HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/20/2020 - Regular - DRAFT
October 20, 2020
479
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 regularly scheduled
meeting of the month of October 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 3:01p.m. The roll call
was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman David F. Radford; Supervisors Martha B. Hooker,
Paul M. Mahoney, Phil C. North and P. Jason Peters
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Daniel R. O’Donnell, County Administrator; Richard
Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Rebecca Owens,
Assistant County Administrator; Peter S. Lubeck, County
Attorney; Amy Whittaker, Public Information Officer and
Deborah C. Jacks, Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Recognition of National Association of Counties 2020
Achievement Award and Virginia Chapter of the American
Planning Association's Old Dominion Innovative Award (Philip
Thompson, Director of Planning)
October 20, 2020
480
Mr. Thompson outlined the recognitions. In attendance with Mr.
Thompson were Megan Cronise, Transportation Planning Administrator; Alex Jones,
Planner II; Cecile Newcomb, Planner II, Wayne Leftwich, Senior City Planner with the
City of Roanoke and Dr. Rhonda Stegall, Executive Director of Administration with
Roanoke County Public Schools.
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
1. Briefing to update the Board of Supervisors on towing boards
(Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney; Howard B. Hall, Chief of
Police)
Supervisor Peters Jason provided a brief introduction. He stated that he
knows that this has been a topic that has been brought before us a number of times and
Chief Hall has sent us an email about a year ago. He has citizens who have raised this
question. One of the reasons he asked for a briefing to our Board is that he
understands earlier this year, in the summer, Roanoke City had adopted a new contract
with towers and seemed to be much more usable. He knows it has been a very
contentious issue before. Given the complexity of it and the concerns that have been
raised, that is why he asked for the briefing today.
Chief Hall advised he was going to take a few minutes and advise what
they currently do in terms of police towing and then Mr. Lubeck is going to follow-up with
what the code allows in terms of regulation if the Board would choose to do so. In the
last twelve (12) months, the Police Department has towed just over 800 vehicles,
th
ending September 30. Generally, those reasons are going to be traffic crashes,
perhaps the arrest of a driver, illegal parking, blocking roads, etc. We do not regulate
police towing. So, when they need a tow truck, the emergency communications center
contacts a company based on a towing list that we maintain and they use on a rotating
basis. So, we maintain it. The list includes any towing company that submits a valid
application. There is not a competitive process or anything of that nature. We do ask
for a 30 minute response time in terms of getting to a scene. The application includes
business information, address, driver information and a fee chart. All tow drivers, under
The Code of Virginia have to be certified by the Department of Criminal Justice Service
(CJS); that is something each individual driver has to do. Currently we have 36
companies on our tow list to cover those 800 + towing. A driver at a scene has the
option of calling a tow company of their choice, so people that have an AAA
membership might want AAA to retrieve their car, if needed, and we accommodate that.
Some people have tow companies they have used in the past or familiar with somebody
and they can certainly do that. They can also look at our list and the fee chart and
make their own decision off of that list. If they cannot or elect not to choose, the next on
the list is called.
October 20, 2020
481
The problems that we see with the current process include no
accountability, no ability to enforce any standards or regulations, so if someone is not
there in 30 minutes, the only thing we can do is call the next one and send the first one
away. We cannot investigate any complaint that we might receive from a citizen; the
only thing is to refer them to the Attorney General. There is a mechanism to make a
complaint to the Attorney General’s office. What follow-up takes place from there, we
do not have any way of knowing. So, he does not have a great deal of information on
specific complaints because we cannot do much about it. The largest problem we have
is inconsistent fees.
Chief Hall provided copies of the current list. He indicated this was the fee
chart that we send and the tow companies fill out. We do not have any input into what
they put there and we cannot prohibit them from any fees in addition to what is in this
chart. When he said inconsistency, what you will see, a light-duty tow, which would a
standard passenger car, SUV, light truck ranges from $50 to $400. Some also charge
by the hour. A clean-up fee ranges from $65.00 to $250 and again some hourly rates
are included there. Winching fees from $75 to $375. DMV fees range from none to
$395. Storage fees are probably the closest and range from $50 to $75 a day and of
course their discretion for additional fees that the company so chooses. So, you can
see that it would be difficult for someone to look at this list, particularly at the roadside
and make a decision on what is the best value for them based on their situation and this
can result in tow fees substantially different from what somebody might expect. With 36
companies on that list, it is probably notable as another inconsistency that there are
some owners who own multiple tow companies and have them on the list, some to the
point of they have magnetic stickers that they put in the door of the trucks based on the
company that is called. If that is the right thing to do or not, it is not something we get
into because we do not regulate, but is an issue to consider. Certainly, across the
County geography is an issue and we are 250 square miles, with the Cities of Salem
and Roanoke in the middle, we work specifically on rotation. So, regardless of where
an incident occurs, if an owner does not choose a tow company, the next one on the list
is called. So, in theory, a tow company that might be based outside the County in
Botetourt or Bedford could be called for a crash on Rt. 460 in West Salem at 4 or 5
o’clock in the afternoon is not the most efficient. The other geographic issue for us, we
go have some curvy and hilly roads, while it does not happen very often, it is a small
percentage of the number of tows we have to call, there are times when cars are over
embankments or in very difficult situations for the tow companies to come out and
retrieve, which does impact the fees when that type of work has to be done. By way of
complaints, we don’t have the authority to investigate them unless a crime has been
committed.
October 20, 2020
482
So he does not have a database on that. He has, in the past, sent the
Board some examples of people that have provided us with information that they feel
like are excessive charges. A couple of them are from last year, $1,120 for a crash
related tow from Peters Creek Road; about ten (10) miles back to the yard. Another
one from last year, over $1,400 for a crash tow from Rt. 460W; similar circumstances.
From this summer, there was a $1,000 tow from a traffic stop where we arrested the
driver, so they picked up the car from the side of the road and a $600 bill from a
Catawba Valley trailhead, where we frequently have cars towed from blocking the road
over the weekend times. Some owners also report notice of lien applications within 24
hours of their car being towed, completed and in the yard, which does not give me
enough time to deal with the car. It is his understanding that DMV does not accept
them for ten (10) days. So, in terms of what we need in the Police Department, from a
tow is pretty basic. We need immediate availability. Some companies need to be
available 24/7, 365, including bad weather, i.e. snow, ice, etc. and a timely response.
He thinks 30 minutes is a reasonable time for Roanoke County given the geography.
On scene, we need safe and efficient removal of vehicles. We are not a towing
business. We are not experts in how to do that. We need it done safely and efficiently
to get roads open and debris removed. We all want fair treatment of our citizens in
terms of what they are charged and how they are treated afterwards.
Mr. Lubeck advised he would share what the Code allows us to do with
regards to regulating towing. Section 46.2-1217 does provide authority for localities to
regulate towing in two (2) main methods; either by ordinance or by contract or we can
use both. Either an ordinance or contract may include delineation of service areas,
limitation on the number of persons engaged in towing services, the equipment to be
used, what is to be charged and criteria of eligibility of persons to enter into towing
services contracts. He has outlined five (5) general steps that the Board would need to
take before the Board can regulate. The first one is the most important, 46.2-1217
states that before the locality can regulate, we must appoint a towing advisory board.
This board would advise the Board of Supervisors with regard to the appropriate
provisions of an ordinance or terms of a contract and shall include representatives of
local law enforcement agencies, towing and recovery operators and the general public.
Must is left to the board’s discretion. There are no requirements regarding the number
of members of the board, where they live, whether they need to be Roanoke County
residents, how often they meet and whether and how much they are compensated. To
use Roanoke City as an example, they have creating a towing advisory board. There
are nine (9) members on Roanoke City’s board. Some are residents of Roanoke City
and some are not. They all serve without compensation. There are no regularly
scheduled meetings for this board. They simply meet as determined necessary by the
advisory board. If the Board of Supervisors desires to proceed forward and appoint a
towing advisory board, he would recommend that we do so by ordinance that amends
the County code and this of course would require two readings before the Board,
newspaper advertisement and a public hearing on this matter.
October 20, 2020
483
The second step in this process is the Board would then appoint willing
individuals who would serve on the board and the Board of Supervisors would decide
whether to compensate these individuals or not. The third step would be that after the
Board of Supervisors does appoint these individuals, he would presume this would be
done by consent agenda on the Board’s agenda. The advisory board would then meet,
discuss, develop and then convey recommendations to the Board of Supervisors
regarding the appropriate provisions in either an ordinance or contract. The fourth step
would be that the Board of Supervisors would review those recommendations and
decide a course of action. Perhaps this could effectively be accomplished through a
work session. The fifth step would then be to implement the decision, which would be
either an ordinance or a contract or both. Again, this is just a rough outline of the steps
needed before the Board of Supervisors could take action to regulate.
Supervisor North asked to clarify. He looked at one towing company on
here and he added up the numbers; light duty tow, extensive crash cleanup, winch fee,
DMV fee (the DMV likes to get a little cash to on this too). Chief Hall advised the fee
does not go to DMV, it goes to the towing company. So, he added them up and 24 hour
storage, $910. Thank goodness he has AAA. One of his boys was involved in an
accident once and it was in Roanoke City many years ago. The police officer came and
was very kind and asked where we wanted the car towed. First thing that came to mind
was where we normally have it serviced and could not remember the name of the tower
there, but he did. He did not see a list. Does the public today, do the police officers of
Roanoke County show this list to the involved people that are coherent and can make a
decision? You don’t just go in alphabetical order. Chief Hall advised if the driver does
not select from the list or is not capable, they go in rotation order to the next company to
be called. If a driver wants a specific company, then the Emergency Communication
Center (ECC) will call that company. Mr. North added the free marketplace is a great
marketplace is very dynamic, but these prices are all over the place. If someone gave
him a bill for $910 on a simple tow, he thinks he would probably choke. By the way, in
the three years he has been on this Board, he had never gotten a complaint from any of
his citizens in the Hollins District. To the extent, he would appreciate Supervisor Peters
sharing these complaints with him and the Board. It may be happening and it may not
be happening in his area or people have AAA and don’t care what the tow is. He really
does not how many of these 800 tows you had where there was outlandish bills is what
he is trying to get at. He is not necessarily trying to find the answer out; it does not
seem to be a rampant issue in my district. He would like to learn more about it.
October 20, 2020
484
Supervisor Radford asked how long has Roanoke City had a towing
board. Supervisor Lubeck advised he does not know the exact time, but he began
looking at this issue when he first came over to the County Attorney’s office and they
had a towing board for quite some time at that point. He understands they have made
some recent changes to the contract, but understands they have had for quite some
time. Supervisor Radford then stated he would assume that the Roanoke City towing
Board had stabilized the pricing. Mr. Lubeck stated it sets prices for specific prices of
tows.
Supervisor North then asked if Mr. Lubeck had a list of what the City of
Roanoke was charging. We need to understand that as well. Mr. Lubeck advised they
do have it.
Supervisor Mahoney inquired if we go down this path, and let’s assume for
the moment that we do receive a citizen complaint with respect to an alleged excess
charge or fee, does the ordinance or ordinances that you have had an opportunity to
review provide a mechanism for the citizen. Does the citizen, he or she, go before the
advisory board and the advisory board makes a recommendation? Is there any kind of
relief under the ordinances or the State enabling legislation that would provide an
opportunity for a citizen who felt they were improperly charged to get any kind of relief at
all or is just that the advisory board advises over the ordinance or agreement and does
not do anything else. Mr. Lubeck responded the advisory board’s role would be limited
to advising as to the appropriate terms of the ordinance or contract. If the Board was to
develop and enter into a contract with certain towers, those towers would be expected
to abide by the terms of the contract and would include deviations or breaches of
contract and provisions for consequences. Supervisor Mahoney stated he was worried
about, as the Chief indicated, some degree of accountability. His recollection is these
were fairly consistent complaints that he remembers receiving in his prior life and he
always felt that our hands were tied because the County had no authority to address
some of the outrageous fees that he saw, based upon the citizen complaints he
remembers seeing. An advisory board is valuable, but if it does not have any power to
address legitimate citizen complaints, he is not sure what we are doing. Now, if the
process allows us to more accurately and consistently identify towers and establish
some fairly strict standards with respect to fees, then he can see some benefit there.
October 20, 2020
485
Supervisor Peters stated this has been an ongoing issue since he has
been on the Board. He has heard multiple complaints as Supervisor Mahoney has
alluded to as well. One of the concerns that Chief Hall just touched on, is we have 36
companies; but really there is about ten (10). He does not know if we are benefitting the
citizen by using multiple names when we could just condense the list. With the
Roanoke City contract, they have worked out a lot of the issues, and his understanding
was that there was a mechanism of enforcement. Mr. Lubeck responded that is correct.
He just felt that it had “reared its ugly head” a number of times and he felt that the Board
needed to have a conversation and that citizens were not being ignored. Additionally,
from a public safety standpoint, he has been with Roanoke County Fire and Rescue for
a number of years and thinks back to accidents on Rt. 460 with three (3) cars involved.
Sometimes, you are waiting on three different towers. If this process moves forward, he
would like to have one company that would clean up the whole operation because that
would get our Rt. 419, Rt. 460 back open. There have been multiple concerns that he
has seen over the last few years.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution amending the Secondary Six-Year Road Improvement
Plan for fiscal years 2021 through 2026 and the Construction
Priority List and Estimated Allocations for fiscal year 2021 by
establishing a new Secondary System Project (Megan G.
Cronise, Transportation Planning Administrator)
Ms. Cronise outlined the request for resolution.
Supervisor Mahoney advised he did not have any questions, but would
like to advise the Board that he did have an opportunity to speak with Ms. Cronise and
Mr. Caywood about this matter. He gathers from what they have advised him, that Mr.
Murphy is the property owner there and he has been trying to accomplish this for a few
years. He has two (2) concerns. One is where do we get the money and number two, if
the Board in its wisdom decides to approve the resolution, would this in anyway change
the priorities or move this project up the list and knock somebody else off the list. They
have assured him this would not occur. Fortunately, there are some funds that the
Virginia Department of Transportation does have and can handle it under their
maintenance budget and does not adversely affect any of the other projects that the
Board previously approved for the secondary road plan.
There was no further discussion.
RESOLUTION 102020-1 AMENDING THE SECONDARY SIX-
YEAR ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR FISCAL YEARS 2021
THROUGH 2026 AND THE CONSTRUCTION PRIORITY LIST
October 20, 2020
486
AND ESTIMATED ALLOCATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021 BY
ESTABLISHING A NEW SECONDARY SYSTEM PROJECT
WHEREAS, Sections 33.2-331 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as amended)
provides the opportunity for Roanoke County to work with the Virginia Department of
Transportation in developing a Secondary Six-Year Road Improvement Plan; and
WHEREAS, this Board had previously agreed to assist in the preparation of the
Secondary Six-Year Road Improvement Plan, in accordance with Virginia Department
of Transportation policies and procedures; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing which was duly advertised on the proposed
Secondary Six-Year Road Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2021-2026 and
Construction Priority List and Estimated Allocations for Fiscal Year 2021 was held on
July 14, 2020, to receive comments and recommendations on Roanoke County’s
Secondary Six-Year Road Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2021-2026 as well as the
Construction Priority List and Estimated Allocations for Fiscal Year 2021;
WHEREAS, this Board has identified a new project, Crowell Gap Road, three
hundred (300) feet of which is unpaved that the Board desires to pave with Secondary
Six-Year Road Improvement Plan funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors does
hereby amend the Secondary Six-Year Road Improvement Plan for Roanoke County for
Fiscal Years 2021-2026 to include a new project, Crowell Gap Road; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors does also hereby
amend the Construction Priority List and Estimated Allocations for Fiscal Year 2021 to
list Crowell Gap Road as priority #7; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution duly attested to be
forthwith forwarded to the Virginia Department of Transportation Salem Residency
Office along with a duly attested copy of the proposed Roanoke County Secondary Six-
Year Road Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2021-2026 by the Clerk to the Board.
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
October 20, 2020
487
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
1. The petition of Milestone Tower Limited Partnership IV to rezone
approximately 9.55 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential,
District to AR, Agricultural/Residential, District and to obtain a
Special Use Permit for a broadcasting tower (cell tower)
approximately 137 feet in height, located at 420 Swan Drive,
Vinton Magisterial District
Supervisor North asked if this is approved, is there an agreement
already in place. Mr. Lubeck responded in the negative stating the Board had acted by
resolution to simply authorize Milestone to file the applications and that is the only
authorization that the Board has given. There was an initial proposal submitted to the
Board, but the Board declined. Supervisor North then asked if Roanoke County Public
Schools have an agreement with the applicant to contribute x dollars year if they were
permitted to put this up someplace else. Mr. Lubeck stated he understood there was a
prior agreement with the Roanoke County Public School Board, but that agreement had
dissolved. Supervisor North then asked Mr. Lubeck to advise the Board of the dollar
figure at the time.
Supervisor Peters’ motion to approve the first reading and set the second
reading and public hearing for November 17, 2020, was seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance authorizing the granting of an access easement for the
purpose of ingress/egress to Mr. Dallas J. Wright of 5057 Poor
Mountain Road in Salem of unimproved real estate owned by the
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors (Tax Map No. 064.04-03-
01.00-0000), Catawba Magisterial District (Tarek Moneir, Director
of Development Services)
Mr. Moneir outlined the request for ordinance.
October 20, 2020
488
Supervisor Mahoney stated he did not know there was any property that
the County owned here. Mr. Moneir advised the property has been owned by Roanoke
County for quite some years and looked at the history. The property was donated to
Roanoke County back in the early 1900’s. It has frontage on the river. Supervisor
Mahoney asked if we can use it for the greenway with Mr. Moneir advising it could be
used for greenway, however, it is rocky and very steep and it is hard to get access to it.
Mr. Moneir advised he has spoken with Parks and Recreation, but it would be costly to
use for the greenway.
Supervisor Hooker stated apparently Mr. Wright has used this property,
maybe even this easement and he would like it to be formalized and legal so that at
some point, he could sell it.
Supervisor Hooker’s motion to approve the first reading and set the
second reading and public hearing for November 4, 2020, was seconded by Supervisor
H and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance authorizing the County Administrator to enter into a
lease agreement with First Team, Inc. to lease twelve (12) parking
spaces at the Hollins Library facility at 6624 Peter Creek Road,
Hollins Magisterial District (Richard L. Caywood, Assistant
County Administrator)
Mr. Caywood advised there were no changes from the first reading.
Chairman Radford opened the public hearing from 3:47 p.m. until 3:57 p.m.
There were no citizens to speak concerning this agenda item.
There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 102020-2 AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR TO ENTER INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
FIRST TEAM, INC (FIRST TEAM AUTO MALL) TO LEASE 12
PARKING SPACES AT THE HOLLINS LIBRARY FACILITY AT 6624
PETERS CREEK ROAD, HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the County owns property at 6624 Peters Creek Road which is used
for the Hollins Library facility; and
WHEREAS, First Team Auto Mall maintains an automobile dealership at the
adjacent property; and
October 20, 2020
489
WHEREAS, the County has negotiated an agreement with First Team Auto Mall
for the lease of twelve (12) parking spaces at the rear of the Hollins Library parking lot
to be used for First Team Auto Mall employee parking for a one (1) year term, with the
option to extend the lease for additional one (1) year terms, and with the County
retaining an option to expand or diminish the number of leased parking spaces at each
renewal; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke
County, a first reading concerning the disposition of the herein-described real estate
was held on October 6, 2020; the second reading and public hearing was held on
October 20, 2020.
2. The property to be leased consists of twelve (12) parking spaces across a
portion of that tract or parcel of real estate containing eighty-one (81) parking spaces of
a parking lot located at 6624 Peters Creek Road, Roanoke, Virginia, said parcel
designated as Roanoke County Tax Map # 027.14-01-03.00-0000, and specifically
those twelve (12) parking spaces shown on an exhibit titled “Hollins Library Parking Lot”
dated June 23, 2020 and attached as Exhibit “A”.
3. It is in the County’s best interests to lease this property to First Team Auto
Mall.
4. The County Administrator, or his designee, is authorized to execute and
deliver the Lease Agreement. The form of the Lease Agreement presented to the Board
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.
5. The County Administrator, or his designee, is hereby authorized and
directed to execute and deliver all other agreements, leases, and documents on behalf
of the County and to take all such further action as may be necessary or desirable in
connection with this transaction.
6. This ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor North to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
October 20, 2020
490
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 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Staffing for
Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) Grant 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 3:59 p.m. until 3:59 p.m.
There were no citizens to speak concerning this agenda item.
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance accepting and appropriating funds in the amount of
$2,916,945 from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER)
Grant (Stephen G. Simon, Chief of Fire and Rescue)
Chief Simon advised there were no changes from the first reading.
There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 102020-3 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,916,945 FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) STAFFING
FOR ADEQUATE FIRE AND EMERGENCY REPSONSE (SAFER)
GRANT
WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke Fire and Rescue Department applied for a
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency
Response (SAFER) program grant in March 2020; and
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2020, the County’s Fire and Rescue Department
received notification that is was selected as a recipient of a SAFER grant; and
WHEREAS, the SAFER grant award totals $2,916,945 over a period of three
years; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be
appropriated by ordinance before they are expended; and
WHEREAS, first reading of this ordinance was held on October 6, 2020, and the
second reading was held on October 20, 2020.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the sum of $2,916,945 is hereby accepted from the Department of
October 20, 2020
491
Homeland Security (DHS) Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency
Response (SAFER) program.
2. The sum of $2,916,945 is appropriated to the Grant Fund, for the purpose
of creating fifteen (15) new firefighter positions; a total of fifteen (15) new
firefighter positions will be added to the County of Roanoke Classification
and Pay Plan.
3. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
2. Ordinance authorizing and approving a ground lease addendum
between Roanoke County and John W. Brandemuehl for a
communications facility at Tinker Mountain (Bill Hunter, Director
of Communications and Information Technology)
Mr. Hunter advised there were no changes since the first reading.
There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 102020-4 AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING A
GROUND LEASE ADDENDUM BETWEEN ROANOKE COUNTY
AND JOHN W. BRANDEMUEHL FOR A COMMUNICATIONS
FACILITY AT TINKER MOUNTAIN
WHEREAS, Roanoke County (“Lessee” or “County”) and John W.
Brandemuehl (“Lessor”) wish to enter into an addendum of an existing ground lease
whereby the County will continue to lease approximately 0.0363 acre on Tinker
Mountain, as shown with greater particularity on Exhibit A of the Lease Addendum,
together with the non-exclusive right of ingress and egress from Tinker Top Road
(Frontage Road) over the existing gravel access and private driveway for purposes of
maintaining an existing emergency communications tower and supporting equipment;
and
WHEREAS, the location of the tower is a site that is critical for emergency
communications infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition or conveyance of an interest in real estate, including leases, shall be
accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 6,
2020 and the second reading was held on October 20, 2020.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
October 20, 2020
492
1. The 2020 ground lease addendum between Roanoke County and John W.
Brandemuehl be approved.
2. That the County Administrator or an Assistant County Administrator is hereby
authorized to execute a lease agreement on behalf of the Board of Supervisors
of Roanoke County and to execute such other documents and take such further
actions as are necessary to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be
upon form and subject to the conditions by the County Attorney.
3. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
3. Ordinance authorizing and approving a mutual Lease Agreement
between Roanoke County and City of Salem for
telecommunications equipment (Bill Hunter, Director of
Communications and Information Technology)
Mr. Hunter advised there were no changes since the first reading.
There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 102020-5 AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING A
MUTUAL LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ROANOKE COUNTY
AND CITY OF SALEM FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS
EQUIPMENT
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County (“County”) and City of
Salem (“Salem”), wish to enter into a mutual lease whereby Salem will lease fifteen
square feet of property atop the County building located at 220 East Main Street in
Salem, and the County shall have a limited license to install fiber optic across the public
streets owned by the Salem between 220 East Main Street and the County Court
Services Building at 400 East Main Street in Salem; and
WHEREAS, the terms of the lease allow for regional cooperation with regard to
telecommunications infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the parties have determined that this mutual lease will not adversely
affect either the County’s or Salem’s telecommunications infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition or conveyance of an interest in real estate, including leases, shall be
accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 6,
2020 and the second reading was held on October 20, 2020.
October 20, 2020
493
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. The 2020 mutual building rooftop lease between the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors and City of Salem be approved.
2. That the County Administrator or an Assistant County Administrator is
hereby authorized to execute a lease agreement on behalf of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County and to execute such other documents and
take such further actions as are necessary to accomplish this transaction, all
of which shall be upon form and subject to the conditions by the County
Attorney.
3. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Hooker 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 102020-6 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM L CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for October
20, 2020, designated as Item L - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 2 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes – October 6, 2020
2. Confirmation of appointment to the Virginia Western Community College
Advisory Board and the LOSAP/VIP Board of Trustees
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
October 20, 2020
494
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Hooker moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion was seconded by Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, Radford, Peters, North
NAYS: None
1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves
2. Outstanding Debt Report
3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of
September 30, 2020
4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of September 30, 2020
5. Accounts Paid – September 30, 2020
6. Statement of Treasurer's Accountability per Investment and Portfolio
Policy as of September 30, 2020
7. Annual Report to the Board of Supervisors on Funds Invested in the
VML/VACO OPEB Pooled Trust - Roanoke County
8. Annual Report to the Board of Supervisors on Funds Invested in the
VML/VACO OPEB Pooled Trust - Roanoke County Public Schools
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 4:13 p.m., Supervisor Radford moved to go into closed meeting
following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A A) (3)
of the Code of Virginia, for discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property
for a public purpose, where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the
bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body. Specifically, the Board will
consider acquiring property in Windsor Hills Magisterial District for economic
development purposes and Section 2.2-3711 (A) (7) and A (29) of the Code of Virginia
in order to consult with legal counsel and receive briefings from staff members
pertaining to 1) possible litigation, where such consultation or briefing in open meeting
would adversely affect the negotiating or litigating posture of the public body, and 2) the
award of a new public contract for goods or services, and discussion of the terms or
scope of such contract, where discussion in open session would adversely affect the
bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body. Specifically, the Board
will discuss litigation options for proceeding against a vendor of goods or services for
breach of contract, and the award of a new public contract for such goods or services.
The motion was seconded by Supervisor Peters and carried by the
following recorded vote:
October 20, 2020
495
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
The closed session was held from 5:40 p.m. until 6:53 p.m.
At 4:14 p.m. Chairman Radford recessed to the fourth floor for work
session and closed session.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors the status
of the County of Roanoke's Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
projects (Meredith Thompson, Budget Division Director)
Mr. O’Donnell provided a brief overview and turned the meeting over to
Meredith Thompson, who reviewed the PowerPoint presentation.
With regard to CitiWorks Permit System, Supervisor Radford commented
the last time they were talking with Tarek Monier, Director of Development Services and
his staff, we had gone interactive on the public portal, the new information could be
seen, but the old information could not be seen. He asked Richard Caywood, Assistant
County Administrator, what the status was. Mr. Caywood advised he would contact Mr.
Moneir for the status.
With regard to the Roanoke County Broadband Initiative, Supervisor
Hooker inquired as the Broadband Authority continues to expand and get these
additional miles, are we “on the hook” indefinitely as they continue to expand.
Supervisor Peters stated the Board was originally told it was a six-year commitment and
hopefully by that time, it would generate its own income that would alleviate County
funding. Rebecca Owens, Assistant County Administrator, advised there are two
pieces, the operating and debt. Supervisor Hooker asked so that will end and we are
not taking on any new debt, even as they continue to grow. Mr. O’Donnell responded in
the negative.
Supervisor North added one benefit with the Roanoke County Broadband
Program is that the General Assembly will give a pilot program for one year to allow
Broadband Authorities to do projects without private sector partners; that may one day
become the norm and that would help the Broadband Authority move in that direction.
What he understood, by adding the two additional board members that our Board
approved, it was going to improve their ability to obtain grants. So, there is a lot of
different levers being pulled here and hopefully, they will reap some rewards such as
operational will go away and not come back.
October 20, 2020
496
He added he noticed in the worksheet that had about $1 million on their financial sheet
that Frank Smith prepared for the Board. So, they are beginning to show some monies
that they did not in the early years. Ms. Thompson stated beginning in 2022, we will
have to find a source for the debt payment. Mr. O’Donnell advised the EDA had paid for
this out of their land sales.
Mr. Caywood responded with the response to Supervisor Radford earlier
question, hopefully they would have it completed by the end of the year.
Supervisor Mahoney stated when he looked at what is budgeted and then
the expenditures in the second and third columns and doing quick math in this head, we
pretty much spent everything we budgeted. So, in order to fulfill some of our
commitments with respect to the projects, we are going to have to put more money into
the budget next year. Is that the message here? Ms. Thompson responded for some of
these, yes, they received one-time funding and some of them are ongoing. For
example, the Cityworks Permit System, we would not add any additional funding since it
mostly complete. Things like the NPDESMS4, we do have planned funding for that one
to continue to develop the base as well as Broadband and Woodhaven. So, we have in
the CIP planned out those expenditures, so we will need to add incrementally for those.
Supervisor Mahoney understands they are not on the completed list, but what he is
hearing you say and when he looks at the numbers, we are 98% there. Ms. Thompson
responded they are mostly complete, there is a little bit of funding left.
Ms. Thompson turned the meeting over to Doug Blount, Director of
General Services and Parks, Recreation and Tourism.
With regard to the Mt. Pleasant Library, Supervisor Peters stated he has
voiced this in years past, but there are two needs in Mt. Pleasant, the fire station and
the library, and he has floated the idea before about moving those to the same piece of
property. Back in the day, it is a massive building and probably getting toward the end
of its life, so the great discussion needs to be how to we take those expenses and
maybe move to something combined and put on a piece of property we already own.
He is not in favor of doing a lot of work to that building because he thinks it is just a
“band-aid.” He does not any desire to putting money into the “band-aid.” At the end of
the days, it is still not going to fit our needs so we would have spent $100,000 for
nothing.
Supervisor North asked how many square footage is the building with Mr.
Blount responding 1,700 and advising that is not taking into account we need to the
parking lot. Supervisor Peters added the fire station on Jae Valley is a big piece of
property. There is no reason you could not move them over to the same side. All you
need is an engine, a tanker and an ambulance there. Get rid of the massive structure
that is there; both would fit on that one property. Mr. Blount advised they can look at
that. Mr. Blount turned the meeting back over to Ms. Thompson.
October 20, 2020
497
With regard to poll books, Ms. Thompson advised they have been ordered
and should be used for the November 3, 2020 election. Ms. Owens responded she has
not gotten an answer from Anna Cloeter, Registrar, regarding the status. Supervisor
Mahoney asked what are they using now?. Supervisor North asked how are they going
to pass the old information over to the new books. Ms. Owens responded that Ms.
Cloeter has a plan and most of the delay was from the State level. Ms. Gearheart
replied they should be receiving them this week.
With regard to the new computers, Supervisor North stated before COVID
it was unquestionable that we needed them. He was in Hollins Library yesterday with
an island with 6-8 computers and only two (2) were usable, the others were marked out
of service because of COVID. Ms. Thompson advised the library computer replacement
was a project no funded in fiscal year 2021; so they have a small budget remaining from
the current year that they can replace emergency computers. It is something staff is
evaluating with them as well as County-wide. There is also a portion of the CARES Act
funding that is replacing the employee component.
With regard to the Bent Mountain Community Center, Supervisor Radford
suggested the community could buy the building with Mr. Blount advising that would be
his recommendation as well.
With regards to the capital maintenance program, Supervisor North asked
that he sees about $1 million and was any of this planned in 2019-2020 because of the
capital study. Mr. Blount advised when they adopted the study in the fall of 2019, some
of those things were already in play because some of the more crucial thing that we
knew of. The assessment study helped staff with developing the first CIP that we had
developed and they had to scrap it. Staff is picking a lot of that back up in this next
budget year, fiscal year 2022. Those projects we brought back and submitted again as
part of the CIP. His biggest concern moving forward would being able restore the CPM
funding to where it was two (2) years ago. For general County buildings, we need at
least a minimum of $900,000 a year just to be able to take care of the facility, which is
the normal repairs.
Supervisor Radford commented one thing about the libraries, especially
where we have high use with the public, have we thought about going to touchless
faucets and towels and dispensers, etc. Supervisor Peters asked if we can use COVID
money for those items. Mr. Blount advised they have been adding some of the
touchless items. As we go forward into the future, he thinks we are going to have to
look more at some of that technology. Supervisor Radford asked if we have those over
at Green Ridge with Mr. Blount responding they have the hand dryers. We did install
the touchless door openers. The biggest request that he is getting right now are the
touchless water bottle refillers; they are very expensive.
Supervisor Hooker inquired where was the culvert that washed out at
Green Hill Park. Mr. Blount advised it was on the cross-country course. When you go
behind the open grass polo field and you walk behind to the maintenance area, it was
the big culver there with a 48 inch pipe.
October 20, 2020
498
Supervisor Radford has asked this in the past, we have a backlog of
erosion and sediment control projects that Mr. Workman has. It does not appear to
show up in any of the capital maintenance projects, but he would like to have an update
on that to see how long the list is and where we are with it. He added he had never
seen the list. Mr. Caywood advised staff would put together something.
The work session was held from 4:26 p.m. until 5:26 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 7:02 p.m., Supervisor Radford returned to open session.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION 102020-7 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING
WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each 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 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
October 20, 2020
499
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1. The petition of Engineering Concepts, Inc. to rezone property to
remove the proffered conditions on approximately 2.66 acres
zoned C-1C, Low Intensity Commercial, District with conditions,
and to obtain a special use permit for religious assembly in a R-
1, Low Density Residential, District, C-1C, Low Intensity
Commercial, District with conditions, and C-2 High Intensity
Commercial, District on approximately 10.68 acres, located at
and near 2500 East Washington Avenue, Vinton Magisterial
District (Philip Thompson, Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson provided a PowerPoint presentation.
Supervisor Peters stated one of the issues he has heard about is the
traffic and the access to Spring Grove. He understands it being down Spring Grove as
it is laid out in the concept plan. Have we had Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) weigh in on this? Mr. Thompson responded they always route their
applications to VDOT for their comments. Typically, they have a template that they
respond. Obviously, they are going to require a land-use permit for the new access. If
this is approved, they will move forward with the site development plan and that is when
they really get into things. You are correct, they will look at the distance from Rt. 24 to
that Spring Grove entrance, because there are spacing requirements. They will also
look at what that traffic is generating and if they have to do a traffic study or not for the
new use. In this case, you are dealing with a church and does not have a traffic pattern
that a normal business would have. Their engineer would develop a concept plan that
would have to deal with all the standards that VDOT would have at that time.
Anecdotally, he would say having a secondary access and splitting the traffic is
probably better. VDOT will look at in more detail, but if they thought there was an issue.
Supervisor Peters then asked with regard to Stormwater, it looks like they are adding a
lot of parking lot. Where do we see the stormwater flowing and are there any potential
flooding issues. He knows there is a creek that runs down the lower part Spring Grove
Drive, but he does not remember seeing water across Spring Grove Drive. Mr.
Thompson advised he would let the engineer speak to the stormwater issue. Mr.
Thompson advised that post construction would need to meet pre-construction. One of
the other comments in the packet was from Butch Workman, Flood Plain Administrator,
they will need to do some type of flood plain study.
October 20, 2020
500
Supervisor North asked how many feet of Rt. 24 to the proposed Phase II
entrance off Spring Grove Drive. Mr. Thompson responded 254 ½ feet. So, it can
accommodate a number of cars that turn off of Rt. 24 into Spring Grove, taking into
account VDOT probably requiring a through entrance, which means parking spaces will
be limited as you enter off of Spring Grove because they have to allow for enough
space per car to pull in fluidly and go to parking. He hopes the applicant knows that and
hope they have discussed with VDOT. Supervisor North then asked how many services
are they planning? Mr. Thompson advised the Pastor would have to speak to that.
Supervisor Mahoney stated he had thought, doing this off memory, we
had a Vinton Area Plan. Mr. Thompson responded we have a Vinton Area Corridor
Plan. Supervisor Mahoney asked if that was the transportation and bikeway plan with
Mr. Thompson responding in the affirmative. Mr. Thompson stated when they looked at
that plan, they worked with the Town of Vinton and we looked at the corridors in East
County and through the Town of Vinton. So, there are some recommendations. There
were some amendments made to the future land use plan map and there were also
recommendations regarding other things. Supervisor Mahoney stated in looking at the
concept plan, he does not see anything in the concept plan that supports or assists the
bikeway plan or the pedestrian plan or sidewalks or any of those planning initiatives that
we were looking at for Rt. 24. Mr. Thompson stated anytime you look at bike and
pedestrian accommodations, where do they go. If you look at Rt. 24, there is a wide
right-of-way there. So, the question is will it go in the right-of-way versus on their
property. His guess is the right-of-way could accommodate future bike and pedestrian
accommodations.
Pastor James Richards provided an overview to the Board.
Supervisor North asked how many services does the church have today
and will have in the future. Pastor Richards advised they have 8:30 a.m. and 10
Sunday school and an 11:00 a.m. service. Traffic is a big problem right now, they have
broadened the entrance to the church to try an accommodate some of the growth. They
also have Wednesday night services.
Supervisor Radford stated it looks like you are taking the existing structure
and convert to recreation and the main structure will be up on the road. It looks like
phase 3, you will need to reroute your road to get back to the new facility. Supervisor
Radford asked the engineer, Bobby Wampler of Engineering Concepts if he envisions
having to put Stormwater underground with Mr. Wampler advising he has not looked at
it in detail, ideally, he would not go underground just from a cost perspective. There is a
stream there and that is a positive; we know we have an adequate channel to discharge
to.
October 20, 2020
501
Supervisor Hooker asked about the plans for weekday use. Is there any
daycare operations or any other uses for days of the week? Pastor Richards advised
they had a Christian School in operation prior to COVID and our plan is within the next
year to two years, we will get the school back and going again. Supervisor Hooker
asked if any kind of projections of numbers; just wondering what the consistent traffic
flow may look like. Pastor James advised that is difficult to predict. Last year they had
around 40 students
Chairman Radford recessed the meeting from 7:30 pm until 7:40 pm to
allow for public comment. The following citizens spoke.
Philip McCormack wrote he lives at 230 Spring Grove Drive in Vinton, VA and
am an attendee of Lighthouse Bible Church and I am for granting the Church the ability
to build their proposed 10,500 square foot building on the corner of Washington Ave
and Spring Grove Drive in Vinton
Moriah Garza of 3256 Morgans Mill Road in Goodview, VA wrote Please
allow the rezoning and growth of this church, Lighthouse Bible Church. Pastor Jay and
his wife Roxanne and their congregation have been a gift from God to my family and I
just recently in April felt God calling me and went chasing the Lord and more knowledge
about Jesus. I was a bartender for 9 years, and alcoholic and a drug addict while
maintaining a seemingly profitable life on the outside I was dying on the inside. The
Lord called me and I wound up after traveling all of the east coast in search of what God
wanted me to do, He led me back home and to this church. They have turns out, all
been praying for me for years and I had no idea. God is doing amazing things in this
place and I am becoming a part of it and want to continue to grow and help and have a
bigger outreach in this community. Please. Please, I am praying you will let us help
build up this community as much as we can with the resources we can. Help us make a
difference in people’s lives for the better.
Linda and Donald Rucker of 221 Maplewood Drive, Vinton wrote we live in
Lindenwood neighborhood right across the street from the land being discussed this
evening. We would love it if you would rezone the land so that Light house bible can
build a church. I have heard that the land is zoned now for Apartments .We do not want
apartments to be built on that land. It would make for a higher crime rate in my
neighborhood and also devalue my home.
Jeanne Ridney of 1036 Annie Court in Vinton, Virginia wrote Thank you
for the opportunity to be able to have a voice for Lighthouse Bible Church concerning
the rezoning. I haven’t been going but a couple years but we have outgrown the old
sanctuary, we are holding services in an extended building which is a gym a movie
theater Church and a place to have dinners. We have two services each Sunday, and
Pastor Jay does both, wouldn’t it be great if all of our brothers and sisters could join
together in one service to worship God. In prayer I am seeking that you would consider
the rezoning. Thank you so much, God bless each one.
Matt Hutchinson of 3256 Mogans Mill Road in Goodview, VA wrote I am
writing in in support of adding a Sanctuary on the property of Lighthouse Bible church in
October 20, 2020
502
Vinton, VA. This church is committed to caring for and supporting all who are part of our
local community. Voting in favor of the new sanctuary zoning will enable Lighthouse
Bible Church to continue to serve our local community and offer more support on an
even larger scale than currently possible. Loving people is the mission.
Cindy Trivette and Nancy Brumfield of 826 Hardy Road, Apartment 4 in
Vinton called in and commented we are members of the church. We pray for the
rezoning to pass tonight. We need a new sanctuary so we can all worship together. We
want all of our brothers and sisters to worship together in one service.
Cherie Rogers of 3133 Huffland Lane called in and commented she would
like to express her support of Pastor Jay and Roxanne. This church has been a
blessing to me and my family. In order for our church to grow, we need more space to
continue reaching out to the community. We would like to reach out to youth, college
students and those with addition to have a place to come and meet.
Lloyd family of 1118 Jamison Avenue, SW called in and commented they
are expressing support for this rezoning. For people against this project, who are these
people to say that a church cannot be built? The church is reaching out to others in the
community. At a time like this, it is something that is more than need and it would help
Vinton. There is a restaurant being built across from Macados and breweries downtown
and no one stopped that. This is a place of worship, why would anyone be against it.
As to the issue of traffic, the traffic is not going to change. The church isn’t going
anywhere because it is already there. What makes a William Byrd football game on
Friday night different than the traffic on Sunday morning?
Supervisor Peters stated he would start about comments going back to a
project a couple of years ago at 3602 Washington Avenue, which was property right
across Spring Grove Drive. There was rezoning for an office and an apartment complex
to go over there. During that time, we heard from all the neighbors in that area who
were adamantly opposed to that with concerns of crime, etc. We also heard from
residents who were against this project, but he has come to the realization that we are
probably not going to put anything commercial in this spot. He does not believe this is
the highest and best use for this property, however, he does think it is the best thing for
the property. It does fit with our comprehensive plan. I think Lighthouse Church, and I
am familiar with Pastor Jay and his wife and his children and what this church has done
in our community over the last 10-15 years. He lives across the street in Lindenwood,
so he is very familiar with this property and the church and what they are doing. So, I
think one of the questions that can come up a number of times is this is zoned
commercial. It is on a major corridor, but he does not see us use it for that purpose. He
does not ever think that we would be able to from a traffic standpoint and many other
aspects. Yes, a school, may cause a little heartburn in the mornings with all the William
Byrd traffic, but apart from that all your traffic is going to be on Sunday morning where
you are not going to have people going to work, not going to have the congestion that
you would during the week.
October 20, 2020
503
Supervisor Mahoney stated he has a philosophical objection to taking
commercial property off the tax rolls. We have so little in Roanoke County. He thinks
the last time he looked, we were around 14-15% of commercial or industrial property;
that bothers him a lot to take it off the tax rolls and make it tax exempt. He
acknowledged the importance of religious assemblies for our community and for our
culture, but he also remembers the bible also talks about “rendering unto Caesar the
things that are Caesar’s” and in this case, Caesar has to pay for public safety and public
education and garbage pickup and we are going to have a problem if we don’t have a
sufficient tax base to meet all of our needs. Having said that, he was on the Planning
Commission when the matter that Supervisor Peters raised and he remembers the
citizen opposition to that proposed rezoning. He looks at Rt. 24 and it is a four-lane
highway and he thinks where else would you have commercial uses, but what runs
against him in this is that we have over three (3) acres that are zoned commercial, but it
has sat there since 1985 and never developed. Then, we had a rezoning in 2002, and it
never developed and that has been 18 years. So, he reluctantly has to agree with
Supervisor Peters that we are probably never going to have a good commercial use
there. If you look at a flat map, you say this ought to be commercial, but the other day,
this past weekend, when he and his wife drove out and went around the property and
we drove down Spring Grove and looked at the subdivision and then drove down to the
church. He has been advised that the church has been there 30-40 years, a long time,
well before our zoning ordinance required special use permits. He thinks as Supervisor
Peters has indicated neighborhood conservation and transition do support this kind of
religious assembly use. So, he is really torn. If we sit here as a Board and we struggle
every year with trying to put together an appropriate tax base and how do we pay for all
the services and all the needs of our community. He does not know how we do it. If we
continue to take property off the tax rolls and make it tax exempt, it is going to be a
problem, but he will support the motion. The facts on the ground show that it is not
going to be developed for commercial. The church has been there for a long time and
thinks it would be of benefit to the community and he thinks that is something they have
to support. We have to look at broader needs.
ORDINANCE 102020-8 REZONING PROPERTY TO REMOVE
THE PROFFERED CONDITIONS ON APPROXIMATELY 2.66
ACRES ZONED C-1C (LOW INTENSITY COMMERCIAL)
DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS, AND TO OBTAIN A SPECIAL
USE PERMIT FOR RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY IN A R-1 (LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT, C-1C (LOW INTENSITY
COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS, AND C-2 (HIGH
INTENSITY COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT ON APPROXIMATELY
10.68 ACRES, LOCATED AT AND NEAR 2500 WASHINGTON
AVENUE, VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
October 20, 2020
504
WHEREAS, this application involves three properties all located in the Vinton
Magisterial District; Parcel 1 is 7.61 acres, is zoned R-1, and is where existing church
facilities are located (2500 Washington Avenue; Tax Map Number 061.02-01-58.00-
0000); Parcel 2 is 2.66 acres in size, is zoned C-1C, and is currently vacant (0
Washington Avenue; Tax Map Number 061.02-01-59.00-0000); Parcel 3 is 0.41 acre in
size, is zoned C-2, and is currently vacant (0 Washington Avenue; Tax Map Number
061.15-01-08.00-0000); and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has previously approved two (2) rezonings
(1985 and 2002) on Parcel 2 (Tax Map Number 061.02-01-59.00-0000), and a proffered
condition exists on the property from the 2002 rezoning which requires conformance
with the conceptual site plan for office development; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan indicates the Future Land
Use Designation of these parcels are Neighborhood Conservation and Transition.
Religious assembly is consistent with the Transition future land use designation and the
Neighborhood Conservation future land use designation; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 22, 2020,
and the second reading and public hearing were held on October 20, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on October 5, 2020; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of removing the
existing proffered condition on Parcel 2 and granting a special use permit for religious
assembly on all three parcels (10.68 acres in total) with one condition; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. The petition of Engineering Concepts, Inc. to rezone approximately 2.66
acres (Tax Map Number 061.02-01-59.00-0000) to remove existing
proffered conditions, is approved.
2. The Board finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the purpose
and intent of the County’s Comprehensive Plan and good zoning practice,
and will not result in a substantial detriment to the community.
3. The petition of Engineering Concepts, Inc. to obtain a special use permit
for religious assembly on approximately 10.66 acres (Tax Map Numbers:
061.02-01-58.00-0000, 061.02-01-59.00-0000, and 061.15-01-08.00-
0000), is approved with the following condition:
a. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the
concept site plan prepared by Engineering Concepts, Inc. dated
September 24, 2020, subject to any changes required during the
site plan review process.
4. The Board finds that the proposed special use permit meets the
requirements of Section 30-19-1 of the Roanoke County Code, that the
October 20, 2020
505
proposed special use conforms with the standards set forth in article IV,
use and design standards of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, is in
conformance with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan, and will
have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood and
community.
5. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final
passage. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district
map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this
ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Peters, Radford
NAYS: None
IN RE: CITIZENS’ COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Ian Bongard of 7881 Bradshaw, Salem, Virginia stated he lives on the
edges of Roanoke County. He is trails coordinator for Blue Ridge Off-Road Cyclists.
We build public use trail all over the valley for all ages and all abilities. He actually
worked for Roanoke County for a number of years in the Parks, Recreation division and
today he would like to talk about Explore Park. He actually has gotten the great
opportunity to work at Explore Park for a number of years so he knows the ends and
outs of that park. In the past couple of years, he has seen it grow from just a historical
site to now it has amenities such as camping, Treetop Quest, which he worked there
and was an amazing opportunity and now the brewery is coming in. It just makes a
great package for a whole weekend at one park. He understands that Parks and
Recreation has there budget cut drastically with the events of 2020 and he hopes
Illuminights can help a little bit with that. With the budget being cut to the way it is, that
is where Blue Ridge Off-Road Cyclists can step in. We have an expertise of trail
building and we really have our finger on the pulse of the industry. Explore Park trails
were built in the 1980-1990’s and since them they have not been redesigned. He
knows the Master Plan is out, and we are currently working through the process of
st
developing those trails, but Brock really wants to bring those trails into the 21 century
and make it a real hub in the industry for mountain biking and all activities and all
recreations. So, we want to change the face of the mountain bike industry with
Roanoke County and we need your support.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor North stated as you may see I am wearing a hat; he was going
to where the hat for the whole meeting, but the doctor said I did not have too. So, he is
October 20, 2020
506
putting it on now to make a few points. As you can see, the date says Roanoke County
Parks, Recreation and Tourism. This organization of Roanoke County government
does many things for Explore Park in the way of activities and programs. For the
second year, starting November 20, 2020, though January 2, 2021, Roanoke County
and Center in the Square will have a signature event, for the second year in a row,
Illuminights, which will operate over 41 nights. The press release indicated that this is
going to begin on November 20, 2020, through January 2, 2021. It is a great way to
enjoy the holidays outside and with CVOID 19 precautions, only advance tickets will be
sold for this event. There will be no walkups and tickets may be purchased in the
following ways, online, at VisitExplorePark.org/Illuminights. You may phone 387-6078
weekdays from 9-5 or you can walk up and purchase at different locations: Explore
Park Visitors Center, Brambleton Center, Public Service Center and the Center in the
Square Box Office, Tuesday through Saturday, 9:45 until 4:45 and on Sunday from
12:45 to 4:45 p.m. More details are at those locations. On some economic news, both
sales and real estate tax revenues, as the Board noticed in our meeting package, is
th
coming in over 5% versus last year at this time through September 30. He just wants
to issue a little conservative caution with regards to business closings of late and in
some cases until next spring, we hope. We need to watch these numbers. We need to
probably keep a spreadsheet on what we think these locations are and if permanent
closure, we need to begin these financial closures for the impact it will have on Roanoke
County revenues and we need to be prepared to answer those questions later on in the
budget process.
Supervisor Peters stated we had a briefing today by our County Attorney,
Mr. Lubeck and Chief Hall regarding towing advisory board. He would like to move that
forward to a work session, if we can get that scheduled.
Supervisor Mahoney stated yesterday morning he and his wife voted at
our satellite voting facility at the Brambleton Center. Judie and I got there about 9:15
a.m. As you recall, yesterday was a beautiful day. There were about three or four (3 or
4) people in line ahead of us. It moved smoothly and efficiently and very effectively so
he wanted to give kudos to staff and Mr. Blount for putting that together. It seemed to
him to be an excellent location and excellent facility and it worked great. The second
thing, he wanted to comment on was this morning, he had the pleasure and opportunity
to join our friends at TAP, Total Action for Progress, who had a press conference this
morning. TAP is celebrating 55 years in our region and our community. What TAP is
trying to do is launch what they call, “Bringing Hope Home.” It is a fund raising effort.
They are hoping to raise $150,000 in this fund-raising campaign through June 30, 2021.
They would hope, as they indicated in their press release, to raise money to support
TAP’s efforts to help families get out of and stay out of poverty and they really are going
to focus on four (4) areas, education and employment, domestic violence and family
services, housing and financial services. It was a very nice press conference today at
the Dumas Center. If any of you have never been to the Dumas Center, it is a beautiful
facility that they have been able to renovate and it was very inspiring opportunity to
October 20, 2020
507
participate. Our chairman was there representing Roanoke County and made some
comments along with elected leaders from other jurisdictions who are also partners with
TAP.
Supervisor Hooker stated she would like to remind all of our citizens to
take advantage of the honor and privilege of voting and now that we have several
options, she wanted to mention them quickly: the Kessler Mill office is now open with a
staffed drop box if you want to take your ballot there as well as North County Library
with a drop box station. We have the Brambleton Center, where you can vote early or
take your ballot and then as has been the case for a while now, the Chestnut Avenue in
Vinton with the Voter Registrar’s office or you can vote on Election Day at your normal
polling place. She wanted to make sure that everyone knows that is still an option.
Supervisor Radford wanted to highlight TAP celebrating their 55 years in
existence. He felt very honored and humbled. They awarded the Client of the Year
Award and went to an individual who has overcome tremendous odds to achieve
success as a result of the TAP program. It was interesting and inspiring to hear that
young man get up and speak; his future is how bright thanks to TAP. They also
awarded the Cabell Brand Hope Award to Ted Edlich, a man that actually knew Cabell
Brand very close at the time. He told us stories about how Cabell Brand started the
TAP program back in 1965. It was interesting to hear the entire history and how much it
has meant to the community. They are totaling non-profit. They are not affiliated with
any national organization. They are totally just Roanoke City, Salem, Roanoke County
and Botetourt County so any time you hear or get a chance to help with them, he
implores you to do so. It is a great program to help lift people out of desperate times.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Radford adjourned the meeting at 8:04 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
________________________ ___________________________________
Deborah C. Jacks David F. Radford
Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board Chairman
October 20, 2020
508
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY