HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/8/2020 - Regular - DRAFT September 8, 2020
377
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 second Tuesday and the first
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of September 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 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 3:02 p.m. The roll call
was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman David F. Radford; Supervisors Martha B. Hooker
(by phone), Paul M. Mahoney, Phil C. North and P. Jason
Peters (by phone)
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: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution requesting the Planning Commission to review and
make recommendations regarding the regulation of short-term
rental properties and temporary construction yards for public
infrastructure projects (Philip Thompson, Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the request for the resolution.
September 8, 2020
378
Supervisor Mahoney commented he is supportive of adopting the
resolution. His concerns or questions he has are with respect to the short-term rental.
He is familiar with the difficulties other jurisdictions have wrestling with these kinds of
issues; fight with Air B&B. Do you have a sense of what the staff recommendation
might be for the commission at this point? Mr. Thompson advised in a previous life, he
worked in Bedford County and the bigger issue there with Smith Mountain Lake and
short-term rentals of properties, in particular with a vacation rental. So, there it was
more looking at how you permit. It was more of how to permit versus a special use
permit. The reason was because there were so many. So, in the case, he thinks there
are fewer instances of short-term rental might make sense to require a special use
permit. It is either that or recommend with Use and Design Standards, allow by right
and require a permit that has to be renewed every so often. Therefore, if there are
issued that are raised we have the chance to either revoke the permit or not issue the
permit based on the standards. The thing about the special use permit, it does allow
the neighborhood to have a say; which can be good or bad depending on your
perspective. Again, we have not had a lot of these, just a couple of instances, so it
might be the better way to handle it. We will look at both options and see what the
Planning Commission recommends. He would image some type of permit with a
special use permit for an issuance of a permit that is only good for so many years and
has to be renewed. So, if there are instances of violations and things happening to go
back and deal with those issues. Supervisor Mahoney stated from his familiarity with
those kinds of problems, it always comes down to enforcement. How do you effectively
enforce it and how do you keep track of it. With respect to the second issue with the
temporary construction yards, from what you have looked at in terms of what other
jurisdictions have done, what is temporary; 3 months, 6 months, a year? Mr. Thompson
advised he thinks they use the word temporary as the length of the construction project.
It is temporary in the fact that it is not a permanent location. The permit could be based
on some projects could be up to a two-year project. Temporary being that once the
project is done, it is reestablished and go back to the state it was beforehand. Part of
the issue is, depending on what type of project it is, it could be in almost any zoning
district. So, some of the regulations deal with the yard itself; screening and buffering,
lighting. There is also some preliminary information about how far that is located to and
has to be located within a certain distance to the construction project. Supervisor
Mahoney stated the other concern, with respect to the temporary construction yards, his
familiarity is more a sense of where you had a subdivision and you had a developer of
that subdivision and would take one of the lots in the subdivision, push all the dirt from
the grading onto one of the lots; store all of the equipment on that lot and it would seem
arguably to be temporary while you are developing that subdivision, but it goes on and
one. Where you have the pile of dirt is where you have their erosion and sediment
issues, etc. He does not know how you would address that, but that is the sort of
complaint that he can always remember hearing historically. What you are suggesting
here and whether it is a water and sewer project or whether it is what is occurring now
September 8, 2020
379
on Route 419, those seem to be a cleaner approach that can be addressed almost
administratively, which would be a great idea. Again, it comes down to enforcement.
His final question is we can have a debate over what the public use might be, but if he is
digging a trench and putting water and sewer lines in or conduit for broadband, he does
not know to distinguish digging a trench and putting in a natural gas pipeline in. Those
all seem to be to him similarly situated activities that he does not want to put the County
in the position where we are treated similarly situated construction activities differently.
He wants to be careful. Mr. Thompson advised he thinks once we get into it and look at
it, he thinks those would probably be considered public utilities. Stormwater could be
another one. We would look at how we define that public infrastructure project to make
sure we cover all of our bases and probably have a catch-all phrase. The Zoning
Administrator would make that determination.
Supervisor North commented when he first came on the Board in 2018,
there was a concerned citizen in his district that complained about a home across the
street being used for rental purposes and he did not believe that the owner was home in
compliance with the Code. So, we turned it over to Community Development and they
looked into it. They found that the owner was living there. In any instance, Bed and
Breakfasts in Roanoke County, we don’t have a lot, are they subject to the hotel tax that
the hotels and motels have. Mr. Thompson responded it is his understanding they are
supposed to pay the lodging tax. So, these homes that are being utilized for short-term
rentals that are not so called Bed and Breakfasts remains to be seen. Mr. Thompson
advised they would be one of the standards that we look at. Supervisor North stated
going forward, he would like to ask staff how many Bed and Breakfasts we have in
Roanoke County and the amount of revenue we collect from those. Perhaps, it can
come back to us once the Planning Commission determines their point of view.
Supervisor Radford stated as a follow-up from Supervisor Mahoney, in
regards to the methods on how you would go about, you mentioned SUP. He would
hate to see us go down that road. Some of the localities that he deals with where he
has rental units, there is business license that you have to get when you sign up for one
of those. With that business license, you have to follow the zoning laws. To him, it
seems less onerous and enforceable from the business license point of view. Mr.
Thompson responded part of it deals with whether we go with that approach or a by
right use with standards are established in Article IV, and then we issue a permit for that
use that listing the zoning standards and they sign off on them when they get the permit,
which is similar to other permits in the County. It could be either way, but they want
some type of permit issued.
RESOLUTION 090820-1 DIRECTING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION TO REVIEW AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS
ON THE REGULATION OF (1) SHORT-TERM RENTAL
PROPERTIES AND (2) TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION YARDS
FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
September 8, 2020
380
WHEREAS, § 30-14 of the Roanoke County Code provides that amendments to
the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance may be initiated by resolution of the Board; and
WHEREAS, during the past year, two issues have been raised to Roanoke
County staff that the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance currently does not address
adequately, namely the regulation of (1) short-term rental properties and (2) temporary
construction yards for public infrastructure projects; and
WHEREAS, public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning
practice require consideration of amendments to the Roanoke County Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to the regulation of (1) short-term rental properties and (2)
temporary construction yards for public infrastructure projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, as follows:
1. That it directs the Planning Commission to review and make
recommendations on the regulation of (1) short-term rental properties and (2) temporary
construction yards for public infrastructure projects.
On motion of Supervisor North to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
2. Resolutions requesting changes in the Virginia Department of
Transportation Secondary System of State Highways (Megan
Cronise, Transportation Planning Administrator)
Ms. Cronise outlined the request for resolutions. There was no discussion.
a. Resolution requesting changes in the Virginia Department of
Transportation Secondary System of State Highways, Route
1815, LaMarre Drive; Hollins Magisterial District
RESOLUTION 090820-2 REQUESTING CHANGES IN THE VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY SYSTEM OF
STATE HIGHWAYS, ROUTE 1815, LA MARRE DRIVE; HOLLINS
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has completed Project
0011-080-F05, the Route 11 Realignment Project; and
September 8, 2020
381
WHEREAS, the project sketch and VDOT Form AM-4.3, attached and
incorporated herein as part of this resolution, defines adjustments necessary in the
Secondary System of State Highways as a result of Project 0011-080-F05; and
WHEREAS, certain segments identified in the incorporated Form AM-4.3 appear
to no longer serve public convenience and should be abandoned as part of the
Secondary System of State Highways; and
WHEREAS, certain segments identified in the incorporated Form AM-4.3 are
ready to be accepted into the Secondary System of State Highways; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Board of Supervisors hereby requests the Virginia Department of
Transportation to take the necessary action to abandon those segments
identified on the attached project sketch and Form AM-4.3 as part of the
Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to §33.2-912, Code of
Virginia, and
2. The Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation
to add the segments identified on the attached project sketch and Form AM-
4.3 to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to §33.2-705, Code
of Virginia, and
3. A certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the VDOT Salem
Residency, by the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
On motion of Supervisor North to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Mahoney and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
b. Resolution requesting changes in the Virginia Department of
Transportation Secondary System of State Highways, Route
636, Glade Creek Road, Vinton Magisterial District
RESOLUTION 090820-3 REQUESTING CHANGES IN THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY
SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS, ROUTE 636, GLADE CREEK
ROAD; VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has completed Project
0636-080-282, the Route 636 Realignment Project; and
September 8, 2020
382
WHEREAS, the project sketch and VDOT Form AM-4.3, attached and
incorporated herein as part of this resolution, defines adjustments necessary in the
Secondary System of State Highways as a result of Project 0636-080-282; and
WHEREAS, certain segments identified in the incorporated Form AM-4.3 appear
to no longer serve public convenience and should be abandoned as part of the
Secondary System of State Highways; and
WHEREAS, certain segments identified in the incorporated Form AM-4.3 are
ready to be accepted into the Secondary System of State Highways; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Board of Supervisors hereby requests the Virginia Department of
Transportation to take the necessary action to abandon those segments
identified on the attached project sketch and Form AM-4.3 as part of the
Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to §33.2-912, Code of Virginia,
and
2. The Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation
to add the segments identified on the attached project sketch and Form AM-
4.3 to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to §33.2-705, Code
of Virginia, and
3. A certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the VDOT Salem
Residency, by the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
c. Resolution requesting changes in the Virginia Department of
Transportation Secondary System of State Highways, Route
613, Merriman Road; Route 907, Ranchcrest Drive, Cave Spring
Magisterial District
RESOLUTION 090820-4 REQUESTING CHANGES IN THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY
SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS, ROUTE 613, MERRIMAN
ROAD; ROUTE 907, RANCHCREST DRIVE; CAVE SPRING
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has completed Project
0613-080-226, the Route 613 Realignment Project; and
September 8, 2020
383
WHEREAS, the project sketch and VDOT Form AM-4.3, attached and
incorporated herein as part of this resolution, defines adjustments necessary in the
Secondary System of State Highways as a result of Project 0613-080-226; and
WHEREAS, certain segments identified in the incorporated Form AM-4.3 appear
to no longer serve public convenience and should be abandoned as part of the
Secondary System of State Highways; and
WHEREAS, certain segments identified in the incorporated Form AM-4.3 are
ready to be accepted into the Secondary System of State Highways; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Board of Supervisors hereby requests the Virginia Department of
Transportation to take the necessary action to abandon those segments
identified on the attached project sketch and Form AM-4.3 as part of the
Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to §33.2-912, Code of
Virginia, and
2. The Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation
to add the segments identified on the attached project sketch and Form AM-
4.3 to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to §33.2-705, Code
of Virginia, and
3. A certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the VDOT Salem
Residency, by the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
d. Resolution requesting changes in the Virginia Department of
Transportation Secondary System of State Highways, Route
668, Yellow Mountain Road; Route 667, Mayland Road; Route
915, Cox Hopkins Road; Vinton Magisterial District
RESOLUTION 090820-5 REQUESTING CHANGES IN THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY
SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS, ROUTE 668, YELLOW
MOUNTAIN ROAD; ROUTE 667, MAYLAND ROAD; ROUTE 915,
COX HOPKINS ROAD; VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has completed Project
0668-080-229, the Route 668 Realignment Project; and
WHEREAS, the project sketch and VDOT Form AM-4.3, attached and
incorporated herein as part of this resolution, defines adjustments necessary in the
Secondary System of State Highways as a result of Project 0668-080-229; and
September 8, 2020
384
WHEREAS, certain segments identified in the incorporated Form AM-4.3 appear
to no longer serve public convenience and should be abandoned as part of the
Secondary System of State Highways; and
WHEREAS, certain segments identified in the incorporated Form AM-4.3 are
ready to be accepted into the Secondary System of State Highways; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Board of Supervisors hereby requests the Virginia Department of
Transportation to take the necessary action to abandon those segments
identified on the attached project sketch and Form AM-4.3 as part of the
Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to §33.2-912, Code of
Virginia, and
2. The Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation
to add the segments identified on the attached project sketch and Form AM-
4.3 to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to §33.2-705, Code
of Virginia, and
3. A certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the VDOT Salem
Residency, by the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
e. Resolution requesting changes in the Virginia Department of
Transportation Secondary System of State Highways, Route
670, Lost Mountain Road; Windsor Hills Magisterial District
RESOLUTION 090820-6 REQUESTING CHANGES IN THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY
SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS, ROUTE 670, LOST MOUNTAIN
ROAD; WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has completed Project
0670-080-284, the Route 670 Realignment Project; and
WHEREAS, the project sketch and VDOT Form AM-4.3, attached and
incorporated herein as part of this resolution, defines adjustments necessary in the
Secondary System of State Highways as a result of Project 0670-080-284; and
WHEREAS, certain segments identified in the incorporated Form AM-4.3 appear
to no longer serve public convenience and should be abandoned as part of the
Secondary System of State Highways; and
September 8, 2020
385
WHEREAS, certain segments identified in the incorporated Form AM-4.3 are
ready to be accepted into the Secondary System of State Highways; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Board of Supervisors hereby requests the Virginia Department of
Transportation to take the necessary action to abandon those segments
identified on the attached project sketch and Form AM-4.3 as part of the
Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to §33.2-912, Code of
Virginia, and
2. The Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation
to add the segments identified on the attached project sketch and Form AM-
4.3 to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to §33.2-705, Code
of Virginia, and
3. A certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the VDOT Salem
Residency, by the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
On motion of Supervisor Radford to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor Mahoney and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
f. Resolution requesting changes in the Virginia Department of
Transportation Secondary System of State Highways, Route
715, Pine Needle Drive; Cave Spring Magisterial District
RESOLUTION 090820-7 REQUESTING CHANGES IN THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY
SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS, ROUTE 715, PINE NEEDLE
DRIVE; CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has completed Project
6220-080-111, the Route 220 Realignment Project; and
WHEREAS, the project sketch and VDOT Form AM-4.3, attached and
incorporated herein as part of this resolution, defines adjustments necessary in the
Secondary System of State Highways as a result of Project 6220-080-111; and
WHEREAS, certain segments identified in the incorporated Form AM-4.3 appear
to no longer serve public convenience and should be abandoned as part of the
Secondary System of State Highways; and
WHEREAS, certain segments identified in the incorporated Form AM-4.3 are
ready to be accepted into the Secondary System of State Highways; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Board of Supervisors hereby requests the Virginia Department of
Transportation to take the necessary action to abandon those segments
September 8, 2020
386
identified on the attached project sketch and Form AM-4.3 as part of the
Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to §33.2-912, Code of
Virginia, and
2. The Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation
to add the segments identified on the attached project sketch and Form AM-
4.3 to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to §33.2-705, Code
of Virginia, and
3. A certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the VDOT Salem
Residency, by the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
g. Resolution requesting changes in the Virginia Department of
Transportation Secondary System of State Highways, Route
628, Wood Haven Road; Catawba Magisterial District
RESOLUTION 090820-8 REQUESTING CHANGES IN THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY
SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS, ROUTE 628, WOOD HAVEN
ROAD; CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has completed Project
0628-080-232, the Route 628 Realignment Project; and
WHEREAS, the project sketch and VDOT Form AM-4.3, attached and
incorporated herein as part of this resolution, defines adjustments necessary in the
Secondary System of State Highways as a result of Project 0628-080-232; and
WHEREAS, certain segments identified in the incorporated Form AM-4.3 appear
to no longer serve public convenience and should be abandoned as part of the
Secondary System of State Highways; and
WHEREAS, certain segments identified in the incorporated Form AM-4.3 are
ready to be accepted into the Secondary System of State Highways; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Board of Supervisors hereby requests the Virginia Department of
Transportation to take the necessary action to abandon those segments
identified on the attached project sketch and Form AM-4.3 as part of the
Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to §33.2-912, Code of
Virginia, and
2. The Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation
September 8, 2020
387
to add the segments identified on the attached project sketch and Form AM-
4.3 to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to §33.2-705, Code
of Virginia, and
3. A certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the VDOT Salem
Residency, by the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
On motion of Supervisor Hooker to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
h. Resolution requesting changes in the Virginia Department of
Transportation Secondary System of State Highways, Route
720, Colonial Avenue; Route 687, Penn Forest Boulevard;
Route 1693, Vest Drive; Route 1991; Colonial Place Drive;
Route 521, Girard Drive; Cave Spring Magisterial District
RESOLUTION 090820-9 REQUESTING CHANGES IN THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY
SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS, ROUTE 720, COLONIAL
AVENUE; ROUTE 687, PENN FOREST BOULEVARD; ROUTE
1693, VEST DRIVE; ROUTE 1991; COLONIAL PLACE DRIVE;
ROUTE 1521, GIRARD DRIVE; CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has completed Project
0720-080-299, the Route 720 Realignment Project; and
WHEREAS, the project sketch and VDOT Form AM-4.3, attached and
incorporated herein as part of this resolution, defines adjustments necessary in the
Secondary System of State Highways as a result of Project 0720-080-299; and
WHEREAS, certain segments identified in the incorporated Form AM-4.3 appear
to no longer serve public convenience and should be abandoned as part of the
Secondary System of State Highways; and
WHEREAS, certain segments identified in the incorporated Form AM-4.3 are
ready to be accepted into the Secondary System of State Highways; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Board of Supervisors hereby requests the Virginia Department of
Transportation to take the necessary action to abandon those segments
identified on the attached project sketch and Form AM-4.3 as part of the
Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to §33.2-912, Code of
Virginia, and
September 8, 2020
388
2. The Board of Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation
to add the segments identified on the attached project sketch and Form AM-
4.3 to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to §33.2-705, Code
of Virginia, and
3. A certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the VDOT Salem
Residency, by the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
3. Request to affirm the recommendation of the County
Administrator to transfer funds in the amount of $1,345,000 to the
Public Service Center capital project and award separate
contracts to Thor Construction for the base bid related to the
Hollins Road scope of work and to S. Lewis Lionberger
Construction for the base bid related to the Pre-engineered scope
of work as bid per Roanoke County Invitation to Bid #2020-065
(Rob Light, Director of General Services)
A-090822-10
Mr. Light outlined the request.
Supervisor Mahoney asked with regard to the funds transferred from the
Center for Research and Technology are in the County or EDA; his point being do we
need the EDA also to approve the transfer with Ms. Owens advising the funds currently
exist in Roanoke County Capital Fund and no action is required by the EDA.
Supervisor North thanked Mr. Light for all his work, commented he is sorry
that Mr. Light would not be here to see the project through. He indicated this is a big
step forward. There was no further discussion.
Supervisor North moved to approve the staff recommendation to approve
the staff recommends and Supervisor Mahoney seconded the motion. Motion
approved by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYES: None
September 8, 2020
389
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING
1. Public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding a proposed
amendment to the fiscal year 2020-2021 budget in order to
appropriate Cares Act funds, in accordance with Code of Virginia
Section 15.2-2507 (Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and
Management Services)
Chairman Radford opened the public hearing from 3:35 p.m. until 3:45 p.m.
There were no citizens to speak concerning this agenda item.
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance accepting and appropriating funds in the amount of
$8,217,365 from the Commonwealth of Virginia for the locally-
based allocation distributed as a component of the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act of 2020 (Due to
the Pandemic Disaster, it is requested, upon a four-fifths vote of
the Board, the second reading be waived and the ordinance
adopted as an emergency measure) (Laurie Gearheart, Director
of Finance and Management Services)
Ms. Gearheart outlined the request for ordinance.
Supervisor Peters advised there were two things he would like to notate at
the time. He knows we are not allocating additional funding, but he thinks he has
heard from other Supervisors talking about adding on a rider to this motion that it will
be subject to any further appropriations will be subject to Board of Supervisors
approval. There are two things he is concerned about. First, he is very thankful for
Jill Loope and her team in Economic Development for putting up the grant money,
but as we have seen across the United States, our small businesses are the core of
our communities and he would like to see more money put into that and possibly
reoccurring so that three (3) months after someone has received funds, they may be
able eligible for it again. Secondly, is the continued Hazard Pay and he has
expressed this before, but he would like to see some language that money that is
not allocated at this point would have to come back to the Board for allocation.
Ms. Gearheart responded in the first allocation, we had a little bit of money
that was designated as undefined and we went ahead and held that money back,
but then worked with the Board and through memos, we updated the Board and
gave the Board the opportunity to give input as we allocated that money back out
and did other things with it. So, we did not do anything without the knowledge and
consensus of the Board.
September 8, 2020
390
For example, we did not have Hazard Pay in the first round when the budget was
brought to the Board, however, as we worked through some things, we took some of the
unallocated funds, did a Board Report to the Board and asked for Hazard Pay to be
paid. We anticipated with the second round that we would be doing the same thing. As
she had shared with Supervisor Radford, we received a letter on July 28, 2020, that we
received the money and on July 31, 2020, we received an email advising part of the
requirement to receive this money you have to fill out a survey and tell us how you plan
on spending it and it is due by August 10, 2020. Accordingly, they had to regroup and
come up with the categories. We did work with the Departments so we purposely held
back some money so that we can revisit possibly doing another round for our Small
Businesses. We have also talked about doing something for the not for profits that we
have not helped very much with the allocations that we have done so far. We have
looked at the food and security in the foodbanks. So, there are several things, including
a second round of Hazard Pay, so those are the types of items we are looking to do with
the undefined money, but again we would not do anything without letting the Board
know.
Supervisor Peters stated he appreciated the allocation, but as he had read
the Board packet, it just basically said we are allocated $8.217 million and gave the
breakdown of the $3.3 left over with nothing clarifying how we were going to allocate
that money rather than through this one disbursement. Ms. Gearheart responded from
an accounting perspective, we put that money in what we called a deferred revenue
account and as we allocate the budget out and as we spend it, then we move the
monies. She reiterated that she does not allow any spending without Board approval.
Mr. O’Donnell reiterated that staff would not do anything with the
unallocated amount before consensus of the Board. The process worked very well last
time and we expect to do the same this time. The mount is larger this time because
several things could happen. If Congress begins to talk to each other, there are a
couple of bills that are under discussion at the Federal level, one of which might extend
the time frame for the expenditure of these funds. If that happens, it will give staff more
flexibility. There also could be funds coming from the Federal government that would
go directly to schools, so we are holding back some of the requests from the schools in
case that happens. They are trying to be flexible, but certainly would not do anything
with the unallocated amount without the consensus of the Board.
Supervisor North stated to add some more fodder to the discussion, we
are having a work session later today and he understands Ms. Gearheart, Ms. Owens
and Mr. O’Donnell will be presenting more information on this subject and we will be
able to have more discussion at that time.
September 8, 2020
391
ORDINANCE 090820-11 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,217,365 FROM THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FOR THE LOCALITY-BASED
ALLOCATION DISTRIBUTED AS A COMPONENT OF THE
CORONAVIRUS AID, RELIEF, AND ECONOMIC SECURITY
(CARES) ACT OF 2020
WHEREAS, in response to the present Coronavirus pandemic, on March 17,
2020, the Board of Supervisors confirmed the County Administrator’s declaration of
state of emergency effective March 16, 2020, subsequent to declarations of states of
emergency by the President of the United States and the Governor of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, following such declarations of emergency, the United States
Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act,
which established a $150 billion Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) to assist state, local,
territorial and tribal governments with direct costs associated with the Coronavirus
pandemic; and
WHEREAS, Virginia’s allocation of these funds is $3.1 billion; and
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2020, the Virginia Secretary of Finance notified the
County that its second allocation of funds made available through the CARES Act is
$8,217,365; and
WHEREAS, these funds may be used only for qualifying expenses; the CARES
Act provides that payments from the CRF may only be used to cover costs that 1) are
necessary expenditures incurred due to the public health emergency with respect to the
Coronavirus disease; 2) were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved
as of March 27, 2020 (the date of enactment of the CARES Act); and 3) were incurred
during the period that begins on March 1, 2020, and ends on December 30, 2020.
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 8, 2020;
and because County Administration would like to make such funds immediately
available for County 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.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the sum of $8,217,365, made available to the County through the
Commonwealth of Virginia from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act, is accepted.
2. The sum of $8,217,365 is hereby appropriated to the County’s Grant
Fund, 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 measure
and subject to future Board consensus regarding the unallocated $3.3 million amount;
seconded by Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
September 8, 2020
392
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
Supervisor Mahoney commented for any of our citizens who may not have
access to our agenda materials, he thinks it is important to let our citizens know the
support the County is providing through this CARES Act funding of over $1.3 million for
broadband expansion. Next, our support for our schools at $1.174 million and also
helping our friends in Vinton with $706,000, as well as all the personal protective
equipment, cleaning and other steps we are taking. As Supervisor North pointed out,
we will have more detail at our work session later this afternoon. He added it is
important that we convey to our citizens some of the support we are trying to provide
them with the CARES Act funding to try to address many of the problems they are
suffering through and as Supervisor Peters commented, we have had a very helpful and
successful imitative in terms of helping our small businesses in Roanoke County and as
Ms. Gearheart indicated now we can start looking at helping some of the non-profits.
He thinks there are a lot of good things coming out of a bad situation.
Supervisor North added that while we have been talking, he has come up
with five (5) items that far exceed the $3.3 million. So what we have here, and it is great
we have so much need and demand and alternatives to spend the money, but we don’t
have the dollars to meet all the needs. He is sure going forward we will do what is best
th
and we have time to do that because even through it is December 30, we have lost
almost a month or more because of the regulation and wouldn’t it be nice if Congress
were to extend the deadline into the end of the fiscal year June 30, 2021, to give
everyone time to pause and let these requests and needs out. Schools asked for $4
million and we are giving them $1.2 later on today, so we have given them the priority
amounts and like Mr. O’Donnell said, when Congress decides to go back to work,
maybe something else that will be directed to them as well as small businesses.
2. Ordinance approving a Site Use Agreement between New River
Valley 911 Authority (NRV) and the County of Roanoke for use of
a tower located on Poor Mountain, 8487 Honeysuckle Road;
Windsor Hills Magisterial District and accepting and
appropriating $3,600 for the term of the lease (Bill Hunter,
Director of Communications and Information Technology)
Mr. Hunter outlined the request for ordinance. There was no discussion.
Supervisor North’s motion to approve the first reading and set the second
reading for September 22, 2020 was seconded by Supervisor Radford and approved by
the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
September 8, 2020
393
3. Emergency ordinance readopting Ordinance 033120-1 to
effectuate temporary changes in certain deadline and to modify
public meeting and public hearing practices and procedures to
address continuity of operations associated with pandemic
disaster (Due to the Pandemic Disaster, it is requested, upon a
four-fifths vote of the Board, the second reading be waived and
the ordinance adopted as an emergency measure) (Peter S.
Lubeck, County Attorney)
Mr. Lubeck outlined the request. There was no discussion.
EMERGENCY 090820-12 ORDINANCE READOPTING
ORDINANCE 033120-1, TO EFFECTUATE TEMPORARY
CHANGES IN CERTAIN DEADLINES
AND
TO MODIFY PUBLIC MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING
PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES TO ADDRESS CONTINUITY
OF OPERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PANDEMIC DISASTER
WHEREAS, on March 31, 2020, the Board adopted emergency Ordinance
033120-1, to effectuate temporary changes in certain deadlines and to modify public
meeting and public hearing practices and procedures to address continuity of
operations associated with the COVID-19 pandemic disaster; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15.2-1427 of the Code of Virginia, emergency
ordinances shall not be enforced for more than sixty (60) days unless readopted; and
WHEREAS, the Board readopted the ordinance on May 26, 2020 and July 14,
2020; and
WHEREAS, due to the ongoing nature of the COVID -19 pandemic, it is again
proposed that the Board readopt Ordinance 033120-1; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 8, 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Roanoke, Virginia:
1. That Ordinance 033120-1 is hereby readopted.
2. An emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordinance shall be effective upon its
adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the ordinance, seconded by
Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
September 8, 2020
394
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. 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)
Mr. Light advised there were no changes since the first reading held on
August 25, 2020. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 090820-13 AUTHORIZING THE VACATION OF A
TWENTY (20)-FOOT, SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT AND
GRANTING OF A NEW TWENTY (20)-FOOT, SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT TO THE WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY
ACROSS PROPERTY OWNED BY ROANOKE COUNTY TO
FACILITATE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AT THE
COUNTY’S GENERAL SERVICES LOCATION ON KESSLER
MILL ROAD (TAX MAP NO 036.03-01-01.00.0000)
WHEREAS, Roanoke County is undertaking a series of capital improvement
projects, including a construction project at its General Services Facility at 1206 and
1216 Kessler Mill Road, Salem, Virginia 24153 (“Kessler Mill”); and
WHEREAS such construction project will otherwise encroach upon an existing
sanitary, sewer easement on Kessler Mill; and
WHEREAS, for purposes of long-term planning, it is necessary to have a
sanitary, sewer easement on the Kessler Mill property; and
WHEREAS, such vacating the existing easement and granting a new easement
will not have an adverse impact on the County’s public right of way; and
WHEREAS, the vacation of the existing sanitary sewer easement and grant of
new sanitary sewer easement is more fully depicted on the attached plat and
incorporated by reference herein; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the
first reading of this ordinance was held on August 25, 2020, and the second reading and
public hearing was held on September 8, 2020.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the County shall vacate the existing twenty-foot, sanitary sewer
easement and grant a new twenty-foot sanitary, sewer easement to the Western
September 8, 2020
395
Virginia Water Authority on the County’s Kessler Mill property, located at 1206 and 1216
Kessler Mill Road, Salem, Virginia 24153, which parcel is more specifically identified on
Tax Map No. 036.03-01-01.00.0000, and the vacated easement and new easement are
shown on the attached plat prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., and such
conveyance is hereby authorized and approved.
2. That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrators,
either of whom may act, are authorized to execute, deliver and record the deeds, and
any other documents on behalf of the County and to take all such further action as any
of them may deem necessary or desirable in connection with this project. The form of
the deed is hereby approved with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes
as the County Administrator may approve, whose approval shall be evidenced
conclusively by the execution and delivery thereof, all of which shall be approved as to
form by the County Attorney.
3. That this ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of its
adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the ordinance, seconded by
Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance amending Article 1 (General Provisions), Article II
(Definitions and Use Types) and Article III (District Regulations)
of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance regarding floodplain
regulations (Philip Thompson, Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the request for ordinance. There was no
discussion.
Chairman Radford opened the public hearing at 4:10 p.m. until 4:20 p.m.
The following citizens send in emailed comments:
Roberta Bondurant of 11577 Bottom Creek Rd Bent Mountain advised “I
will make every effort to listen to the meeting today— I appreciate Mr. Thompsons effort
at a thorough response to the board , Nevertheless, the relative speed, for us, at which
this draft has come before the board and public from the planning commission, and
what seems to our community, heavily concerned with floodplain protection and
individual, government and community responsibilities, to be a less than adequate
chance for the public to review and understand the draft statute, moves me to repeat my
request that the Board set decision making on the matter over to the next Board
September 8, 2020
396
Meeting. I explained some concerns of our community —in particular that those resident
members and community who would normally be educating themselves on the statute
and making efforts to address any concerns— or to support the statute as it’s written —
have been heavily involved in FERC and VADEQ matters, eminent domain
proceedings, health concerns including life, death and bereavement issues, only some
of which relate to Covid 19 matters. The Covid crisis in Southwest Va should in itself be
sufficient for the board to consider setting this matter over for the next board hearing.
Please note that I and other citizens attended the March planning commission hearing,
among other meetings and calls related to this matter, in the last several years.
Together with other members of pbm, We are not either critiquing or urging passage or
denial of this statute —we are simply asking for thorough process—for a relatively brief
period of time to better review and understand it. Thank you for your consideration.”
Bonnie Law of Boones Mill, Virginia advised, “I am formally requesting you
remove the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance / floodplain ordinance agenda item from
your regularly scheduled September 8, 2020 Board of Supervisor meeting later today to
be rescheduled due to the following problematic areas. There appears to be no official
signed staff report by any county staffer submitted to the Board of Supervisors in your
Sept. 8, 2020 packet and there also appears to be no information regarding an official
staff report signed by any county staffer included on the government website under the
agenda and minutes link for today's meeting for any public view. Did Mr. Workman in
Stormwater MNGMT Operations submit an official recommendation? If so, where is it
located ? If not why not? This is not open and transparent government. There was a
Board work session on August 11, 2020 and per the official archived minutes on the
county government there is absolutely no record of any discussions regarding direct
specific citizens' concerns at the March 3, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION meeting
surrounding this agenda item in the August 11, 2020 document.. Were the prior citizen
concerns discussed during August 11, 2020 work session If so, why are there no
records in this archived document ? If the Board did NOT address previous direct
citizens' concerns, then why not? Where is Mr. Workman's supposed power point
presentation presented to the Board ? Why is this not available for public view prior to
any public hearing for today. I did note comment in this August 11, 2020 archived
document you included flood community rating information. What about all the other
prior concerns raised by citizens ? This is not open and transparent government. Your
very own website encourages people NOT to attend a public hearing due to Covid and
per recent county estimates approximate 33 percent of area citizens are living in
underserved or non-served broadband areas. This is not open and transparent
government. One of the great things about a true public comment period is where
citizens can physically attend, come in the Board Room, line up and make comments
because you never know what we all might learn that can be of great value. This
floodplain ordinance is complicated and involved and a more in depth review by the
Board of Supvervisors is plainly required. The underlying problems of decades of
chronic deficit FEMA funding, lack of federal insurance requirements, insurable or non-
September 8, 2020
397
insurable structures, problematic classes of industrial development in floodplains, any
federal protections or lack thereof in place to protect local water supply, and remember
any uninsured losses and associated costs get passed on to the taxpayers. The buck
stops with you. Prudent business people manage risk. This process is not currently
managing this risk. We also ask for much higher standards and certainly not minimum
standards when it comes to any floodplain ordinance. That's your job to manage risk,
budget and tax rates. This responsibility falls on you to beef up these minimum
standards. Flooding in this locality affects citizens in this entire region. Table this
agenda item to a future meeting to find this missing information and begin further study
so the public may have all information available to amply review and can physically
attend a true public hearing. “
There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 090820-14 AMENDING ARTICLE I (GENERAL
PROVISIONS), ARTICLE II (DEFINITIONS AND USE TYPES),
AND ARTICLE III (DISTRICT REGULATIONS) OF THE
ROANOKE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and Roanoke County staff have reviewed
and prepared amendments to the Zoning Ordinance regarding floodplain management;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are consistent with the Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation’s model ordinance, which complies with
the requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Flood
Insurance Program regulations; and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2020, after proper notice, the Roanoke County Planning
Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance and recommended said amendments to the Board of Supervisors for
adoption; and
WHEREAS, public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning
practice are valid public purposes for such recommendations by the Planning
Commission and action by the Board of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 25, 2020, and
the second reading and public hearing was held on September 8, 2020.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors as follows:
1. The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read and provide
as follows:
ARTICLE I – GENERAL PROVISIONS
September 8, 2020
398
SEC. 30-5. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR; POWERS AND DUTIES.
(A) The zoning administrator shall serve as the administrator of this ordinance,
unless otherwise specified.
ARTICLE II – DEFINITIONS AND USE TYPES
SEC. 30-28. DEFINITIONS.
(C) For the purposes of this ordinance, the words and phrases listed below in this
section shall have the meanings described below.
Accessory building or structure: A building or structure detached from a principal
building on the same lot and customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal
building or use. Where an accessory building or structure is attached to the principal
building in a substantial manner, as by a wall or roof, such accessory building shall be
considered a part of the principal building. Accessory structures shall not exceed 600
square feet in special flood hazard areas.
Base flood: The flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or
exceeded in any given year.
Base flood elevation (BFE): The water surface elevation which occurs in a one
hundred-year flood as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or
in approximated floodplains, approved by the director of community development of the
base flood, that is, the flood level that has a one percent or greater chance of
occurrence in any given year. and is generally referred to as the “100-year flood.” The
water surface elevation of the base flood in relation to the datum specified on the
community’s Flood Insurance Rate Map. For the purpose of this ordinance, the base
flood is the 1% annual chance flood.
Board of zoning appeals (BZA): The term board of zoning appeals will refer to the
Roanoke County Board of Zoning Appeals, also referred to in this ordinance as BZA.
This board is appointed to review appeals made by individuals with regard to decisions
of the zoning administrator, and in special flood hazard areas the decisions of the
floodplain administrator, in the interpretation of this ordinance. In addition, the BZA is
responsible for granting variances from local zoning regulations.
Conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR): A formal review and comment as to
whether a proposed flood protection project or other project complies with the minimum
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements for such projects with respect to
September 8, 2020
399
delineation of special flood hazard areas. A CLOMR does not revise the effective Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) or Flood Insurance Study (FIS).
Development: Any manmade change to improved or unimproved real estate
including but not limited to buildings or other structures, temporary structures, mining,
dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or other land-
disturbing activities, or permanent or temporary storage of equipment or materials.
Elevated building: A non-basement building built to have the lowest floor elevated
above the ground level by means of solid foundation perimeter walls, pilings, or columns
(posts and piers).
Encroachment: The advance or infringement of uses, plant growth, fill,
excavation, buildings, permanent structures or development into a floodplain, which
may impede or alter the flow capacity of a floodplain.
Existing construction: For the purpose of the flood insurance program, structures
for which the “start of construction” commenced before the effective date of the FIRM
for that location, or before October 17, 1978, for FIRMs effective before that date.
“Existing construction” may also be referred to as “existing structures” and “pre-FIRM.”
Flood or flooding: A general and temporary condition of partial or complete
inundation of normally dry land areas from the overflow of inland or tidal waters; or the
unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source.
(1) A general or temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry
land areas from:
(a) the overflow of inland or tidal waters; or,
(b) the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from
any source.
(c) Mudflows which are proximately caused by flooding as defined in
paragraph (1)(b) of this definition and are akin to a river of liquid and
flowing mud on the surfaces of normally dry land areas, as when earth
is carried by a current of water and deposited along the path of the
current.
(2) The collapse or subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or other body of
water as a result of erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents of
water exceeding anticipated cyclical levels or suddenly caused by an
unusually high water level in a natural body of water, accompanied by a
severe storm, or by an unanticipated force of nature such as flash flood or an
abnormal tidal surge, or by some similarly unusual and unforeseeable event
which results in flooding as defined in paragraph 1 (a) of this definition.
September 8, 2020
400
Flood insurance rate map (FIRM): An official map of a community, on which the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has delineated both the special
hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. A FIRM that
has been made available digitally is called a Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM).
Flood insurance study (FIS): A report by FEMA that examines, evaluates and
determines flood hazards and, if appropriate, corresponding water surface elevations, or
an examination, evaluation and determination of mudflow and/or flood-related erosion
hazards.
Flood, one hundred year: A flood that, on the average, is likely to occur once
every one hundred (100) years (i.e., that has a one percent chance of occurring each
year, although the flood may occur in any year). A one hundred-year flood is also
referred to as the base flood.
Floodplain administrator: The Floodplain Administrator of Roanoke County,
Virginia. The floodplain administrator shall be responsible for administering the
floodplain regulations on behalf of the county.
Floodproofing: Any combination of structural and non-structural additions,
changes, or adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real
estate or improved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures and their
contents.
Floodway: The channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land
areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively
increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height one foot at any
point within the community.
Freeboard: A factor of safety usually expressed in feet above a flood level for
purposes of floodplain management. “Freeboard” tends to compensate for the many
unknown factors that could contribute to flood heights greater than the height calculated
for a selected size flood and floodway conditions, such as wave action, bridge openings,
and the hydrological effect of urbanization in the watershed.
Highest adjacent grade: The highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior
to construction next to the proposed walls of a structure.
Hydrologic and hydraulic engineering analysis: Analyses performed by a licensed
professional engineer, in accordance with standard engineering practices that are
accepted by the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation and FEMA, used
to determine the base flood, other frequency floods, flood elevations, floodway
September 8, 2020
401
information and boundaries, and flood profiles.
Letter of map amendment (LOMA): An amendment based on technical data
showing that a property was incorrectly included in a designated special flood hazard
area. A LOMA amends the current effective Flood Insurance Rate Map and establishes
that a Land as defined by metes and bounds or structure is not located in a special flood
hazard area.
Letters of map change (LOMC): A Letter of Map Change is an official FEMA
determination, by letter, that amends or revises an effective Flood Insurance Rate Map
or Flood Insurance Study. Letters of Map Change include Letter of Map Amendment
(LOMA), Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), and Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR).
Letter of map revision (LOMR): A revision based on technical data that may show
changes to flood zones, flood elevations, floodplain and floodway delineations, and
planimetric features. A Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMR-F) is a
determination that a structure or parcel of land has been elevated by fill above the base
flood elevation and is, therefore, no longer exposed to flooding associated with the base
flood. In order to qualify for this determination, the fill must have been permitted and
placed in accordance with the community’s floodplain management regulations.
Lowest adjacent grade: The lowest natural elevation of the ground surface next
to the walls of a structure.
New construction: For the purposes of determining insurance rates, structures for
which the “start of construction” commenced on or after the effective date of an initial
FIRM for that location, or after October 17, 1978, whichever is later, and includes any
subsequent improvements to such structures. For floodplain management purposes,
new construction means structures for which the start of construction commenced on or
after the effective date of a floodplain management regulation adopted by a community
and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures.
Post-FIRM structures: A structure for which construction or substantial
improvement occurred on or after the effective date of the initial FIRM for that location,
or on or after October 17, 1978.
Pre-FIRM structures: A structure for which construction or substantial
improvement occurred before the effective date of the initial FIRM for that location, or
before October 17, 1978.
September 8, 2020
402
Recreational vehicle: A vehicle, built on a single chassis and measuring 400
square feet or less at the largest horizontal projection, which can be towed, hauled or
driven, designed and used as temporary living accommodations for recreational,
camping or travel uses only. Recreational vehicles shall include travel trailers, pick-up
campers, motor homes, tent trailers or similar devices used for temporary mobile
housing, boats and personal watercraft.
Repetitive loss structure: A building covered by a contract for flood insurance that
has incurred flood-related damages on two occasions in a 10-year period, in which the
cost of the repair, on the average, equaled or exceeded 25 percent of the market value
of the structure at the time of each such flood event; and at the time of the second
incidence of flood-related damage, the contract for flood insurance contains increased
cost of compliance coverage.
Severe repetitive loss structure: A structure that: (a) Is covered under a contract
for flood insurance made available under the NFIP; and (b) Has incurred flood related
damage – (i) For which 4 or more separate claims payments have been made under
flood insurance coverage with the amount of each such claim exceeding $5,000, and
with the cumulative amount of such claims payments exceeding $20,000; or (ii) For
which at least 2 separate claims payments have been made under such coverage, with
the cumulative amount of such claims exceeding the market value of the insured
structure.
Shallow flooding area: A special flood hazard area with base flood depths from
one to three feet where a clearly defined channel does not exist, where the path of
flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate, and where velocity flow may be evident.
Such flooding is characterized by ponding or sheet flow.
Special flood hazard area: The land in the floodplain subject to a one (1%)
percent or greater chance of being flooded in any given year as determined in Section
30-74-8 of this ordinance.
Start of construction: For other than new construction and substantial
improvement, start of construction means the date the building permit was issued,
provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition,
placement, substantial improvement or other improvement was within 180 days of the
permit date. The actual start means either the first placement of permanent
construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the
installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of
excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent
construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor
does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation
September 8, 2020
403
for a basement, footings, piers, or foundations or the erection of temporary forms; nor
does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages
or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a
substantial improvement, the actual start of the construction means the first alteration of
any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a building, whether or not that alteration
affects the external dimensions of the building.
Structure: Anything that is constructed or erected with a fixed location on the
ground, or attached to something having a fixed location on the ground, including but
not limited to buildings, signs, manufactured homes and swimming pools. Walls and
fences shall not be deemed structures except as otherwise specifically provided in this
ordinance. For floodplain management purposes, a walled and roofed building,
including a gas or liquid storage tank, that is principally above ground, as well as a
manufactured home.
Substantial damage. Damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the
cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed
fifty (50) percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. It
also means flood-related damages sustained by a structure on two occasions in a 10-
year period, in which the cost of repair, on average, equals or exceeds 25 percent of the
market value of the structure at the time of each such flood event.
Substantial improvement. Any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other
improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty (50) percent of the
market value of the structure before the start of construction of the improvement. This
term includes structures which have incurred repetitive loss or substantial damage
regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include
either:
(1) Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of
state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have
been identified by the local code enforcement official which are the
minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions; or
(2) Any alteration of a historic structure provided that the alteration will not
preclude the structure's continued designation as a historic structure; or
(3) Historic structures undergoing repair or rehabilitation that would constitute
a substantial improvement as defined above, must comply with all
ordinance requirements that do not preclude the structure’s continued
designation as a historic structure. Documentation that a specific
ordinance requirement will cause removal of the structure from the
National Register of Historic Places or the State Inventory of Historic
places must be obtained from the Secretary of the Interior or the State
Historic Preservation Officer. Any exemption from ordinance requirements
September 8, 2020
404
will be the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character and
design of the structure.
SEC. 30-29. USE TYPES; GENERALLY.
Sec. 30-29-2. Residential Use Types.
Manufactured home: A structure subject to federal regulation, which is
transportable in one (1) or more sections: is eight (8) body feet or more in width and
forty (40) body feet or more in length in the traveling mode, or is three hundred twenty
(320) or more square feet when erected on site; is built on a permanent chassis; is
designed to be used as a single-family dwelling, with or without a permanent foundation,
when connected to the required utilities; and includes the plumbing, heating, air
conditioning, and electrical systems contained in the structure. For floodplain
management purposes also included are park trailers, travel trailers, and other similar
vehicles placed on a site for greater than 180 consecutive days.
ARTICLE III – DISTRICT REGULATIONS
SEC. 30-74. FO FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-74-1. Purpose.
(A) The purpose of the Floodplain Overlay (FO) District is to provide mandatory
floodplain restrictions for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
compliance. The purpose of these floodplain provisions is to prevent the following
hazards:
1. The loss of life, health, or and property;
2. The creation of health and safety hazards;
3. The disruption of commerce and governmental services;
4. The extraordinary and unnecessary expenditure of public funds for flood
protection and relief; and
5. The impairment of the tax base.
(B) These provisions are designed to accomplish the above purposes by:
September 8, 2020
405
1. Regulating uses, activities, and development which, acting alone or in
combination with other existing or future uses, activities, and development,
will cause unacceptable increases in flood heights, velocities, and
frequencies;
2. Restricting or prohibiting certain uses, activities, and development from
locating within areas subject to flooding;
3. Requiring all those uses, activities, and developments that do occur in
flood-prone areas to be protected and/or flood-proofed against flooding
and flood damage; and
4. Protecting individuals from buying lands and structures which are unsuited
for intended purposes because of flood hazards.
Sec. 30-74-2. Applicability and Administration.
(A) These provisions shall apply to all lands within the jurisdiction of Roanoke County
and identified as being within a floodplain, as stipulated in this section as special
flood hazard areas (SFHAs), shown on the flood insurance rate map (FIRM) or
included in the flood insurance study (FIS) provided to Roanoke County by
FEMA.
(B) These provisions shall supersede any regulations currently in effect in floodplain
areas. Where conflict exists between these provisions and those of any
underlying zoning district, the more restrictive provisions shall apply.
(C) In the event any provision concerning a floodplain area is declared inapplicable
as a result of any legislative or administrative actions or judicial discretion, the
basic underlying zoning district provisions shall remain applicable.
Sec. 30-74-3. Compliance.
(A) No land shall hereafter be developed and no structure shall be located,
relocated, constructed, enlarged, or structurally altered except in full compliance
with the terms and provisions of this section and any other applicable ordinances
and regulations which apply to uses within the jurisdiction of this section.
(B) The degree of flood protection sought by the provisions of this section is
considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on acceptable
engineering methods of study, but does not imply total flood protection. Larger
September 8, 2020
406
floods may occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by man-
made or natural causes, such as ice jams and bridge openings restricted by
debris. This section does not imply that areas outside floodplain areas, or that
land uses permitted within such areas, will be free from flooding or flood
damages.
(C) This ordinance shall not create liability on the part of Roanoke County or any
officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on
this ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully made thereunder.
Sec. 30-74-4. Severability
If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance
shall be declared invalid for any reason whatever, such decision shall not affect the
remaining portions of this ordinance. The remaining portions shall remain in full force
and effect; and for this purpose, the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to
be severable.
Sec. 30-74-5. Designation of the Floodplain Administrator
The County Administrator shall designate the Floodplain Administrator for Roanoke
County.
Sec. 30-74-6. Duties and Responsibilities of the Floodplain Administrator
The duties and responsibilities of the Floodplain Administrator shall include but are not
limited to:
(A) Review applications for permits to determine whether proposed activities will be
located in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).
(B) Interpret floodplain boundaries and provide available base flood elevation and
flood hazard information.
(C) Review applications to determine whether proposed activities will be reasonably
safe from flooding and require new construction and substantial improvements to
meet the requirements of these regulations.
(D) Review applications to determine whether all necessary permits have been
obtained from the Federal, State or local agencies from which prior or concurrent
approval is required; in particular, permits from state agencies for any
construction, reconstruction, repair, or alteration of a dam, reservoir, or waterway
September 8, 2020
407
obstruction (including bridges, culverts, structures), any alteration of a
watercourse, or any change of the course, current, or cross section of a stream
or body of water, including any change to the one hundred year frequency
floodplain of free-flowing non-tidal waters of the State.
(E) Verify that applicants proposing an alteration of a watercourse have notified
adjacent communities, the Department of Conservation and Recreation (Division
of Dam Safety and Floodplain Management), and other appropriate agencies
(Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ), United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE)) and have submitted copies of such notifications to
FEMA.
(F) Approve applications and issue permits to develop in flood hazard areas if the
provisions of these regulations have been met, or disapprove applications if the
provisions of these regulations have not been met.
(G) Inspect or cause to be inspected, buildings, structures, and other development
for which permits have been issued to determine compliance with these
regulations or to determine if non-compliance has occurred or violations have
been committed.
(H) Review Elevation Certificates and require incomplete or deficient certificates to
be corrected.
(I) Submit to FEMA, or require applicants to submit to FEMA, data and information
necessary to maintain the FIRM, including hydrologic and hydraulic engineering
analyses prepared by or for Roanoke County, within six months after such data
and information becomes available if the analyses indicate changes in base flood
elevations.
(J) Maintain and permanently keep records that are necessary for the administration
of these regulations, including:
1. Flood Insurance Studies, Flood Insurance Rate Maps (including historic
studies and maps and current effective studies and maps) and Letters of
Map Change (LOMC); and
2. Documentation supporting issuance and denial of permits, Elevation
Certificates, documentation of the elevation (in relation to the datum on
the FIRM) to which structures have been flood-proofed, inspection
records, other required design certifications, variances, and records of
enforcement actions taken to correct violations of these regulations.
September 8, 2020
408
(K) Enforce the provisions of these regulations, investigate violations, issue notices
of violations or stop work orders and require permit holders to take corrective
action.
(L) Advise the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) regarding the intent of these
regulations and, for each application for a variance, prepare a staff report and
recommendation.
(M) Administer the requirements related to proposed work on existing buildings:
1. Make determinations in consultation with the building official as to whether
buildings and structures that are located in flood hazard areas and that are
damaged by any cause have been substantially damaged.
2. Make reasonable efforts to notify owners of substantially damaged
structures of the need to obtain a permit to repair, rehabilitate, or
reconstruct. Prohibit the non-compliant repair of substantially damaged
buildings except for temporary emergency protective measures necessary
to secure a property or stabilize a building or structure to prevent
additional damage.
(N) Undertake other actions which may include but are not limited to: issuing press
releases, public service announcements, and other public information materials
related to permit requests and repair of damaged structures; coordinating with
other Federal, State, and local agencies to assist with substantial damage
determinations; providing owners of damaged structures information related to
the proper repair of damaged structures in special flood hazard areas; and
assisting property owners with documentation necessary to file claims for
Increased Cost of Compliance coverage under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) flood insurance policies.
(O) Notify FEMA when the corporate boundaries of Roanoke County have been
modified and:
1. Provide a map that clearly delineates the new corporate boundaries or the
new area for which the authority to regulate pursuant to these regulations
has either been assumed or relinquished through annexation; and
2. If the FIRM for any annexed area includes special flood hazard areas that
have flood zones that have regulatory requirements that are not set forth
in these regulations, prepare amendments to these regulations to adopt
September 8, 2020
409
the FIRM and appropriate requirements, and submit the amendments to
the governing body for adoption; such adoption shall take place at the
same time as or prior to the date of annexation and a copy of the
amended regulations shall be provided to Department of Conservation
and Recreation (Division of Dam Safety and Floodplain Management) and
FEMA.
(P) Upon the request of FEMA, complete and submit a report concerning
participation in the NFIP which may request information regarding the number of
buildings in the SFHA, number of permits issued for development in the SFHA,
and number of variances issued for development in the SFHA.
(Q) It is the duty of the Floodplain Administrator to take into account flood, mudslide
and flood-related erosion hazards, to the extent that they are known, in all official
actions relating to land management and use throughout the entire jurisdictional
area of the community, whether or not those hazards have been specifically
delineated geographically (e.g. via mapping or surveying).
Sec. 30-74-7. Use and Interpretation of FIRMs
The Floodplain Administrator shall make interpretations, where needed, as to the exact
location of SFHAs, floodplain boundaries, and floodway boundaries. The following shall
apply to the use and interpretation of FIRMs and data:
(A) Where field surveyed topography indicates that adjacent ground elevations:
1. Are below the base flood elevation in riverine SFHAs, even in areas not
delineated as a special flood hazard area on a FIRM, the area shall be
considered as SFHA and subject to the requirements of these regulations;
2. Are above the base flood elevation and the area is labelled as a SFHA on
the FIRM, the area shall be regulated as SFHA unless the applicant
obtains a Letter of Map Change that removes the area from the SFHA.
(B) In FEMA-identified SFHAs where base flood elevation and floodway data have
not been identified and in areas where FEMA has not identified SFHAs, any
other flood hazard data available from a Federal, State, or other source shall be
reviewed and reasonably used.
(C) Base flood elevations and designated floodway boundaries on the FIRM and in
the FIS shall take precedence over base flood elevations and floodway
September 8, 2020
410
boundaries by any other sources if such sources show reduced floodway widths
and/or lower base flood elevations.
(D) Other sources of data shall be reasonably used if such sources show increased
base flood elevations and/or larger floodway areas than are shown on the FIRM
and in the FIS.
(E) If a Preliminary FIRM and/or a Preliminary FIS has been provided by FEMA:
1. Upon the issuance of a Letter of Final Determination by FEMA, the
preliminary flood hazard data shall be used and shall replace the flood
hazard data previously provided from FEMA for the purposes of
administering these regulations.
2. Prior to the issuance of a Letter of Final Determination by FEMA, the use
of preliminary flood hazard data shall be deemed the best available data
pursuant to Section 30-74-8(A)3 and used where no base flood elevations
and/or floodway areas are provided on the effective FIRM.
3. Prior to issuance of a Letter of Final Determination by FEMA, the use of
preliminary flood hazard data is permitted where the preliminary base
flood elevations or floodway areas exceed the base flood elevations
and/or designated floodway widths in existing flood hazard data provided
by FEMA. Such preliminary data may be subject to change and/or appeal
to FEMA.
Sec. 30-74-48. Delineation of Areas.
(A) The various special floodplain hazard areas shall include the SFHAs areas
subject to inundation by waters of the one hundred year flood. The primary basis
for the delineation of these areas shall be the flood insurance study FIS and the
FIRM for the county Roanoke County prepared by Federal Emergency
Management Agency FEMA, dated September 28, 2007, as amended, and any
subsequent revisions or amendments thereto.
Roanoke County may identify and regulate local flood hazard and ponding areas
that are not delineated on the FIRM. These areas may be noted on a “Local
Flood Hazard Map” using the best available topographic data and locally derived
information such as flood of record, historic high water marks or approximate
study methodologies.
September 8, 2020
411
The boundaries of the SFHAs are established as shown on the FIRM which is
declared to be a part of this ordinance and which shall be kept on file at the
Roanoke County offices. These areas are more specifically defined as follows:
1. The Floodway is part of an AE Zone and is delineated, for purposes of this
section, using the criteria that a certain area within the floodplain must be
capable of carrying the waters of the 100- year one percent annual chance
flood without increasing the water surface elevation of that flood more than
one foot at any point. These Floodways are specifically defined in Table
45 of the above referenced Flood Insurance Study FIS and shown on the
accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Map FIRM accompanying that study.
The following provisions shall apply within the Floodway of an AE zone:
a. Within any floodway area, no encroachments, including fill, new
construction, substantial improvements, or other development shall
be permitted unless it has been demonstrated through hydrologic
and hydraulic analysis performed in accordance with standard
engineering practice that the proposed encroachment will not result
in any increase in flood levels within the community during the
occurrence of the base flood discharge. Hydrologic and hydraulic
analyses shall be undertaken only by professional engineers or
others of demonstrated qualifications, who shall certify that the
technical methods used correctly reflect currently-accepted
technical concepts. Studies, analyses, computations and other
required information shall be submitted in sufficient detail to allow a
thorough review by the Floodplain Administrator.
Development activities which increase the water surface elevation
of the base flood may be allowed, provided that the applicant first
applies – with Roanoke County’s endorsement – for a Conditional
Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR), and receives the approval of the
FEMA.
Once approved by FEMA, all new construction and substantial
improvements shall comply with all applicable flood hazard
reduction provisions of Sections 30-74-13 and 30-74-15.
b. The placement of manufactured homes (mobile homes) is
prohibited, except in an existing manufactured home park or
subdivision. A replacement manufactured home may be placed on
September 8, 2020
412
a lot in an existing manufactured home park or subdivision provided
the anchoring, elevation, and encroachment standards are met.
2. The Flood-Fringe shall be that area of the 100-year floodplain not included
in the Floodway. The basis for the outermost boundary of the Flood-Fringe
shall be the 100-year flood elevations contained in the flood profiles of the
above referenced Flood Insurance Study and as shown on the Flood
Insurance Rate Map accompanying the study.
32. The AE or AH Zones Special Floodplain shall be those areas identified as
an AE zone on the maps accompanying the flood insurance study that are
designated as AE or AH Zones on the FIRM accompanying the FIS shall
be the areas for which one hundred year percent annual chance flood
elevations have been provided but for which no and the floodway has not
been delineated. The following provisions shall apply within an AE or AH
zone where FEMA has provided base flood elevations:
a. Until a regulatory floodway is designated, no new construction,
substantial improvements, or other development (including fill) shall
be permitted within the SFHA, designated as Zones AE or AH on
the FIRM, unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the
proposed development, when combined with all other existing and
anticipated development, will not increase the water surface
elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point within
Roanoke County.
Development activities in Zones AE or AH on the County of Roanoke’s
FIRM which increase the water surface elevation of the base flood by
more than one foot may be allowed, provided that the applicant first
applies – with Roanoke County’s endorsement – for a CLOMR, and
receives the approval of FEMA.
43. The A Zone, or Approximated Floodplain, on the FIRM accompanying the
FIS, shall be those floodplain areas shown on the flood insurance rate
map for which no detailed flood profiles or elevations are provided, but the
one percent annual chance floodplain boundary has been approximated,
and all other floodplain areas where the drainage area is greater than 100
acres. For these areas, the following provisions shall apply:
a. The base flood elevations and floodway information from federal,
state, and other acceptable sources shall be used, when available.
Where the specific 100 year one percent annual chance flood
elevation cannot be determined for this area using other sources of
September 8, 2020
413
data, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USACE Floodplain
Information Reports, U. S. Geological Survey Flood-Prone
Quadrangles, etc. and similar sources, then the applicant for the
proposed use, development and/or activity shall determine this
base flood elevation in accordance with hydrologic and hydraulic
engineering techniques. Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses shall be
undertaken only by professional engineers or others of
demonstrated qualifications, who shall certify that the technical
methods used correctly reflect currently accepted technical
concepts. Calculations for the design flood shall be related to
existing land use and potential development under existing zoning.
Studies, analyses, computations, etc., shall be submitted in
sufficient detail to allow a thorough review by the director of
community development. For development proposed in the
approximate floodplain the applicant must use technical methods
that correctly reflect currently accepted practices, such as point on
boundary, high water marks, or detailed methodologies hydrologic
and hydraulic analyses. Studies, analyses, computations, and
other information shall be submitted in sufficient detail to allow a
thorough review by the Floodplain Administrator.
b. The Floodplain Administrator reserves the right to require a
hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for any development. When such
base flood elevation data is utilized, the lowest floor shall be
elevated to or above the base flood level plus twelve (12) inches for
non-residential structures and twenty-four (24) inches for residential
structures.
c. During the permitting process, the Floodplain Administrator shall
obtain:
i. The elevation of the lowest floor (in relation to mean sea
level), including the basement, of all new and substantially
improved structures; and,
ii. If the structure has been flood-proofed in accordance with
the requirements of Section 30-74, the elevation (in relation
to mean sea level) to which the structure has been flood-
proofed.
Base flood elevation data shall be obtained from other sources or
developed using detailed methodologies comparable to those contained in
September 8, 2020
414
a FIS for subdivision proposals and other proposed development
proposals (including manufactured home parks and subdivisions) that
exceed fifty lots or five acres, whichever is the lesser.
4. The AO Zone, shall be those areas of shallow flooding identified as AO on
the FIRM accompanying the FIS. For these areas, the following provisions
shall apply:
a. All new construction and substantial improvements of residential
structures shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated
to or above the flood depth specified on the FIRM, above the
highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number
specified in feet on the FIRM. If no flood depth number is specified,
the lowest floor, including basement, shall be elevated no less than
two feet above the highest adjacent grade.
b. All new construction and substantial improvements of non-
residential structures shall:
i. Have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to or
above the flood depth specified on the FIRM, above the
highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number
specified in feet on the FIRM. If no flood depth number is
specified, the lowest floor, including basement, shall be
elevated at least two feet above the highest adjacent grade;
or,
ii: Together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities be
completely flood-proofed to the specified flood level so that
any space below that level is watertight with walls
substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with
structural components having the capability of resisting
hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of
buoyancy.
c. Adequate drainage paths around structures on slopes shall be
provided to guide floodwaters around and away from proposed
structures.
(B) The mapped floodplain, includes all of the above regions and also the regions
designated as having a 0.2 percent annual chance of flooding on any flood map
or flood insurance study. In this area, no new emergency service, medical
September 8, 2020
415
service, or governmental records storage shall be allowed except through the
variance process.
Sec. 30-74-59. Creation of Overlay.
(A) The floodplain areas described above shall be an overlay to the existing
underlying zoning districts as shown on the Official Zoning Map, and as such, the
provisions for the floodplain areas shall serve as a supplement to the underlying
zoning district provisions.
(B) The boundaries of the floodplain areas are established as shown on the Flood
Insurance Rate Map FIRM which is declared to be part of this chapter and which
shall be kept on file in the office of the Floodplain Aadministrator.
Sec. 30-74-610. Floodplain Boundary Changes and Interpretation
(A) In regards to jurisdictional boundary changes, the County Floodplain Ordinance
in effect on the date of annexation shall remain in effect and shall be enforced by
the municipality for all annexed areas until the municipality adopts and enforces
an ordinance which meets the requirements for participation in the National Flood
Insurance Program. Municipalities with existing Floodplain Ordinances shall pass
a resolution acknowledging and accepting responsibility for enforcing Floodplain
Ordinance standards prior to annexation of any area containing identified flood
hazards. If the FIRM for any annexed area includes special flood hazard areas
that have flood zones that have regulatory requirements that are not set forth in
these regulations, prepare amendments to these regulations to adopt the FIRM
and appropriate requirements, and submit the amendments to the governing
body for adoption; such adoption shall take place at the same time as or prior to
the date of annexation and a copy of the amended regulations shall be provided
to Department of Conservation and Recreation (Division of Dam Safety and
Floodplain Management) and FEMA.
In accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44 Subpart (B) Section
59.22 (a) (9) (v) all NFIP participating communities must notify the Federal
Insurance Administration (FIA) and optionally the State Coordinating Office in
writing whenever the boundaries of the community have been modified by
annexation or the community has otherwise assumed or no longer has authority
to adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations for a particular area.
In order that the FIRM accurately represent the community’s boundaries, a copy
of a map of the community suitable for reproduction, clearly delineating the new
corporate limits or new area for which the community has assumed or
September 8, 2020
416
relinquished floodplain management regulatory authority must be included with
the notification.
(AB) The delineation of any of the floodplain areas may be revised by the board of
supervisors Roanoke County where natural or man-made changes have
occurred and/or where more detailed studies have been conducted or
undertaken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USACE or other qualified
agency, or an individual documents the need for such change. However, prior to
any such change, approval must be obtained from the Federal Insurance
Administration FEMA. A completed LOMR is a record of this approval.
(BC) Initial interpretations of the boundaries of the floodplain areas shall be made by
the Floodplain Aadministrator. Should a dispute arise concerning the boundaries
of any of the floodplain areas, the board of zoning appeals BZA shall make the
necessary determination. The person questioning or contesting the location of
the floodplain area boundary shall be given an opportunity to present his case to
the board of zoning appeals BZA and to submit technical evidence. Procedures
for such appeals shall be as outlined in Section 30-24 of this ordinance.
Sec. 30-74-11. Submitting Model Backed Technical Data
A community’s base flood elevations may increase or decrease resulting from physical
changes affecting flooding conditions. As soon as practicable, but not later than six (6)
months after the date such information becomes available, a community shall notify
FEMA of the changes by submitting technical or scientific data. Such a submission is
necessary so that upon confirmation of those physical changes affecting flooding
conditions, risk premium rates and floodplain management requirements will be based
upon current data.
Sec. 30-74-12. Letters of Map Revision (LOMR)
(A) When development in the floodplain will cause or causes a change in the base
flood elevation, the applicant, including state agencies, must notify FEMA by
applying for a CLOMR and then a LOMR. Example cases may include, but not
be limited to:
1. Any development within the floodway that causes a rise in the base flood
elevations.
2. Any development occurring in Zones A1-30 and AE without a designated
floodway, which will cause a rise of more than one foot in the base flood
elevation.
September 8, 2020
417
3. Alteration or relocation of a stream (including but not limited to installing
culverts and bridges) 44 Code of Federal Regulations §65.3 and
§65.6(a)(12).
Sec. 30-74-713. Floodplain Area Provisions, Generally.
(A) All uses, activities, and development occurring within any floodplain area,
including placement of manufactured homes, shall be undertaken only upon the
issuance of a zoning permit. Such development shall be undertaken only in strict
compliance with the provisions of this section and with all other applicable codes
and ordinances such as the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (VA
USBC) and the Roanoke County Subdivision Ordinance. Prior to the issuance of
any such permit, the Floodplain Aadministrator shall require all applications to
include compliance with all applicable state and federal laws and shall review all
sites to assure they are reasonably safe from flooding. Under no circumstances
shall any use, activity, and/or development adversely affect the capacity of the
channels or floodways or any watercourse, drainage ditch, or any other drainage
facility or system.
(B) Under no circumstances shall any use, activity, and/or development adversely
affect the capacity of the channels or floodways or any watercourse, drainage
ditch, or any other drainage facility or system. Prior to any proposed alteration or
relocation of any channels or floodways of any watercourse, stream, etc., within
Roanoke County, approval shall be obtained from the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, Division of Water. Further, notification of the proposal
shall be given to all affected adjacent jurisdictions. Copies of such notification
shall be forwarded to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Division
of Water, the State Department of Intergovernmental Affairs, and the Federal
Insurance Administration.
(C) The lowest floor elevation of any new residential structure constructed within a
floodplain area shall be at least two (2) feet above base flood elevation. The
lowest floor elevation of any new non-residential structure constructed within a
floodplain area shall be at least one (1) foot above base flood elevation, unless
such structure is floodproofed. In addition, no existing structure shall be modified,
expanded or enlarged unless the new construction complies with this standard.
(DB) All applications for development in the floodplain district and all building permits
issued for the floodplain shall incorporate the following information:
September 8, 2020
418
1. For structures to be elevated, the elevation of the lowest floor (including
basement).
2. For structures to be flood-proofed (non-residential only), the elevation to
which the structure will be flood-proofed.
3. The elevation of the one hundred-year base flood at the site.
4. Topographic information showing existing and proposed ground
elevations.
(EC) For all new subdivisions which adjoin or include floodplain areas identified in the
flood insurance study FIS, the base flood elevation shall be shown on the final
record plat.
(D) The following provisions shall apply to all permits:
1. New construction and substantial improvements shall be built according to
Section 30-74-8 of this ordinance and the VA USBC, and anchored to
prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure.
2. Manufactured homes shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or
lateral movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not limited
to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. This standard
shall be in addition to and consistent with applicable state anchoring
requirements for resisting wind forces.
3. New construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed with
materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage.
4. New construction or substantial improvements shall be constructed by
methods and practices that minimize flood damage.
5. Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, air conditioning equipment and
other service facilities, including duct work, shall be designed and/or
located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the
components during conditions of flooding.
6. New and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize
or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the system.
September 8, 2020
419
7. New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to
minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and
discharges from the systems into flood waters.
8. On-site waste disposal systems shall be located and constructed to avoid
impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding.
9. Prior to any proposed alteration or relocation of any channels or of any
watercourse, stream, or other water feature, within this jurisdiction a
permit shall be obtained from the USACE, the VADEQ, and the Virginia
Marine Resources Commission (a joint permit application is available from
any of these organizations). Furthermore, in riverine areas, notification of
the proposal shall be given by the applicant to all affected adjacent
jurisdictions, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
(Division of Dam Safety and Floodplain Management), other required
agencies, and FEMA.
10. The flood carrying capacity within an altered or relocated portion of any
watercourse shall be maintained.
(F) All recreational vehicles located in a FEMA designated floodplain shall either:
1. Be on site for fewer than one hundred eighty (180) consecutive days, be
fully licensed and inspected, and ready for highway use; or
2. Meet the minimum requirements for placement and the elevation and
anchoring requirements for manufactured homes as contained in the
Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code.
A recreational vehicle is ready for highway use if it is on its wheels or jacking
system, is attached to the site only be quick disconnect type utilities and security
devices, and has no permanently attached additions.
Sec. 30-74-8-14. Floodway Development Regulations.
(A) In the floodway no development shall be permitted except where the effect of
such development on flood heights is fully offset by accompanying improvements
which have been approved by all appropriate authorities as required above.
(B) The placement of any manufactured home, except in an existing manufactured
home park within the floodway is specifically prohibited.
September 8, 2020
420
(C) In the floodway, the following uses, types and activities are permitted provided
that (1) they are in compliance with the provisions of the underlying zoning
district, (2) are not prohibited by any other ordinance and (3) no specific land use
requires any type of structure, fill, or storage of materials and equipment:
1. Agricultural
2. Public Parks and Recreational Areas
3. Outdoor Sports and Recreation
4. Golf Courses
5. Accessory residential uses such as yard areas, gardens, play areas, and
loading areas.
6. Accessory industrial and commercial uses such as, but not limited to, yard
areas, parking and loading areas, and airport landing strips, etc.
(D) The following uses and activities may be permitted by Special Use pursuant to
Section 30-19 of this ordinance provided that they are in compliance with the
provisions of the underlying zoning district and are not prohibited by this or any
other ordinance:
1. Structures (except for manufactured homes) accessory to the uses and
activities by right, above.
2. Certain utilities and public facilities and improvements such as pipe lines,
water and sewage treatment plants, and other similar or related uses.
3. Water-related uses and activities such as marinas, docks, wharves, piers, etc.
4. Extraction of sand, gravel, and other materials (where no increase in level of
flooding or velocity is caused thereby).
5. Storage of materials and equipment provided that they are not buoyant,
flammable or explosive, and are not subject to major damage by flooding, or
provided that such material and equipment is firmly anchored to prevent
flotation or movement, and/or can be readily removed from the area within the
time available after flood warning.
September 8, 2020
421
6. Other similar uses and activities provided they cause no increase in flood
heights and/or velocities. All uses, activities, and structural development, shall
be undertaken in strict compliance with the flood-proofing provisions
contained in all other applicable codes and ordinances.
Sec. 30-74-15. Elevation and Construction Standards
In all identified flood hazard areas where base flood elevations have been provided in
the FIS or generated by a certified professional in accordance with Section 30-74-8, the
following provisions shall apply:
(A) Residential Construction
New construction or substantial improvement of any residential structure
(including manufactured homes) in Zones AE, AH and A with detailed base flood
elevations shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to or above
the base flood level plus twenty-four (24) inches. Equipment or mechanical items
for all residential buildings constructed, substantially improved, and/or
reconstructed due to substantial damage shall be elevated to or above the base
flood level plus twelve (12) inches.
(B) Non-Residential Construction
1. New construction or substantial improvement of any commercial,
industrial, or non-residential building (or manufactured home) shall have
the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to or above the base flood
level plus twelve (12) inches.
2. Non-residential buildings located in all AE, and AH zones may be flood-
proofed in lieu of being elevated provided that all areas of the building
components below the elevation corresponding to the BFE plus two feet
are water tight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of
water, and use structural components having the capability of resisting
hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effect of buoyancy. A
registered professional engineer or architect shall certify that the
standards of this subsection are satisfied. Such certification, including the
specific elevation (in relation to mean sea level) to which such structures
are flood-proofed, shall be maintained by the Floodplain Administrator.
(C) Space below the Lowest Floor
September 8, 2020
422
In zones A, AE, AH, and AO, fully enclosed areas, of new construction or
substantially improved structures, which are below the regulatory flood protection
elevation shall:
1. Not be designed or used for human habitation, but shall be used solely for
parking of vehicles, building access, or limited storage of maintenance
equipment used in connection with the premises. Access to the enclosed
area shall be the minimum necessary to allow for parking of vehicles
(garage door) or limited storage of maintenance equipment (standard
exterior door), or entry to the living area (stairway or elevator).
2. Be constructed entirely of flood resistant materials below the regulatory
flood protection elevation;
3. Include measures to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on
walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. To meet this
requirement, the openings must either be certified by a professional
engineer or architect or meet the following minimum design criteria:
a. Provide a minimum of two openings on different sides of each
enclosed area subject to flooding.
b. The total net area of all openings must be at least one (1) square
inch for each square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding.
c. If a building has more than one enclosed area, each area must
have openings to allow floodwaters to automatically enter and exit.
d. The bottom of all required openings shall be no higher than one (1)
foot above the adjacent grade.
e. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, or other opening
coverings or devices, provided they permit the automatic flow of
floodwaters in both directions.
f. Foundation enclosures made of flexible skirting are not considered
enclosures for regulatory purposes, and, therefore, do not require
openings. Masonry or wood underpinning, regardless of structural
status, is considered an enclosure and requires openings as
outlined above.
(D) Accessory Structures
September 8, 2020
423
Accessory structures in the SFHA shall comply with the elevation requirements
and other requirements of 30-74-15(B) or, if not elevated or dry flood-proofed,
shall:
Not be used for human habitation;
1.
Be limited to no more than 600 square fee in total floor area;
2. t
Be useable only for parking of vehicles or limited storage;
3.
Be constructed with flood damage-resistant materials below the base flood elevation;
4.
Be constructed and placed to offer the minimum resistance to the flow of floodwaters;
5.
Be anchored to prevent flotation;
6.
7.Have electrical service and mechanical equipment elevated to or above the base flood elevation;
Shall be provided with flood openings which shall meet the following criteria:
8.
a. There shall be a minimum of two flood openings on different sides
of each enclosed area; if a building has more than one enclosure
below the lowest floor, each such enclosure shall have flood
openings on exterior walls.
b. The total net area of all flood openings shall be at least 1 square
inch for each square foot of enclosed area (non-engineered flood
openings), or the flood openings shall be engineered flood
openings that are designed and certified by a licensed professional
engineer to automatically allow entry and exit of floodwaters; the
certification requirement may be satisfied by an individual
certification or an Evaluation Report issued by the ICC Evaluation
Service, Inc.
c. The bottom of each flood opening shall be 1 foot or less above the
higher of the interior floor or grade, or the exterior grade,
immediately below the opening.
d. Any louvers, screens or other covers for the flood openings shall
allow the automatic flow of floodwaters into and out of the enclosed
September 8, 2020
424
area.
(E) Standards for Manufactured Homes and Recreational Vehicles
1. All manufactured homes placed, or substantially improved, on individual
lots or parcels, must meet all the requirements for new construction,
including the elevation and anchoring requirements in Section 30-74-13
and Section 30-74-15.
2. All recreational vehicles located in a FEMA designated floodplain shall
either:
a. Be on site for fewer than one hundred eighty (180) consecutive days,
be fully licensed and inspected, and ready for highway use; or
b. Meet the minimum requirements for placement and the elevation and
anchoring requirements for manufactured homes as contained in the
VA USBC; or
c. Be fully licensed and highway ready. A recreational vehicle is ready
for highway use if it is on its wheels or jacking system, is attached to
the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and
has no permanently attached additions.
(F) Standards for Subdivision Proposals
1. All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize
flood damage;
2. All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as
sewer, gas, electrical and water systems located and constructed to
minimize flood damage;
3. All subdivision proposals shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce
exposure to flood hazards; and
4. When the FIS does not provide detailed base flood elevations, base flood
elevation data shall be obtained from other sources or developed using
detailed methodologies, hydraulic and hydrologic analysis, comparable to
those contained in a Flood Insurance Study for subdivision proposals and
other proposed development proposals (including manufactured home
September 8, 2020
425
parks and subdivisions) that exceed fifty lots or five acres, whichever is
the lesser.
Sec. 30-74-9. Flood-Fringe, Special Floodplain and Approximated Floodplain
Development Regulations.
(A) In the flood-fringe, special floodplain and approximated floodplain the
development and/or use of land shall be permitted in accordance with the
regulations of the underlying zoning district provided that all such uses, activities,
and/or development shall be undertaken in strict compliance with the flood-
proofing and related provisions contained in the Virginia Uniform Statewide
Building Code and all other applicable codes and ordinances.
However, in the special floodplain and the approximated floodplain areas the
applicant and/or developer shall evaluate the effects of the proposed
development and/or use of land on the floodplain with current hydrologic and
hydraulic engineering techniques. The applicant and/or developer shall submit
studies, analysis, computations, etc. to show the delineation of a floodway based
on the requirement that all existing and future development not increase the one
hundred year flood elevation more than one (1) foot at any point. The
engineering principle, equal reduction of conveyance, shall be used to make the
determination of increased flood height.
Sec. 30-74-126. Existing Structures in Floodplain Areas.
(A) Any structure or use of a structure or premises which lawfully existed before the
enactment of these provisions, but which is not in conformity with these
provisions may be continued subject to the following conditions must be brought
into conformity with these provisions when it is changed, repaired, or improved
unless one of the following exceptions is established before the change:
1. Existing structures and/or uses located in the floodway shall not be
expanded or enlarged (unless the effect of the proposed expansion or
enlargement on flood heights is fully offset by accompanying
improvements). The Floodplain Administrator has determined that:
a. Change is not a substantial repair or substantial improvement; and
b. No new square footage is being built in the floodplain that is not
compliant; and
c. No new square footage is being built in the floodway; and
September 8, 2020
426
d. The change complies with the zoning ordinance and the VA USBC.
2. Any modification, alteration, repair, reconstruction, or improvement of any
kind to a structure and/or use located in any floodplain area to an extent or
amount of fifty (50) percent or more of its market value, shall be
undertaken only in full compliance with the Virginia Uniform Statewide
Building Code. The changes are required to comply with a citation for a
health and safety violation.
3. The structure is a historic structure and the change requires would impair
the historic nature of the structure.
Sec. 30-74-10. Procedures for Special Uses in Floodways.
(A) Any use listed as permitted with a special use in a floodway shall be allowed only
after approval of an application submitted to the BOS. All such applications shall
be reviewed pursuant to the procedures outlined in Section 30-19 of this
ordinance. In addition to information required by Section 30-19, all such
application shall include the following:
1. Plans in triplicate drawn to scale not less than 1″ to 100′ horizontally
showing the location, dimensions, and contours (at five-foot intervals) of
the lot, existing and proposed structures, fill, storage areas, water supply,
sanitary facilities, and relationship of the floodway to the proposal.
2. A typical valley cross-section as necessary to adequately show the
channel of the stream, elevation of land areas adjoining each side of the
channel, cross-sectional areas to be occupied by the proposed
development, and one hundred year flood elevation.
3. A profile showing the slope of the bottom of the channel or flow line of the
stream.
4. A summary report, prepared by professional engineers or others of
demonstrated qualifications, evaluating the proposed project in relation to
flood heights and velocities; the seriousness of flood damage to the use;
and other pertinent technical matters.
5. A list of names and addresses of adjoining property owners.
September 8, 2020
427
(B) In acting upon such applications, the planning commission and the BOS shall
consider all relevant factors specified in other sections of this ordinance and:
1. The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities
caused by encroachments. No special use shall be granted for any
proposed use, development, or activity within the floodway that will cause
any increase in flood levels during the one hundred year flood.
2. The danger that materials may be swept on to other lands or downstream
to the injury of others.
3. The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these
systems to prevent disease, contamination, and unsanitary conditions.
4. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage
and the effect of such damage on the individual owners.
5. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the
county.
6. The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location.
7. The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the
proposed use.
8. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and
development anticipated in the foreseeable future.
9. The relationship of the proposed use to the community plan and floodplain
management program for the county.
10. The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and
emergency vehicles.
11. Such other factors which are relevant to the purpose of this Section.
Sec. 30-74-117. Variances.
(A) The board of zoning appeals may consider variances to the requirements of this
section, under the following guidelines and conditions:
September 8, 2020
428
1. Variances may not be considered within any floodway if any increase in
flood levels during the 100-year flood would result.
2. Variance requests may be granted for the reconstruction, rehabilitation, or
restoration of structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places
or a State Inventory of Historic Places without regard to the procedures
set forth in this section.
3. Variances may be considered for new construction and substantial
improvements to be erected on a lot contiguous and surrounded by lots
with existing structures constructed below the 100-year flood level using
the guidelines set forth in Section 30-74-10 (B) above.
(A) Variances shall be issued only upon a showing of good and sufficient cause, and
after the BZA has determined that failure to grant the variance would result in
exceptional hardship to the applicant.
While the granting of variances generally is limited to a lot size less than one-half
acre, deviations from that limitation may occur. However, as the lot size
increases beyond one-half acre, the technical justification required for issuing a
variance increases. Variances may be issued by the BZA for new construction
and substantial improvements to be erected on a lot of one-half acre or less in
size contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed
below the base flood level, in conformance with the provisions of this Section.
Variances may be issued for new construction and substantial improvements and
for other development necessary for the conduct of a functionally dependent use
provided that the criteria of this Section are met, and the structure or other
development is protected by methods that minimize flood damages during the
base flood and create no additional threats to public safety.
In passing upon applications for variances, the BZA shall satisfy all relevant
factors and procedures set forth in Section 30-24-1 et seq. of the zoning
ordinance and consider the following additional factors:
1. The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or
velocities caused by encroachments. No variance shall be granted for any
proposed use, development, or activity within any Floodway District that
will cause any increase in the one percent (1%) chance flood elevation.
2. The danger that materials may be swept on to other lands or downstream
September 8, 2020
429
to the injury of others.
3. The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these
systems to prevent disease, contamination, and unsanitary conditions.
4. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage
and the effect of such damage on the individual owners.
5. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the
county.
6. The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location.
7. The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the
proposed use.
8. The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and
development anticipated in the foreseeable future.
9. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and
floodplain management program for the county.
10. The safety of access by ordinary and emergency vehicles to the property
in time of flood.
11. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment
transport of the flood waters expected at the site.
12. The historic nature of a structure. Variances for repair or rehabilitation of
historic structures may be granted upon a determination that the proposed
repair or rehabilitation will not preclude the structure's continued
designation as a historic structure and the variance is the minimum
necessary to preserve the historic character and design of the structure.
13. No variance shall be granted for an accessory structure exceeding 600
square feet.
14. Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of this Ordinance.
(B) The board of zoning appeals BZA may refer any application and accompanying
documentation pertaining to any request for a variance to any engineer or other
qualified person or agency for technical assistance in evaluating the proposed
September 8, 2020
430
project in relation to flood heights and velocities, and the adequacy of the plans
for protection and other related matters. Variances shall only be issued after the
board of zoning appeals BZA has determined that the granting of such will not
result in:
1. Unacceptable or prohibited increases in flood heights;
2. Additional threats to public safety;
3. Extraordinary public expense;
4. Creation of nuisances;
5. Fraud or victimization of the public; or,
6. Conflict with local laws or ordinances.
Variances shall only be issued after the board of zoning appeals BZA has
determined that the variance will be the minimum to provide relief to any
hardship.
(C) The board of zoning appeals BZA shall notify the applicant for a variance, in
writing, that the issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the 100-
year one percent (1%) flood elevation (a) increases the risks to life and property,
and (b) will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance. A record of the
above notification as well as all variance actions, including justification for their
issuance, shall be maintained and any variances which are issued shall be noted
in the annual report submitted to the Federal Insurance Administration FIA.
Sec. 30-74-18. Records.
Records of actions associated with administering this ordinance shall be kept on file and
maintained by or under the direction of the Floodplain Administrator in perpetuity.
Sec. 30-74-19. Violations.
The failure of a structure or other development to be fully compliant with the county’s
floodplain management regulations shall be considered a violation. A structure or other
development without the elevation certificate, other certifications, or other evidence of
compliance required in Sections 30-74-13 (9), 30-74-15 (B) 2, 30-74-15 (E) 4, and 30-
74-16 (A) is presumed to be in violation until such time as that documentation is
provided.
September 8, 2020
431
Sec. 30-74-20. Penalty for Violations
Section 30-22 of the Zoning Ordinance contains provisions for enforcement of this
section and penalties that apply for violations.
Sec. 30-74-13. Liability.
(A) The degree of flood protection sought by the provisions of this section is
considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on acceptable
engineering methods of study. Larger floods may occur on rare occasions. Flood
heights may be increased by manmade or natural causes, such as ice jams and
bridge openings restricted by debris. This section does not imply that areas
outside floodplain areas, or that land uses permitted within such areas, will be
free from flooding or flood damages.
(B) This ordinance shall not create liability on the part of Roanoke County or any
officers or employee thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on
this ordinance or any administrative decision lawfully made thereunder.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Mahoney and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 090820-15 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM I- CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
September 8, 2020
432
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for ,
designated as Item I - 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 25, 2020
2. Confirmation of appointment to the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission
(At-Large)
3. Request to approve the Board of Supervisors budget development calendar
for fiscal year 2021-2022
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Mahoney and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
A-090820-15.a
A-09-820-15.b
I
September 8, 2020
433
N RE: REPORTS
Supervisor North moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion was seconded by Supervisor Mahoney and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report
2. Outstanding Debt Report
3. Statement of Treasurer’s Accountability per Investment and Portfolio
Policy as of July 31, 2020
IN RE: CITIZEN COMMENTS
Staff received one citizen comment.
Donna Agee from Willowlawn advised, “You allowed these apartments on
Garst Mill Rd. to become low income housing and our neighborhood has not been the
same since. Our cars get broken into. Our tool sheds get broken into. Our homes are
no longer safe and today I hear that a bomb and dynamite have been found there. You
caused this problem and it is your responsibility to fix it!!! The homeowners in this area
deserve better for their tax dollars. They need to be able to feel safe. If I didn’t mind
this type of environment I would live elsewhere in this valley and save money or I could
just live in Chicago. Shame on you all!!! And just so you know I have lived in my home
on Willowlawn for 48 years and I KNOW THE DIFFERENCE.”
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Peters stated he only had one comment and that was a thank
you to Debbie Jacks for setting him up to work remotely; good meeting today.
Supervisor Mahoney stated that it is his understanding that today is the
last opportunity for Mr. Light to join the Board as a County employee. He is terribly
disappointed that he is leaving the Roanoke County team. In his prior life, they worked
together on many projects and has always found him to be an excellent leader, very
detailed, very thorough. It will be a loss to Roanoke County and a tremendous gain for
the City of Salem and a wonderful opportunity for him. Congratulations, thank you for
everything you have done for us.
Supervisor Hooker stated she also wanted to recognize Rob Light and to
wish him best on his new position as the Assistant City Manager for Salem and to thank
him for all of his good work in Roanoke County; you are going to be missed and it is all
September 8, 2020
434
for the betterment of the City of Salem. Best wishes. She then wished Supervisor Phil
North from the Hollins District a very happy birthday.
Supervisor North commented that somebody found out and remembered,
but actually it was yesterday. Thank you, Martha. The seventh day of September is a
lucky day in many ways. He started work in his previous life, 44 years ago yesterday in
the City he was born in, Washington, DC and he found his home in Roanoke for most of
the years he has been celebrating birthdays, but he is not going to tell us how many that
is. Thank you very much. He has some notes and tidbits, some of which the Board
may know, but the public may not. The Regional Career Technical Education Study
that was requested by Jill Loope and Roanoke County has been completed, but we are
anticipating releasing it later according to Morgan Romeo; in the meantime, the schools
that participated in the study in the regional will have a chance to discuss with their
stakeholders prior to releasing it to the full public and should be coming out later this
week and he is anxious to see what the consultants and the study have to say.
Congratulations to Jill Loope and her staff for allocating almost $1.1 million to small
businesses in Roanoke County of CARES Act money. He has heard some comments
from some of the small businesses that is was greatly appreciated and it kept them in
business and hopefully they will stay in business. Also, while data is difficult to obtain, it
is estimated that 30% of Virginia restaurants are permanently closed. This is a sad
thing to see because it not only effects the choices the public had, but a casualty of
COVID-19. So, funds like this that can help keep a business open, the small business
recovery grants, is greatly appreciated by the businesses he has touched base with.
Lodging numbers, while there might be an uptick a month ago because of staycations
and some travel within the State, are expected to drop in the fall without government
and corporate travel resuming. This likely will carry over to next year so we have to be
mindful of those revenues and dollars coming in. What is interesting here is Virginia
th
was at a 50 year low unemployment rate prior to COVID-19. We look forward to one
day getting back to the good position we were in. Last, the Long Bridge Project, which
is the bridge over the Potomac River that effects all transportation in and out of the New
River Valley and other parts of the State has passed an environmental planning
process, which is a huge step and marks a major milestone in the planning process for
new rail and pedestrian/bicycle bridge that will span the Potomac River and open doors
to future engineering, financing and designing of the construction of the bridge, which
will probably take about nine (9) years all total. What this means for SW Virginia is
more rail passenger service in the future. He looks forward to that coming to be one
day. He has already made his remarks in person to Rob Light, so he won’t reiterate
what everyone else has said, but best of luck to you. While you are closing this door,
you are opening another door and only a phone call away. So, he is sure there will be a
few phone calls. Please come back when we open the new facility on Hollins Road.
Supervisor Radford stated he too wanted to send his gratitude to Rob
Light. Rob, it is bittersweet, we are glad you have the opportunity to advance and to do
something different and furthers your career and it is loss so that is the bitter part.
September 8, 2020
435
Roanoke County has to try and fill your shoes, which is going to be tough. HE
appreciated when he came on the Board we could have frank discussions about
construction because that is the same mindset that we have and it is easy to have that
shop talk. He really appreciated that. Much success to you in your new job. He will
stay in touch with him through his mom and dad, he knows where they live. One other
th
thing he wants to remind the public, it was just announced September 8, Roanoke
County Public Libraries are planning to reopen four (4) of its buildings this fall. This is
posted as a news release today, South County, the largest and most used in system will
reopen first, and the projected date is Monday, September 28, 2020. Hollins, Glenvar
and Vinton Libraries will follow a couple of weeks after that. Right now, South County
will be open by reservation, Monday through Saturday from 10:00 a.m.-5 p.m., with
visitors not to exceed 25% normal occupancy. Patrons cans make reservations for one
rd
hour time slots starting September 23 via the library’s website,
roanokecountyva.gov/library, or by calling at 540-772-7507. The library will close for
cleaning from 1:00 p.m.-2:00 p.m. each day. There will be new protocols set up. You
can read all of this online, masks are required for anyone over 3 years old. Masks will
be available for free at the library along with hand sanitizers and sanitizing wipes. So,
library will look a little different and services will be limited. Have a good attitude about
it, we are just looking forward to those libraries opening back up.
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 4:41 p.m., Supervisor Mahoney moved to go into closed meeting
following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 (A) (1) of
the Code of Virginia, in order to discuss prospective candidates for employment.
Specifically, the Board will discuss the potential re-assignment, promotion and salaries
of specific Roanoke County employees, who may be asked to assume new
responsibilities due to the recent vacancy in position of the Director of General Services.
The motion was seconded by Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
The closes session was held from 6:21 p.m. until 6:46 p.m.
At 4:42 p.m. Chairman Radford recessed the meeting to the fourth floor for
the work session and closed session.
Supervisors Hooker and Peters left the meeting at 4:42 p.m.
September 8, 2020
436
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to discuss Broadband projects with the Board of
Supervisors (Bill Hunter, Director of Communications and
Information Technology)
Mr. Hunter provided the Board with a PowerPoint presentation.
Supervisor Mahoney asked for clarification with regard to “per passing”,
with Mr. Hunter advising what is cost to go by each house.
Supervisor Mahoney asked if all the projects listed were wireless with Mr.
Hunter responding in the negative stating only the Catawba District, Project 3 and
Project 4. Projects 1 and 2 are standard, either coax or fiber.
Supervisor North stated he comes up with almost 300 homes and then
when you add the VATI grants, almost 600 homes. So, we know that overall the County
has 67% coverage in some form, what would the percentage coverage improve to if we
lucky to get all of these done. Mr. Hunter advised he would have to get the number and
advise.
Mr. O’Donnell noted that rural broadband is tremendously expensive;
COVID has shown the deficits. This should be a national priority. He added that he did
not see how rural communities could catch up without some type of federal assistance.
Supervisor Mahoney asked if there was a significant difference when you
calculate the per house or per passing cost between what Mr. Hunter is trying to do with
the VATI grant versus what we are trying to do know with the CARES Act Funding? Mr.
Hunter advised the pricing lines up pretty evenly. Supervisor Mahoney added that he
was concerned that the CARES Act funding was significantly more expensive per
passing than the VATI grants because it is not concentrated and with the VATI grants
we were focusing on the “biggest bang for the buck.” So, he was concerned it was
more a problem in terms of financial aspects. Supervisor Mahoney advised in his other
life, he had done some work with previous grants for Franklin County and some of the
other counties and a lot of it was the wireless and that seemed to be the quicker, easier
methodology to go forward. Mr. O’Donnell stated when we did the requests for
proposals, most of the proposals were fiber and not wireless. Mr. Hunter advised as far
as the wireline goes, these proposals are cheaper than VATI. VATI ended up at $9,500
per passing. The Windsor Hills and Cave Spring is $7,400 per passing and the
Catawba 36 houses, the traditional wired is $5,000 per passing. The wireless mess
network is calculating per passing is calculated completely different. As far as the apple
to apple comparison, these proposals are cheaper than VATI.
September 8, 2020
437
Supervisor Radford asked for clarification if the $1.350 million is covered
by the CARES Act funding with Mr. Hunter advising in the affirmative. So, all that is a
th
done deal and will get done, the 298 homes by December 30? Mr. Hunter advised
there are some concerns. The biggest concern with any of these three (3) vendors had
is the timeline. They have to get right-of-ways from landowners, the AEP pole permits,
the planning and zoning permitting, which we have solved, power issues, shipping
delays are another huge piece. The County Attorney and he have been working very
carefully to structure contracts would allow for the amount of the CARES Act funding
only. Supervisor Radford stated that he is hearing in the construction world that coax is
hard to find right now. Mr. Hunter advised fiber optic is hard to fine as well. He added
that as he has been working on these proposals, he has been working the Craig-
Botetourt Electric Coop and they won a VATI grant last year that they are completing
right now. They are very interested in coming into the County and providing internet to
the CBEC customers up in that area, but did not know if he could get any fiber-optic
cable right now. Mr. O’Donnell added that is another reason that he hopes Congress
will push back the timeline. Supervisor Radford added this is a nationwide problem for
all building materials. His deadlines for completing houses are getting pushed back 5-8
weeks. He cannot get windows, lumber, etc.
Supervisor North added if it would be prudent to have a letter drafted by
Mr. Lubeck to our Congressional delegation using this as an example, if we are not able
to complete this work, we will not be able to use the funds sooner than later because
Congress is going to come back next week and be in session for a month and then go
home for the election. If nothing else, just get it on record that anything they can do to
th
extend that date of December 30 until the end of June next week would line up nicely
with the fiscal year.
Supervisor Radford stated what is the point, they are going to give us the
th
money, but cut our hands off on December 30. Supervisor North added because we
only got 50% earlier and then the remainder now does not leave a lot of time. When we
run into these folks, we can bring it up in conversation. Supervisor Radford stated he
made a personal telephone call to Congressman Cline.
Supervisor Mahoney stated he is not optimistic that Congress will meet
and extend the deadline, but in case they do, Mr. Lubeck, he knows they struggled with
the administrative review process in terms of the height of the poles, etc. Is there
anything that would be worthwhile for the legislative program for the 2021 General
Assembly? He asked Mr. Lubeck to look at the statute, we were using the small cell
vehicle to have some relief here. He is wondering if there is a legislative fix that we
could look at it in Virginia. If Congress acts and extends the time, then we can
piggyback a solution there so we could come into that safe harbor for administrative
review, so we can move more quickly. Mr. Lubeck responded that at present, they
suspect they will be able to utilize. Supervisor Mahoney asked if there was anything we
could do solely within the County authority with Mr. Lubeck responded in the affirmative.
September 8, 2020
438
The work session was held from 4:58 p.m. until 5:20 p.m.
2. Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors the
budget for the second allocation of CARES Act funding (Laurie
Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services)
Ms. Gearheart provided the Board a PowerPoint presentation. Also in
attendance were Doug Blount, Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism and Rob
Light, Director of General Services.
Supervisor North asked with regard to Vinton, they have not spent very
much, do they understand the timeliness? Ms. Gearheart responded in the affirmative.
She added a big part of it is a financial software program that they plan to upgrade for
$150,000. They have worked through the contract, but does not have a start date.
They structured it with milestone for payments as they figured they could not get the
th
financial software completely by December 30. They are also working on an
emergency shelter, which is about $118,000. The process for them is to send their
requests to us, we vet through our auditors and they have a form that we approve and
send back and then they can move forward. Supervisor North asked why the State took
two reiterations to accomplish this. Ms. Gearheart stated if you read the first letter, they
really had no obligation to give us the second payment.
Mr. O’Donnell noted that in the schools numbers, would be day care, but
they had really not gotten started yet. Supervisor North stated the schools are saying
Faith Christian, Bonsack Baptist could help with daycare. He goes to Bonsack Baptist
and he brought it up last month, but they were not aware of it. There are funds coming
from United Way. Did United Way get funded from Congress? He understands there
are funds to offset some of the costs associated with daycare for other citizens that
might need to use it. Doug Blount advised Roanoke County Public Schools put together
a task force for childcare so they are working with a lot of faith-based organizations,
non-profit organizations coming together to provide the different childcare services. So,
United Way, as well as others, have stepped up to provide some seed money to get it
started, plus Roanoke County Public Schools are taking part of their CARES Act
funding that they received directly to provide a small percentage of dollars to reimburse
some of these things. The biggest challenge that Roanoke County Public Schools and
the task force is having is trying to hire staff to be able to get the programs up and
running. So, to his knowledge, he does not know if they have more than one (1) or two
(2) programs up and running. The other challenge they are going to have is parents
have already found alternative ways to insure virtual learning is taking place and
childcare.
Supervisor Radford as with regard to the remaining funds in the first
payment, is it all committed. Ms. Gearheart advised in the affirmative stating there are
projects that we waiting on quotes.
September 8, 2020
439
Supervisor Mahoney asked what dollars went directly to schools and not
through us? Ms. Owens stated it was just over $1 million, which was appropriated at
the last meeting. Supervisor Mahoney advised he thought they had funds that went
directly to them back in the spring. Mr. O’Donnell advised they were informed in the
spring, but it was not appropriated. Ms. Gearheart indicated they could apply for small
grants, but they are not a lot of money.
Supervisor Mahoney asked with regard to satellite locations for the
registrar if one of the rooms at Green Ridge could be used with Mr. Blount advising the
rooms have been taken for daycare. He indicated Kessler Mill could be used for a drop
off location. Supervisor Radford asked if we were doing any childcare at the Bent
Mountain Community Center with Mr. Blount responding in the negative.
Supervisor Radford asked with regard to the Brambleton Center, satellite
office, what does the $25,000 entail? Mr. Blount advised that project includes putting in
counters in the room that will be the satellite office and includes the pcs as well as the
electrical work, new stanchions and a couple of phones. He does not see us spending
close to the $25,000, but it will probably be in the $16-$17,000 range once completed.
th,
Supervisor Radford stated so today is September 8do you have ten (10) days.
Everything will be installed in time. Supervisor Mahoney asked if there were any ADA
requirements with Mr. Blount responding the doors are ADA. We will have signs
directing people down the hall.
Supervisor Radford asked with regard to the hotspot loaner devices is this
similar to what is happening at the Glenvar libraries. Ms. Owens responded in the
affirmative. Supervisor Radford stated he had a request from the Bent Mountain library,
which Ms. Owens responded she would check with Ms. Henry to make sure they are
included.
Supervisor North commented inflation is defined as too many dollars
chasing too few goods and services. We have the converse of this; many needs and
wants and options and few dollars. He shared with Mr. O’Donnell during the break.
Let’s assume we did another hazard pay, $1 million like we did before and we did the
small business applications and you did the other $2.8 to schools, you have already
exceeded the $3.3; never mind the non-profits and food banks. He sees this in the
short time frame we have as going to be a priority challenge to really truly do what we
th
have to do with the dollars by December 30. Everybody would probably like another
round of hazard pay. He does not know if we can afform to do that at the same rate that
we did before, if you even get to that. Mr. O’Donnell stated if they do extend the time,
we should do more broadband; he has heard from several Board members as to what a
high priority that is. Supervisor North stated he agreed as that begs future economic
benefits in many ways.
Supervisor Radford stated the priority might have to be scaled down to
spread the dollars over a bigger area.
Supervisor Mahoney stated there is such a risk in losing the flexibility
using the funds for needs. Supervisor North is correct, Congress is going to come back
September 8, 2020
440
for a couple of weeks and then adjourn for elections. However, there is a possibility
they could come back after the elections and do it the first week of December. At that
point, everyone would have scurried around and spent it, but you cannot really hold it
back on the hope or promise they might do something post election. Supervisor
Mahoney asked Mr. Lubeck if he had seen anything yet on the list serv. There are all
those prohibitions against localities spending funds in support of sectarian “churches.”
When Ms. Gearheart mentioned some of the food banks, daycares run through a
church is what scares him. Mr. Lubeck stated he had not seen anything. Supervisor
Mahoney commented that scares him because that is fulfilling a need and clearly it
would fall within the broader goals, but we still have those provisions in the early part of
15.2 that prohibits us from supporting sectarian programs.
The work session was held from 5:22 p.m. until 6:08 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 6:46 p.m., Supervisor North moved to return to open session and adopt
the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 090820-16 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING
WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member’s
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies; and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Radford to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote:
September 8, 2020
441
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, North, Peters
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisors Hooker, Peters
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Radford adjourned the meeting at 6:47 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
________________________ ___________________________________
Deborah C. Jacks David F. Radford
Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board Chairman
September 8, 2020
442
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY