11/13/2001 - Regular
November 13, 2001
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
November 13, 2001
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the third Tuesday and the only regularly
scheduled meeting of the month of November, 2001.
IN RE:CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Minnix called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call was
taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairman H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix, Vice-Chairman Joseph
“Butch” Church, Supervisors Joseph McNamara, Harry C.
Nickens
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Supervisor Bob L. Johnson
STAFF PRESENT:
Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M Mahoney,
County Attorney; Mary H. Allen, Clerk to the Board; John M.
Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Dan R. O’Donnell,
Assistant County Administrator; Kathi B. Scearce, Community
Relations Director
IN RE:OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County
Administrator. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE:REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Hodge: (1) advised that Mr. Haile has requested to postpone his
rezoning request until December 18, 2001; and (2) added a briefing from Chief Burch
November 13, 2001
and the Department of State Forestry on the recent brush fire on Bent Mountain. Mr.
Mahoney added a closed meeting item: considerationof appointments to the Virginia
Recreational Facilities Authority. Supervisor McNamara requested that the Item
concerning Salem Office Supply be added to the closed meeting discussion with action
taken during the evening session. Supervisor Nickens added a special recognition.
Supervisor Church advised he would offer an appointment to the Roanoke Valley
Resource Authority.
IN RE:PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND
PRESENTATIONS
1.ProclamationDeclaringNovember11-17,2001asAmerican
EducationWeekinRoanokeCounty.
The proclamation was accepted by Leigh McKay, President of the
Roanoke County Education Association.
2.RecognitionofCommunityRelationsDepartmentforreceiving
thePublicRelationsSocietyofAmerica-BlueRidgeChapter
awardfortheBlueRidgeParkwayVisitorsCenterGrand
Opening.(ElmerHodge,CountyAdministrator)
Mr. Hodge announced that the Roanoke County Community Relations
Department was the recipient of an awardfrom the Public Relations Society of America
- Blue Ridge Chapter for the Blue Ridge Parkway Visitors Center Grand Opening
Celebration held on May 7, 2001. Kathi Scearce, Community Relations Director, was
present to accept recognition.
November 13, 2001
3.RecognitionofBoardmemberH.OdellFuzzyMinnixfor10
yearsserviceontheBoardofSupervisors.
Supervisor Nickens recognized Chairman Minnix and presented him with a
plaque from the Virginia Associationof Counties for his ten years of service as a
member of the Board of Supervisors.
IN RE:BRIEFINGS
1.BriefingonBrushFireonBentMountain(FireandRescue
ChiefRickBurchandChuckHutsell,StateForestry
Department)
Chief Burch and Mr. Hutsell reported on the recent fire on Bent Mountain.
Chief Burch advised that the initial dispatch call came at 1:23 a.m. on Friday, November
9. Clearbrook, Bent Mountain, Back Creek, and later, Cave Spring responded.
Additional units were requested from Vinton, Read Mountain and Hollins. There were
also brush fires on Bandy Road, Poage Valley, Roberta Road and Bradshaw Road.
The State Forestry Department, Federal Park Service and Roanoke County activated
andutilized a unified command approach throughout the incident. Mr. Hutsell
commended the Roanoke County Fire and Rescue Department. He advised there were
helicopters, tractors, 60 wild land firefighters from Utah and Wyoming and the Forestry
Department had 50-60 people involved at all times.
Supervisor McNamara advised he visited the brush fire on Poage Valley
and expressed appreciation to the Department of Forestry. Chief Burch reported that
they had much support from the public including food brought by volunteers.
IN RE:NEW BUSINESS
1.ApprovalofaRight-Of-EntryAgreementwithWillieJ.Keeling,
November 13, 2001
RoanokeCountyandtheDepartmentofEnvironmental
Quality;andanInter-AgencyAgreementbetweenthe
DepartmentofEnvironmentalQualityandtheCountyof
Roanoke.(PaulMahoney,CountyAttorney)
A-111301-1
Mr. Mahoney reported that the Right-Of-Entry Agreement with Willie J.
Keeling and the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) grants the County and
DEQ the right toenter Mr. Keeling's property for the purpose of: (1) conducting a
preliminary siteassessment; (2) making evaluations and/or conducting environmental
samplings and assessments; (3) removing and properly disposing of waste tires; and (4)
engaging in such other conduct necessary and/or incidental to this project.
The Inter-Agency Agreement with DEQ provides that the County will
arrange access to the Keeling property, develop a remediation plan, implement site
improvements and implement clean up activities and any approved closure-in-place
activities. DEQ will reimburse the County for these various activities in an amount not to
exceed $1,410,000.
Mr. Mahoney advised that both the County and DEQ have taken a variety
of enforcement actions against Mr. Keeling over the past 14 years to correct these
environmental problems; however, these have been unsuccessful in cleaning up the
tires from the property. If the Board approves these agreements, the County will arrange
for the various actions described above. County staff will follow the provisions of the
Virginia Public Procurement Act in hiring various contractors to perform the work
identified under these agreements. DEQ will reimburse the County for these contract
expenditures. It is anticipated that this work can be completed within three years.
Mr. Mahoney explained that during the three years, the County will receive
November 13, 2001
reimbursements in an amount not to exceed $1.4 Millionfor work approved and
authorized by DEQ. DEQ will reimburse the County monthly, therefore the County will
have to advance funds to pay vendors and contractors.
Mr. Mahoney recommended that: 1) the Board of Supervisors authorize the
County Administrator to execute the Right-Of-Entry Agreement on behalf of the County,
by and between Willie J. Keeling, the Roanoke County Boardof Supervisors and the
Department of Environmental Quality; 2) the Board of Supervisors authorize the County
Administrator to execute the Inter-AgencyAgreement on behalf ofthe County, by and
betweenthe Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and the Department of
Environmental Quality; 3) the Board of Supervisors designate Dan O'Donnell, Assistant
County Administrator, as the Project Manager, and authorize the hiring of a temporary,
full-time position to monitor the work under these agreements; 4) authorize the
expenditureof an amount not to exceed $20,000 to pay Mr. Keeling's legal counsel fees
from funds previously appropriated by the Board foroutside counsel fees; and 5) the
Board of Supervisors appropriate $1,410,000 from DEQ to an account to pay vendors
and contractors under these agreements, this account to be reimbursed by monthly
report and invoice by DEQ.
In response to questionsfrom Supervisor Minnix, Mr. Mahoney advised
that $1.4 million was the best estimate of the cost. This will mitigate many of the
problems if it does not solve all of them. It may be possible to get grant funds also. He
also advised that it may be possible for DEQ to cover the cost of Mr. Keeling’s legal
feesand the temporary employee. Supervisor McNamara inquired whether the
individual hired to follow the school construction projects could also oversee this project,
but Mr. Hodge responded that the employee is already involved in current County
construction projects. He requested permission to establish the position and
November 13, 2001
emphasized that he would use existing employees if it was possible.
Supervisor Minnix moved to approve the agreement. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:Supervisors Church, Nickens, Minnix
NAYS:Supervisor McNamara
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
2.ApprovaltoenterintoacontractwiththeRoanokeValley
SPCAforparticipationinaRegionalAnimalImpoundment
Facility.(JohnM.Chambliss,AssistantCountyAdministrator)
Mr. Chambliss reported that for over fifteen years, the Roanoke Valley
SPCA has operated the animalimpoundment facility for Roanoke City, Roanoke
County, Botetourt County and the Town of Vinton in their facility at 1313 Eastern
Avenue NE in the City of Roanoke. This facility consists of a farmhouse style structure
and associated fenced areas and is located in a flood plain. The existing facility no
longer meets the standards of the State Veterinarian’s office. During the flood of 1985,
the property was significantlydamaged by the flood waters, andthe age and style of
construction of the building do not make further renovation or expansion on that portion
of their site feasible.
Mr. Chambliss explained that the localities have been working with the
staff and Board of Directors of the SPCA, and with the State Veterinarian’s office to
design a new facilityon other property owned by the SPCA located to the South of their
existing structure which is at a higher elevation thus removing the flood plain hazard.
The new complex will be composed of two structures, one being the SPCA’s education
and adoption center and the other being the regional impoundment facility. The SPCA
November 13, 2001
recently purchased and rezoned additional adjacent property to locate the proposed
impoundment portion of the facility.
Mr. Chambliss advised that the new impoundment facility must be constructed to
meet current standards established by the State Veterinarian’s office and will be
operated for the localities by the SPCA through one of their sub-contract groups. The
Roanoke Valley SPCA will build, operate and own the impoundment facility, and the
localities will pay the debt service for the impoundment facility and for their share of the
operating costs. The cost sharing among the localities is based on the historical usage
of the impoundment facility, and will be adjusted every three years.
Financingfor the impoundment facility will be handled by the Botetourt County
Industrial Development Authority. It is anticipated that the new facility will be
operational in the Spring of 2003. The separate education and adoption facility will be
owned, operated, and financed by the Roanoke Valley SPCA through its own fund
raisingefforts.
Mr. Chambliss advised that the contract provides for an advisory board with
representation from each participating jurisdiction, the SPCA Board of Directors and a
representative of the sub-contractor for operations appointed by the SPCA who will
review the budgets, approve policy matters related to the operation of the impoundment
facility and recommend the necessary budget requirements to the Administrator/
Manager of the participating jurisdictions for inclusion in their budget. The capital cost
will be in the form of lease payments for the 15 - 20 year term of the financing. The
contract will expire June 30, 2032 and is renewable annually thereafter unless one party
gives180 day notice. Animal Control services by localities are required according to the
Code of Virginia,and the localities in this agreement have determined that this type of
regional impoundment system will be the most cost effective and efficient.
November 13, 2001
Mr. Chambliss offered three alternatives: (1) Participate with the other
localities for a regional facility to be owned and operated by the SPCA. (2) Build a
shelter on our own which would require a more expensive solution for each of the
localities. (3) Participate with another locality. The City of Salem is the only other
jurisdiction in the immediate area that has its own facility. They recently completed a
new facility on property that they owned, however, the site was not large enough to
accommodate the needs of the other jurisdictions.
Mr. Chambliss recommended that the County Administrator be authorized
to execute the agreement with the SPCA and the other Roanoke Valley governments
for the construction and operation of the new impoundment shelter facility upon forms
approved by the County Attorney.
The Board members had questions concerning the cost of the facility, the
debt service, who would own and run the facility, and the authority of an advisory board.
Following discussion, staff was directed to schedule a work session for further
discussion and no action was taken.
3.Authorizationtoexecuteamulti-partyagreementtosettlelawsuit
concerningtheRoute419crossover,appropriationoffundsand
approvalofaddendumtoperformanceagreementwithSpringwood
Associates.(ElmerHodge,CountyAdministrator)
A-111301-2
Mr. Hodge advised that site plans approved by the Virginia Department of
Transportation for Route 419 in connection withdevelopment of Springwood Park
provided for traffic signalization at Ruby Tuesday’s entrance on 419, requiring closure of
the crossover at the entrance/exit to and from Cave Spring Office Park and Wachovia
Bank. The plans were incorporated into Roanoke County’s rezoning approvals for
November 13, 2001
Springwood Park. The property owners were provided notice of the rezoning actions by
the Board on two separate occasions. Upon completion of the road construction by
Springwood, the owners of the Office Park and Wachovia Bank became awareofthe
crossover closure and objected becauseof the negative impact to their businesses.
The Office Park owners filed suit against VDOT.
Mr. Hodge explained that among the several alternativeproposals, the
solution that is economically feasible and satisfactory to all parties is to reopen the
crossover solely for a left-turn lane from the southwest bound lane of 419 into the
entrance/exit of the Office Park and Bank, similar to the turn onto Bernard Drive. The
estimated cost to construct the re-configuration is $100,000, with Wachovia Bank, the
Office Park owners, and Roanoke County each contributing $25,000 to the project fora
total of $75,000. Springwood Associates would be responsible for the construction and
the balance of the cost. The County’s share of $25,000 would be paid from the Public
Private Partnership Account.
Mr. Hodge recommended approval of the following: (1) to execute a multi-
party settlement agreement to partially reopen and reconfigure the 419 crossover, with
financial contributions from Barton, Wheelock, and McClellan, Wachovia Bank, Roanoke
County, and Springwood Associates;(2) to obtain release of all potential or pending
claims or suits. (3) appropriation of $25,000 for County’s share of reconstruction; and
(4) to execute an amendment to the performance agreement with Springwood
Associates allowing an additional six (6) months for payment and generationof tax
revenue.
Supervisor Minnix noted that Springwood Associates has requested the
stop light within nine months. Mr. Hodge responded that VDOT has agreed to this.
Supervisor McNamara noted that he had an office in the Office Park and would abstain
from voting to avoid any appearance of conflict and has not participated in past
November 13, 2001
discussions of this issue.
Supervisor Minnix moved to authorize the agreementThe motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:Supervisors Church, Nickens, Minnix
NAYS:None
ABSTAIN:Supervisor McNamara
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
4.RequesttoapprovearesolutionadoptingaLegislative
Programforthe2002GeneralAssemblysession.(Paul
Mahoney,CountyAttorney)
Mr. Mahoney asked if the Board would like to schedule a meeting with the
area legislators following the organizational meeting on January 2, 2002. The Board
concurred.
Supervisor McNamara and Supervisor Nickens suggested limiting the
resolution requests to only one or two important issues. Supervisor Church advised he
opposed several items in the resolution because they called for a tax increase.
Supervisor McNamara and Supervisor Minnix responded that the Board is only asking
for the authority to increase certain taxes in the future,but does not actually raise the
tax.
Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to schedule a
work session on December 4, 2001. Mr. Mahoney was asked to invite the area
legislators to attendthe meeting on January 2, 2002 at 9:30 a.m.
IN RE:REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
November 13, 2001
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the first readings and set the
second readings and public hearings for December 18, 2001. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:Supervisors McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix
NAYS:None
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
1.FirstreadingofordinanceofpetitionofRichardM.Sinkto
obtainaSpecialUsePermittoconductaHomeOccupation
Businessinanaccessorystructure,locatedat753Plantation
Circle,HollinsMagisterialDistrict.
2.FirstreadingofordinanceofpetitionofK&KRentals,LLCto
rezone.327acresfromC-1OfficeDistricttoC-2CGeneral
CommercialDistrictwithprofferedC-2uses,locatedat3426
Brambletonandaportionof3512BrambletonAvenue,Cave
SpringMagisterialDistrict.
3.FirstreadingofordinanceofpetitionofCalvaryChapelof
RoanoketoobtainaSpecialUsepermitfor.891acresfora
religiousassemblylocatedat4903StarkeyRoad,CaveSpring
MagisterialDistrict.
4.FirstreadingofordinanceofpetitionofChasePottertorezone
23.5acresfromAR,AgriculturalResidentialtoAG-1
Agricultural/RuralLowDensityDistrictandobtainaSpecial
UsePermitforaShootingRange,Outdoorlocatedat3454
RandallDrive,VintonMagisterialDistrict.
IN RE:SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1.Secondreadingofordinanceauthorizingtheacquisitionof
realestatefortheCarvinCreekHazardMitigationProject,
PhaseII,toreducethenumberofstructuresintheCarvin
CreekFloodplain.(GeorgeSimpson,CommunityDevelopment
AssistantDirector)
November 13, 2001
O-111301-3
There was no discussion and no citizens to speak on this ordinance.
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:Supervisors McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix
NAYS:None
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
ORDINANCE111301-3AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF REAL
ESTATE FOR THE CARVIN CREEK HAZARD MITIGATION PROJECT,
TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF STRUCTURES IN THE CARVIN
CREEK FLOOD PLAIN
WHEREAS, Roanoke County has been awarded two grants from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to purchase flood-prone homes in
the Sun Valley/Palm Valley area of Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Carvin Creek Hazard Mitigation Grants
(the Grants) is to reduce the number of structures located in the flood plain and subject
to flooding damages; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County accepted the
Phase I Grant on December 15, 1998, and approved the Carvin Creek Hazard
Mitigation Project (the Project), and the Board accepted the Phase II Grant on June 26,
2001; and,
WHEREAS, by Ordinance #020999-3, adopted on February9, 1999, the
Board of Supervisors authorized the acquisitionof thirteen identified properties in
connection with the Project, eight of which were acquired in Phase I; and,
WHEREAS, the owners of one of the properties, previously identified and
approved, elected not to participate, and an alternative property has now been identified
for acquisition in Phase II of the Project; and,
WHEREAS, the real estate to be acquired is located in the Carvin Creek
flood plain; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition of real estate be accomplished by ordinance; thefirst reading of this
ordinance was held on October 23, 2001, and the second reading was held on
November 13, 2001.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of Supervisorsof
Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1.That the acquisition of real estate is hereby authorized, referenced
by tax map number, from the following property owner, their successors or assigns:
TAXMAPNO.PROPERTYADDRESSOWNER
38.11-1-575332 Palm Valley Road Wood, Paul Allen (deceased) & Nancy
D.
November 13, 2001
2.That the consideration for this property acquisition shall not exceed
a value to be determined by an independent fair market value appraisal; and
3.That the consideration for this real estate acquisition shallbe paid
from the Carvin Creek Hazard Mitigation Project Grant funds, not to exceed and subject
to the amount of funds available; and
4.That in order to accomplish the provisions of the Grantsand
ordinances, the Board hereby adopts by reference the “Carvin Creek Acquisition
Policy,” which establishes the procedures and requirements by which acquisition of all
real estate shall be accomplished. The Board may amend this policy from time to time
by resolution; and
5.That the funds for this acquisition have previously been accepted
and appropriated, and are available in the Drainage/Flood Control capital account.
6.That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County
Administrator, is hereby authorized to executesuch documents and take such actions
as may be necessary to accomplish these acquisitions, all of which shall be on form
approved by the County Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance,and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:Supervisors McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix
NAYS:None
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
2.Secondreadingofordinanceacceptinganofferforand
authorizingthesaleofpropertylocatedat400EastMain
Street,Salem,Virginia(SalemOfficeSupplyBuilding-Cityof
SalemTaxMapNo.107-6-1).(AnneMarieGreen,Directorof
GeneralServices)
This item was moved to Item 6 in the evening session.
IN RE:APPOINTMENTS
1.RoanokeValleyResourceAuthority
Supervisor Church announcedthat he would appoint a resident of the
Bradshaw Road area at the evening session.
IN RE:CONSENT AGENDA
R-111301-4;R-111301-4.e;R-111301-4.f
November 13, 2001
Supervisor Minnix movedto adopt the Consent Resolution. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:Supervisors McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix
NAYS:None
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
RESOLUTION111301-4 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN
ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA
FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J -CONSENT AGENDA
BEIT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That the certain section of the agendaof the Board of Supervisors for
November 13, 2001, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is,
approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section
designated Items 1 through 7, inclusive, as follows:
1.Approval of Minutes - August 14, 2001
2.Confirmation of Committee Appointments to:
a.The Roanoke Valley Resource Authority
b.The Southwest Development Financing, Inc.
3.Acceptance of $2,000 donation from the Salem Jaycees, Inc. for
Camp Roanoke.
4.Donation of an easement from Richard A. Foster, Jr. and Helen G.
Foster (Tax Map No. 15.00-01-10) to the Board of Supervisorsof
Roanoke County in the Catawba Magisterial District.
5.Donation of an easement from William R. Hodges, Jr., and Janette
Coakley Hodges (Tax Map No. 15.00-01-11) to the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County in the Catawba Magisterial District.
6.Adoption of a policy for exchange of assets with the Virginia
Recreational Facilities Authority.
7.Adoption of a fiscal agent agreement between the County of
Roanoke and the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority.
2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where
required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any
such item pursuant to this resolution.
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the Consent Resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:Supervisors McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix
NAYS:None
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
November 13, 2001
RESOLUTION111301-4.e AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER TO OR
EXCHANGEOF PERSONAL PROPERTY WITH THE VIRGINIA
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY
WHEREAS,On July 24, 2001, the County of Roanoke entered into a
cooperative agreement with Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority (VRFA) and the
River Foundation; and,
WHEREAS, in this agreement, the County agreed to assist the VRFA
wherever possible in the areas of finance, procurement, human resources, vehicle
maintenance and marketing. The goal was to reviewthese functions of government to
determine the most cost-effectiveway to provide these functions; and,
WHEREAS, the County has transferred certain surplus vehicles and other
equipment to the VRFA after specific approval by the Board of Supervisors; and,
WHEREAS, this action adopts a policy that treats the VRFA as another
county department for the purpose of transferring, exchanging, leasing, or conveying
public personal property assets.
NOW THEREFORE, Be It Resolved, By the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1.That the VRFA be deemed a County department for purposes of
the transfer,exchange,lease, or conveyance of personal property, equipment, and
other similar assets.
2.That the CountyAdministrator or his designee shall be authorized
to approve such transactions concerning said property or assets as he may deem
advisable.
3.That the VRFA is responsible for maintaining liabilityinsurance
coverage while they are using the County vehicles and/or equipment.
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:Supervisors McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix
NAYS:None
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
IN RE:REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS
The Legislative Program work session was scheduled for December 4,
2001.
IN RE:REPORTS
Supervisor Nickens moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:Supervisors McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix
November 13, 2001
NAYS:None
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
1.GeneralFundUnappropriatedBalance
2.CapitalFundUnappropriatedBalance
3.BoardContingencyFund
4.FutureSchoolCapitalReserve
5.AccountsPaid-September2001
6.ScheduleofExpendituresandEstimatedandActualRevenues
forthemonthendedSeptember30,2001
7.StatementofTreasurer’sAccountabilityperInvestmentand
PortfolioPolicyasofSeptember30,2001andOctober31,2001
8.ReportonCleanValleyCouncilmeetingsinSeptemberand
October2001.
9.ReportondevelopmentofanewRoanokeCountylogo.
IN RE:CLOSED MEETING
At 4:55 p.m., Supervisor Minnix moved to go into Closed Meeting pursuant
to Code of Virginia (1) §2-3711 A (1) - Consideration of prospective candidates for
appointment to the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority and the Virginia Recreational
Facilities Authority;(2) §2.2-3711 A (7) - Consultation with legal counsel and briefings
by staff members regarding a specific legal matter requiring the provision of legal
advise, namely,Advance Auto performance agreement; (3) §2.2-3711 A (3) -
Discussion of the acquisition of real property for a public purposes, namely, Indian
Grave Road, and discussion of the disposition of publicly-held property, namely, a
portion of the Brambleton Recreational Center; and sale of publicly held property, Salem
Office Supply; (4) §2.2-3711 A (5) - Discussion concerning a prospective business or
November 13, 2001
industry where no previous announcement has been made of the business or industry’s
interest in locating its facilities in Roanoke County; and (5) §2.2-3711 A (7) -
Consultation with legal counsel concerning probable litigation, namely City/County
boundary adjustments. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:Supervisors McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix
NAYS:None
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
IN RE:WORK SESSIONS
1.WorkSessiontoreviewtheSecondaryRoadSystemSixYear
ConstructionPlan(2002-2008)andConsiderationofProjects
forFY2002-2003VDOTRevenueSharingProgram.(Arnold
Covey,CommunityDevelopmentDirector)
The work session was held from 5:05 p.m. until 5:20 p.m. and was
presented by Arnold Covey and Jay Knight, and Bill Manning from the Virginia
Department of Transportation staff.
Mr. Covey reported that Roanoke County receivedapproximately $3.56
million last year and Roanoke County’s budget for FY 2001-2002 is estimated to be
approximately $4.0 million. Because Roanoke County’s rural addition list is very long,
$180,000 was allocated, which is the maximum allowed by state law. The rural addition
projects that the staff is currently working on are Creekside Drive and Artrip Lane.
Mr. Covey explained that staff will againbe requesting the maximum
allocation of $500,000 for the Revenue Sharing Programfrom the Commonwealth of
Virginia. Becauseof the minimum amount of paving requestsreceived from VDOT,
staff is requesting that the FY 2002-2003 Revenue Sharing allocation be placed on
November 13, 2001
major projects, such as Glenmary Drive, Buck Mountain Road, and Indian Grave Road.
These funds must be used on roads in the secondary system.
Mr. Covey reported that priority projects scheduled to receive funding this
year are Hardy Road, Hollins Road, McVitty Road, Old Cave Spring Lane, Colonial
Avenue, Buck Mountain Road, Cotton Hill Road, Glenmary Drive, Mountain View Road,
Boones Chapel Road, Catawba Creek Road, Dry Hollow Road, Merriman Road, King
Brothers Road and Rocky Road. Projects added this year includes a portion of Hardy
Road, a portion of Indian Grave Road, 0.5 mile of County Line Road and 0.2 mile of
Montcap Road. Mr. Covey requested that staff be authorized to schedule a public
hearing on December 18, 2001 on the Six-Year Secondary Road ConstructionPlan for
FY 2002-2008 and Revenue Sharing Priority List for FY 2002-2003.
Supervisor Minnix announced that there is a meeting scheduled for
November 19 with the residents on Colonial Avenue to discuss road improvements.
IN RE:CLOSED MEETING
The closed meeting was held from 5:20 p.m. until 6:50 p.m.
EVENINGSESSION
IN RE:CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
R-111301-5
At7:00 p.m., Supervisor Nickens moved to return to open session, adopt
the Certification Resolution and announced that there was no discussion of the
appointments to the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority or City/County boundary
line adjustment. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:Supervisors McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix
November 13, 2001
NAYS:None
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
RESOLUTION111301-5 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, BEIT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies, and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion
convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the Certification Resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:Supervisors McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix
NAYS:None
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
IN RE :PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
The following petition was continued by the Planning Commission and will
not be heard this evening
SecondreadingofordinancetoobtainaSpecialUsePermitfor8.91
acresforareligiousassemblylocatedatVa.Rte.311/Laurel
MountainRoadintersection,CatawbaMagisterialDistrictuponthe
petitionofStarCityChurchofChrist.
1.SecondreadingofordinancetoobtainaSpecialUsePermit
for11.71acresforaprivatestablelocatedat4911Poor
November 13, 2001
MountainRoad,CatawbaMagisterialDistrictuponthepetition
ofStephenD.andRuthE.Nash.(JanetScheid,ChiefPlanner)
O-111301-8
Ms. Scheid advised that at the Planning Commission Mr. Nash explained
why this property was purchased and the improvements that he has made. He also
explained that the horses would be fenced in and that the fence is currently being
repaired. One citizen spoke in favor and one spoke against the Special Use Permit.
The Planning Commission recommended approval with three conditions.
Supervisor Church advised that his only concern was that the manure be
removed weekly.He moved to adopt the ordinance with a fourth condition that manure
will be removed on a weekly basis. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:Supervisors McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix
NAYS:None
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
ORDINANCE111301-8 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO
STEPHEN D. NASH AND RUTH E. NASH FOR A PRIVATE STABLE ON
11.71 ACRES LOCATED AT 4911 POOR MOUNTAIN ROAD (TAX
MAP NO. 64.02-1-51), CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Stephen D. Nash and Ruth E. Nash have filed a petition for a
special use permit for a private stable to be located at 4911 Poor Mountain Road (Tax
Map No. 64.02-1-51) in the Catawba MagisterialDistrict; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter
on November 6, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a
first reading on this matter on October 23, 2001; the second reading and public hearing
on this matter was held on November 13, 2001.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1.That the Board finds that the granting ofaspecial use permit to
Stephen D. Nash and Ruth E. Nash for a private stable on 11.71 acres located at 4911
Poor Mountain Road (Tax Map No. 64.02-1-51) in the Catawba Magisterial District is
substantially in accord with the adopted 2000 Community Plan pursuant to the
provisions of § 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said Special
Use Permit is hereby approved with the following conditions:
(1)A maximum of four horses on the 11.71 acre parcel.
November 13, 2001
(2)All animal grazing areas shall have sufficient ground cover to
minimize storm water run-off and erosion.
(3)The area for containment of the horses shall be fenced on all
sides.
(4)Manure will be removed on a weekly basis.
2.That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days
after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the
provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning
Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in
zoning classification authorized by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Churchto adopt the ordinance with Condition #4
added, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:Supervisors McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix
NAYS:None
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
2.Secondreadingofordinancetorezone.398acresfromR-1
ResidentialDistricttoC-1OfficeDistrictwithconditionsfor
expansionofamedicalclinicandrelatedparking,locatedat
3500blockofPinevaleRoad,WindsorHillsMagisterialDistrict,
uponthepetitionofWindsorHouse.(JanetScheid,Chief
Planner)
O-111301-9
Ms. Scheid reported that the Board originally heard this request on
October 23 and sent it back to the Planning Commission. Since that time, the petitioner
has added option #4 and requested that only a narrow seven foot strip be rezoned from
R-1 to C-1 and that all parking will be squeezed onto the front portion on Brambleton
Avenue.
Ed Natt, attorney for the petitioner advised that the Planning Commission
recommended approval both times they heard the request. The residents requested
that there be no rezoning. The petitioner is now only requesting rezoning of a seven
foot strip in the back to meet the necessary set back requirements. In response to a
November 13, 2001
question from Supervisor McNamara, Mr. Natt advised that the petitioner has reduced
the square footage by 2,000 feet. Mr. Silverblatt explained that he reconfigured the
space to only one floor.
The following citizens spoke in support of the rezoning with the changes
since the last meeting:
1. Karen Ratcliff, 3536 Pinevale Road
2. J. Weldon Myers, 3516 Pinevale Road
3. Marion M. Myers, 3516 Pinevale Road
4. Joan Bugbee, 3529 Pinevale Road
5. George Bugbee, 3524 Pinevale Road
6. Patricia Meador, 3245 Oakdale Road
7. Ray Cooper, 3234 Oakdale Road
8. Nancy Wingfield, 3522 Pinevale Road
Supervisor McNamara questioned that if the petitioner is cutting 2,000
square feet, why couldn’t he eliminate 10 parking spaces. Mr. Natt responded that this
is the maximum number of spaces needed according to the architect, and emphasized
that this change was being made to satisfy the neighbors and not what the petitioner
wanted to do. Dr. Silverblatt alsoadvised that he feels the changes will detract from
the facility and the community but he was willingto make the change to address the
neighborhood concerns.
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the ordinance revised to rezone
only 1200 square feet accordingto the drawing submitted. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:Supervisors McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix
NAYS:None
November 13, 2001
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
ORDINANCE111301-9 CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF
APPROXIMATELY 1200 SQUARE FEET OF A TRACT OF REAL
ESTATE LOCATED IN THE 3500 BLOCK OF PINEVALE ROAD, (A
PORTION OF TAX MAP NO. 77.09-4-36.01) IN THE CAVE SPRING
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF
R-1 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO THE ZONINGCLASSIFICATION OF
C-1 OFFICE DISTRICT UPON THE APPLICATION OFWINDSOR
HOUSE, INC.
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 28,
2001, and the second reading and public hearing were held September 25, 2001; at
which time this matter was referred back to the Planning Commission for further study
and review; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on this matter on September 4, 2001 and on November 6, 2001; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required
by law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1.That the zoning classification of approximately 1200 square feet, as
described herein, of a certain tract of real estate located in the 3500 block of Pinevale
Road (a portion of Tax Map Number 77.09-4-36.01)in the Cave Spring Magisterial
District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of R-1, Residential District, to
the zoning classification of C-1, Office District, with conditions.
2.That this action is taken upon the application of Windsor House,
Inc.
3.That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
BEGINNING at the iron pin set at the northeast corner of Lot 2, proceed S.
29 deg. 25' 20" E. 7.00 feet; thence S.60 deg. 25' W. 173.50 feet
(approximately), parallel to the existing property line of Lot 2; thence S. 28
deg. 24' 20" E. 7.00 feet; thence N. 60 deg. 25' E. 173.50feet to the point
of beginning, containing approximately 1,211 square feet, as shown on a
site plan prepared for Aesthetic Surgery of Virginia, prepared by Marasco
& Associates, Inc. and dated November 13, 2001.
4.That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days
after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the
provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning
Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in
zoning classification authorized by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance revised to
rezone only 1200 square feet according to drawing submitted, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:Supervisors McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix
NAYS:None
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
November 13, 2001
3.SecondreadingofordinancetoobtainaSpecialUsePermitto
developagolfcourseon364acresandrezone118acresfrom
AG-3,AgriculturaltoAR,AgriculturalResidential,locatedat
3608PitzerRoad,SE,VintonMagisterialDistrict,uponthe
petitionofNathanielC.Haile.(JanetScheid,ChiefPlanner)
(CONTINUEDFROMSEPTEMBER25,2001ANDOCTOBER23,
2001)
This item was continueduntil December 18, 2001 at the request of the
petitioner.
4.SecondreadingofordinancetoamendtheRoanokeCounty
ZoningOrdinance,Section30-92Screening,Landscaping,and
BufferYardsuponthepetitionoftheRoanokeCounty
PlanningCommission.(JanetScheid,ChiefPlanner)
O-111301-10
Action was taken after the work session. Planner Chris Lowe explained
that the new ordinance includes irrigation and replacement of vegetation. It also
requires that 50% of the vegetation be native and that any trees that are removed be
replaced with similar trees. Three new items were added to the ordinance. They are:
(1) Encourage the incorporation of existing vegetation into new developments; (2)
Encourage attractively landscaped areas in new development; and (3) Improve the
quality of the environment within the County and to provide a certain and predictable
reviewand approval process for landscape plans by establishing minimum standards
for planting in new developments.
November 13, 2001
SupervisorMinnix moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:Supervisors McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix
NAYS:None
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
ORDINANCE111301-10 AMENDINGTHE ROANOKE COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, SECTION 30-92. "SCREENING, LANDSCAPING, AND
BUFFER YARDS”
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia as
follows:
1.That Section 30-92. "Screening,Landscaping, and Buffer Yards" of the
Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance be, and hereby is, repealed in its entirety.
2.That a new Section 30-92, "Screening, Landscaping, and Buffer Yards"
of the Roanoke County Zoning be amended to read and provide as follows:
Sec. 30-92. Screening, Landscaping, and Buffer Yards.
Sec. 30-92-1. Intent.
(A)It is the intent of these provisions to:
1.Set minimum standards that will ease the transition between zoning districts of
different intensities.
2.Provide visual and noise buffers between certain land uses and adjoining activities.
3.Promote the protection of the natural environment through plantings that absorb
gaseous emissions and improve air quality.
4.Encourage the incorporation of existing vegetation into new developments.
5.Encourage attractively landscaped areas in new developments.
6.Improve the quality of the environment within the County and to provide a certain and
predictable review and approval process for landscape plans by establishing minimum
standards for planting in new developments.
Sec. 30-92-2. Administration.
(A)These provisions and requirements shall apply to buildingsand developments
requiring a site development plan pursuant to Section 30-90 of this ordinance. The
board shall also have the authority to apply any of these requirements as a condition of
a special use permit approved by the board.
(B)Landscaping required by this ordinance shall be planted during an opportune
planting season, and shallbe in place and in good condition prior to a final
certificate of zoning compliance being issued for the site. The property owner
in accordance with the existing landscape ordinance shall immediatelyreplace
November 13, 2001
landscaping which dies . After the issuance of a final certificate of zoning
compliance for a site, it shall be the property owner’s responsibility to
maintain required screening, landscaping and buffer yards.
(C)Temporary irrigation must be provided to insure establishment. A description
of the type of irrigation system used to establish the landscape is required to
accompanythesite plan. Irrigation systems are encouraged with landscape
materials, which cannot survive on native precipitation. All plant material
must meet American Association of Nurserymen Specifications for No. 1
Grade. Native plantings are encouraged when compatible with the
surrounding land use. Every effort should be made to incorporate healthy
existing trees into the landscaping plan. For native plant listings refer to the
Department of Conservation & Recreation’s publication entitled “Native
Plants for Conservation, Restoration, and Landscaping-Western Virginia-
Mountain Region.”
(D)These regulations supplement screening, landscaping or buffer yard requirements for
specific land uses as may be described in Article IV, Use and Design Standards.
Where a conflict may exist between standards, the more stringent standard shall apply.
(E)Written decisions of the administratorregarding these provisions may be appealed to
the board of zoning appeals pursuant to section 30-24 of this ordinance. Appeals shall
be made within thirty (30) days of the administrator’s written decision. The approval
of a site development plan shall constitute a written decision of the administrator.
(F)Any required vegetation that has died must be replaced within 30 days. If during an
inopportune planting season, time will be expanded to within 30 days after the start of
the opportune planting season.
Sec. 30-92-3. Modifications
(A) Screening, landscaping and buffer yards required by this section shall be applied equally
to all similarly situated properties. Modifications to these standards may be granted in
writing by the administrator if the administrator finds any of the following circumstances
exist on the proposed building site, or surrounding properties:
1. Natural land characteristics such as topography or existing vegetation on the
proposed building site would achieve the same intent of this section;
2. Innovative landscaping or architectural design is employed on the building site to
achieve an equivalent screening or buffering effect.
3. The required screening would be ineffective at maturity due to the proposed
topography of the site, and/or the location of the improvements on the site.
4. The topography of adjacent and surrounding sites is such as to render required
screening ineffective at maturity.
5. The size or character of the area or equipmentto be screened is such that screening
may be ineffective in carrying out the intention of this section.
(B)When the acreage of a site is significantly larger than the area proposed for physical
improvements or active usage, buffer yards shall be reserved as requiredby the
November 13, 2001
section. However, to achieve the intent of this section, the administrator may approve
an alternative location and design for required screening and plantings.
(C) When property lines abut an adjacent jurisdiction, the administrator shall determine
the specific screening and buffering requirements along that property line(s) after
consideration of the zoning designation and/or land use of the adjacent property.
Requirements shall not exceed those that would be required for similarly
situated/zoned property within the county.
(D)When a site plan is submitted to modify or expand an existing building or site
improvements, or accommodate a change in land use, buffer yard and screening
requirements shall only be applied to those portionsof the site that are directly
affected by the proposed improvements, or change in land use, as determined by the
administrator.
(E)The areas of any required buffer yard shall not be required to exceed fifteen (15)
percent of the site proposed for development. In such cases, the administrator shall
allow the width or location of certain buffer yards to be reduced or eliminated. The
administrator shall require additional landscaping and/or screening within the
remaining buffer yards, or elsewhere on the site.
(F)No landscaping or screening shall be required which in the opinion of the
administrator interfereswith traffic safety, or which violates the provisions of Section
30-100-8 of this ordinance.
Sec. 30-92-4. Enforcement Procedures and Penalties
(A)All landscaping must be in place prior to issuance of a Certificate of Zoning
Compliance. In situations where a building, structure, or property, must be occupied
or used prior to completion of landscaping requirements, the county may issue a
temporary or partial certificate of zoning compliance. A bond in the amount of 40%
of the total cost of landscaping shall be held until final zoning approval.
(B)Any violations shall be subject to Section 30-22 of Roanoke County Zoning
Ordinance.
30-92-5. Standards and Specifications
(A)General
1.All landscape plans shall be prepared by either a registered landscape architect,
certified nurseryman, arborist, or professional engineer. At a minimum, fifty (50)
percent of all plantings shall be native and every effort should be made to
incorporate healthy existing vegetation into the landscaping plan.
2.No vegetation greater than thirty (30) inches in height shall be allowed in the clear
sight triangle.
3.For each tree removed from the disturbed area with a trunk diameter of 24” or
greater @ five (5) feet above ground level, shall be replaced with one of similar
species or characteristics unless otherwise approved by the administrator.
November 13, 2001
(B)Where buffer yards are required by this ordinance the following shall apply:
1.Buffer yards shall be reserved solely for screening and landscaping. No proposed
building, building addition, structure, parking area or any other type of physical
land improvement shall be located in a buffer yard. Not withstanding the above, a
driveway entrance or a public road may cross a buffer yard if it is necessary for
safe and convenient access to the building site. In addition, buffer yards may be
used for greenways.
2.When a proposedbuffer yard has a variation in elevation of greater than six (6)
vertical feet at any point, the required screening or landscaping within the yard
shall be placed to maximize the effectiveness of the screening or landscaping, as
determined by the administrator.
3.The maximum slope of any required buffer yard shall be 3:1(Horizontal:Vertical).
Sufficient vegetation and ground cover shall be established and maintained on any
slope to ensure stabilization and re-vegetation. In areas where extreme slopes
exist, retaining walls no greater than 4 feet in height may be used. If more than
one retaining wall is used, a planting area at least six (6) feet wide with a slope no
greater than 3:1 must be left between the retaining walls.
4.Existing vegetation within buffer yards shall be considered as a substitute for
otherwise required screening, if in the opinion of the administrator, the type, size,
and density of the existing vegetation complies with the following standards and
the intent of this section. Any existing trees to be incorporated into the landscape
must be adequately protected during construction to insure their survival.
(Fencing around the drip line perimeter).
5.Where deemed appropriate by the County Zoning Administrator, buffer yards may
be allocated for the present or future use as a greenway.
(C)Where landscaping is required by this ordinance, the following shall apply:
1.Screening shall be visually opaque, and constructed of a durable material. It shall
be installed within a required buffer yard and shall be continuously maintained so
as to meet the intent of this section.
2.Acceptablescreening materials include stockade fences, decorative masonry walls,
brick walls, earth berms, and/or a mix of evergreen/deciduous vegetation.
Alternative materials may be approved, if in the opinion of the administrator, their
characteristics and design meet the intent and standards of this section.
(D)Where landscaping is required by this ordinance, the following shall apply:
1.Existing vegetation shall be considered as a substitute for otherwise required
landscaping, if in the opinion of the administrator, the type, size, and density of the
existing vegetation complies with the following standards and the intent of this
section. Any existing vegetation to be preserved and incorporatedinto the
landscape must be adequately protected during construction to insure their
survival, as specified in the Protection and Preservation Methods Section {Section
30-92-4(E)}.
2All plant material must meet American Associationof Nurserymen Specifications
for No. 1 grade. Native plantings are encouraged when compatible with the
surrounding land use. Every effort should be made to incorporate healthy existing
trees into the landscape.
November 13, 2001
3.All plant species chosen shall be suitable for planting and growth within the
proposed environment and shall meet the size requirements in the following table.
Plants used for screening purposes shall be planted in accordance with the on-
center requirements of the table. If spacing requirements are not specified,
required landscaping shallbe arranged within a buffer yard to achieve the intent of
this section.
Size/Spacing/Number/Minimums
Screening & Spacing
HeightAtPlantingFinalHeightRequirements
Evergreen/deciduous shrubs24”6’ minimum5’ on center
Small evergreen trees5’15’ minimum15’ on center
Large evergreen trees6-8’50’ minimum20’ on center
Small deciduous trees1 ½” caliper15’ minimum15’ on center
Large deciduous trees1 ½” caliper50’ minimum30’ on center
(E)Protection and Preservation Methods
4.Vegetation designated for protection and/orpreservation shall be enclosed in a
protection zone which establishes limits of construction disturbance to the root
area of designated plantmaterial. All protection zones and measures shall be
established to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. During construction,
plastic or wood fencing shall be installed at the perimeter of all protection zones.
Vegetation of specimen quality, historic designation or cultural value: Provide
extraordinary measures to ensure complete protection/preservation
*Type of material specified may vary due to site-specific determinants. Silt,
erosion control, or geotechnical fabric materials are not acceptable for use as
vegetation protection.
2. Areas designated for protection and/or preservation shall not be violated
throughout the entire construction period by actions including, but not limited
to:
?
Placing, storing, or stockpiling backfill or construction related supplies.
?
Felling trees into the designated area.
?
Burning within or in close proximity.
?
Modifying site topography in a manner which causesdamage by
collection/ponding or flow characteristics of site drainage.
?
Trenching or grading operations.
?
Operating equipment or machinery.
?
Parking of construction vehicles.
?
Temporary or permanent paving or impervious surface installation.
November 13, 2001
?
Temporary or permanent utility construction installation.
?
Disposal of construction debris or chemical pollutants.
3.Work or construction related activities within areas designated for protection
and/or preservation of existing vegetation shall be accomplished only with prior
approval of the Zoning Administrator.
30-92-5. Applicability of Regulations & Requirements
(A)Requirements of screening, landscaping and buffer yards between zoning districts
shall be determined by using Chart 1.
CHART 1
Site
Adjoining Zoning
Zoning
R-3R-4C-1C-2I-1I-2
AG-3DDDDDE
AG-1DDDDDE
ARBBB or CB or CDE
AVAAAADE
R-1AABCDE
R-2AABCDE
R-3BBBDE
R-4ABDE
PRDDE
NCBC
C-1BC
C-2BB
November 13, 2001
TYPEOPTION 1 (Large Buffer, MinimalOPTION 2 (Smaller Buffer With More
Landscaping)Landscaping/Screening)
A
20’ buffer15’ buffer
Large treesOne large and 3 small trees for every 75’
One row of evergreen shrubs and one row6’ screening
of deciduous shrubs& 2 large shrubs for every 10’
B
30’ buffer20’ buffer
Large treesOne large and 2 small trees for every 50’
One row of evergreen shrubs and a row of6’ screening
deciduous shrubs& 3 shrubs for every 10’
C
40’ buffer30’ buffer
Large and small treesOne large tree for every 30’
One row of evergreen shrubs and a row of6’ screening
deciduous shrubs& 4 shrubs for every 10’
D
50’ buffer35’ buffer
Large and small treesOne large tree for every 30’
One row of deciduous shrubs6’ screening
& 6 shrubs for every 10’
E
75’ buffer50’ buffer
Large and small treesOne large tree and two small trees for every 30’
One row of deciduous shrubs6’ screening
& eight shrubs for every 10’
(B)Requirements for Adjacent Right of Way / Street Side Plantings
1.Where a new or expanded development,or reconfigured parking area is proposed
adjacent to a public street right-of-way, a planting strip shall be established
between the parking areas and the adjacent right-of-way. The planting strip shall
have a minimum width of ten (10) feet.
2. Within this planting strip a minimum of one (1) large deciduous tree shall be
planted every thirty(30) linear feet along the public street right-of-way. Small
trees planted every 20 linear feet, may be used where an overhead power line or
other obstruction is present. In addition, a minimum of two (2) shrubs shall be
placed in the plantingstripfor every five (5) linear feet of frontage. This should
not be construed as meaning that the plants must be uniformly planted.
(C)Parking Areas
1.New parking areas shall include landscaped medians, peninsulas or planters that
are planned, designed and located to channel traffic, facilitate storm water
management, and define and separate parking areas and aisles.
2.Each landscaped area shall be planted with largedeciduous trees with a minimum
caliper of one and one half (1 ½”) inches at the time of planting in accordance with
Section 30-92-3(C).
November 13, 2001
3.Rows of parking shall be separated by a landscaped island at least every 15 spaces
and landscaped islands shall also be placed at theend of each row. Landscaped
parking islands shall be spaced throughout the parking area and have a minimum
dimension of 8’ in width of planting area. To protect the plant material from
vehicular damage, the island must be delineated by a clear physical barrier such as
concrete curbs or set landscaping timbers.
4. A minimum of one large tree with surrounding turf grass or other ground cover
shall be required in all parking lot islands. Additionally, three shrubs for every 15
parking spaces shall be planted within or adjacent to the parking area.
5. Large parking areas shall be broken into sections not to exceed 100 parking
spaces. Each section is to be separated by major landscaped buffers to provide
visual relief.
6.Paved areas greater than 500 sq. ft. such as loading areas, that are not necessarily
striped parking lots shall place one landscaped island, as specifiedabove for every
750 sq. ft. of area. They shall be located to channel traffic, and/or define separate
parking areas.
7. Expansion of existing parking areas shall comply with the requirements above if
the expansion involves the addition of an area equivalent to ten (10) or more
parking spaces and the resultant parking area has the equivalent of fifteen (15)or
more spaces. The amount oflandscaping required above shall be based on the
number of spaces inthe new parking area only.
(D)Landscaping Requirements for New and Expanded Developments – Adequate
minimum landscaping shall be provided as follows:
1.The area coverage of trees and shrubs to be planted, together with the existing
crown area of those retained shall occupy at least 35 percent of the total land area
of the proposed project. Total land area for purposes of this paragraph shall be the
area shown on the site plan as the area of the site plan under consideration.
2. The approved Crown Coverage allowances are listed below. They are based upon
the anticipated size at maturity when located in a built environment.
TypeMinimum Height at MaturityCrown Coverage Allowance
Large deciduous trees50’ min. height1,250 square feet each (35’)
Large evergreen trees30’ min. height500 square feet each (22’)
Small deciduous trees15’ min. height250 square feet each (15’)
Small evergreen trees15’ min. height250 square feet each (15’)
Large shrubs5’ min. height10 square feet each (3’)
Small shrubs2’ min. height5 square feet each (2’)
3.Shrub planting which apply toward crown coverage allowance requirements shall
not exceed more than 25 percent of the total crown coverage allowance
requirements. Shrub plantings proposed for use as screen plantings (such as
November 13, 2001
related to refuse service areas, outdoor storage areas, mechanical equipment, etc.)
do not apply toward Crown Coverage allowance requirements.
4. Groundcovers, perennial plantings, or turf grass do not apply toward Crown
Coverage allowance requirements.
(E) Additional Screening Requirements
1.All refuse service (dumpsters/containers) and outdoor storage areas in all zoning
districts shall be screened from surrounding views. In addition, ground level
mechanical equipment shall be screened or landscaped.
2. Commercial and industrial use types shall screen from surrounding views all
articles and materials being stored, maintained, repaired, processed, erected,
fabricated, dismantled, or salvaged. Articles and materials available for retail sale
by a commercial use type shall be exempt from this requirement.
2.That this ordinance shall be in effect from and after its passage.
On motion of Supervisor Minnix to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:Supervisors McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix
NAYS:None
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
5.SecondreadingofordinancetoamendtheRoanokeCounty
ZoningOrdinance,Section30-23,Non-ConformingUsesand
StructuresuponthepetitionoftheRoanokeCountyPlanning
Commission.(JanetScheid,ChiefPlanner)
O-111301-11
Ms. Scheid advised that at their September 25 meeting, the Roanoke
County Board of Supervisors asked staff to review a situation involving a non-
conforming residential use located in an industrial zoning district. Citizens on Country
Farm Road were attempting to sell their home and the potential purchaser was having
difficulty obtaining financing due to the non-conforming use. The zoning ordinance
describes nonconforming use as structures, land uses, or characteristics of properties
which were lawful before the adoption of the ordinance, but which would be prohibited
under the terms of the current ordinances. They are permitted to remain until removed,
November 13, 2001
discontinued or changed to conform to the provisions of the current ordinance. Sections
of the code address reconstructionof nonconforming buildings or structures and are
cited by lending institutionsas reasons for not approving loans for nonconforming uses,
buildingsor structures.
Ms. Scheid explained that in the case of Country Farm Road, the land is
zoned I-2 Industrial in anticipation of future industrial growth. The zoning ordinance
states that any building or structure which is damaged by any means to an extent of
more than 50 percent of its replacement cost at the time of damage, shall be
reconstructed in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance. The Planning
Commission and staff recommended that Section 30-23-2 (A)3 be amended, that 30-23-
3(E) be amended and Section 30-23-3(A) 2 be deleted.
Supervisor Nickens moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:Supervisors McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix
NAYS:None
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
ORDINANCE111301-11 THE ROANOKE COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, SECTION 30-23. "NONCONFORMING USES AND
STRUCTURES"
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia as follows:
1.That Section 30-23. "Nonconforming uses and structures" of the
Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance be, and hereby is, amended to read and provide as
follows:
* * * *
Sec. 30-23-2. Nonconforming Uses of Buildings, Structures or Land.
(A) Where, at the effective date of this ordinance, or amendment
thereto, lawful use exists of buildings, structures or land, individually or in combination,
which use is no longer permissible under the terms of this ordinance as enacted or
amended, such use may be continued provided:
1.The use is not discontinued for more than two (2) years, or;
2The use is not converted or replaced, in whole or in part, by a use
November 13, 2001
permitted in the district regulations, or;
3.The buildings or structurescontaining the nonconforming use are
maintained in their then structural condition.
If buildings or structures containing a nonconforming use are enlarged,
extended, reconstructed, or structurally altered, or if a nonconforming use ofland is
enlarged or expanded in area, the use of the building, structure or land shall legally
conform to the regulations of the zoning district in which they are located.
****
(E) Where nonconforming use status applies to a building or structure,
removal of the building or structure, or damage from any cause to an extent ofmore
thanfifty (50) percent of replacement cost at the time of the damage shall eliminate the
nonconforming status of the building or structure or land.
****
Sec. 30-23-3. Nonconforming Buildings and Structures.
(A) Where a lawful building or structure exists at the time of passage or
amendment of this ordinance, which could not be built under the terms of this ordinance
by reason of restrictions on area, bulk, lot coverage, height, yards, or other
characteristics of the building or structure, or its location on a lot, such building or
structure may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful provided:
1.No building or structure shall be enlarged in any way which
increases or extends its nonconformity.
Any building or structure which is damaged by any means to an extent of
more than fifty (50) percent of its replacement cost at the time of damage, shall be
reconstructed only in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance.
32.Any building or structure which is moved for any reason or for any
distance, shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the district in which it is located
after it is moved.
2.That this ordinance shall be effective from and after its passage.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the ordinance, and carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:`Supervisors McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix
NAYS:None
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
6.Secondreadingofordinanceacceptinganofferforand
authorizingthesaleofpropertylocatedat400EastMain
Street,Salem,Virginia(SalemOfficeSupplyBuilding-Cityof
SalemTaxMapNo.107-6-1).(AnneMarieGreen,Directorof
GeneralServices)
O-111301-12
Ms. Green reported that this was the second reading of a proposed
November 13, 2001
ordinance to declare the property located at 400 East Main Street, Salem, Virginia (the
“Salem Office Supply” building) to be surplus property and to authorize the conveyance
of said property. The County advertised the building for sale, and has received bids for
purchase. At the time of the first reading of the ordinance, staff recommended that the
property not be sold, but that the building be renovated instead to meet space needs at
the Courthouse.
Ms. Green explained that at the first reading, the Board approved the
staff’s recommendation to renovate the building, but also moved the first reading
forward, indicating that questions remain about the feasibility of this project. Since that
time, additional information has been received concerning the possibility of using a
public/private partnership to renovate the building, since it may qualify to be included in
Salem’s historic district. This type of partnership has been used most recently by the
City of Roanoke to renovate buildings in the City Market area, and allows the private
partner to obtain federal and state tax credits. The bids which have been received by
the County, while within the current appraised valueof the building, do not recover the
cost of purchase or the additional costs incurred by the County for interior demolition,
stabilization and architectural and engineering work. If the building is sold, the problem
of space and parking still remains. The lease for the property which is currently being
used for parking at the Courthouse is up for renewal in six months and may or may not
be renewed by the owner.
Ms. Green offered four alternatives to the Board: (1) Reject all offers for
the sale of the property and direct staff to research the options currently available more
fully. (2) Renovate the building for use as office space. This alternativeprovidesthe
County with over 12,000 square feet of office space at a cost of $47/sq. ft for renovating
the entire building. (3) Demolish the existing structure and build a new facility or (4)
November 13, 2001
Accept one of the offers for the sale of the property and approve the second reading of
this ordinance; authorizing the execution of the necessary documents to consummate
this transaction. While the County will receive payment from this alternative, it will not
equal the amount already invested in the property. Ms Green recommended that the
Board approve alternative #1 at this time.
Supervisor Nickens moved to approve alternative #1, reject all offers and
direct staff to research the options currently available more fully. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:Supervisors McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix
NAYS:None
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
ORDINANCE111301-12 REJECTING ALL OFFERSACCEPTING AN
OFFER FOR AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 400 EAST MAIN STREET,SALEM, VIRGINIA (SALEM
OFFICE SUPPLY BUILDING - TAX MAP NO.107-6-1)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1.That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of
Roanoke County, the subject property has been declared to be surplus, and has been
made available for sale; and
2.That the public notice regarding the public hearing for the sale of
this surplus property was advertised in the Roanoke Times & World News on October 9,
2001 and October 16, 2001; and
3.That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of
Roanoke County, a first reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on
October 23, 2001; and the second reading on this ordinance was held on November 13,
2001, concerning the sale and disposition of property located at 400 East Main Street,
Salem, Virginia, Tax Map No. 107-6-1, known as the "Salem Office Supply" building;
and
4.That an offer has been received from
to purchase this property for the sum of , and this offer is
hereby accepted; and
5.That the proceeds from the sale of this real estate are to be
allocated to the capital reserves of the County to be expended solely for the purposes of
acquisition, construction, maintenance, or replace of other capital facilities; and
6.That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County
Administrator, is authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as are
necessary to accomplish the conveyance of said property, all of which shall be upon
November 13, 2001
form approved by the County Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt the ordinance and reject all
offers and direct staff to research the options currently available more fully, and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:Supervisors McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix
NAYS:None
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
IN RE:CITIZEN COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
A citizen who did not identify herself suggested that the Planning
Commission have legal counsel at their meetings so that legal questions could be
addressed at their meetings.
IN RE:REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
SupervisorNickens:
He advised that he attended the annual Virginia
Association of Counties conference and that there were more than 1,150 participants.
The conferenceprovides an opportunity for elected and other local government officials
to network. The key message was that the nation is going through difficult times.
SupervisorMcNamara:
(1) He commended the County paid and
volunteer fire and rescue personnel and others who responded to the fire on Bent
Mountain. (2) He announced that he also attended the VACO conference, that
Supervisor Nickens serves as the representative for Region 9, and that VACO provides
a solid voice in lobbying the General Assembly and dealing with vendors. (3) He felt
that the slower revenue growth was predictable,but the County will have a balanced
budget. (4) He advised that at the VACO conference there were representativesfrom
ArlingtonCounty who described the response to the terrorist attack at the Pentagon and
that all localities worked together. He was proud to feel that Roanoke County also
responds in similar ways.
November 13, 2001
SupervisorChurch:
(1) He thanked Janet Scheid for her memo on the
speed limit on Carvins Cove, and that he was disappointed in VDOT’s response not to
have a posted limit. (2) He heardfrom a gentleman who brings his grandson to the
airport to watch the airplanes but with recent securitymeasures, he can no longer get
close to the airplanes.He asked Mr. Hodge to work with the Airport staff to find a way
for people to see the airplanes landing and taking off. (3) He wished his granddaughter
a happy birthday.
SupervisorMinnix:
He received a list of people who have made
generous donations to Clearbrook Elementary School and he plans to write a letter of
appreciation to each of them. He suggested that other supervisors send a similar letter
to those who donate to schools in their district.
IN RE:WORK SESSIONS
1.WorkSessiontoreviewproposedchangestoRoanokeCounty
ZoningOrdinance,Screening,Landscaping,andBufferYards.
(JanetScheid,ChiefPlanner)
The work session was held from 8:35 p.m. until 8:40 p.m. and was
presented by Janet Scheid and Chris Lowe. These amendments were made at the
request of the Planning Commission to provide more flexibility to both the development
and the nursery provider in the placement of landscaping. A public hearing on the
proposed changes was scheduled for the evening session.
2.BudgetWorkSessionstoreview:
(a)Overview(ElmerHodge,CountyAdministrator)
(b)ResultsofCountyoperationsfortheyearendedJune
30,2001(DanialMorris,FinanceDirector)
November 13, 2001
(c)RolloverrequestsfromCountydepartments(Brent
Robertson,BudgetDirector)
(d)Reviewoffirstquarterrevenuesfor2001-2002(Brent
Robertson,BudgetDirector)
The work session was held from 8:40 p.m. until 9:35 p.m.Mr. Morris
reported that the Audit Committee met earlier today and that CAFR will go to the
printers this week. Mr. Morris provided for the Board a list of the County departmental
rollover appropriations, a general revenue summary which identified deficits in local
sales tax, hotel/motel tax, meal tax, permits, fees and licenses, fines and forfeitures,
and recovered costs. He advised that the surplus after pre-approved expenditures and
loans was $1,026,790. The approved departmental rollovers total $113,194 which
leaves a net department expenditure savings of $144,301 which should be appropriated
to the Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance. The remaining net increase should be
appropriated to the General Fund Unappropriated Balance.
Supervisor Nickens explained that he understood that any department
rollover was supposed to be used for capital expenses or training and noted that several
of the requests are neither. Supervisor McNamara advised he feltthatthe rollover
funds could be used for any non-recurring expense at the department’s discretion. Staff
was directed to bring back a revision to the Rollover Policy that will allow departments to
use rollover funds for any non-recurring expense.
Ms. Hyatt also presented a review of the Public Private Partnership
agreements.
IN RE:NEW BUSINESS
November 13, 2001
1.Requestforappropriationasaresultofoperationsfortheyear
endedJune30,2001.(DanialMorris,FinanceDirector)
A-111301-6
This item was discussed and action taken after the work session.
Mr. Morris reported that the surplus after pre-approved expenditures and loans was
$1,026,790. The approved departmental rollovers total $113,194 which leaves a net
department expenditure savings of $144,301 which should be appropriated to the
Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance.The remaining net increase should be
appropriated to the General Fund Unappropriated Balance.
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the appropriations. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:Supervisors McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix
NAYS:None
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
2.AuthorizationfortheCountyAdministratortoexecutesuch
documentsasmaybenecessarytoreleaseRoanokeCounty
andAdvanceStoreCompany,Inc.fromobligationsrelatedto
theAdvanceHeadquartersexpansionproject.(ElmerHodge,
CountyAdministrator)
A-111301-7
Mr. Hodge advised that Roanoke County, Advance, and the Roanoke
County Industrial Development Authority entered into a three party Performance
Agreement dated November 24, 1999. The agreement allowed for certain incentives to
November 13, 2001
be realized by Advance in return for expanding their headquarters operation on Airport
Road. Roanoke County, State Governors’ OpportunityFunds and State Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds provided funding for the project. Advance
has notified Roanoke County that they have decided not to expand their headquarters
at the Airport Road location and has indicated that they will be leasing space in
Roanoke City to satisfy their expansion needs. Further, Advance has requested to be
released from the Performance Agreement, and that Roanoke County return the
Governors’ Opportunity Funds to the Commonwealth with a letter stating that the project
has been cancelled at the request of Advance. This will allow Advance to pursue
Governors’ Opportunity Funds throughRoanoke City to facilitate expansion at their new
City location.
Mr. Hodge requested that the Board approved the following: (1) Authorize
the County Administrator to execute such documents as may be necessary to release
the County and Advance Stores Company, Inc. fromobligations related to the Advance
Headquarters expansion project. This shall include the County being released from
obligations related to theCounty/City Agreement dealing with road and drainage
improvements. (2) Authorize either the reimbursement of $500,000 in Governors’
Opportunity Fund monies to the Commonwealth of Virginia, or transfer the funds to the
City of Roanoke as may be requested by the Commonwealth, for use by Advance to
facilitate their Roanoke City expansion. (3) Reappropriate $937,329.30 to the General
Fund Unappropriated Balance. (4) Release the $700,000 appropriation of CDBG Grant
revenues and expenditures. (5) Request from Advance the sum of $54,171.59 to be
paid to Roanoke County for reimbursement of County expenditures to date.
Supervisor Nickens moved to authorize the staff recommendation. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
November 13, 2001
AYES:Supervisors McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix
NAYS:None
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
IN RE:FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1.Firstreadingofordinanceauthorizingtheconveyanceof
approximately30acresofCounty-ownedpropertylocatedat
theCenterofResearchandTechnologytotheIndustrial
DevelopmentAuthority.(DouglasChittum,Economic
DevelopmentDirector)
Mr. Chittum advised that Roanoke County typically utilizes the powers and
services of the Industrial Development Authority to assist with Economic Development
projects. The Economic Development Department is currently negotiating with a
prospective industry that proposes to construct a new facility in the Center for Research
and Technology. To facilitate the orderly transfer of property from the County to the
prospect, it is necessary to first convey the property from the County to the IDA. Mr.
Chittum reported that the IDA met last week and will bring back the details to the
meeting in December.
Mr. Chittum requested adoption of the attached ordinance that authorizes
the County Administrator to execute the necessary documents to convey approximately
thirty acres of land in the Roanoke Center for Research and Technology to the Roanoke
County IDA.
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the first reading and set the
second reading for December 4, 2001. The motion carried by the following recorded
November 13, 2001
vote:
AYES:Supervisors McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix
NAYS:None
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
IN RE:CLOSED MEETING
At 9:30 p.m., Supervisor Church moved to go into closed meeting to
discuss the remaining items listed on page 656. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:Supervisors McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix
NAYS:None
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
IN RE:CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
R-111301-13
At 9:52 p.m., Supervisor Church moved to return to open session and
adopt the Certification Resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:Supervisors McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix
NAYS:None
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
RESOLUTION111301-13 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
November 13, 2001
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a
certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed
meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exemptedfrom 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 Church to adopt the Certification Resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:Supervisors McNamara, Church, Nickens, Minnix
NAYS:None
ABSENT:Supervisor Johnson
IN RE:ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Minnix moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:53 p.m. The motion
carried by a unanimous voice vote with Supervisor Johnson absent.
Submitted by,Approved by,
__________________________________
Mary H. Allen, CMCH. Odell Minnix
Clerk to the BoardChairman
November 13, 2001
Thispageleftintentionallyblank