2/9/2021 - Regular - DRAFT
February 9, 2021
103
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 first regularly scheduled meeting
of the month of February 2021. 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 Peters called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. The roll call was
taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman P. Jason Peters; Supervisors Martha B. Hooker,
Paul M. Mahoney, Phil C. North and David F. Radford
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Daniel R. O’Donnell, County Administrator; Richard
Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Rebecca Owens,
Assistant County Administrator; Peter S. Lubeck, County
Attorney; Amy Whittaker, Public Information Officer and
Deborah C. Jacks, Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolutions supporting Traffic Calming Plan Pilot Projects
proposed for Meadowlark Road and Canter Drive, Cave Spring
and Windsor Hills Magisterial Districts (Megan Cronise,
Transportation Planning Administrator)
Ms. Cronise outlined the request for traffic calming plan pilot projects.
Supervisor Radford stated all of us got emailed the letter from Mr. Van
Thiel. He's over in the Canter area. He's brought up a lot of interesting points that I want
February 9, 2021
104
to talk about, and he mentioned that this was attempted in the past and he is not sure
what the results were. Could you share with me what occurred in the past? Ms. Cronise
responded it's her understanding, and this is before she was working in transportation,
in 2016, there were community meetings held for both of the projects. They were held at
Cave Spring Middle School to find out if there was support for putting up signs and
increase the fines for speeding. So if you were written a traffic ticket, it would be an
additional $200 on top of the ticket in those specific areas. The board did not want to
pursue that option at that time; that was in 2016.
Supervisor Radford added, he noticed in the packet that we are not even
close to the 50%, so why do we want to do this when we don't have 50%; isn’t that
VDOT’s rules? Ms. Cronise responded it is VDOT's rules in order for VDOT fund the
program. So we've been working side-by-side with VDOT throughout this process, and
they agree with our course of action; they understand we did not receive 50% of the
results and that's why the County has to fund the speed boards, but they are willing to
sign off on a land use permit if the Board of Supervisors agrees it is an appropriate
course of action to take, to install the speed boards for one year. Supervisor Radford
added so the County has to fund this out of our pocket. Make sure everybody hears
that. We're having to fund out of our pocket. When I walk the streets all the time, during
my campaign in 2019 and nobody was doing 60 miles an hour and he was not getting
run over. He is not sure this isn’t an overreaction. He does not know how the other
Board members feel, but I know that area. Supervisor Mahoney do you come into that
area.
Supervisor Mahoney noted a couple of things, first he hates to
acknowledge it, but coming down the hill, he is sure he is doing more than 25, number
one. With respect to Meadowlark in terms of both my walking and getting signatures to
run, and then five (5) months or six (6) months later, going door to door, what he heard
consistently from people all up and down Meadowlark was they wanted something.
What a lot of them wanted were speed bumps; he attempted to explain to them why
speed bumps are not a good idea, but most of the people I spoke to wanted speed
bumps. Supervisor Mahoney added he was surprised with the small number of
responses based upon what he was hearing knocking on doors and talking to people.
Meadowlark is a cut-through, at least for Penn Forest, and it's a way to get to South
County Library and Penn Forest Elementary. You avoid 419 and you get to Starkey,
then Buck Mountain Road then 220. So he asked the Board to support, at least the
resolution with respect to Meadowlark. He is concerned about the small percentage of
respondents, but knows that from talking to citizens, they're concerned about the speed.
Meadowlark is a straight shot. There's no curves, there's no hills. He had always
thought that a lot of the problem stemmed in late afternoon when the students got out of
Cave Spring High School. Well, students aren't going to Cave Spring High School and
there's still a lot of speeding up and down Meadowlark. So he thinks we have to blame it
on my neighbors in Penn Forest and not necessarily strangers who are cutting through.
It's a problem. Supervisor Mahoney asked in speaking with Chief Hall, there do not
February 9, 2021
105
seem to be accident data that would support more aggressive measures. It's not as
though there's all kinds of accidents with hitting parked cars, or hitting pedestrians, or
hitting other motor vehicles. But I heard two messages. One is a speeding on
Meadowlark and the second message was the noise coming from Mennell Mill, and
that's a different issue. You don't want to go there. But it seems to be a problem, and it
seems to be a problem that many citizens are concerned about. The question he has
is, number one, assuming this is approved, what is the timeframe before these are
installed? Number two, on a broader scope, are we setting a precedent? He is sure
there are other streets in Roanoke County that have similar kinds of problems and if we
start doing this where we don't have a significant number of citizens in support of it, are
we are creating unintended consequences that this is not going to turn into $35,000, but
it's going to turn into $350,000? He thinks that's going to be a problem and does not
want to create a future problem for us or for a future board. Ms. Cronise responded
staff has not received quotes yet for the devices. These are just estimated costs. Once
we purchase the speed boards, they will be ours. So we are anticipating a one-year pilot
project to collect data throughout that time, evaluate the data at the end, and see if it
worked or if it didn't. So there is potential for these to be relocated to other roads as
needed because we will own the hardware. So I would anticipate three to six months.
The land use permit with VDOT is not the issue. Those are turned around fairly quickly.
It's procuring the equipment, making sure we've got the right installers, utilities are
marked, and then we can get it constructed. It needs to be on a substantial base. So
there's some work involved, yes.
Supervisor North stated he too shares some concerns over this. The 30%
response rate is too low if we have a VDOT 50% response rate. He feels this will be
impactful to other communities, perhaps even major thoroughfares, such as Old
Mountain Road, which has always had a regular speed problem in the City and in the
County. He added he feels like we're headed in the direction of solving one problem,
but creating an ongoing measure in the future with respects to maintaining as well as
owning speeding boards. Do we have any data from speed boards that were put up
there for 30 or 60 day time periods of late? Ms. Cronise responded the speed boards
that we have currently run on a battery that lasts one week. So we have data that's
collected in weekly intervals. We have two that are posted all over the County in
response to complaints. There is a very high volume of complaints that come from the
Canterbury neighborhoods and from Penn Forest neighborhood in the Meadowlark
area. So this is in response to complaints. Supervisor North asked if staff went back
and tried to rally for additional responses to get the 50%? Ms. Cronise responded staff
could do that. She advised the way that we did this, in attempting to be as safe as
possible in the era of COVID-19, is we sent out letters to all of the property owners, and
actually, renters, who lived in both of these neighborhoods within the identified survey
area and that is the survey area that we decided on in collaboration with VDOT. They
wanted us to make sure that we were going to be reaching out to everyone who would
be driving through these areas from the catchment area. Ms. Cronise added they are
February 9, 2021
106
fairly large areas, but we think that the results that we received were fairly solid at 30
some percent, especially when the letter was mailed out over the holiday season. We
know from community meeting feedback that some people get letters from the County
that aren't tax bills and they go straight in the trash. So if people don't open the letters to
take the survey, then we can't get their feedback. But we did hear from a number of very
passionate residents who lived in both neighborhoods who called in addition to filling out
the survey. In fact, some called her and called either Will Crawford or Isaac Henry and
filled out the survey online to make sure we knew exactly what they thought about the
speeding problem and that they were in favor of the speed boards. Or we picked the
wrong location, or speed bumps were better, or we didn't have the right solution
proposed. So there's definitely some passion in the neighborhood from a number of
residents, but you're correct. We did not get a very high response rate. And actually, we
checked the email that Ms. Jacks received this morning from Mr. Van Thiel. He did not
fill out a survey. We didn't have a response from him. We tried as best we could. It was
over 600 letters that were mailed out to both neighborhoods the first time around. That's
a lot of postage and time and expense. Then we sent out a second letter telling them
what the survey results were and that we were moving forward to the Board of
Supervisors at this meeting. So that was another set of 600 letters that were sent out.
So we could continue mailing letters to see if we could get that rate higher, but that's
just additional county expenses, additional time. So we can do that if you would like us
to try again. Or I think the consensus of the group working on this was that the 90 some
percent we received for Meadowlark, 98% of the surveys completed were in favor. And
on Canter, it was 83% of the surveys completed were in favor. We thought that those
were fairly high results and we felt comfortable moving forward. Supervisor North asked
if anyone considered getting one of our surplus police cars parked on one side of the
street and then on another? Sometimes just having a police car sitting there slows
people down pretty quickly. That's a lot cheaper than setting a precedent in Roanoke
County.
Supervisor Mahoney commented they tried that in the City of Salem
several years so and what some of the young people in that neighborhood did was went
out and bought a couple boxes of doughnuts and put it on the roof of the cruiser. I don't
think we want to go down there.
Supervisor Radford asked if the 50% response rate is really to trigger the
dollars and not relevant to the response? Ms. Cronise responded it's a guideline
document that VDOT has created for instances like this. When she talked with Brian
Blevins, and he is available by phone if we need him, and he said that VDOT was
comfortable with the results that we've gotten to the Board. Supervisor Radford added
to be truthful to the Board, he has received comments of speeding or comments of high
speed in those areas. Canter. They didn't tell him personally and he did not see it. They
did email me. So where are we talking about putting the speed boards on Canter? Do
you know? Ms. Cronise responded she does have some speed data from past
presentations and the highest number that the police department tracked in recent
February 9, 2021
107
history was an 85th percentile at 12 miles an hour over the speed limit in 2014. We also
had records of 11 miles an hour over and 10 miles an hour over in 2014 and 2019. So
there definitely is a speeding problem there. It is actually quite a bit higher than on
Meadowlark, which is more like seven and eight miles an hour over the speed limit.
She added on the map that's in the packet, and she included that first letter that was
mailed, and this is the last page of the packet, when you come through along the road
when you get to the end of the landscape mediums, Cromwell Court is on the left. Brian
Blevins advised the neighborhood really initiated the complaints about speeding. The
location where some of the temporary speed boards have been put in the past has been
in that dip. As you get close to the high school and there's the drainage, the creek that
comes past, it's in that dip as you start coming back up the hill on Canter; that's the
proposed location. Ms. Cronise then added we agreed on that when we were out in the
field with Sergeant Hoops from the police department and Brian Blevins with VDOT.
Supervisor Radford stated so when coming down the hill, you are actually going to be a
little faster with Ms. Cronise responding the police department's recorded 12 miles an
hour over for the 85th percentile. Supervisor Radford then asked when we collect the
information on the speed boards, what do we do with that? What are we planning to do?
Ms. Cronise advised we would take a look and see, overall, have these numbers
decreased over time? So where we're seeing 12 miles an hour in 2014, and we're
seeing 11 miles an hour over or 10 miles in 2019, are speeds now slower over that year
than they were before we started recording? Supervisor Radford noted he guess the
purpose of the speed boards is to tell us whether we need traffic calming devices in this
area. Ms. Cronise responded this is a traffic calming devise; it is intended to slow
speed. Supervisor Radford asked if it has a bump on it with Ms. Cronise responding in
the negative stating just by seeing the Board flashing tells people they need to slow
down.
Supervisor Hooker stated she knew we have had some of these types of
speed boards used in other areas; did the County purchase those too? Ms. Cronise
responded in the affirmative adding the police department has two (2) that are in use
and rotated around the County with batteries that last about one week. Supervisor
Hooker asked if this is a different technology because it is solar? Ms. Cronise
responded this equipment will be hardwired or solar so it can continuously operate and
will not be reliant on a one-week battery. Supervisor Hooker added so it is just better.
She noted when we've had these kinds of complaints, that if we have a speed board up
for a period of time, it does help. Does it help in the long-term or just while the speed
board is up. Is it a temporary fix? Ms. Cronise responded that is what we will see when
we're able to have a speed board up for longer than a week at a time.
Chairman Peters requested the Clerk read the emails from William J. Van
Thiel and Tolga Balci.
Bill Van Thiel of 5368 Chaucer’s Court wrote “based on the results of the
questionnaire, the speeding problem apparently is just not at the Canterbury Park
February 9, 2021
108
entrance/Canter Dr. Who is speeding? Is it through traffic ? I don’t think we get much
of this…So it is our Neighbors? I agree that we don’t want people speeding in our
neighborhood.Previously some of the people behind the petition that was circulated a
few years ago (which didn't meet the VDOT requirements) were people who walked at
the entrance where islands split the street into two narrow roadways. Many times I
noticed they would be standing in the street talking or walking their dogs, with either
themselves or the dog on island and the other in the street… Not the safest place to
be in any case, especially with cars coming around the corner. Don't get me wrong,
there are folks walking their dogs (and themselves) on the islands and walking and
bicycling along the street who are obviously very mindful and respectful of the traffic in
this area. Some of these people even cut the grass and keep the islands looking nice.
Hidden Valley High School Cross Country teams run through the neighborhood,
sometimes on both sides of the street, so drivers need to be careful. Both of my children
went to and played sports at Hidden Valley High School. We often walked down
Cavalier and Canter drive and cut through at the bottom of the big hill to go to the fields
and school. I sometimes ride my bicycle through the neighborhood…though not as
much,… the hills seem to be getting steeper…..While I agree we should be able to
safely enjoy our neighborhood, as one of our previous supervisors stated, “this is not a
park…it is the main entrance and thoroughfare into a large housing development. ”But
people need to be reasonable, use and take some personal responsibility when walking,
running and riding down the street. A number of people are wearing headphones/ear
buds and can’t hear what is going on around them. Then there are the ones looking
down, only paying attention to their cell phones, some also wearing ear buds.
Regarding where they want to place the speed sign: This proposed placement appears
to be in same area as the previously installed lighted speed signs. Is this a practical /
realistic representation of the speed throughout the neighborhood? Installation at the
bottom of probably the steepest hill in the neighborhood appears to be inappropriate,
skewing the data. These have been installed at least twice. Was there any positive
result to this? What did the data show? Placing lighted speed signs/ Distractions at a
probably the most frequent Deer Crossing and Deer congregation area in the entire
neighborhood would appear to be a hazard in itself. The lighted numbers would create
an even greater distraction and hazard at night in that relatively dark area. That area
also has a street intersecting right at the bottom of the hill in the area where the
proposed lighted speed signs have been, and would again be installed. Drawing
attention away from the intersecting street to the opposite side of the street could be a
distraction, drawing attention away from cars pulling out of the street, to the lighted sign
showing your speed. The house on the corner of this street apparently has young
children living there and I see a number of young children playing outside and along the
street. Yet another reason not to create a distraction in this area. As I stated previously,
I don’t want people speeding in the neighborhood, but I feel that some of the comments
made at the Previous VDOT meeting, (which I think having the meeting violated their
February 9, 2021
109
own procedures and guidelines), were inaccurate, exaggerations and/or emotional and
not well thought out.
Such as: “Cars are going 60 mph through the neighborhood”.-- In 30 years I have
never witnessed anyone doing 60 MPH….or close to that fast in our neighborhood.
“I had to jump out of the way of cars 4 times”—Once, I can see,…4 times? The traffic
may not be the problem. “Speeding fines need to be increased to $300.00+. The cost of
regular fines is nothing to the rich people who live at the top of the neighborhood.” -- I’m
not sure how to respond to that comment. Some people are taking about installation of
speed bumps: Question: Are these going to be placed throughout the entire
neighborhood, and through Steeplehunt as well? Are the speed bumps designed to be
crossed/driven over at 25MPH? Are we actually lowering the speed through the
neighborhood? What speed would be safe and comfortable to cross? What about
people who stop to cross, creating other problems and hazards? What effect do speed
bumps have on snow removal? There is not curb and gutter in Canterbury Park. Will
speed bumps divert water into the yards? Are signs cautioning “Speed Bumps" going to
be posted at each bump? Are the bumps going to be painted yellow? This will certainly
beautify our neighborhood…For people looking to move into the area… …this would
certainly send a great message to prospective buyers…especially on Canter Drive and
Cavalier Drive. Are there other neighborhoods in our area in with speed bumps? Is the
speeding in our neighborhood outside of the norm for other neighborhoods? Is this an
overreaction? What can be reasonably done? My wife’s first interaction with one of new
neighbors (who doesn’t have children) was telling her she needed to slow down. I have
spoken to another neighbor about their son’s excessive speed. Maybe we just need to
talk to our neighbors who are speeding.”
We also just received another one from Mr. Van Thiel, stating, "I did
complete and return the survey." Ms. Cronise stated staff did not see in the
SurveyMonkey and we don’t have a record that he called in.
The next email is from Tolga Balci and he resides in Canterbury Park. He
opposes the calming project on these grounds: It did not meet the 50% VDOT rule;
There are no known accidents that would justify paying for this outside of VDOT's
projects; he has have lived in Canterbury Park for over 10 years and go through the
area described multiple times daily and never seen any incidents that would justify this
project; As stated in the letter the expectation was that the program would not be funded
if more than 50% support could not be received. County funds and focus should be
paid to other areas that have documented cases of accidents and not just a vocal
residents.
There was no further discussion.
RESOLUTION 020921-1 SUPPORTING A TRAFFIC CALMING
PLAN PILOT PROJECT PROPOSED FOR MEADOWLARK
ROAD, CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
February 9, 2021
110
WHEREAS, County staff receives frequent complaints about vehicle speeds on
Meadowlark Road; and
th
WHEREAS, Police Department speed surveys have determined that 85
percentile vehicle speeds are seven miles or more above the posted speed limit; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Traffic Calming
Guide for Neighborhood Streets (2018) outlines a process for conducting traffic calming
activities; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Traffic Calming Plan for Meadowlark Road was
properly presented to the community in the affected survey area for their review and
consideration; and
WHEREAS, the Traffic Calming Plan survey was completed by 30 percent of
households located in the survey area, with 98 percent of responding households in
favor of the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Pilot Project will conclude one year from the date that the speed
boards are installed and operating; and
WHEREAS, local funding has been identified to implement the Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board of Supervisors hereby supports the Traffic Calming Plan
Pilot Project proposed for Meadowlark Road.
2. That the Clerk to the Board forthwith send a certified copy of this
Resolution to the VDOT Salem Residency.
3. That this resolution is effective immediately.
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor Radford and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 020921-2 SUPPORTING A TRAFFIC CALMING
PLAN PILOT PROJECT PROPOSED FOR CANTER DRIVE,
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, County staff receives frequent complaints about vehicle speeds on
Canter Drive; and
th
WHEREAS, Police Department speed surveys have determined that 85
percentile vehicle speeds are ten miles or more above the posted speed limit; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Traffic Calming
Guide for Neighborhood Streets (2018) outlines a process for conducting traffic calming
activities; and
February 9, 2021
111
WHEREAS, the proposed Traffic Calming Plan for Canter Drive was properly
presented to the community in the affected survey area for their review and
consideration; and
WHEREAS, the Traffic Calming Plan survey was completed by 35 percent of
households located in the survey area, with 83 percent of responding households in
favor of the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Pilot Project will conclude one year from the date that the speed
boards are installed and operating; and
WHEREAS, local funding has been identified to implement the Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board of Supervisors hereby supports the Traffic Calming Plan
Pilot Project proposed for Canter Drive.
2. That the Clerk to the Board forthwith send a certified copy of this
Resolution to the VDOT Salem Residency.
3. That this resolution is effective immediately.
On motion of Supervisor Radford to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
2. Resolution supporting the Commonwealth Transportation Board
Staff Recommended SMART SCALE Funding Scenario including
applications submitted by Roanoke County, the Roanoke Valley
Transportation Planning Organization and the City of Roanoke
(Megan Cronise, Transportation Planning Administrator)
Ms. Cronise outlined the request for resolution.
Supervisor North stated this was an excellent result. However, he
challenged the transportation group downstairs and our TPO policy board here in
Roanoke County. We need to up the game even more the next time and because we
can go 20 projects, five from the County, five from CEDS, five from the policy TPO
board, five from the Allegheny Regional Commission. He does not think that the
Allegheny Regional Commission or the TPO is necessarily maxed out on their project
submission, so the more projects that we submit according to VDOT, the more
successful, not only can we be, but we can also get a lot of low hanging fruit because
many projects don't need matching funds from smart scale. So just something to think
about in the next two years iteration, because we've been so successful so far, so good
work on these five or seven projects.
There was no further discussion.
February 9, 2021
112
RESOLUTION 020921-3 SUPPORTING THE COMMONWEALTH
TRANSPORTATION BOARD STAFF RECOMMENDED SMART
SCALE FUNDING SCENARIO INCLUDING APPLICATIONS
SUBMITTED BY ROANOKE COUNTY, THE ROANOKE VALLEY
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION AND THE
CITY OF ROANOKE
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting on July 28, 2020, the Board of Supervisors
adopted a resolution supporting proposed SMART SCALE project applications; and
WHEREAS, that list of projects included applications to be submitted by Roanoke
County, the Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization, the Roanoke Valley-
Alleghany Regional Commission and the City of Roanoke; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors desires to continue to support both local
and regional projects to mitigate congestion, promote economic development, increase
accessibility, safety, and environmental quality, as well as develop projects consistent
with local land use policies; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors particularly desires to support all proposed
SMART SCALE projects located on congested Route 460 (Orange Avenue and
Challenger Avenue), a Corridor of Statewide Significance that has been the subject of
two studies in the past three years: the U.S. 460 Arterial Preservation Program (APP)
and the Strategically Targeted Affordable Roadway Solutions (STARS) Program; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) received the Staff
Recommended SMART SCALE Funding Scenario at its January 19, 2021, meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board of Supervisors hereby supports recommended funding for
the following Roanoke County SMART SCALE projects:
a. Valleypointe Parkway Realignment
b. Route 419 Streetscape Improvements, Phase 2
c. Starkey Road/Buck Mountain Road Intersection Improvements
2. That the Board of Supervisors hereby supports recommended funding for
the following Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization
SMART SCALE projects:
a. Route 460 at West Ruritan Road Intersection Improvements
b. Route 460 Intersections from Carson Road to Huntridge Road
3. That the Board of Supervisors hereby supports recommended funding for
the following City of Roanoke SMART SCALE projects:
a. Orange Avenue (Route 460) at Blue Hills Drive
b. Orange Avenue (Route 460) at King Street
c. Orange Avenue (Route 460) at Seibel Drive/Hickory Woods
February 9, 2021
113
4. That the Clerk to the Board forthwith send a certified copy of this
Resolution to Commonwealth Transportation Board member Dr. Ray
Smoot, State Delegate Joseph McNamara, State Delegate Chris Head,
State Senator David Suetterlein, State Senator John Edwards and State
Senator Steve Newman.
5. That this resolution is effective immediately.
On motion of Supervisor North to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Radford and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Emergency ordinance readopting Ordinance 033120-1 to
effectuate temporary changes in certain deadline and to modify
public meeting and public hearing practices and procedures to
address continuity of operations associated with pandemic
disaster (Due to the Pandemic Disaster, it is requested, upon a
four-fifths vote of the Board, the second reading be waived and
the ordinance adopted as an emergency measure) (Peter S.
Lubeck, County Attorney)
Mr. Lubeck outlined the request for ordinance.
Supervisor Mahoney stated one minor point, he knows all we are doing
here is readopting what we adopted back in March. He went back and re-read what we
did in March and if you go to, for the Board members page 29, which is part of the
original March ordinance under 2B, we just set out a process for calling electronic
meetings and they talk about how the chairman can do it and if the chairman's not
available than the vice chair, and then if we don't have any of those two, then we go to
the board member from Vinton, Catawba, Hollins, Cave Spring, and since Vinton is
already the chair, do we have to correct that? Or can we just ignore that and pretend
section 2B from the March 31st ordinance, we don't necessarily have to follow it in that
order. We've never had to do that, but we do set out a process and it was based on a
process where we had a different arrangement.
Supervisor Peters stated based on the language, he is assuming it is
saying Chair, Vice Chair and then seniority? Mr. Lubeck responded in the affirmative.
Supervisor Peters asked if we can amend it to say something other than by district? Mr.
Lubeck responded we can make the amendment to propose that this proceed by order
of seniority.
February 9, 2021
114
Supervisor North commented it just seems redundant that we have to do
this every 60 or 90 days. Mr. Lubeck advised it is 60 days. Supervisor North stated it
should be more streamlined to, upon the second directive of the governor that the order
is lifted. It is just redundant. He does not know of any other governments that are doing
that. Mr. Lubeck responded that he agreed, it is redundant to bring this back over and
over again, especially with there being no foreseeable end in sight. So it is very likely
that he will stand before you yet again, to recommend that this be readopted in April. He
pointed out that while this Board has not yet, thank goodness had to take advantage of
the ability to meet by electronic means, many of the other commissions and authorities
that have been created by this board or participate on behalf of Roanoke County have,
and continue to take advantage of that remote capability pursuant to the order granted
in this order.
There was no further discussion.
EMERGENCY 020921-4 ORDINANCE READOPTING
ORDINANCE 033120-1, TO EFFECTUATE TEMPORARY
CHANGES IN CERTAIN DEADLINES
AND
TO MODIFY PUBLIC MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING
PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES TO ADDRESS CONTINUITY
OF OPERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PANDEMIC DISASTER
WHEREAS, on March 31, 2020, the Board adopted emergency Ordinance
033120-1, to effectuate temporary changes in certain deadlines and to modify public
meeting and public hearing practices and procedures to address continuity of
operations associated with the COVID-19 pandemic disaster; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15.2-1427 of the Code of Virginia, emergency
ordinances shall not be enforced for more than sixty (60) days unless readopted; and
WHEREAS, the Board readopted the ordinance on May 26, 2020, July 14, 2020;
September 8, 2020, November 4, 2020; and again on December 15, 2021; and
WHEREAS, due to the ongoing nature of the COVID -19 pandemic, it is again
proposed that the Board readopt Ordinance 033120-1; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 15, 2020;
and the second reading has been dispensed with, upon an affirmative vote of 4/5ths of
the members of the Board, this being deemed to be an emergency measure pursuant to
Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Roanoke, Virginia:
1. That Ordinance 033120-1 is hereby readopted, with the following amendment
to Section 2(b), which shall now state:
February 9, 2021
115
a. “The chairman of each Public Entity shall have authority to decide whether
to hold any such electronic meeting. If the chairman is unavailable, the
vice-chair shall decide. If the vice-chair is unavailable, such authority shall
lie with members of the Board, in the order of their seniority (length of
tenure) on the Board.”
2. An emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordinance shall be effective upon
its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the ordinance as an emergency
measure and waiving the second reading with a 4/5ths vote; seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
2. Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code to create the
County of Roanoke Towing Advisory Board, and accompanying
resolution appointing representatives to the Towing Advisory
Board (Rachel Lower, Senior Assistant County Attorney)
Ms. Lower outlined the request for ordinance. There was no discussion.
Supervisor Peters’ motion to approve the first reading and set the second
reading and public hearing for February 23, 2021, was seconded by Supervisor Hooker
and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
3. Ordinance amending the fiscal year 2020-2021 budget for the
General Operating Revenues and Expenditures by $4,102,054,
appropriating $1,681,342 to the Roanoke County School Board
and appropriating $2,420,712 to the County’s Capital Fund (Laurie
Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services)
Ms. Gearheart outlined the request for ordinance. There was no
discussion.
Supervisor North’s motion to approve the first reading and set the second
reading and public hearing for February 23, 2021, was seconded by Supervisor Radford
and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
February 9, 2021
116
Supervisor Mahoney commented in June, this Board indicated that it was
going to a true-up funds for public schools and for County education, if our revenues
improve. It appears as though our revenues are improving and we're fulfilling the
promise that we made six, eight months ago
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance approving a permanent easement to Roanoke Gas
Company on parcel owned by Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors (Tax Map Number 036.03-01-01.00-0000) for the
development of the Stormwater Operations Building at the Public
Service Center (Doug Blount, Director of General Services and
Parks, Recreation and Tourism)
Mr. Blount outlined the request for the ordinance. There was no
discussion.
ORDINANCE 020921-5 APPROVING A PERMANENT
EASEMENT TO ROANOKE GAS COMPANY ON A PARCEL
OWNED BY THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS (TAX MAP NUMBER 036.03-01-01.00-0000) FOR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STORMWATER OPERATIONS
BUILDING AT THE PUBLIC SERVICE CENTER
WHEREAS, Roanoke County has developed a two-phase plan to replace the
Public Service Center located at 1206 Kessler Mill Road; and
WHEREAS, as part of the plan, a new Stormwater Operations Shop Building is
being constructed in a higher elevation on the existing Public Service Center parcel; and
WHEREAS, the optimal location of the new building is over the existing Roanoke
Gas Company line, and in order to be able to construct the new building, the gas line
must be moved to a new location on the parcel; and
WHEREAS, Roanoke Gas Company has agreed to move the gas line, and
requests a new easement and vacation of the previous gas line easement, both as
shown on the plat entitled “EXHIBIT SHOWING THE VACATION OF A EX. 10’ GAS
LINE EASEMENT D.B. 1521, PG. 321 AND CREATING A NEW 10’ GAS LINE
EASEMENT SITUATED ON THE PROPERTY OF ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS” prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., dated November 19, 2020;
and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition and disposition of real estate be authorized only by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, a first reading of this ordinance was held on January 26, 2021 and
the second reading was held on February 9, 2021; and
February 9, 2021
117
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That pursuant to the provision of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County
Charter, the interest in real estate to be conveyed is hereby declared to be surplus, and
is hereby made available for conveyance to Roanoke Gas Company for a gas line
easement.
2. That vacation of the previous easement and conveyance to the Roanoke
Gas Company of a new gas line easement as shown and described upon the plat
entitled “EXHIBIT SHOWING THE VACATION OF A EX. 10’ GAS LINE EASEMENT
D.B. 1521, PG. 321 AND CREATING A NEW 10’ GAS LINE EASEMENT SITUATED
ON THE PROPERTY OF ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS” prepared
by Lumsden Associates, P.C., dated November 19, 2020, a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby authorized and approved.
3. That the County accepts and appropriates the payment of $1.00 as fair
market value compensation for this gas line easement.
4. That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrator, is
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such further actions as may be
necessary to accomplish this conveyance, all of which shall be on a form approved by
the County Attorney.
5. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the ordinance, seconded by
Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
2. Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of permanent and
temporary easements on parcels owned by the Roanoke Valley
Resource Authority (Tax Map Parcel Numbers 080.00-05-02.01-
0000, 080.00-05-03.00-0000, and 080.00-05-04.00-0000) for
development of the Roanoke River Greenway in the Vinton
Magisterial District (Lindsay Webb, Parks, Planning and
Development Manager)
Ms. Webb outlined the request and advised no changes since the first
reading. There was no discussion.
February 9, 2021
118
ORDINANCE 020921-6 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF
PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY EASEMENTS ON PARCELS
OWNED BY THE ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY
(TAX MAP PARCEL NUMBERS 080.00-05-02.01-0000, 080.00-
05-03.00-0000, AND 080.00-05-04.00-0000) FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF THE ROANOKE RIVER GREENWAY IN
THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Roanoke River Greenway is a regional bicycle and pedestrian
trail developing through the Roanoke Valley, linking the Cities of Roanoke and Salem,
the Town of Vinton, and Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, in 2018 the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission made the
Roanoke River Greenway its number one priority in the region through the Roanoke
Valley Greenway Plan; and
WHEREAS, extension of the Roanoke River Greenway is supported in the
Explore Park Adventure Plan and the Roanoke County Community Strategic Plan,
adopted in 2016 by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, the National Park Service approved the Roanoke Valley/Blue Ridge
Parkway Trail Plan in 2015 that supports development of an integrated trail system that
provides connectivity between the Roanoke Valley Greenway network and the Blue
Ridge Parkway (Parkway); and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County partnered with the Parkway to submit a Federal
Lands Access Program grant application that was approved in 2016 for engineering,
right-of-way acquisition, and construction of the Roanoke River Greenway proposed
between the Blue Ridge Parkway and Explore Park; and
WHEREAS, on February 28, 2017, the Board of Supervisors accepted the grant
funding, and a Memorandum of Agreement was executed on June 6, 2017 between the
Federal Highway Administration-Eastern Lands Division, Virginia Department of
Transportation, and Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County is overseeing the design and construction of the
Roanoke River Greenway proposed on the south side of the Roanoke River with a
parking lot proposed at the corner of Highland and Rutrough Roads, crossing through
the closed regional landfill owned by the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (RVRA),
connecting to the Back Creek Overlook located on the Roanoke River Parkway, and
crossing through a tunnel located underneath the Roanoke River Parkway before
connecting into Explore Park; and
WHEREAS, temporary and permanent easements are needed for the greenway
proposed across three parcels owned by the RVRA, identified as Roanoke County Tax
Map Numbers 080.00-05-02.01-0000, 080.00-05-03.00-0000, and 080.00-05-04.00-
0000
February 9, 2021
119
WHEREAS, the RVRA Board of Directors approved the donation and
conveyance of the required temporary and permanent easements to Roanoke County
for design and construction of the Roanoke River Greenway; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the
first reading of this ordinance was held on January 26, 2021, and the second reading
was held on February 9, 2021.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the acquisition of permanent and temporary easements on parcels owned
by the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority (Roanoke County Tax Map Numbers
080.00-05-02.01-0000, 080.00-05-03.00-0000, and 080.00-05-04.00-0000) as
shown on the three attached plats dated December 28, 2020 and prepared by
John R. McAden, is hereby authorized and approved.
2. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute, deliver and record the
deed, and any other documents on behalf of the County and to take such further
actions as he may deem necessary or desirable in connection with this project.
The form of the proposed deed is hereby approved with such completions,
omissions, insertions and changes as the County Administrator may approve,
whose approval shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery
thereof, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney.
3. That this ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
3. Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of permanent and
temporary easements at Explore Park owned by the Virginia
Recreational Facilities Authority (Tax Map Parcel Number 080.00-
05-24.00-0000) for development of the Roanoke River Greenway in
the Vinton Magisterial District (Lindsay Webb, Parks, Planning
and Development Manager)
Ms. Webb outlined the request and noted no changes since the first
reading. There was no discussion.
February 9, 2021
120
ORDINANCE 020921-7 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF
PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY EASEMENTS AT EXPLORE
PARK OWNED BY THE VIRGINIA RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
AUTHORITY (TAX MAP PARCEL NUMBER 080.00-05-24.00-
0000) FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE ROANOKE RIVER
GREENWAY IN THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Roanoke River Greenway is a regional bicycle and pedestrian
trail developing through the Roanoke Valley, linking the Cities of Roanoke and Salem,
the Town of Vinton, and Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, in 2018 the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission made the
Roanoke River Greenway its number one priority in the region through the Roanoke
Valley Greenway Plan; and
WHEREAS, extension of the Roanoke River Greenway is supported in the
Explore Park Adventure Plan and the Roanoke County Community Strategic Plan,
adopted in 2016 by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, the National Park Service approved the Roanoke Valley/Blue Ridge
Parkway Trail Plan in 2015 that supports development of an integrated trail system that
provides connectivity between the Roanoke Valley Greenway network and the Blue
Ridge Parkway (Parkway); and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County partnered with the Parkway to submit a Federal
Lands Access Program grant application that was approved in 2016 for engineering,
right-of-way acquisition, and construction of the Roanoke River Greenway proposed
between the Blue Ridge Parkway and Explore Park; and
WHEREAS, on February 28, 2017, the Board of Supervisors accepted the grant
funding, and a Memorandum of Agreement was executed on June 6, 2017 between the
Federal Highway Administration-Eastern Lands Division, Virginia Department of
Transportation, and Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County is overseeing the design and construction of the
Roanoke River Greenway proposed on the south side of the Roanoke River with a
parking lot proposed at the corner of Highland and Rutrough Roads, crossing through
the closed regional landfill owned by the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority,
connecting to the Back Creek Overlook located on the Roanoke River Parkway, and
crossing through a tunnel located underneath the Roanoke River Parkway before
connecting into Explore Park; and
WHEREAS, temporary and permanent easements are needed for the greenway
at Explore Park proposed across a parcel owned by the Virginia Recreational Facilities
Authority (VRFA), identified as Roanoke County Tax Map Number 080.00-05-24.00-
0000; and
WHEREAS, the VRFA Board of Directors approved the donation and
conveyance of the required temporary and permanent easements to Roanoke County
for design and construction of the Roanoke River Greenway; and
February 9, 2021
121
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the
first reading of this ordinance was held on January 26, 2021, and the second reading
was held on February 9, 2021.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the acquisition of temporary and permanent easements on parcels owned
by the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority (Roanoke County Tax Map
Number 080.00-05-24.00-0000) as shown on the attached plat dated July 19,
2020 and prepared by John R. McAden, is hereby authorized and approved.
2. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute, deliver and record the
deed, and any other documents on behalf of the County and to take such further
actions as he may deem necessary or desirable in connection with this project.
The form of the proposed deed is hereby approved with such completions,
omissions, insertions and changes as the County Administrator may approve,
whose approval shall be evidenced conclusively by the execution and delivery
thereof, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney.
3. That this ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance amending Article I (General Provisions), Article II,
(Definitions and Use Types), Article III (District Regulations),
Article IV (Use and Design Standards) and Article V (Development
Standards) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance (Philip
Thompson, Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson went through a PowerPoint presentation.
Supervisor Radford asked with regard to Mr. Don Woods' email, how did
you address his comments. Mr. Thompson stated you go back to temporary; there's the
definition of temporary use. So, we had this conversation with the Planning
Commission. Did we want to set a timeframe, right? Do you want to put six months as
the timeframe and then have to renew it? Is that a hurdle? And so, our conversation
was it's the duration of the project. It comes back to the intent, right? Limited duration.
We don't define it as well and knowing that a project could be less than six months,
more than six months, up to a year, possibly two. Is it becoming more of a permanent
use or a temporary use? We know typically these are projects to provide some service
February 9, 2021
122
to the public and there's some benefit to the public for these products to be constructed.
We didn't want to have to come back every six months and have to renew a permit all
the time. So, there is no timeframe. Our point is that the interpretation of the zoning, is it
becoming more of a permanent use versus a temporary use beyond the construction,
understanding what the construction window's going to be, is how we imagined this.
So, we don't really address it from a time standpoint. We're just saying it's tied to a
public infrastructure project time, construction project timeframe. We wanted to leave
flexibility in that without having to keep coming back.
Chairman Peters recessed the meeting from 3:59 p.m. until 4:09 p.m.
to allow for comment. Chairman Peters opened the public hearing with the following
comments:
Linda Sutton of 3570 Berry Hill Drive send an email stating she is
concerned about the unintended consequences of public utility companies, specifically
the Mountain Valley Pipeline, to have additional temporary construction yards under this
amendment and bypassing SUP process.
Grace Terry, 4718 Whimbley Place stated she is here to represent
Preserve Bent Mountain, Preserve Bent Mountain is a chapter of the Blue Ridge
Environmental Defense League (BREDL), a 501c3 organization that "seeks to preserve
our natural environment including land, air and water, and protect historic and cultural
resources by promoting a livable, sustainable economy, informed and infused by justice
and equality. "Preserve Bent Mountain wishes to use the allotted time in today's public
hearing to go on the record about our strong opposition to the proposed zoning
amendment changes concerning temporary construction yards. As the Board is aware,
the Bent Mountain community has been dealing with the forced and unwelcome
presence of the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) construction project in our midst for
over six years. Our community has recent experience (since early 2018) with
construction yards for the MVP project which we think is relevant to this discussion. Our
Preserve organization knows that the construction yards MVP has established so far
and has planned for future stages of construction were granted to the company through
a federal regulatory agency process and a legal tangle of eminent domain that was
outside of the County's control. However, that being said, Preserve Bent Mountain is
alarmed that the County's proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance would
effectively create a "fast-track" process by which MVP could secure additional
construction yard spaces beyond what they have already been allowed to take by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The proposed changes would expand
the number of zoning classifications where MVP could put a construction yard to 100%.
Furthermore, the changes would deny our community the opportunity that the current
zoning ordinance provides to participate in the decision-making process because right
now a special use permit process would be required. In other words, if MVP determines
that the construction yards they have are not sufficient, the MVP LLC could rent or buy
additional land, but those lands would be outside of the FERC process, so they would
February 9, 2021
123
need to get a zoning permit from the County. Under the current ordinance, MVP could
only place those yards in zoning districts that allow them. There are only three
classifications where that is permissible under current zoning: I-1 Light Intensity
Industrial, I-2 Heavy Intensity Industrial, and AV-Agricultural Village. On Bent Mountain,
there is a limited number of parcels with the AV-Agricultural Village zoning classification.
Most have frontage along or near Rt. 221 and are already in use for small commercial
businesses or public infrastructure such as the Post Office, Fire and Rescue Station,
Bent Mountain Community Center and Park, etc. Instead, the amendments would strip
the protections that the County's current zoning ordinance provides because
construction yards are NOT a "permitted-by-right" use or "allowed with a special use
permit" in14 of 17 zoning classifications. In addition, of the three zoning classifications
where construction yards are currently allowed, the Project Developer is required to go
through a special use permit process in 2 out of the 3 classifications which provides the
public a chance to weigh in on the decision-making with their elected representatives,
the Board of Supervisors. The only zoning classification where construction yards are
currently allowed by right is the I-2 High Intensity Industrial. Obviously, if a use is
currently only permitted by right in one of the zoning district classifications, then it has
inherent characteristics which make that use either incompatible or undesirable without
mitigation of those characteristics for all the other classifications. From the perspective
of Preserve Bent Mountain, it seems remarkable that potentially by the end of this
hearing, construction yards as a use could be reset to be allowed in every zoning
classification simply by designating them as ''temporary". Article 1 Section 30-14-1
states that in studying a zoning change, " the (Planning) Commission shall study
proposals to determine: The need and justification for the change." During the January
5th, 2021, a Commissioner simply stated that they had ''talked about it a lot" during a
Work Session. Should the public conclude then, that it is the County's position that by
calling the yards ''temporary" that is enough to justify the change of use? If so, then
Preserve Bent Mountain would like to point out that the zoning amendment change
doesn't define ''temporary" by designating a specific length of time. Instead, the change
simply says "temporary" is for the length of the project. So, in the case of MVP, there
would be no limits on the time that they could overwhelm our rural community with traffic
from their heavy equipment and personal vehicles, and with noise, fumes and
air/land/water pollution and the safety issues from the presence of large numbers of
non-resident workers. Preserve Bent Mountain wants to emphasize that MVP was
granted permanent easements, so any impacts that zoning changes have could be
long-term for our community. It must be the County's position that by stating that the
construction would be for projects like "sewer or waterline, etc." then that is enough to
clarify their intent in proposing this change. If so, then Preserve Bent Mountain would
like to point out that the MVP developers refer to their Project as "public infrastructure"
despite the well documented fact that only half of 1 % of the gas is contracted to be
purchased by a company located along the entire 300 mile length of the MVP. That
company, Roanoke Gas, would have to invest a substantial amount in building
February 9, 2021
124
infrastructure to siphon off their 0.5%, so there is no certainty that even they will use the
MVP for "local public use". The members of Preserve Bent Mountain on behalf of the
community's residents, landowners, and businesses are requesting that before voting
on the proposed zoning amendments, the Board of Supervisors will make a motion to
exclude the language that refers to changes involving temporary construction yards. We
offer to have further discussion with County representatives about the County's intent
and justification in proposing these changes. We are open to working together to find
solutions that would be mutually agreeable. However, we DO NOT SUPPORT the
zoning amendment changes as currently written and DO NOT SUPPORT a vote that
allows last minute changes that might be presented to the Board during this Public
Hearing today. It is the position of Preserve Bent Mountain that creating a new
temporary use which allows construction yards to be placed in any and all zoning
districts will also have undesirable consequences for other parts of the County not just
the other rural areas but also residential neighborhoods and commercial districts. We
believe that during this time of COVID, many citizens may not be able to keep the same
level of attention on the County's meetings. Preserve Bent Mountain requests on behalf
of other communities that the Supervisors omit the temporary construction yards from
today's approval and postpone until after the COVID threat subsides in order to promote
a more robust public participation in this issue. Preserve Bent Mountain respectfully
asks the Supervisors to consider our comments today and work with our community to
correct these changes to zoning amendments allowing Temporary Construction Yards
in all areas of the County. Our community takes this matter seriously. Please do NOT
take a Board action today that will inflict further harm on our community.
Supervisor Peters closed the public hearing.
Supervisor Radford asked Mr. Thompson Can MVP come to us, Roanoke
County, and request a construction yard? Mr. Thompson stated they can request it. So
there's two different parts of this. So let's talk a little bit about history that might make
some clarification. This came up when the water authority was constructing a water line
in the Glen more area, and on two separate private pieces of property, they had
materials and equipment to construct that project. Now, as Ms. Terry is correct, at the
time, all we have in the ordinance was a definition for construction yard. Typically that's
could be a building's contractors yard, right? Where you store your equipment and
materials going out to work to other sites and so forth. So we knew that if we're going to
allow any of this, the water authority was a public infrastructure project, so that's the first
thing. It has to be associated with a public infrastructure project. The intent was that, as
he mentioned earlier, when we're going through this, this is to provide local service. This
is not a transmission line, or the intent is not for a transmission line like MVP, right? The
purpose of this is not for a big infrastructure project. This is for local service or along a
roadway that you're extending or expanding service, or it is a gas line. It's a run of gas
going into a subdivision to provide local service to, expand their service base there. So
February 9, 2021
125
that's still what the original intent was. That's what the intent is. So Mrs. Terri submitted
her letter, and I think it was read at the last meeting. So as part of that, he thought it
was important for us to address it because we could see where that would be an issue
and we wouldn't want it to create a situation where you're going to have temporary
construction yards associated with MVP and the proposed languages with the thinking
that as part of their approval process, they're going to approve wherever their
construction yards are as part of their project. So that's why the proposed language has
kind of worded the way it is to clarify that anything, projects that are approved or
regulated by the State Corporation Commission or FERC, this doesn't apply to them. So
what we're looking at is, okay, there might be a water line extension project, throughout
a particular spot, maybe you have to store the pipe and store a couple of pieces of
equipment. That's what we would call a temporary construction yard that would be used
to install that water line or that sewer line over a period of time. And then once that was
done, it would go away. So it is temporary in nature, because as it's mentioned, if we
had to force them to go to a construction yard, it's only allowed in I2, AV, like I1 as well,
maybe Special Use Permit. So it is limited where you can actually put one. You have to
have a Special Use Permit to get one which would delay the project. And the other point
was that you may also increase the cost of the project because potentially they may
have to be located a lot further away than actually installing the project. That's the intent
behind this is trying to address an issue that came up from a previous project. That's
usually how a lot of our amendments come to us is that by applying the ordinance in
everyday situation, we find that there is a situation that is not being addressed that we
probably need to address. So this has nothing to do with MVP. The intent has never had
anything to do with MVP. However, I can understand where you could read that into the
ordinance. Therefore, the clarifying language that we're trying to make sure is that it's
not for that. Supervisor Radford stated let me guide you through this example, tell me if
this is not a temporary construction yard. We built Mason's Crest in the middle of the
2000's, 2005. We extended the water line from plastic ones, came down Starkey,
turned, attached everything, went under the bridge and we went on up. We use Starkey
Park as a construction lay down yard. My utility subcontractor, used it for that purpose,
equipment, pipes and everything. So were they required at the time to get a Special Use
Permit to lay down over there? Mr. Thompson responded, part of this is what the
enforcement of that at the time and he cannot speak to that, but what I would say is it
would be under this new scenario that we would throw it under the temporary
construction yard requirement. So should it, or shouldn't have been, that's a decision
that would have been made back in that time, but after what happened on 460, he
would say we would probably would've sent them an enforcement letter out there saying
you need a permit. Supervisor Radford stated the temporary construction yard helps us
developers with a little more predictability in planning down the road. Mr. Thompson
replied in the affirmative stating most likely you want to have materials and equipment
located near the job you're building. Supervisor Radford responded correct. Mr.
Thompson added he does not think we can look for either we're rezoning a bunch of
February 9, 2021
126
property I2 to comply with that, or we're allowing this temporary use. And again, it's not
to be these bigger projects, really these local projects of a smaller nature that are
extending a utility to a neighborhood, like yours, your development. So again, that was
the intent. We saw that there was a hole in our ordinance that didn't cover that. And if
we started sending out letters, which we did on the 460 letters, it might've been the first
time we've done that again, I can't speak for previous actions prior to that, before my
time, but that potentially sets the precedent of any other one that we saw, but we'd have
to go through that same action. And therefore we knew that we needed to have this as
kind of what the intent was, is that we don't want that to have to have to go through I2
and Special Use Permit and so forth. So having done that, actually we thought that this
made sense to pursue and making sure we had this mechanism in our ordinance.
Supervisor Radford stated so just take the example further if he was
extending waterlines again or sewer line, and he is half a mile away, and there happens
to be a neighbor that has vacant land, he can go to that neighbor and say, “Hey, can I
use your property for a construction lay down yard?.” Mr. Thompson responded in the
affirmative. What we would say is a part of that is then you're going to submit a permit
to the county, which we would then work with you, like we would do anything to make
sure that whatever impacts are associated with that, that we could try to mitigate.
Essentially, we may say we don't think that's an appropriate site. Is there another site? It
would make more sense because it's one thing if it's on the edge of a neighborhood, but
it could be just a vacant piece of property that our homeowner or property owner will
allow you to go forward and do that. And that would be fine. And if all the measures as
part of the zoning permit process, we felt that that was mitigated any impacts to the
surrounding neighbors. Then yeah, we would permit it.
ORDINANCE 020921-8 AMENDING ARTICLE I (GENERAL
PROVISIONS), ARTICLE II (DEFINITIONS AND USE TYPES),
ARTICLE III (DISTRICT REGULATIONS), ARTICLE IV (USE AND
DESIGN STANDARDS), AND ARTICLE V (DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS) OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2020, the Board adopted a resolution requesting
that the Planning Commission make recommendations on the regulation of short-term
rentals and temporary construction yards for public infrastructure projects; and
WHERAS, planning staff has worked with the Planning Commission on proposed
amendments to the County’s Zoning Ordinance, both pertaining to short-term rentals
and temporary construction yards for public infrastructure projects, as well as additional
proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, planning staff and the planning Commission propose amendments
to all five (5) articles of the Zoning Ordinance; and
February 9, 2021
127
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments would correct inconsistencies, update
information, clarify regulations, add new or revised regulations dealing with home
beauty/barber salon, short-term rentals, temporary construction yards for public
infrastructure projects, yard encroachments, and changes to certain uses allowed
currently as special uses to uses permitted by right; and
WHEREAS, on January 5, 2021, after proper notice, the Roanoke County
Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance and recommended said amendments to the Board of Supervisors for
adoption; and
WHEREAS, public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning
practice are valid public purposes for such recommendations by the Planning
Commission and action by the Board of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 26, 2021, and
the second reading and public hearing were held on February 9, 2021.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors as follows:
1. The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read and
provide as follows:
ARTICLE I – GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 30-14. AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE.
(B) The administrator shall establish and maintain the amendment application
materials. These application materials shall, at a minimum, include any
information the administrator deems necessary for the commission and board to
adequately evaluate the amendment request. A concept plan shall accompany all
map amendment requests. Standards for concept plans are found in a document
entitled Land Development Procedures, available in the department of
community development development services.
SEC. 30-19. SPECIAL USE PERMITS; APPLICABILITY AND PURPOSE.
Sec. 30-19-2. Application Requirements.
(C) All applications submitted for special use permits shall include a concept plan
showing the nature and extent of the proposed use and development. If the
proposed development is to be constructed in phases, all phases shall be shown
on the concept plan as approved by the board.
Sec. 30-19-4. Time Limitations.
February 9, 2021
128
(A) A special use permit application may be put on hold upon written request of the
applicant at any time. This hold shall not exceed six (6) months. The applicant
shall make a written request to the zoning administrator to reactivate the special
use permit application. Should the application not be reactivated, it shall be
considered withdrawn and subject to the requirements of (F) (D) below.
ARTICLE II – DEFINITIONS AND USE TYPES
SEC. 30-28. DEFINITIONS.
(C) For the purposes of this ordinance, the words and phrases listed below in this
section shall have the meanings described below.
Temporary construction yard: A temporary use of land, either on-site or off-site,
for the construction and/or development activity for public infrastructure projects,
including, but not limited to, water and sewer line extensions and repairs, public road
improvements, power and telecommunications installation and repairs, and all other
facilities and services that are open to the general public as determined by the zoning
administrator. Temporary construction yards may include the storing of equipment and
materials which are needed for the construction or development of a public
infrastructure project. This definition does not include temporary construction yards
associated with projects regulated by the Virginia State Corporation Commission and/ or
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
SEC. 30-29. USE TYPES; GENERALLY.
Sec. 30-29-2. Residential Use Types.
Home beauty/barber salon: Incidental use of a single family residential dwelling
for hair styling or barbering, and other small-scale salon services. These services may
include, but are not limited to, tanning, manicures or pedicures, temporary hair
removal, massages, and other minor beauty and salon services as approved by the
Zoning Administrator.
Sec. 30-29-5. Commercial Use Types.
Short-term rental: The provision of a room or space that is suitable or intended
for occupancy for dwelling, sleeping, or lodging purposes, for a period of fewer than 30
consecutive days, in exchange for a charge for the occupancy. This use does not
include existing uses defined in this ordinance including bed and breakfast, bed and
breakfast inn, boarding house, country inn, and hotel/motel/motor lodge.
February 9, 2021
129
ARTICLE III – DISTRICT REGULATIONS
SEC. 30-32. AG-3 AGRICULTURAL/RURAL PRESERVE DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-32-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional,
modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design
standards, for those specific uses.
3. Civic Uses
Religious Assembly *
4. Commercial Uses
Short-term Rental *
(B) The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to section 30-
19. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as
listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses.
3. Civic Uses
Religious Assembly *
SEC. 30-33. AG-1 AGRICULTURAL/RURAL LOW DENSITY DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-33-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional,
modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design
standards, for those specific uses.
4. Commercial Uses
Short-term Rental *
February 9, 2021
130
SEC. 30-34. AR AGRICULTURAL/RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-34-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional,
modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design
standards, for those specific uses.
4. Commercial Uses
Short-term Rental *
SEC. 30-36. AV AGRICULTURAL/VILLAGE CENTER DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-36-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional,
modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design
standards, for those specific uses.
5. Commercial Uses
Short-term Rental *
SEC. 30-41. R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-41-2. Permitted uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional,
modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design
standards, for those specific uses.
4. Commercial Uses
Short-term Rental *
SEC. 30-42. R-2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-42-2. Permitted Uses.
February 9, 2021
131
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional,
modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design
standards, for those specific uses.
3. Commercial Uses
Short-term Rental *
SEC. 30-53. C-1 LOW INTENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-53-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional,
modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design
standards, for those specific uses.
4. Commercial Uses
Short-term Rental *
SEC. 30-54. C-2 HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-54-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional,
modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design
standards, for those specific uses.
4. Commercial Uses
Commercial Indoor Amusement
Short-term Rental *
(B) The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to section 30-
19. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as
listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses.
February 9, 2021
132
2. Commercial Uses
Commercial Indoor Amusement
SEC. 30-47. PRD PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-47-7. Approval of Preliminary and Final Site Development Plans.
(A) Following the approval of the final master plan, the applicant or its authorized
agent, shall be required to submit preliminary and final site development plans for
approval. Final site development plans for any phase or component of the PRD
that involves the construction of structures or facilities, shall be approved prior to
the issuance of a building and zoning permit, and the commencement of
construction. Standards for preliminary and final site development plans are
found in a document entitled Land Development Procedures, available in the
department of community development development services.
SEC. 30-57. PCD PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-57-8. Approval of Preliminary and Final Site Development Plans.
(A) Following the approval of the final Master Plan, the applicant or its authorized
agent, shall be required to submit preliminary and final site development plans for
approval. Final site development plans for any phase or component of the PCD
that involves the construction of structures or facilities, shall be approved prior to
the issuance of a building and zoning permit, and the commencement of
construction. Standards for preliminary and final site development plans are
found in a document entitled Land Development Procedures, available in the
Roanoke County Department of Community Development Development
Services.
SEC. 30-63. PTD PLANNED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-63-8. Approval of preliminary and final site development plans.
(A) Following the approval of the final master plan, the applicant or its authorized
agent, shall be required to submit preliminary and final site development plans for
approval. Final site development plans for any phase or component of the PTD
that involves the construction of structures or facilities, shall be approved prior to
the issuance of a building and zoning permit, and the commencement of
construction. Standards for preliminary and final site development plans are
February 9, 2021
133
found in a document entitled land development procedures, available in the
department of community development development services.
SEC. 30-75. RRCO ROANOKE RIVER CONSERVATION AND OVERLAY DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-75-6. Exemptions and Waivers.
(A) Exemptions - The following development activities are exempt from the
requirements of the Conservation Overlay District:
3. Emergency removal of debris resulting from floods or other natural
disasters, as deemed appropriate by the Director of Community
Development Development Services; or
ARTICLE IV – USE AND DESIGN STANDARDS
SEC. 30-82. RESIDENTIAL USES.
Sec. 30-82-1.5. Alternative Discharging Sewage Systems.
(C) General standards:
7. A copy of all formal and informal testing results required under Section
3.11 of the VDH regulations shall be submitted to the county health
department and the county department of community development
development services, in addition to any other agency or location required
by law.
Sec. 30-82-2. Home Beauty/Barber Salon.
(A) Intent. A small-scaled beauty/ and/or barber shop salon may be permitted within
a residential dwelling. The standards for establishing such uses are intended to
limit the scope and nature of such uses and insure compatibility with the
adjoining properties.
(B) General Standards:
1. The home beauty/barber salon shall be conducted entirely within the
interior of the principal residential structure or within an accessory
structure located on the same lot.
February 9, 2021
134
2. The home beauty/barber salon shall not occupy more than a cumulative
total of two-hundred fifty (250) square feet of the finished floor area of any
dwelling unit or accessory structure in which the home beauty/barber
salon is located.
3. More than one (1) home beauty/barber salon may be permitted provided
the total floor area used for all home beauty/ barber salons does not
exceed the maximum square footage standard.
4. No dwelling or structure shall be altered, occupied or used in a manner
which would cause the premises to differ from a character consistent with
a residential use. The use of colors, materials, construction, lighting, or
other means inconsistent with a residential use shall be prohibited.
5. There shall be no outside storage of goods, products, equipment, or other
materials inconsistent with a residential use associated with the home
beauty/barber salon. No toxic, explosive, flammable, radioactive, or other
hazardous materials used in conjunction with the home beauty/barber
salon shall be used, sold, or stored on the site.
6. The type and volume of traffic generated by a home beauty/barber salon
shall be consistent with the traffic generation characteristics of other
dwellings in the area. In addition, the lot or property on which the home
beauty/barber salon is conducted shall not have any parking spaces
added to it during the time the home beauty/barber salon is being
conducted, nor shall any parking space be used that was not customarily
or regularly used prior to that time.
7. Deliveries related to the home beauty/barber salon shall be limited to the
United States Postal Service, parcel delivery services, and messenger
services. The commercial delivery by tractor trailer of materials or
products to or from the premises shall be prohibited.
8. The home beauty/barber salon shall not increase demand on water,
sewer, or garbage collection services to the extent that the combined
demand for the dwelling and home beauty/barber salon is significantly
more than is normal to the use of the property for residential purposes.
9. No activity in conjunction with a home beauty/barber salon shall be
conducted before 7:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. that adversely impacts or
disturbs adjoining property owners.
February 9, 2021
135
10. Temporary portable storage containers shall not be used in conjunction
with a home beauty/barber salon or used as a principal use or principal
building or structure
(BC) In the AG-3, AG-1, and AR districts and in all residential districts the following
standards shall apply:
1. The salon shall be limited to one (1) chair only customer at a time.
2. The retail sale of beauty and barber supplies shall be allowed as an
accessory use to the permitted beauty/barber salon use.
(CD) In the AV, C-1 and C-2 districts a home beauty/barber salon shall be limited to no
more than two (2) chairs customers at a time.
Sec. 30-82-11. Multi-family Dwelling.
(F) General standards in the C-1 and C-2 districts, independent of the general
standards above:
1. The multi-family use shall be allowed in conjunction with a civic, office or
commercial use type or as a stand-alone residential project.
SEC. 30-85. COMMERCIAL USES.
Sec. 30-85-0.5. Adult Business.
(A) General standards:
6. The owner or operateor shall install, operate and maintain a security
camera and video tape system designed by a security specialist which
shall continuously monitor all exterior entrances and parking areas of the
establishment. Such cameras shall provide clear imagery of the
establishment's patrons and their vehicles. Tapes recording activities in
the areas under surveillances shall be preserved for a period of 12
months. Authorized representatives of the police department or the
Community development department of planning shall have access to
such tapes in accordance with applicable law.
Sec. 30-85-24.55. Short-term Rental.
(A) General Standards:
February 9, 2021
136
1. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit prior to the occupation of a
room or dwelling for short-term rental. The zoning permit application shall
include, but not be limited to, the following information:
a. All relevant parcel information including tax map number, zoning
district, address, and magisterial district.
b. The applicant’s name, address, and personal contact information.
c. The name, address, and personal contact information of the
authorized party responsible for resolving complaints, if different
from the applicant.
2. The County shall be notified within thirty (30) days of any change in the
applicant’s address or personal contact information, or any change in the
name, address or personal contact information of the authorized party
responsible for resolving complaints.
3. A short-term rental zoning permit expires upon any change in ownership
of the property.
4. A short-term rental zoning permit may be revoked by the Zoning
Administrator due to the failure of the applicant to comply with all
applicable regulations set forth in this section or elsewhere in the Zoning
Ordinance or County Code.
(B) In the R-1 and R-2 zoning district, the following standard shall apply:
1. A special use permit shall be required on lots less than five (5) acres. Lots
that are five (5) acres or greater in size, a short-term rental shall be
considered a use permitted by right.
ARTICLE V – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
SEC. 30-90. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS.
(B) Site development plans required by the county shall be prepared by a
professional engineer, architect, land surveyor, landscape architect or other
licensed professional who is registered by the Commonwealth of Virginia and is
February 9, 2021
137
conducting their practice in accordance with section 54.1-400 et seq. of the Code
of Virginia, as amended. More stringent requirements may be established by the
Roanoke County Code or the Code of Virginia. This requirement may be waived
by the director of community development development services if the type,
scale and/or location of the proposed development does not necessitate such
plans.
Sec. 30-90-1. Information Required.
(A) The following information shall be required on site development plans submitted
to the county for review:
20. A detailed stormwater management plan and calculations shall be
submitted. The director of community development development services
shall determine the requirements for such plans. At a minimum these
plans shall contain information that shows:
a. Spot elevations of proposed building corners, finished floor
elevations, entrances, driveway and parking lot limits, and culvert
inverts,
b. The benchmark location and USGS elevation, where available.
(B) The director of community development development services may waive the
requirement that any of this information be shown on a submitted plan, if in his
opinion such information is not necessary to insure conformance with county
ordinances or standards.
Sec. 30-90-2. Format of Plans.
(A) Site plans shall be submitted on sheets no greater in size than thirty (30) by forty-
two (42) inches. A sheet size of twenty-four (24) by thirty-six (36) inches is
preferred. The scale of the plans shall not be greater than one inch equals ten
(10) feet (1″=10′), or less than one inch equals fifty (50) feet (1″=50′). Plans shall
be designed using an engineering scale. The director of community development
development services may approve a lesser scale such as 1″=100′ provided
sufficient detail is provided to insure compliance with all applicable requirements
of this ordinance and any other requirement or ordinance of the county or
Commonwealth. Plans may be submitted in a digital format in accordance with
County standards.
Sec. 30-90-3. Administrative Procedures and Requirements.
February 9, 2021
138
(A) The director of community development development services shall have the
administrative authority to establish county procedures for site development plan
review and approval. No procedure so established shall set a lesser standard
than is legislated in this ordinance.
(B) The director of community development development services shall coordinate
the county review of any site development plan submitted in accord with county
administrative procedures, and shall have the authority to request opinions or
decisions from other county departments, agencies or authorities of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, or from other persons as may from time to time be
consulted.
(C) A minimum of six (6) cComplete set(s) of site development plans shall be
submitted for review in accordance with the Land Development Procedures. A
review fee shall be required for any site development plan submitted. The
director of community development development services shall establish
procedures for the collection of these fees.
(D) The county shall review, and approve or disapprove any site development plan
submitted for its review within forty-five (45) days of the filing of the plan with the
director of community development development services. If an unapproved site
development plan is returned to the applicant or other agent of the property
owner, due to lack of required information on the plan, or because the design or
standards proposed on the site development plan do not meet the provisions of
this ordinance or other applicable county standards, the forty-five-day time period
shall begin again with the resubmittal of the plan to the county.
(I) No change, revision, or erasure shall be made on any pending or approved site
development plan, nor on any accompanying data sheet where approval has
been endorsed on the plan or sheets, unless authorization for such changes is
granted in writing by the director of community development development
services. The director shall consult with all applicable departments or agencies
prior to approving the change.
(Ord. No. 042799-11, § 1a., c., 4-27-99)
Sec. 30-90-4. Minimum Standards and Improvements Required.
(B) Prior to the approval of a site development plan the applicant shall execute an
agreement to construct required or proposed improvements located within public
rights-of-way or easements or any such improvement connected to any public
February 9, 2021
139
facility. The applicant shall also file a performance guarantee with surety
acceptable to the county in the amount of the estimated cost of the
improvements plus ten (10) percent contingency, as determined by the director of
community development development services. The owner's performance
guarantee shall not be released until the construction has been inspected and
accepted by the county and the Virginia Department of Transportation, as
applicable.
(E) Utilities shown on site development plans shall conform to applicable county
ordinances and Western Virginia Water Authority regulations, as determined by
the department of community development development services and the
Western Virginia Water Authority.
(F) Stormwater management facilities shown on site development plans shall
conform to applicable county ordinances as determined by the director of
community development development services.
SEC. 30-91. OFF STREET PARKING, STACKING AND LOADING.
Sec. 30-91-3.6. Temporary Parking.
(B) Parking for a temporary use: Temporary parking lots are permitted for a period of
no more than sixty (60) consecutive or non-consecutive days per calendar year,
in accordance with the following criteria:
3. Plans for a temporary parking lot shall be submitted for site plan review to
the county department of community development development services
and include a timeline and signed documentation of event information to
be reviewed by the zoning administrator.
SEC. 30-92. SCREENING, LANDSCAPING, AND BUFFER YARDS.
Sec. 30-92-5.1. Landscaping provisions in the Clearbrook village overlay district.
(B) General standards/specifications.
5. Native species shall be used for a minimum of fifty (50) percent of required
plantings. A listing of acceptable native species is available in the
department of community development planning.
SEC. 30-93. SIGNS.
February 9, 2021
140
Sec. 30-93-5. Sign Permits.
(A) Except as provided in section 30-93-3, no sign may be erected or displayed in
the county without an approved sign permit. Applications for a sign permit may
be obtained from the county department of community development development
services. Signs that are not visible from a public right-of-way do not have to
conform to the provisions of section 30-93-13, district regulations, and the square
footage of such signs shall not be included when calculating allowable signage
on a lot.
Sec. 30-93-14. Special Signage Districts and Regulations.
(A) Off-Premises Signs. As of September 23, 2003, a cap shall be placed on the total
number of off-premises sign structures in the county, including all conforming or
nonconforming off-premises signs, as defined in this section.
1. Consolidation; Reconstruction of Existing Nonconforming Sign Structures.
Existing off-premise sign structures that are nonconforming may be
consolidated and reconstructed only in accordance with this section.
a. Applications to consolidate or reconstruct an existing off-premises
sign structure shall be made to the department of community
development development services.
f. The department of community development planning and the
department of development services will review each application
submitted under this section to confirm that the square footage of
sign area of any consolidated and reconstructed sign structure
does not exceed the square footage of the sign area on the sign
structure being demolished pursuant to this section, however, the
department shall consider the size of the existing sign face on the
consolidated and reconstructed sign structure so that the second
sign face being added is approximately the same size as the
existing sign face on the consolidated and reconstructed sign
structure. If the existing sign structure is being converted into a
double faced monopole, the sign area of the consolidated and
reconstructed sign shall not exceed three hundred seventy-eight
(378) square feet, plus ten (10) percent for embellishments, and the
height and setback of the sign shall remain the same, or be made
more conforming.
SEC. 30-100. MISCELLANEOUS.
February 9, 2021
141
Sec. 30-100-2. Yard, setback, coverage, and height requirements.
(A) The lot area and yards required for any use or structure shall be permanently
maintained, and shall not be counted as the required lot area or yards for any
other use or structure.
(B) Required yards shall remain free of all uses and structures, unless otherwise
specified in this section.
(BC) Required yards shall remain free of all uses or structures except for the following:
The following uses and structures may be located anywhere within a required
yard, provided that sight triangles are maintained per Section 30-100-8.
1. Fences, walls and landscaping shall be allowed in yards provided that
sight triangles are maintained per Section 30-100-8. Driveways and
parking areas shall also be allowed.
2. Eaves, cornices, window sills, belt courses, awnings, bay windows and
chimneys may project into a required yard, a distance not to exceed two
(2) feet. Cantilevered building overhangs shall not be allowed to project
into a required setback area. Mailboxes.
3. Patios and stoops shall be allowed within all required setback areas.
Decks shall comply with all district setback requirements.
4. Accessory structures shall be allowed in accord with the regulations for
such structures.
5. Freestanding light fixtures.
6. Signs provided they conform to the standards set forth in Section 30-93.
7. Driveways and parking areas.
(D) The following uses and structures may project into a required yard as specified
below:
1. Eaves, cornices, windowsills, belt courses, awnings, bay windows,
chimneys, and similar architectural features may project into a required
yard a distance not to exceed two (2) feet.
February 9, 2021
142
2. Roofs and coverings over a patio or stoop may project into a required yard
a distance not to exceed five (5) feet.
3. Ramps and/or other means of handicapped accessibility are permitted in
the required setback areas, but must, in the opinion of the Zoning
Administrator, be the minimum intrusion necessary to provide access to
the subject property.
(CE) Height limitations contained in Article III and IV of this ordinance shall not apply
to barns or silos associated with an agricultural use, church spires, belfries,
residential chimneys, flag poles, or residential television antennae, except as
may apply in the Airport Overlay District or the Emergency Communications
Overlay District.
(DF) A structure built over the common lot line, between two (2) lots under the same
ownership, will in effect combine these lots and they will hereafter function as
one (1) lot for the purpose of calculating setbacks.
(EG) A structure that is entirely below grade (underground) shall be exempt from the
minimum setback requirements of that zoning district. In the case of a unique
setback for a partially underground structure, the administrator shall determine
the setback for the structure based on having no interference on sight distance
with section 30-100-8. Portions of an underground structure which are below
grade shall not be counted when calculating lot or building coverage.
Sec. 30-100-10. Standards and Procedures for Review of Condominiums.
(A) A subdivision plat shall be submitted to Roanoke County for any new residential,
commercial or industrial condominium development, including the conversion of
any existing development to the condominium form of ownership. This plat shall
meet all standards for subdivision plats. Plats shall be reviewed by the director of
community development development services who shall approve the plat
provided it meets the provisions of this ordinance and the Roanoke County
Subdivision Ordinance.
Sec. 30-100-14. Temporary Uses.
(A) Intent. This section allows for the establishment of certain temporary uses and
structures of limited duration, provided that such uses and structures do not
negatively impact adjacent land, are discontinued upon the expiration of a set
time period, and do not involve the construction or alteration of any permanent
February 9, 2021
143
building or structure. In addition, the use shall not be so recurring in nature as to
be classified as a permanent use.
(B) The following temporary uses shall be permitted in all zoning districts:
1. Temporary construction yards, provided they meet the following
standards:
a. Location. It is desirable for a temporary construction yard to be
located
onsite or within 500 feet of the construction site or project. The
zoning administrator may allow a temporary construction yard to be
located greater than 500 feet from the construction site or project if
there are constraints or conditions that would prohibit the temporary
construction yard from be located onsite or within 500 feet.
b. Zoning Permit. A zoning permit shall be obtained prior to the
establishment of any temporary construction yard. The zoning
permit shall contain a plan showing the general location and extent
of the activities of the temporary construction yard, including vehicle
and equipment storage, required screening and buffering, and the
total area that will be disturbed. Entrances and exits to public roads
shall be clearly marked on the plan and shall be located to provide
safe access to and from the site. The plan shall also show or
describe a restoration plan for the site, setting out how the site will
appear sixty (60) days after completion of the construction project.
The zoning permit shall be valid for the duration of the construction
activity for the permitted activity including the restoration period.
c. Screening and buffering. The zoning administrator may require
appropriate screening and buffering around the temporary
construction yard if the temporary construction yard will be located
on or adjacent to a residential use type.
d. Revocation of zoning permit. The zoning administrator may revoke
a
zoning permit for a temporary construction yard at any time if the
owner or operator fails to follow the requirements of the zoning
permit.
(C) General standards for temporary uses.
February 9, 2021
144
1. The zoning administrator may impose additional standards on any
temporary use or activity if the zoning administrator determines that the
standards are necessary to prevent or reduce any adverse impacts
including, but not limited to, noise, hours of operation, exterior lighting, and
security measures.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the ordinance, seconded by
Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
Supervisor Radford stated he would like to just say, look, we definitely
understand what the residents are going through up in the mountain. We understand
that wholeheartedly. But at the same time, we need guidelines to help expand
infrastructure, broadband, we need water and sewer expanded in parts of our county to
be on a growth pattern. So I just wanted to make that comment.
Supervisor Mahoney stated as a follow up to what Supervisor Radford is
suggesting, his recollection is much of what we talked about here was really primarily
triggered by some transportation projects. These were projects that we have worked
through with our citizens over many years with the TPO and regionally. He agrees with
Supervisor Radford. He understand the concerns of our friends up on that mountain, but
thinks we have placed appropriate restrictions to address their concerns with the intent
that he thinks all of us agree what we want to accomplish.
Supervisor Radford added just to piggyback on what Supervisor Mahoney
said. He thanked Supervisor Mahoney you for including that additional definition on the
temporary construction yard, because it clearly says this does not include temporary
construction yards associated with projects regulated by the Virginia State Corporation
and or FERC.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 020921-9 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM H - CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
February 9, 2021
145
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for February
9, 2021, designated as Item H - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Item 1 as
follows:
1. Approval of minutes – December 15, 2020
On motion of Supervisor Hooker to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Radford and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: CITIZENS’ COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Grace Terry stated she wanted to respond as an individual this time. I'm
not speaking on behalf of Preserve That Mountain, but the way I've read the protections
that would be placed on a temporary... Restrictions that would be placed on a
construction yard. It, doesn't even list things that believe it or not FERC makes mountain
Valley do. So there's nothing about water quality and proximity to streams, wells, or, you
know, placing, we have had issues on that mountain with placing porta-johns and that
type of thing too close to a stream. Really the county's ordinance needs to be changed
on what it requires of developers creating these construction yards. If they're going to be
taken out of the public process by removing a Special Use Permit in agricultural village
then, and all the decisions are made internally between staff and the developer that
takes the neighborhood out of it.And then in my opinion, this is my personal opinion that
you need to work on creating some more protective measures for these construction
yards, because obviously it's a use that has inherent characteristics that are
incompatible with certain areas. And the change that you're making today leaves it wide
open to place them in the rural areas where we don't. But that description agricultural
village does not have water and sewer lines. It specifically states that in the description
for that any classification, and I'm sure that all of you up there are more well-versed in
the zoning ordinance than I am. I studied it as hard as I could between the September
where Mr. Mahoney, the September resolution, where Mr. Mahoney himself brought up
the pipeline. I, when I read it on the agenda, it sounded the red flags for me. And he
expressed the same thing in your meeting, that, how would I feel about this? If it was a
42 inch pipeline. She hopes that she has conveyed to you today, how we feel about it.
And I'm not, we have no idea why FERC and the state corporation commission, were
the entities selected. I don't know. I feel like there's, that's not going to be sufficient to
protect for the protections that we need and that legally MVP will figure out a way to get
around, to do as Mr. Radford suggested they'll approach people, they'll get, they'll offer
them thousands of dollars to set up a construction yard on their private property. And
everybody around them will suffer the consequences. If you saw the construction yard
February 9, 2021
146
in November, when they were working on that mountain, then you know, the scale that
we're talking about and thank you. I'm very disappointed.
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report
2. Outstanding Debt Report
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor North stated he has some comments related to good news
categories. The County unemployment rate has dropped from April I in 2020 of 9.6% to
a December value of 3.7%. This measure is moving towards a low of 2.3%, which is
what we experienced back in March of 2020, just before the pre-pandemic impact. In
other news the General Assembly voted down our immunity bills that were floating
around the Commonwealth they'd been, which would have exposed the county and
other Counties to increased costs. Lastly, he wanted to give a shout out to the County
transportation team, this team is focused and advocated for many transportation
projects, which have helped to grow our population, improve and attract new business
to our town centers and other parts of Roanoke county. This team led by Richard
Caywood and Megan Cronise. Megan Cronise and her support staff consisting of Isaac
and Will as well as supervisors on that Transportation Policy Organization Committee,
and under the Comprehensive Economic Development Committee have worked with
our Regional Commission, VDOT and the Commonwealth transportation representative
for the area, Dr. Raymond Smoot, and we've leveraged some $60 million in State and
Federal dollars to accomplish much here in Roanoke county using only a sum of about
two million currently of county dollars projected, that have occurred in the past and
projecting the future on these projects. We look forward to the next round of SMART
SCALE in 2023 for 2024 iteration to add even more projects. This is a testimony to great
work by those involved and he just wanted to say thank you.
Supervisor Radford stated he has one item. He noted he does not
normally come to these meetings with the short haircut, but it's for solidarity with my
older sister, who's going through chemotherapy right now and she's going to survive.
Everything's going to work out, but we wanted to show a little love to my, to my big
sister and family members. So we decided to clip and shave the head and last week. So
on a couple of weeks, I'll have a little more stubble and will not be so shiny next time,
but thank you all for your meeting today and your comments.
February 9, 2021
147
Supervisor Hooker stated he has a couple of things. She expressed her
personal appreciation to the work of VDOT over the last couple of snow experiences. In
her district, she has been really impressed with several areas that don't usually get
quick clearing. It seems like they were very good and very quick to clear and make
passable for some of the neighborhoods and back roads. So I'm very appreciative of
that. The second thing is she wants to express appreciation to Mr. Thompson and all
the time and effort that goes into all of these updates, much of which is a direct result of
concerns and complaints. There was one in particular was probably because of some of
my citizens. So she appreciates what you all have done, and this is not without a lot of
thought and input. So thank you very much. Appreciate it, Mr. Thompson.
Supervisor Peters stated he wanted to piggy back on what Supervisor
Hooker said and give a shout out to VDOT. As a Supervisor, probably the one time we
hear from citizens more than any other time is when it snows, but you know, when it
snowed a couple of weekends ago VDOT did a fantastic job. He then asked Mr.
Caywood to pass that on to our folks at VDOT, he would greatly appreciate it. He has
noticed since his time on the Board, we've actually had them in this room trying to get
clarification on why things did not go well, but whatever they did, they fixed it and then
they did a superb job. He really appreciates it. Also kind of in the same vein as
Supervisor Hooker, he received the Planning Commission, 2020 Planning Commission
Annual Report, and the 2020 Planning Commission work plan. He wanted to thank the
Planning Commission. Four of us have served on the Planning Commission under the
direction of Mr. Thompson, he appreciates everything that he does, but also appreciates
the continued hard work that they do mostly in our direction. Things that we want us to
want them to continue to dig into and make a great recommendations to us. For all the
folks in the County, he invited everyone to Joe Good Pies. It's a new restaurant opened
over in Vinton and the old Vinton Motors building. They may not want me to have
everybody show up yet, because he understands they've been really busy since they
opened. His wife and family had the opportunity to get in a last week and it is really
good food, and he welcomed everybody to stop by Vinton and try it out. Many of us on
the Board went to that building last year, while it was under construction. You'll be
amazed to what it looks like today.
Chairman Peters recessed the meeting to the third floor at 4:45
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors fiscal year
2021-2022 projected General Government Fund operating budget
revenues and review updates to the County of Roanoke Fee
Compendium (Steve Elliott, Budget Manager and Laurie
Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management Services)
February 9, 2021
148
Due to technical difficulties, there is no audio for this work session. Mr.
O’Donnell provided an overview and turned the meeting over to Ms. Gearheart and Mr.
Elliott, who provided the Board an update on the projected operating revenues and
updates to the Fee Compendium.
The work session was held from 4:52 p.m. until 5:20 p.m.
2. Work session to finalize calendar year 2021 Board of Supervisor
Goals (Daniel R. O'Donnell, County Administrator)
Due to technical difficulties, there is no audio for this work session. Mr. O’Donnell
provided an overview. After discussion, the following goals were established. 1)
Implement Compensation and Classification System Revisions to include Step
Systems for Police, Sheriff's Office and Fire and Rescue and a new Open Range
Classification system based on Gallagher recommendations for the other
departments; 2) Revise the budget process to incorporate multi-year revenue and
expenditure projection; 3) Complete Economic Development Strategic Plan; 4)
Devise and implement process improvements for streamlining the Development
Permitting process; 5) Continue efforts to expand transportation improvement
through the Transportation Planning Organization and other Federal and State
funding sources i.e. highways, roads, pedestrian and bicycle systems; 6) Continue
to expand rural broadband availability through Virginia Telecommunications
Initiative grants and cooperation with the Broadband Authority and other regional
partners to consider long-term regional strategies 7) Zoning ordinance amendments
8) 419 Town Center development standards 9) Rt. 460 Corridor Study; 10) Other
Planning Department efforts.
It was consensus that Mr. O’Donnell would work with staff to provide
implementation dates for the goals and bring back to the Board.
The work session was held from 5:24 p.m. until 6:18 p.m.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Peters adjourned the meeting at 6:19 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
________________________ ___________________________________
Deborah C. Jacks P. Jason Peters
Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board Chairman