for general
expenses, shall be conducted by the majority action of the Board of the Authority,
provided such Board may create an executive committee and such other committees
as the Board may direct, including project committees. The Authority is vested with the
powers of a body corporate, including the power to sue and be sued in its own name,
plead and be impleaded, and adopt and use a common seal and alter the same as
may be deemed expedient.
ARTICLE VI
DISSOLUTION
The Board of the Authority may determine that the purposes for which the
Authority was created have been completed, or are impractical or impossible to
complete, and that all of the obligations have been paid, or have been assumed by
one or more political subdivisions or any Authority created thereby, or that cash or
United States government securities have been deposited for their payment. In
such event, it shall adopt and file with each of the governing bodies a resolution
declaring such facts. If the governing bodies adopt a resolution, concurring in such
declaration and finding that the Authority should be dissolved, they shall file
appropriate articles of dissolution with the State Corporation Commission.
ARTICLE VII
August 25, 2020
351
WITHDRAW AL OF LOCALITY
A locality may withdraw from the Authority at any time, provided, that no locality may
withdraw from the Authority at any time when bonds are outstanding unless all
remaining members approve such withdrawal at such time. Prior to withdrawing, a
locality shall provide the Authority and each of the other participating localities with
written notice of the locality’s intent to withdraw.
In the event that a locality withdraws, such locality electing to withdraw shall
execute all documents necessary to reflect such withdrawal, the remaining
participating localities shall appoint a replacement member to the Board, and file
proper amendments to these Articles with the State Corporation Commission. If any
of the governing bodies of the remaining participating localities fails to act or are
unable to act to appoint a replacement member within sixty (60) days after the locality
electing to withdraw provides notice of withdrawal, then the appointment of the
replacement member shall be made by the judges of the Circuit Court for the 23rd
Judicial Circuit.
ARTICLE VIII
AUDIT
The Authority shall cause an annual audit of its books and records to be made by the
State Auditor of Public Accounts or by an independent certified public accountant at the
end of each fiscal year and a certified copy thereof to be filed promptly with the governing
bodies of each of the incorporating political subdivisions.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, the
Board of Supervisors of Botetourt County, Virginia, the City Council of the City of
Roanoke, Virginia, and the City Council of the City of Salem, Virginia have caused
these Articles of lncorporation to be executed in their respective names, and their
respective seals have been affixed and attested by the respective clerks of each, as
of August 25, 2020.
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
By: _______________
David F. Radford, Chairman
Board of Supervisors
August 25, 2020
352
Attest:
-----------
Deborah C. Jacks,
Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board
SEAL
Approved as to Form:
County Attorney
BOTETOURT COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Billy W. Martin, Sr., Chairman
Board of Supervisors
Attest:_____________________
Susan Fain,
Deputy Clerk to the Board
SEAL
Approved as to Form:
County Attorney
August 25, 2020
353
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
By: _____________________
Sherman P. Lea, Sr., Mayor
Attest:____________________
Cecelia F. McCoy, CMC,
Clerk
SEAL
Approved as to Form:
City Attorney
August 25, 2020
354
CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA
By: _________________________
Renee F. Turk, Mayor
Attest: ______________________
James Taliaferro,
Clerk
SEAL
Approved as to Form:
City Attorney
\[End form of Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation}
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by this Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors that the Authority's Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation are
hereby approved by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and that the two new
Citizen Members nominated by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and
Carilion Clinic are hereby confirmed.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors approves the filing of the Authority's Amended and Restated Articles of
Incorporation with the Virginia State Corporation Commission.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
August 25, 2020
355
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance accepting and appropriating funds in the amount of
$1,080,054.54 awarded under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and
Economic Security (CARES) Act Elementary and Secondary
School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund to the Roanoke County
Public Schools Grant Fund for the 2020-2021 fiscal year (Due to
the pandemic disaster, it is requested, upon a four-fifths vote of
the Board, to waive the second reading and adopt the ordinance
as an emergency measure.) (Susan Peterson, Director of Finance,
Roanoke County Public Schools)
Ms. Peterson outlined the request for ordinance.
Supervisor North inquired if the funds came directly from the State or from
Roanoke County. The reason he is asking, Mr. O’Donnell, he has asked the question
before, do the schools anticipate getting any more allocations directly from the State
Mr. O’Donnell stated he does not think there is anything officially in the pipeline coming.
Ms. Peterson responded this is coming directly from the ESSER grant. She heard from
Dr. Lane, the State Superintendent that he is not aware of any specific additional
monies that will be directly coming to use. She added with the Hero’s Grant, which has
not yet been approved, there may be some more funding coming through that
mechanism. –
Supervisor Mahoney asked if he was correct in reading the materials, this
grant does not have the same restrictions or limitation that is in the CARES Act that you
th
have to spend it by December 30. Ms. Peterson advised they have until September
2022.
ORDINANCE 082520-2 ACCEPTING AND APPRORIATING
FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,080,054.54 AWARDED UNDER
THE CORONAVIRUS AID, RELIEF, AND ECONOMIC
SERCURITY (CARES) ACT ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
SCHOOL EMERGENCY RELIEF (ESSER) FUND TO THE
ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS GRANT FUND FOR
THE 2020-2021 FISCAL YEAR
WHEREAS, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act
was signed into law on March 27, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the CARES Act includes a $30.75 billion education stabilization
fund, with several components, including an Elementary and Secondary School
Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER); and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Education received approximately $238.6
million through the CARES ESSER Fund; and
August 25, 2020
356
WHEREAS, Roanoke County Public Schools received an allocation of such
funds in the amount of $1,080,054.54; and
WHEREAS, the overarching purpose of the CARES ESSER Fund is to provide
emergency relief funds to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to
have, on elementary and secondary schools; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 25, 2020; and
because County Administration would like to make such funds immediately available for
school use, the second reading of this ordinance has been dispensed with since an
emergency exists, upon a 4/5ths vote of the members of the Board.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the sum of $1,080,054.54, made available to Roanoke County Public
Schools through the Commonwealth of Virginia from the Coronavirus Aid,
Relief, and Economic Security Act Elementary and Secondary School
Emergency Relief Fund, is accepted.
2. The sum of $1,080,054.54 is hereby appropriated to the Roanoke County
Public Schools Grant Fund for the 2020-2021 fiscal year, to be used for
those purposes allowable under the Act.
3. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
On motion of Supervisor North to adopt the ordinance as an emergency,
seconded by Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
Supervisor Hooker commented it has really been a pleasure watch, under
uncertain times with solid leadership in the schools how smoothly things have gone
these two days. Kudos to Roanoke County Schools, it has really been a great thing.
2. Ordinance accepting and appropriating grant funds in the amount
of $98,311.70 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency--
Assistance to Firefighters COVID-19 Supplemental Awards Grant
(Due to the pandemic disaster, it is requested, upon a four-fifths
vote of the Board, to waive the second reading and adopt the
ordinance as an emergency measure.) (Stephen G. Simon, Chief
of Fire and Rescue) Dustin Campbell, Deputy Chief of Fire and
Rescue
Chief Campbell outlined the request for ordinance. He noted this a
(FEMA) supplemental to the CARES Act, for personal protection equipment (PPE).
There was no discussion.
August 25, 2020
357
ORDINANCE 082520-3 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $98,311.70 FROM THE
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY-
ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS COVID-19 SUPPLEMENTAL
AWARDS GRANT
WHEREAS, The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-Assistance
to Firefighters (AFG)-COVID-19 Supplemental Awards Grant provides funding to
purchase personal protective equipment (PPE) and related supplies for the nation’s first
responders. Fire Departments, non-affiliated EMS organizations and State Fire Training
Academies were eligible to apply, and assist eligible states, local units of government
and tribes in preventing, preparing for and responding to the coronavirus; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Department applied for a
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-Assistance to Firefighters (AFG)-
COVID-19 Supplemental Awards Grant and was awarded $98,311.70 to purchase
pandemic supplies and equipment for personnel and patients; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-Assistance to
Firefighters (AFG)-COVID-19 Supplemental Awards Grant requires a ten percent (10%)
local match of $9,831.17, which has already been appropriated as part of the fiscal year
2020-2021 fiscal year operating budget; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be
appropriated by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 25, 2020, and
the second reading has been dispensed with, upon an affirmative vote of 4/5ths of the
members of the Board, this being deemed to be an emergency measure pursuant to
Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the sum of $98,311.70 is hereby accepted and appropriated to the
Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Department.
2. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance as an emergency,
seconded by Supervisor Mahoney and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
3. Ordinance approving vacation of a 20 foot, sanitary sewer
easement and granting a new 20 foot, sanitary sewer easement
to the Western Virginia Water Authority on the County's Public
Service Center property (Rob Light, Director of General Services)
August 25, 2020
358
Mr. Light outlined the request for ordinance, basically a housekeeping
item. There was no discussion.
Supervisor Hooker’s motion to approve the first reading and set the
second reading for September 22, 2020, was seconded by Supervisor North and
approved by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
4. Ordinance amending Article 1 (General Provisions), Article II
(Definitions and Use Types) and Article III (District Regulations) of
the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance (Philip Thompson,
Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the request for ordinance.
Supervisor Radford commented that he built a house a couple of years
ago and went two (2) foot above the flood plain. How does that relate to the twelve (12)
inches? Mr. Thompson responded the twelve (12 inches deals with equipment. He
advised it gets us additional points as far as our community rating system; that is what
helps us reduce the cost of flood insurance for our residents. Supervisor Radford added
if we are already two (2) feet above the flood, that twelve (12) inches will not be
applicable. Mr. Thompson stated we are talking about equipment such as hot water
heaters, heat pumps, etc. Supervisor Radford stated he had a potential client who
called him last week and their existing house is in or pretty close to a flood way; he has
not had the engineer check it out yet. They want to add an addition and is going to be
just as big as the existing house. Did he just hear Mr. Thompson say we have to jack
the main house back up? Mr. Butch Workman, Stormwater Operations Manager, stated
just the addition, unless they are doing improvements to the existing home.
Supervisor Mahoney asked if Mr. Thompson or Mr. Workman see any kind
of need to brief the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA)? His recollection does not recall
any variance regarding flood plain ever going to the BZA. He really did not see any
substantive or fundamental changes. Mr. Thompson stated they could bring it up,
however, as Mr. Workman mentioned at the work session, he has been doing this for
quite a while and never had an issue. Supervisor Mahoney asked if they anticipate any
requests for variances coming in due to these changes. Mr. Workman responded in the
negative.
Supervisor Peters’ motion to approve the first reading and set the second
reading for September 8, 2020, was seconded by Supervisor North and approved by
the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
August 25, 2020
359
5. Ordinance designating the Brambleton Center (located at 3738
Brambleton Ave. in the Cave Spring Magisterial District) as a
voter satellite office for absentee voting in person (Peter S.
Lubeck, County Attorney)
Mr. Lubeck outlined the request for ordinance.
Supervisor North inquired if the General Assembly pass a legislation
regarding additional avenues for voting, would it be incorporating into the Code of
Virginia and be so governed and this body would not consider as we are today a
satellite office. Mr. Lubeck responded there has been a lot of discussion as to whether
the General Assembly would further allow mail in applications at drop off location and
that is something that would be decided by the Registrar or the Electoral Board and not
this Board.
Supervisor Radford thanked Supervisors Mahoney and North for working
on this over the weekend. He stated he thought the citizens will be happy.
ORDINANCE 082520-4 DESIGNATING THE BRAMBLETON
CENTER (LOCATED AT 3738 BRAMBLETON AVE. IN THE
CAVE SPRING MAGISTARIAL DISTRICT) AS A VOTER
SATELLITE OFFICE FOR ABSENTEE VOTING IN PERSON
WHEREAS, Section 24.2-701.2 of the Code of Virginia provides that a local
governing body may establish, by ordinance, voter satellite offices to be used in the
locality for absentee voting in person; and
WHEREAS, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and in order to better meet
the ongoing needs of the General Registrar, the principal office of the General Registrar
was relocated from the Roanoke County administration offices, located at 5204 Bernard
Drive, to the Craig Center, located at 900 Chestnut Street, in the Vinton Magisterial
District, where pursuant to Section 24.2-701.1, the General Registrar will provide for
absentee voting in person at this location; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors recognizes that due to the ongoing nature
of the COVID-19 pandemic, many citizens desire to cast their votes for the upcoming
general election by absentee ballot rather than in person at their regular polling places
on election day; and
WHEREAS, although citizens will still be able to cast ballots in person at their
designated polling places on election day, and also by mail-in absentee ballot, the
Board of Supervisors and the Roanoke County Electoral Board desire to further provide
Roanoke County citizens with an additional location where voters may conveniently cast
absentee ballots in person; and
August 25, 2020
360
WHEREAS, it has been proposed that the Board of Supervisors designate the
Brambleton Center, located at 3738 Brambleton Ave. in the Cave Spring Magisterial
District, as a voter satellite office for absentee voting in person; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 25, 2020, and
the second reading has been dispensed with upon an affirmative vote of 4/5ths of the
members of the Board, this being deemed to be an emergency measure pursuant to
Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter; and
WHEREAS, insofar as Section 24.2-701.2 of the Code of Virginia states that an
ordinance establishing such a voter satellite office may not be enacted within 60 days
preceding any general election, and in order to meet this enactment deadline, the Board
waives any notice provisions pursuant to the authority claimed in Ordinance 033120-1.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, that the establishment of the Brambleton Center, located at 3738
Brambleton Ave. in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, as a voter satellite office for
absentee voting in person, is hereby authorized and approved.
This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the ordinance as an emergency,
seconded by Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance authorizing the relocation of the principal office of the
General Registrar for Roanoke County to the Craig Center,
located at 900 Chestnut Street, in the Vinton Magisterial District
(Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney)
Mr. Lubeck advised there were no changes since the first reading. There
was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 082520-5 AUTHORIZING THE RELOCATION OF
THE PRINCIPAL OFFICE OF THE GENERAL REGISTRAR FOR
ROANOKE COUNTY TO THE GRAIG CENTER, LOCATED AT
900 CHESTNUT STREET IN THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Section 24.2-411 of the Code of Virginia provides that each local
governing body shall furnish the general registrar with a clearly marked and suitable
office which shall be the principal office for voter registration; and
August 25, 2020
361
WHEREAS, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the County’s Director of Emergency
Services determined that it was necessary, for safety purposes, to temporarily relocate
the office of the General Registrar for Roanoke County from the County administration
offices, located at 5204 Bernard Drive, to the Craig Center, located at 900 Chestnut
Street, in the Vinton Magisterial District, which property is owned by the Roanoke
County Board of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, it has become apparent that the Craig Center is better able to meet
the ongoing needs of the General Registrar, and that as part of the County’s continuing
response to the COVID-19 pandemic, it would be prudent to permanently relocate the
General Registrar to this location; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 11, 2020; and
the second reading of this ordinance was held on August 25, 2020.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, that the relocation of the principal Office of the General Registrar for
the County of Roanoke to the Craig Center, located at 900 Chestnut Street in the Vinton
Magisterial District, is hereby authorized and approved.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 082520-6 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM G- CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for August 25,
2020, designated as Item G- Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 3 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes – August 11, 2020
2. Request to accept and allocate grant funds in the amount of $36,000 for two
(2) heart monitor defibrillators from the Virginia Department of Health (VDH)
3. Request approving the donation of five Fire and Rescue thermal imaging
cameras to Craig County
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
August 25, 2020
362
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
A-082520-6.a
A-082520-6.b
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Hooker moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion was seconded by Supervisor Mahoney and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, Radford, Peters, North
NAYS: None
1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves
2. Outstanding Debt Report
3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of July
31, 2020
4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of July 31, 2020
5. Accounts Paid – July 31, 2020
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 4:03 p.m., Supervisor Radford moved to go into closed meeting
following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 (A) (29)
of the Code of Virginia, in order to discuss the award of a public contract involving the
expenditure of public funds, including interviews of bidders or offerors, and discussion of
the terms or scope of such contract, where such discussion in an open session would
adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body.
Specifically, the contract pertains to proposed renovations to property that is intended to
be used as the new Roanoke County Public Service Center.
The motion was seconded by Supervisor Hooker and carried by the
following recorded vote:
August 25, 2020
363
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
The closed session was held from 5:35 p.m. until 6:13 p.m.
Immediately following the closed meeting, the Board returned to open
session and Mr. O’Donnell brief the Board about the next steps for allocated CARES
Act funds. He shared that the advertisements will need to go to the newspaper for
advertisement by Thursday. He shared the proposal that for unallocated balance of
funds that the Board still appropriate such funds (but not for any designated projects),
understanding that specific isses will be determine as additional guidance is received
from the Federal and State goverments. Additionally, hazard pay was discussed. At
present, we are unable to determine whether additional hazard payments will be
feasible. In regard to broadband expansion, we are still waiting to hear from vendors
regarding broadband expansion proposals. We have filed are application for VATI
grant. For certain locations, broadcast tower will be retuired and may require rezonings,
and perhaps a joint public hearing.
th
Chairman Radford recessed to the 4 floor for work session at 4:04 p.m.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session with the Board of Supervisors to receive Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) training (Peter Lubeck, County
Attorney)
Mr. Lubeck provided the Board with a PowerPoint presentation, which
completed the required FOIA training.
The work session was held from 4:24 p.m. until 5:20 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 7:01 p.m., Supervisor Radford called the evening session to order.
Supervisor North moved to adopt the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 082520-7 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
August 25, 2020
364
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member’s
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies; and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1. The petition of MCE Owner Occupied, LLP to obtain a special use
permit in a C-1 (Low Intensity Commercial) District to allow a
multi-family use to account for more than 50 percent of the gross
floor area on the site on approximately 1.116 acres, located at
3220 McVitty Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District (Philip
Thompson, Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson provided a PowerPoint presentation.
Supervisor Radford asked why they agreed to no electronic signs. Mr.
Thompson advised it is a standard in the Colonial Avenue Design Guidelines.
Mary Ellen Goodlatte of Glenn Feldman Darby and Goodlatte represented
the petitioner and provided a briefing.
Supervisor Radford asked if there was going to have to be an additional
stormwater with Ms. Goodlatte advising it is her anticipation there would be no need to
upgrade the stormwater management with the existing building. However, with respect
to building number 2, absolutely. Mr. Thompson verified that was correct.
Supervisor Radford stated he is very familiar with the property and thinks it
is a good use.
Chairman Radford recessed the meeting from 7:15 p.m. until 7:25 p.m. to
allow for comment. There was one telephone comment from Ms. Rogers from 3305
Rasmont Road noted the trash and the parties behind the building, the dogs barking
and she stated they see it more as a problem and they are opposed to this project.
August 25, 2020
365
Supervisor Mahoney advised he knows this property fairly well. He is
probably one of the troublemakers that uses old Cave Spring Lane and McVItty as a
cut-through to get to Route 419 and go West to Salem. He is concerned that a
significant part of the property is designated as neighborhood conservation. He knows
the County Board in the past has strongly defended the neighborhood conservation
designation, but at the same time, when he looks at the surrounding properties –
commercial – this property is C-1. We believe it should be commercial and knows
apartments are not commercial, but it is a transition between a residential use and a
commercial use as Ms. Goodlatte indicated. In all honesty, he does not see how
anyone would ever build a home on that property. He understands the problem with the
traffic, but the McVitty Road project, as Mr. Thompson has pointed out has been on the
six-year road list for what seems like forever. So, he does not think it is ever going to
get constructed. Having said on that, with our staff and the Planning Commission
recommending approval, unless other Board members can make a strong argument for
the contrary, he believes he will support this application for special use permit. He
understands there are some problems with it, but thinks where the County is attempting
to go long-term in terms of more apartment use, there are some very positive elements
for this application. He would like to hear what some of the other Board members think.
Supervisor Hooker commented that she is pleased to see that a piece of
property that has been unused for a period of time has another potential use and to be a
source of vitality and like in the County. So, she plans on supporting the motion
Supervisor Radford commented he agrees with Supervisor Mahoney; it is
a good adaptive use. He cannot see a single-family going in there. So, he thinks what
is proposed is a good use of that property to continue to provide housing for our
community.
ORDINANCE 082520-8 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN
A C-1 (LOW INTENSITY COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT TO ALLOW
A MULTI-FAMILY USE TO ACCOUNT FOR MORE THAN 50
PERCENT OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA ON THE SITE ON
APPROXIMATELY 1.116 ACRES, LOCATED AT 3220 MCVITTY
ROAD, WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (TAX MAP
NO. 076.20-01-12.00-0000)
WHEREAS, MCE Owner Occupied, LLP has filed a petition for a special use
permit to allow a multi-family use to account for more than 50 percent of the gross floor
area on the site located at 3220 McVitty Road (Tax Map No. 076.20-01-12.00-0000), in
a C-1 (low intensity commercial) district, in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 28, 2020, and the
second reading and public hearing were held on August 25, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on August 4, 2020; and
August 25, 2020
366
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission recommends approval of
the petition with conditions, as set forth in the staff report.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. The Board finds that the proposed special use meets the requirements of
Section 30-19-1 of the Roanoke County Code and that the proposed special use
conforms with the standards set forth in article IV, use and design standards of the
Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance.
2. The Board further finds that although the proposed special use is not
consistent with the “Neighborhood Conservation” future land use designation of the
Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan, it is consistent with the “Transition” and
“Development” future land use designations which are adjacent to this site; and that the
proposed special use will have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding
neighborhood and community.
3. The special use permit is hereby APPROVED with the following
conditions:
a. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the
“Concept Site Plan” prepared by Craighead and Associates dated May
23, 2020, subject to any changes required during the site plan review
process.
b. The site shall be developed in general conformance with the existing
building proposed renovations - Phase 1 and 2, Exhibits B and E,
prepared by Craighead and Associates dated May 23, 2020, subject to
any changes required during the commercial building plan review
process.
c. The proposed freestanding sign shall be developed in substantial
conformance with the McVitty Commons Signage, Exhibit D, dated
June 11, 2020. The freestanding sign shall only be lit from the ground
and shall not cause glare on adjoining properties or roads. There shall
be no neon signage or electronic message boards on the property.
d. The maximum number of apartments shall be limited to 16.
e. Free standing light poles, including lighting fixtures, shall not be more
than 18 feet above grade. All exterior lights shall be down-lit or
shielded so as not to direct glare onto adjoining streets or residential
properties.
4. 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 provisions of this special use
permit are not severable. Invalidation of any word, phrase, clause, sentence or
paragraph shall invalidate the remainder.
On motion of Supervisor Radford to adopt the ordinance, seconded by
Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
August 25, 2020
367
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
2. The petition of Om Shree Hospitality, LLC to rezone
approximately 9.99 acres from AG-1 (Agricultural/Rural Low
Density) District to C-2 (High Intensity Commercial) District for the
construction of a hotel/motel/motor lodge, located near the 2700
block of Wildwood Road and the 1700 block of Skyview Road,
Catawba Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Director of
Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the petition.
Supervisor Hooker stated she has questions and then she would be eager
to hear from the Petitioner. There are no elevations or design at this point, but she
thinks that is acceptable considering they want to see if it will pass the rezoning before
putting a lot of money into the project. She understands that, but it leaves some
unpredictability and some questions. They are requesting a C-2 rezoning, but they are
not proffering that it will be a hotel. So, there is a lot of speculation on that with what it
could be if they change their mind after the rezoning. It is not just a hotel we should be
thinking of, but what other options could it become if it were not a hotel. There are a lot
of hotels there nearby, but there is another part that says this may be a better product
than some of those hotels. She is just putting some of the positive and negatives that
she is seeing. It is very steep. When she drives that property, she is amazed at the
amount of site work that would have to accommodate that and she thinks it is AG-1;
with the idea of it being core, it goes backs to the quarry days, potentially, when they
were looking at if they had the money to put a manufacturer or some other big operation
that it would be more viable there. Although that would not necessarily be
manufacturing. She is concerned about the houses that are right there near the hotel.
There has not been any conversation about what would happen to them or how the
steepness from the grading would impact them and knows they would have to take care
of the stormwater issues. Mr. Thompson mentioned the Skyview access, is that even
possible from this site. Mr. Thompson stated he thinks that topography would make it
very challenging to have access from that property. There was some concern about the
radius of the turn going up the mountain that emergency vehicles may have trouble
getting up that curve, but that would be something that would be taken care of in review.
Mr. Thompson advised he would image they would do a turn radius now associated with
that access road to make sure they could make that turn. Ms. Hooker asked about what
kind of signage would be recommended. Mr. Thompson advised C-2 is our most
allowed signage. It is based on road frontage. It is 1 and ½ feet times the amount of
road frontage that you have with a maximum of 500 square feet. That applies to any
signs. Typically, 25 feet is the height of the sign in C-2.
August 25, 2020
368
Supervisor North stated with looking at the pictures, the site looks very
challenged to put a hotel there or a structure of that proposed size. The back of the lot,
which is not very deep from the road, looks to be a high, rocky bank. The hotel industry
today is challenged because most hotels in this area total are running only 20-30%
occupancy. He is told from many things that he reads that this industry is going to be
challenged in the next two or three years to get back to what a recovered level might be
before COVID hit early this year, which makes him wonder if a hotel would be built
sooner rather than later and could lend itself to perhaps a convenience store or some
other type of commercial business. While we welcome commercial businesses, those
two things are what concerns him.
Steve Wandrei, was in attendance with Mr. Lumsden (engineer)
representing the petitioner provided a brief summary.
Supervisor Radford commented that most of the rezonings the Board has
been getting included a proffered plan, why did the petitioner not want to do a proffered
site plan. Mr. Wandrei responded his client has a contract to purchase the property
from the current owner and is hesitant to restrict use. Supervisor Radford then asked
was is the percent grade on the road going up. Mr. Lumsden responded at the steepest
part, where the stormwater management area, directly to the north it gets as steep as
16%, which is basically the VDOT standard for how steep a road can be. Supervisor
Radford then stated it looks like you have a hook and retaining wall trying to keep the
regrading off of the single-family resident. How tall is the wall? Mr. Lumsden
responded there are several walls that we showing and the maximum height is about 13
feet. The one that Supervisor Radford is talking about is 6 feet. Supervisor Radford
then asked if the stormwater was going to be surface or underground with Mr. Lumsden
responding above ground. Supervisor Radford asked with regard to the other retaining
wall on the left, looks like it is really close to that quarry or the actual pond. Is there
adequate footing or foundation to put something up there with the quarry pond. Mr.
Lumsden responded the quarry pond does sit back there at little ways. He has walked
the property. It is difficult to tell when you are out there exactly where that boundary is.
After the rezoning, he would imagine we would be given the go ahead to start the actual
boundary and topo survey. Supervisor Radford asked if the property would have public
sewer and water; with Mr. Lumsden responding in the affirmative.
Supervisor North held a picture up and stated with the concept plan, it that
where it is going to fit. In other words is the shaded area behind the concept plan, the
lined area, is that the bank? Mr. Lumsden stated he thinks that is the north woods
resident and it is looking straight up the hillside. Supervisor North stated he is trying to
get a visual of what side of the road. Mr. Lumsden stated it is on that side of the road.
August 25, 2020
369
Supervisor Hooker went through some talking points, for some of our
hotels locally there has been some problem with policing and long-term residents that
are staying in some hotels that are causing an increased number of police calls. Is
there any way that can be mitigated by this hotel? Mr. Wandrei stated during the
process they have had discussions with the national hotel franchise and it would
certainly be their belief that with the support of the franchise, we would eliminate some
of those issues. Supervisor Hooker stated she is struggling with some of the positives
and some of the perceived negatives, so please bear with her as she talks through
some of these things. We have the site plan, but do not have a lot of specific and she
understands that and has to assume the worst case scenario potentially so wants to vet
through those. If the hotel did not pan out, if we approved the C-2 zoning, and then the
petitioner decided not to do a hotel, is there a Plan B? Mr. Wandrei stated he cannot
speak for the petitioner on that issue, but the goal and objective is to move forward with
the hotel. The only other comment that he would add is that this property has remained
undeveloped for a pretty lengthy period of time. His client has the imagination for this
project to allow it and see if forward, but the comment was made that there is a wide
range of uses in C-2, the reality is if they were economically viable, someone would
have already come forward and presented a proposal for the Board’s consideration.
Supervisor Hooker stated she understands, but the hotel is not proffered in the petition.
She is just making note of that it might mean something else in the future. Supervisor
Hooker stated she saw the notes from VDOT and should it get approved, she knows
they are going to go through some processes. It is her understanding with regard to the
site distance is concerned will be taken care. She was interested to see there was not
any demand for a turning lane or any of those issues. Mr. Lumsden stated they had
sent a survey crew out to the site and they have documented that site distance is not an
issue. Supervisor Hooker stated so it seems from their initial review that the stormwater
management area at the bottom of the hill, at the beginning of the driveway, seems
sufficient for all that grading work. Ms. Lumsden responded in the affirmative. He noted
they have been playing around with the idea that the 4.4 acres that is undisturbed could
potentially be a conservation area where you receive water quality credit. We do not
want to lock ourselves in by formally saying it will be a conservation area, but that is a
possibility at this point. The steep terrain back would be very difficult to develop in the
future, so it would be a waste not to get some stormwater credit for it. Supervisor
Hooker commented from her perspective, unless it is actually proffered, she cannot
count on it at the point, but appreciate putting it in there and accept your good faith that
it could be added in. Supervisor Hooker stated core use is appropriate for this
development, she is just seeing so many little problematic things that are nagging at her
and would invite the rest of the Board to chime in at this point.
August 25, 2020
370
Supervisor North asked Mr. Thompson with C-2 High Intensity
Commercial District has many permitted uses as he looks through some of these, he
sees an asterisk by them under part A 30-54-2 permitted uses and it indicates that
asterisk says indicates additional modified or more stringent standards then listed in
Article 4, Use and Design Standards for those specific uses and specially in case the
hotel was not built because of economic conditions after the land was rezoning and
purchased, it has asterisks by convenience store, fuel center and gas stations, which is
something he believes might be believable on part of the property. What does the
asterisk mean in more definitive terms? Mr. Thompson responded in our ordinance we
have uses and then in Article 4, we have use and design standards. So, for certain
uses there are sometimes general standards, some time they deal with buffering,
limitations on building size, so depending on the use in the zoning district. Sometimes,
there are general standards that may be applicable to every single zoning district and
there may be specific standards associated with a particular zoning district. They put
more standards or limitations on that particular use.
Supervisor Radford asked if it would require an additional special use
permit. Mr. Thompson responded it depends, typically not but sometimes there is that
requirement. A lot of times, it deals with some site development issues, setbacks,
adjoining certain other uses like residential use types, buffers. Again, it depends on the
particular use. There are different standards for different things. Sometimes there is
minimum lot size requirements associated with a particular use. He would be happen to
pull the ordinance during the public hearing recess if you want specifics. Supervisor
Radford stated based on what you are saying, a drive through would not be a special
use permit with Mr. Thompson responding in the negative, stating it would be by right.
Mr. Thompson stated a general restaurant would be by right. A fast-food restaurant
could be instore would not require a special use, but there might be some standard that
would be associated with it. Sometimes with the fueling stations, depending on the
district they are located, may limit the number of pumps and sometimes there are
building size restrictions as well.
Supervisor Hooker commented she imagined the amount of site work that
has to be done on this property, it would be very difficult to get return on your
investment. She added when she is looking at the required buffered yard at the western
side of the property line, it says required buffered yard. In looking at the steepness of
the grade, she is wondering what would staff recommend in a situation like that? She
knows it is between AG-1 and C-2, so it should be a pretty significant buffer yard and
was wondering how that can be addressed on that kind of slope. Mr. Thompson stated
it would be a site plan development and part of the issue that you have with that location
is if you look at where the lines are closer together is grading. So, it does come down to
that buffer yard.
August 25, 2020
371
A lot of times what folks will do and we try to encourage is leave the
natural vegetation in place and that goes towards their credit so they don’t have to plant
so many trees. So, in some of those areas, that is what he would image they would try
to do. Where they have graded, obviously that would be more challenging and they
would have to plant that, but looking at that slope, it would be a challenge in that one
particular area. Supervisor Hooker then asked if we go back to the zoning map, what
would be required with the required buffer zone. Is it just with the houses to the west, is
that the only place. Mr. Thompson responded it would not have to do with I-1, if you go
back to the site plan, so all of this particular area remains undisturbed so there may be
some, but it may be ok. Supervisor Hooker then asked what about the back side, with
Mr. Thompson responded that backs up to I-1 and would not have to have a buffer.
Supervisor Radford asked with regard to the 4.4 acres and the credits, it is
really a hidden treasure. In the development world, we need land like that to pick up the
credits in case we don’t have enough room to do the quality. Mr. Lumsden responded
there are a number of ways to serve water quality. One, like we mentioned you can
conserve open space. Another way, there are different manufactured products that you
can have that are filtering devices and nowadays, we are in the Roanoke River
watershed and they allow for offsite nutrient credits to be purchased as well.
It is basically a nutrient bank broker has credits where they have done
open space on an abandoned farmland and now they are given credits to sell to a
developer. Supervisor Radford asked if you could use that as a potential area that
could be sold for credits, or just undisturbed. Mr. Lumsden responded it would be
undisturbed and we would conserve it for our use in meeting water quality requirements.
Supervisor Radford then stated it would have to be used internally with Mr. Lumsden
responding in the affirmative.
Supervisor Peter asked Mr. Thompson for clarification, he has heard
tonight about it being something other than a hotel/motel, but we cannot request a
proffered condition, it must come from the petitioner. Is that correct, with Mr. Thompson
responding in the affirmative. Mr. Thompson stated once you get to this point, the Board
of Supervisors public hearing, what has been submitted, if anything, is the proffers. You
could, if there were proffered conditions proposed, to do some modifications of those
that were submitted, but there is nothing you can do once the public hearing has started
to request them. It is the role of the Planning Commission to have those in place. They
should be finalized before they come before the Board’s public hearing.
August 25, 2020
372
Mr. Thompson stated the conversation regarding proffers was discussed.
Supervisor Peters stated it checks the other boxes. It is core designation, proximity to I-
81, which would fit, but he understands his colleagues concerns about, while we are
looking at it as a potential hotel, it could be a variety of things that we may not feel is
appropriate for the site. Mr. Thompson gave a brief overview as to what was
considered by the Planning Commission. Supervisor Peters stated he does not get
caught up in the expense of what it will cost to prepare the site or build the building
because that is not the job of the Board. He thinks the contractor/developer will make
the decision if it is feasible to go there. Our concern is the use of the property.
Supervisor Radford stated another factor would be value of the cost of the
land. You would not want that in a ratio to put a convenience store. There is a lot more
to it than what we can see as a Board.
Chairman Radford recessed the meeting from 8:14 p.m. until 8:24 p.m. to
allow for comment with no citizens to speak on this item.
Supervisor Mahoney commented from his perspective, the core land use
designation is in large measure determinant for me. He understands the problems with
topography, but that is a problem for the applicant. They have looked at it with their
engineers and if they think they can do it, that is their pocketbook problem. To me, the
one fundamental problem is, in his opinion, the inadequacy of Wildwood Road. Yes, it
is right off the interstate, but when you come off the interstate and you go a couple
hundreds of feet, Wildwood turns into basically a pig path. He is concerned about the
level of traffic that would be involved if this development is successful. Looking at our
agenda materials, 300-303, we have the list of all the permitted uses and all the uses
requiring a SUP in a C-2 District. As Mr. Thompson indicated, nobody is going to do
many of those; the one he could see potentially would be multi-family housing, but that
is challenge and it would have more adverse traffic impacts than a hotel. So, as a
matter of philosophy, he always likes the idea of real estate without conditions. The
Board is well aware that many of the applications we have looked at in the past have
been applications where people have come in and try to get rid of old proffered
conditions that have been sitting on property, limiting their uses for the last 20 or 30
years and all we are doing is cleaning up. So, if we really believe our zoning ordinance
is in good shape and our use and design standards are in good shape, and he thinks in
good measure they are, then we should be comfortable with an applicant coming before
us not proffering a lot of conditions. He knows it is hard because the pattern in the past,
the applicants have proffered all kinds of conditions to make us feel more comfortable.
With all of that, he sees some challenges to the development, but the challenges are
within the scope of what the applicant is searching for and if they have the economic
wherewithal to go forward with it, he wishes them luck and Godspeed.
August 25, 2020
373
Supervisor Hooker stated she is struggling with this petition and
Supervisor Mahoney mentioned what she had not said out loud, but did have in her
notes, the narrowing of the road. It goes from a fairly wide road, coming out of Salem,
passing the interstate exits and then it really does narrow considerably and while she
respects VDOT’s findings, she does think just for those residents in that area it will be
problematic. She believes that the houses that are in that immediate area are going to
suffer if this is developed and that is her concern with the impact of this on that
immediate community. She thinks, with the signage, as is allowed could be impactful to
those homes. It is just a very steep slope; she thinks we have all comments on the
steepness of the slope. It is going to be problematic in development and while that is
the developer’s right to do that, she is struggling with it. The worst case scenario would
be that in progress we make changes on that land and start scraping it, working on it
and then for some reason, the development stops and it becomes an eyesore for the
community. She could envision that being very problematic and hopefully that will never
happen. It would be a concern because of the expense of the site work. At this point,
she is not ready to support the petition.
Supervisor Peters stated that we have established that this is in a core
district. He feels like if the project does continue it would come back on VDOT for road
issues on Wildwood Road. Again, as he has stated before, the feasibility of the project
will be left to the financial institutions or whomever is writing the check for this. It is
going to be on them. It is not something we need to be spending a whole lot of time
with, but we have to go back to what we are called to do as far as the rezoning and
whether or not this fits what Roanoke County is looking for. As he said before, the
proximity of I-81, we need to think what is the best use for that property.
ORDINANCE 082520-9 REZONING APPROXIMATELY 9.99
ACRES FROM AG-1 (AGRICULTURAL/RURAL LOW DENSITY)
DISTRICT TO C-2 (HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOTEL/MOTEL/MOTOR
LODGE, LOCATED NEAR THE 2700 BLOCK OF WILDWOOD
ROAD AND THE 1700 BLOCK OF SKYVIEW ROAD, CATAWBA
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (TAX MAP NOS 044.04-01-07.00-0000
AND 044.04-01-12.00-0000)
WHEREAS, Om Shree Hospitality, LLC is requesting to rezone approximately
9.99 acres (located near the 2700 block of Wildwood Road and the 1700 block of
Skyview Road, in the Catawba Magisterial District) from an AG-1 (agricultural/rural low
density) district to a C-2 (high intensity commercial) district, for the construction of a
hotel/motel/motor lodge; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 28, 2020, and the
second reading and public hearing were held on August 25, 2020; and
August 25, 2020
374
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on August 4, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the petition as
requested; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. The petition of Om Shree Hospitality, LLC to rezone approximately 9.99
acres (located near the 2700 block of Wildwood Road and the 1700 block
of Skyview Road, in the Catawba Magisterial District) from an AG-1
(agricultural/rural low density) district to a C-2 (high intensity commercial)
district, for the construction of a hotel/motel/motor lodge, is approved;
2. The Board finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the purpose
and intent of the County’s Comprehensive Plan and good zoning practice,
and will not result in a substantial detriment to the community.
3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final
passage. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district
map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this
ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Mahoney and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: Supervisor Hooker
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor North stated he has a couple of comments on State broadband
funding, which this Board and the County are interested in. It has been increased from
the General Assembly as is proposed to go from $19 million to $50 million, of which $16
million will be unallotted. It had been frozen back in March in the General Assembly
and in this special session that means the earmarked $50 million will help address the
VATI grants. In year two of the budget, there will be $35 million, so the total went from
$38 million up to $85 million in the two-year budget forecast. What is interesting is there
have been some 47 applicants that applied for VATI grants for $105 million to complete
with just $50 million in funding. So, he hopes Roanoke County is granted funds for our
application. He thinks we will learn more about that next month after the committee
meets on those applications. Looking at County revenues, it looks like July showed a
$.5 million for the year. It looks like it is ahead of budget, although it is only 30 days’
worth of data, let’s hope that remains healthy and continues to grow for the remainder of
August 25, 2020
375
fiscal year 2021. On a school note, last week he went to Bonsack Elementary with the
School Superintendent along with the principal, Julie Leftwitch, at Bonsack and the
School Board representative David Linden. All teachers and staff were ready for the
school year and excited to get started. Social distancing and cleanliness was “numero
uno” at Bonsack. He wishes each and every one of the teachers a safe start to the year
and he does hope that all schools in Roanoke County will have a safe school year.
Supervisor Mahoney stated he had the pleasure last Saturday of touring
the renovated Cave Spring High School with Mr. Wray and Mr. Butzer. While there was
a fairly lengthy punch list that had to be finished, the school looked 99% completed and
it looked really good. A lot of the teachers had prepared their classrooms and were
ready to start school. Antecotedly, his granddaughter started elementary school at
Penn Forrest and is very excited and everything seemed to work yesterday. She’s on
the Monday, Thursday cycle. Finally, he thanked the support of his colleagues here on
the Board with respect to the adoption of the ordinance that we walked on today for
utilizing the Brambleton Center as a satellite facility. He thanked the members of the
Electoral Board. We had a lot of conversations and with Mr. Lubeck over the past
couple of weeks, and a lot of conversations with Supervisors Radford and North. He
thinks it is an exciting opportunity to try to create a system so that come November we
don’t have a disaster at our elections. The more steps that we can take to help our
citizens vote this November, is a positive step. Now, he would hope that the General
Assembly function with a little more dispatch and speed and if they do, there is some
legislation that is currently winding its way through the General Assembly and if that
legislation goes forward, he would hope that we would then have an opportunity to
maybe, through the Registrar, to designate some other facilities in other parts of the
County to help our citizens to vote absentee in person. He is not a fan of drop boxes.
He thinks it is important that those facilities be secure and the people who are
submitting their ballots are verified and checked off on the electronic poll books, but he
thinks we can do those things if we get some help from our General Assembly.
Supervisor Hooker stated first and foremost, she appreciates the dialog on
this petition and she does wish them Godspeed in that development. She hopes it is a
great project. Thank you Board members for that good dialog. Next, she wanted to
feed off of what Supervisor Mahoney mentioned about the polling places and voting
absentee. She reminded the public that their regular polling places will be open and
that where you normally vote, you can still normally go to that place and vote. They will
be open for business. Schools reopening has been so successful and she is really
proud of the teachers, the administration and everyone who has worked so hard to get
this good opening of the schools. It has been exceptional; she has been in the schools
the last two days as a teacher herself and she is really proud of the way the students
have interacted, stayed safe and all the prep and work that went into the schools. She
August 25, 2020
376
is very proud of that. Finally, she has one note and knows the library is celebrating and
really appreciates what Shari Henry has done because this month is an important
th
month in the celebration of the centennial anniversary of the 19 Amendment giving the
opportunity of women’s constitutional right to vote. Celebrate with her in that very
important thing exceptional, really proud of the students, stayed safe. Finally, this
th
month centennial anniversary of the 19 amendment.
Supervisor Radford stated he was not going to repeat what Supervisor
Mahoney and Supervisor said, ditto on both of those. He did visit a school and went
through the same process that Supervisor North and Supervisor Mahoney went
through. One thing he does want to talk about and comment on is we have been
getting emails and calls about why our Registrar Office was moved out of this building.
The Registrar Office was too small on the first floor. It did not have enough space, they
needed room so they could store their equipment and interact with the public. They
needed close to 7,000 square feet. They needed storage for their equipment. The
building that they went to, The Craig Center, was in existing inventory. It was available
and it did not cost us anything. So, there is no cost to the taxpayers. Now, he will admit
COVID-19 sped this up a little bit, to move them toward that, but tonight we heard in our
early session, we have made the Brambleton Center a satellite office for absentee
voting. He expects that down the road, the Brambleton Center will have more functions
other than the absentee voting. Like Supervisors Mahoney and North said, depending
on the legislation that is going through the cycle, we might end up with more
opportunities to vote somewhere. We have citizens that have asked that so we will be
reaching out to them in case they haven’t heard this tonight, but we will be letting them
know the reason why we had to move the Registrar’s Office.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Radford adjourned the meeting at 8:39 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
________________________ ___________________________________
Deborah C. Jacks David F. Radford
Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board Chairman