2/23/2021 - Regular - DRAFT
February 23, 2021
149
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second regularly scheduled
meeting of the month of 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 3:00 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: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Chairman Peters asked to remove item D-3, Resolution encouraging
Roanoke County Schools to provide in-person learning options for students by March
15, 2021 stated Dr. Nicely will be putting forward plan. There were no objections.
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
1. Briefing by the Roanoke Regional Partnership (John Hull,
Executive Director of the Roanoke Regional Partnership)
February 23, 2021
150
Mr. Hull provided a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in
the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
All Supervisors thanked Mr. Hull and expressed appreciation for the work
that was done.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution accepting and approving recommended changes to
the Comprehensive Financial Policy (Laurie Gearheart, Director of
Finance and Management Services)
Ms. Gearheart outlined the request for resolution. There was no
discussion.
RESOLUTION 022321-1 ACCEPTING AND APPROVING
RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
FINANCIAL POLICY
WHEREAS, the County adopted a Comprehensive Financial Policy effective
December 17, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the policy is to be reviewed and any changes recommended
annually;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1. Section 5 Item 4 is changed to remove wording on a biannual basis and
replace with in October of each year; and
2. Section 5 Item 4 is changed to add preliminary financial information through
the end of the prior fiscal year; and
3. Under Section 7 Item 3 the dates have been changed to remove fiscal year
2021 (Schools) and add fiscal year 2031 (Schools); and
4. The effective date of the Comprehensive Financial Policy has been changed
from December 17, 2019 to February 23, 2021.
On motion of Supervisor North to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
February 23, 2021
151
2. Resolution approving Memorandum of Understanding among the
City of Roanoke, Town of Vinton, County of Roanoke, County of
Botetourt, World Triathlon Corporation and Roanoke Valley
Convention and Visitors Bureau regarding the 2021 IRONMAN
70.3 Race support services (Mary Beth Nash, Senior Assistant
County Attorney)
Ms. Nash outlined the request for resolution. There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 022321-2 APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING AMONG THE CITY OF ROANOKE, TOWN
OF VINTON, COUNTY OF ROANOKE, COUNTY OF
BOTETOURT, WORLD TRIATHLON CORPORATION AND
ROANOKE VALLEY CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU
REGARDING THE 2021 IRONMAN 70.3 RACE SUPPORT
SERVICES
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors desires to authorize the County
Administrator to execute a Memorandum of Understanding among the City of Roanoke,
World Triathlon Corporation, Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitor’s Bureau, Counties
of Roanoke and Botetourt and the Town of Vinton for the Carilion Clinic Ironman 70.3
Triathlon to be held on June 6, 2021, in cooperation with Carilion Clinic, the main
sponsor of the event.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE Board of Supervisors of the County of
Roanoke as follows:
1. The Board of Supervisors hereby authorizes the County Administrator to
execute a Memorandum of Understanding among the City of Roanoke, World Triathlon
Corporation (“WTC”), Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitor’s Bureau, Counties of
Roanoke and Botetourt, and the Town of Vinton for the Carilion Clinic Ironman 70.3
Triathlon to be held on June 6, 2021, in cooperation with Carilion Clinic.
2. The Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitor’s Bureau d/b/a Visit Virginia’s
Blue Ridge (“VVBR”), has agreed to provide support for the Event, consisting of limited
financial support, staff housing and facilitation services, in consideration for WTC
selecting the Roanoke Valley as the location for the Event.
3. The County Administrator is authorized to execute on behalf of the
County, in a form approved by the County Attorney, the aforementioned Memorandum
of Understanding (“MOU”), such MOU to be substantially similar to the MOU attached
hereto.
4. The County Administrator is further authorized to take such further actions
and execute such further documents, approved as to form by the County Attorney, as
may be necessary and to accept such MOU.
February 23, 2021
152
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
3. Resolution encouraging Roanoke County Schools to provide in-
person learning options for students by March 15, 2021 (Peter S.
Lubeck, County Attorney)
This item was removed by Chairman Peters.
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance accepting and appropriating grant funds in the amount
of $88,757 from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice
Services (DCJS) to the Roanoke County Police Department
(Howard B. Hall, Chief of Police)
Chief Hall outlined the request for the ordinance for the appropriation.
Supervisor Mahoney stated he has not looked at the legislation, but did
Chief Hall get a sense this might be for ongoing dollars with Chief Hall responding he
felt it was probably a one-time
Supervisor Peters’ motion to approve the first reading and set the second
reading for March 9, 2021, was seconded by Supervisor Hooker and approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING
1. Public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding proposed
amendments to the fiscal year 2020-2021 budget in accordance
with Code of Virginia Section 15.2-2507 (Laurie Gearheart,
Director of Finance and Management Services)
Ms. Gearheart outlined the public hearing. Chairman Peters recessed the
meeting from 3:37 p.m. until 3:47 p.m.
Chairman Peters opened and closed the public hearing with no
comments on this public hearing. There was no discussion.
February 23, 2021
153
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. 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 advised no changes since the first reading on February 9,
2021.
Supervisor Mahoney commented before his vote that he wanted to
emphasis again, we are appropriating $1.6 to our schools. It is also important to look at
the capital dollars that we are allocating here; public safety. We are looking at
ambulances, ladder trucks, and cyber security. Those are all critical elements for our
citizens and he is afraid that a lot of times that might be lost in the presentation. When
you say we are going to appropriate $2.4 million to capital, what does that mean? It
means ambulances, fire trucks, garbage trucks. Those are important elements to
provide valuable public services to our citizen.
Supervisor Hooker commented before her vote her appreciation to her
fellow Board members that we held them harmless this past year with the declining
enrollment with this ongoing contribution.
ORDINANCE 022321-3 AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2020-
2021 BUDGET FOR THE GENERAL OPERATING REVENUES
AND EXPENDITURES BY $4,102,054 AND APPROPRIATING
$1,681,342 TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,
AND APPROPRIATING $2,420,712 TO THE COUNTY’S
CAPITAL FUND
WHEREAS, the County Administrator proposed the original fiscal year 2021
operating budget in March 2020; and
WHEREAS, as the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded, a revised and reduced budget
was subsequently proposed and adopted by the Board; and
WHEREAS, County staff, in January 2021, have conducted a mid-year review of
general government revenues; current revenues are trending above the revised and
adopted budget, and a surplus of $4,102,054 is anticipated; and
WHEREAS, it is proposed that the County’s 2020-2021 budget be amended and
increased by $4,102,054; and
WHEREAS, it is further proposed that pursuant to the established revenue
sharing formula with Roanoke County Public Schools, $1,681,342 be appropriated to
the County School Board, and that $2,420,712 be appropriated to the County’s Capital
Fund; and
February 23, 2021
154
WHREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on February 9, 2021, and
the second reading was held on February 23, 2021.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. The County’s 2020-2021 Budget for general operating revenues and
expenditures is amend and increased by the amount of $4,102,054.
2. The amount of $1,681,342 is appropriated to the Roanoke County School
Board.
3. The amount of $2,420,712 is appropriated to the County’s Capital Fund.
On motion of Supervisor Hooker to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Radford and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
2. Ordinance authorizing the acquisition (with conditions) of Real
Property from the Commonwealth of Virginia, located at 0 Old
Cave Spring Rd. (Tax Map No. 076.20-03-05.00-0000), 4555 Old
Cave Spring Rd. (Tax Map No. 076.20-03-02.00-0000), 4607 Old
Cave Spring Rd. (Tax Map No. 076.20-03-01.00-0000), 4445
Brambleton Ave. (Tax Map No. 086.08-04-04.00-0000), and 4441
Brambleton Ave. (Tax Map No. 086.08-04-05.00-0000) in the
Windsor Hills Magisterial District; and authorizing execution of a
Memorandum of Agreement and deed of conveyance (Richard L.
Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Peter S. Lubeck,
County Attorney)
Mr. Caywood advised first reading on December 1, 2021. He advised
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is looking at a maintenance area
headquarters in SW County adjacent to WalMart. This will free up the existing parcels
noted in purple on the map on Old Cave Spring Lane where they have had a small
maintenance operation for many years.
Supervisor Mahoney noted he appreciates staff for their exhaustive board
report. The reason we are going through this convoluted process is because the
Commonwealth of Virginia and VDOT did not play fair with Mennel Mill back in 2010-
2013 and it is unfortunate that we are losing more and more property that would be
utilized for commercial uses. He guesses this the best we can do.
Supervisor Radford asked Mr. Caywood referencing at the very end, an
amount. Is that what is on the rolls right now in the assessment office. Mr. Caywood
responded in the negative stating this is based on today’s fair-market valuation for
commercial use. The reason is to be able to use the same valuation in the future. Staff
feels this would protect the County’s interest.
February 23, 2021
155
There was no further discussion.
ORDINANCE 022321-4 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION
(WITH CONDITIONS) OF REAL PROPERTY FROM THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, LOCATED AT 0 OLD CAVE
SPRING RD. (TAX MAP NO. 076.20-03-05.00-0000), 4555 OLD
CAVE SPRING RD. (TAX MAP NO. 076.20-03-02.00-0000), 4607
OLD CAVE SPRING RD. (TAX MAP NO. 076.20-03-01.00-0000),
4445 BRAMBLETON AVE (TAX MAP NO. 086.08-04-04.00-0000),
AND 4441 BRAMBLETON AVE. (TAX MAP NO. 086.08-04-05.00-
0000), IN THE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT; AND
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A MEMORANDUM OF
AGREEMENT AND DEED OF CONVEYANCE
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation (the “Commonwealth”)
has expressed its desire to purchase certain properties (the “Clearbrook Properties”)
located at the intersection of Clearbrook Lane and Clearbrook Village Lane, in the Cave
Spring Magisterial District, for the purpose of developing its South Roanoke County
Transportation Maintenance and Operations Facility; and
WHEREAS, the Clearbrook Properties are located in Roanoke County’s
Clearbrook overlay zoning district, and although the Commonwealth is exempt from
County zoning restrictions, the Commonwealth’s proposed use will be inconsistent with
the allowed uses in the zoning district. It has been the vision of the County that the
Clearbrook Properties would be used for purposes that would contribute to the
economic development in the County; and
WHEREAS, it has been proposed that the County acquire the following parcels,
located in the County of Roanoke (Windsor Hills Magisterial District), at the intersection
of Old Cave Spring Road and Brambleton Avenue, which are owned by the
Commonwealth:
Address Tax Map No. Acreage
0 Old Cave Spring Road 076.20-03-05.00-0000 1.15
4555 Old Cave Spring 076.20-03-02.00-0000 0.29
Road
4607 Old Cave Spring 076.20-03-01.00-0000 0.49
Road
4445 Brambleton Ave. 086.08-04-04.00-0000 0.14
4441 Brambleton Ave. 086.08-04-05.00-0000 0.5
and;
February 23, 2021
156
WHEREAS, the above parcels are “residue parcels,” (hereafter the “Residual
Parcels”) as set forth in § 33.2-1009 of the Code of Virginia, which were historically
acquired by the Commonwealth’s Commissioner of Highways, incidental to the
construction and improvement of public highways, and have been held in the public
interest since their acquisition; and
WHEREAS, the Residue Parcels have economic-development potential;
ownership of them would facilitate access from Old Cave Spring Road to parcel 086.-8-
04-03.00-0000 (4453 Brambleton Avenue), which parcel is 4.3 acres in size, and could
provide a desirable location for business; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to § 33.2-1010 of the Code of Virginia, the Commissioner
of Highways may lease, sell, or exchange such residue parcels of land upon such terms
and conditions as in the judgment of the Commissioner of Highways may be in the
public interest, provided, however, that the Commissioner of Highways shall not use
such parcels for any commercial purpose; upon such sale or exchange, such residue
properties must be used for public use; and
WHEREAS, in recognition of the Commonwealth’s intended use of the
Clearbrook Properties, and in order to ultimately facilitate potential economic
development of the Residual Parcels within the confines of Section 33.2-1010 of the
Code of Virginia, the following arrangement has been proposed:
A. The Commonwealth will convey, by deed, the Residual Parcels to the
County, upon the condition that the Residual Parcels be used for public
purposes, including the uses of equipment and material storage and
project staging. The Commonwealth will retain an easement in each of the
Residual Parcels, enabling the Commonwealth to continue to use the
parcels for its public purposes; and
B. If and when the time comes that the County desires to convey the
Residual Parcels to the Roanoke County Economic Development
Authority (“EDA”) for the purpose of furthering economic development in
Roanoke County, the Parties will execute a new deed with the following
provisions:
a. The County will pay the Commonwealth the fair market value of the
Residual Parcels, as determined by an independent appraisal at
the time of the transaction;
b. The Commonwealth’s easement in the Residual Parcels will be
extinguished;
c. The County will convey fee simple ownership of the Residual
Parcels to the EDA; and
d. The EDA will pay the County the fair market value paid to the
COMMONWEALTH as consideration; and
WHEREAS, if and when the time comes that the County desires to convey the
Residual Parcels to the EDA, this matter will be brought before the board for public
hearing, pursuant to Section 15.2-1800 of the Code of Virginia; and
February 23, 2021
157
WHEREAS, a draft Memorandum of Agreement and draft deeds have been
prepared between the Commonwealth, the County, and EDA; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of
this ordinance was held on December 1, 2020, and the second reading was held on
February 23, 2021; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, that the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrator,
is hereby authorized to execute such memorandum of agreement and deed and take
such actions on behalf of Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to
accomplish the acquisition of the following real estate (in accordance with the proposed
Memorandum of Agreement, as set forth in the preliminary recitals of this Ordinance),
all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney:
Address Tax Map No. Acreage
0 Old Cave Spring Road 076.20-03-05.00-0000 1.15
4555 Old Cave Spring 076.20-03-02.00-0000 0.29
Road
4607 Old Cave Spring 076.20-03-01.00-0000 0.49
Road
4445 Brambleton Ave. 086.08-04-04.00-0000 0.14
4441 Brambleton Ave. 086.08-04-05.00-0000 0.5
On motion of Supervisor Radford to adopt the ordinance, seconded by
Supervisor Mahoney 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 the Roanoke County Code to create the
County of Roanoke Towing Advisory Board (Rachel Lower, Senior
Assistant County Attorney)
Ms. Lower advised this is a second reading and outlined the request, there
were no changes since the first reading was held on February 9, 2021.
Chairman Peters recessed the meeting from 4:01 p.m. until 4:11 p.m.
Chairman Peters opened and closed the public hearing with no comments
for this agenda item.
There was no discussion on this item.
February 23, 2021
158
ORDINANCE 022321-5 AMENDING THE ROANOKE COUNTY
CODE TO CREATE THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE TOWING
ADVISORY BOARD
WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke currently does not regulate police-initiated
towing requests, although there is a need for regulation based upon growing citizen
concerns over predatory practices of towing and recovery operators; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Va. Code § 46.2-1217, in order to regulate police-
initiated towing, the County of Roanoke must first appoint an advisory board to advise
the governing body with regard to appropriate provisions of a regulating ordinance or
terms of a contract regulating police-initiated towing; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Va. Code § 46.2-1217, the towing advisory board shall
include representatives of local law enforcement agencies, towing and recovery
operators, and the general public; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.02 of the County Charter provides that the Board of
Supervisors may establish such advisory boards and commissions as it deems
necessary for the purpose of advising the Board and the County Administrator; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Va. Code § 15.2-1411, the Board of Supervisors may
appoint such advisory boards, committees, and commissions, as it deems necessary to
advise the Board of Supervisors with regard to any matter of concern to the locality, and
members shall be appointed to serve at the pleasure of the governing body; and
WHEREAS, in order to evaluate the regulation of police-initiated towing in
Roanoke County, it is proposed that the Roanoke County Code be amended to provide
for the formation of a towing advisory board to provide recommendations to the Board of
Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on February 9, 2021, and
the second reading and public hearing were held on February 23, 2021.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors as follows:
1. There is hereby established an advisory board known as the County of
Roanoke Towing Advisory Board.
2. The County of Roanoke Towing Advisory Board is an advisory body;
recommendations may be accepted, rejected, or accepted with modifications by the
Board of Supervisors.
3. Members of the County of Roanoke Towing Advisory Board shall be
appointed by the Board of Supervisors and composed of representatives from local law
enforcement agencies, towing and recovery operators, and the general public.
4. The role of the County of Roanoke towing advisory board is to advise the
Board of Supervisors with regard to the appropriate provisions of the County of
Roanoke’s ordinances or contracts related to towing services.
February 23, 2021
159
5. Section 12-4 of the Roanoke County Code, which was previously
reserved, is amended as follows:
Sec. 12-14. Towing advisory board.
Pursuant to Va. Code § 46.2-1217, there is hereby created a County of Roanoke
towing advisory board to advise the Board of Supervisors with regard to the appropriate
provisions of the County of Roanoke’s ordinances or contracts related to towing
services.
The members of the towing advisory board shall be appointed by the Board of
Supervisors, by resolution, and shall include representatives of local law enforcement
agencies, towing and recovery operators, and the general public. The members shall be
appointed by the Board of Supervisors for such terms as the Board of Supervisors may
direct. Any vacancy shall be filled by the Board of Supervisors for the unexpired portion
of a term. The members shall serve without compensation. Any member of the towing
advisory board may be removed by the Board of Supervisors with or without cause at
any time.
6. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS
1. Public hearing regarding policies and procedures to guide the
2021 redistricting process in Roanoke County (Peter S. Lubeck,
County Attorney)
Mr. Lubeck provided a brief overview on what is required of the
redistricting process. Mr. Lubeck then asked to postpone until we have received info
from the State.
February 23, 2021
160
Supervisor North stated the General Assembly, all 100 members, up for
reelection this November. Three of us on this Board are up for reelection in November.
What is the probability because the data in September will not be time for these
elections he just mentioned, this will negate the redistricting going into effect after the
elections? If so, does that mean another election has to be held a year later for those
seats or is that a long-shot. Mr. Lubeck stated those are the right questions to ask, but
at this point in time we don’t have ready answers. At this time, we await guidance from
the State.
Chairman Peters recessed the meeting from 4:19 p.m. until 4:29 p.m.
Chairman Peters opened and closed the public hearing with no comments on this
agenda item.
Supervisor Mahoney’s motion to postpone the resolution indefinitely was
seconded by Supervisor Radford and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 022321-6 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM K- CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for February
23, 2021, designated as Item K - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 4 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes – January 12, 2021
2. Request to accept and allocate the Washington/Baltimore High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Grant funds in the amount of $64,375 to the Roanoke County
Police Department for the Roanoke Valley Regional Drug Unit
3. Request to accept and allocate funds in the amount of $3,000 from the
Virginia Information Technology Agency for the Public Safety Answering
Points (PSAP) Educational Grant Program
4. Request to accept and allocate funds in the amount of $6,720 to the Clerk of
the Circuit Court from the Commonwealth of Virginia for Technology Trust
Funds
February 23, 2021
161
On motion of Supervisor Hooker to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Mahoney and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
A-022321-6.a
A-022321-6.b
A-022321-6.c
IN RE: CITIZENS’ COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Radford moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion was seconded by Supervisor Peters 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
3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of
January 31, 2021
4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of January 31, 2021
5. Accounts Paid - January 31, 2021
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors fiscal year
2021-2022 Employee Compensation and Benefits (Richard
Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Rebecca Owens,
Assistant County Administrator)
Mr. O’Donnell provided an overview and went through the beginning of the
presentation (through page 9); Mr. Caywood reviewed pages 10 through 22.
February 23, 2021
162
Supervisor Peters stated he has a bit of concern regarding the increases.
If you start with $42,000 in July, basically you are saying that is not going to change
until January of 2024. Mr. Caywood stated that is the intent based on the current
amounts that staff have provided costs for. Mr. O’Donnell stated it would depend on the
market each year and availability. We will look at the market each year and what other
agencies are doing. Mr. Caywood stated the numbers on this chart are supposed to
represent the designation at July 1, 2023. He agrees we may need to do something at
that time. Mr. O’Donnell stated it is a balancing act between market and budget. It will
be looked at every year.
Supervisor North stated that down the road, adjustment may need to be
made based on economic conditions.
Supervisor Radford stated it looks like it ten (10) year to hit the final
improvement. – What is the difference in responsibility from 04 to 10, with Chief
Howard B. Hall explaining it is not a difference of responsibility. From 1-4 is not a
promotion, and is not a supervisory position. This is more of a career development
program, you have to accumulate from a list that we have a certain number of points,
i.e. training, driving, etc. It reflects their experience and the skills they have developed
and what they bring to the table as an employee in those assignment.
Ms. Owens outlined the final section (pages 23 – 44).
Supervisor Mahoney he understands the whole concept of the bands, but
this does not appear to him to be simplified He is looking at 6 bands, 2 grades in each
band and when he goes to the chart, he has no idea how many other subgrades we
have. So, we are going from 32 grades that we have now and it looks like more grades
under this plan. He thought the whole approach with Gallagher was to simplify. Ms.
Owens explained we are moving from a larger number of grades down to 19 to 20
grades. This method is legally defensible, probably the best method for us to move
forward with. Mr. O’Donnell stated under our existing system and because of the
arbitrary decisions on upgrading and reclassifying, there is no consistency. Once this is
done, it may be complicated, but it provides the right logic for why that position in that
place. It is starting over with a logical approach instead of a historical approach. It
could be difficult to defend. We are not ready to move into all of those subgrades yet,
stated this does not appear to be simplifying. Ms. Owens explaining we are moving to
19-20 grades, legally defensible. Our next steps are to work with each Department
Director and see if they concur with the placement or if adjustments need to be made.
Supervisor Radford stated it looks to him that you are talking about a fairer
system, competitive rates and it has predictability. So we do not have that with 32
grades now.
Supervisor North commented it is more like corporate America.
February 23, 2021
163
Supervisor Mahoney commented with regard to Police, Fire and Rescue
and Sheriff, those employees will be placed on their appropriate step on July 1, 2023.
What happens on July 1, 2021? Mr. Caywood advised it will vary; part of what we are
fixing deals with compression issues. For example, in the Police Department, you may
be two (2) different service histories and have salaries that are very close, but in the
future, there will be more of a spread there. What happens in the implementation
process, there are some general parameters for the PO1 and PO2 ranks, some of them
in the initial year are getting up to 12% increases because they need that much to
create headway for those coming out of the academy so those people do not pass
them. For the higher ranked, we are taking the total change and divide it by three (3).
The implementation process does not have a specific dollar amount for each employee
because they each have different starting places. We will not be fixing all in year one, so
rd
the differential will still exist until you get to the third (3) budgeting year of
implementation. Supervisor Mahoney stated so by year three, they will be at “nirvana.”
The other concern he has, based on the Federal inflation rate, you could easily be 4-6%
out on July 1, 2023. Mr. O’Donnell stated there is a broad range of differences, but the
average increase is far more for public safety in years 1-3. Mr. O’Donnell stated staff
would have to monitor other agencies going forward as we may have to make
adjustment. Mr. Caywood added all of the budget projections that you see before you
are based on no COLA increases to the base chart. So, if we have to do those, it will be
in addition to what you see. Mr. O’Donnell stated there is already a significant increase
each year for two (2) years. Supervisor Mahoney stated he supports the approach, but
let’s be aware that our eyes should be wide open and it will not be as easy as it appears
here.
Supervisor North stated it is a quantum leap for this Roanoke County.
The work session was held from 4:46 p.m. until 5:55 p.m.
Chairman Peters recessed the meeting at 4:31 p.m.to the 3rd floor for
work session and closed session.
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 4:31 p.m., Supervisor Peters moved to go into closed meeting following
the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711.A.1 – To consider
and discuss prospective appointments to the Roanoke County Towing Board. The
motion was seconded by Supervisor Mahoney carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
The closed session was held from 6:05 p.m. until 6:20 p.m.
February 23, 2021
164
Chairman Peters opened the evening session at 7:00 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION 022321-7 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING
WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member’s
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies; and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor North to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County to Aleta Coleman, Emergency
Communications Manager, upon her retirement after more than
thirty (30) years of service (Bill Hunter, Director of
Communications and Information Technology)
The Clerk read the resolution and all Supervisors offered their
congratulations and thanks.
RESOLUTION 022321-8 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO
ALETA COLEMAN, EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
February 23, 2021
165
MANAGER, UPON HER RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN
THIRTY YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Aleta Coleman was employed by Roanoke County on December 10,
1990; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Coleman retired on January 31, 2021, after thirty (30) years and
and two (2) months of devoted, faithful and expert service to Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Coleman, through her employment with Roanoke County, has
been a Chief of Emergency Communication, Training Coordinator, Lead
Communications Officer, Communications Officer I, II, III and Emergency
Communications Manager as has been instrumental in improving the quality of life and
providing services to the citizens of Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, throughout Ms. Coleman’s tenure with Roanoke County, she has
supported both citizens and first responders through fires, floods, an earthquake and a
derecho storm as the calm reassuring voice behind the radio and telephone. Ms.
Coleman has been a trainer and supervisor for more than 24 years, mentoring and
teaching a whole new generation of Communication Officers. Ms. Coleman has been a
member of the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO), where
she served on the Awards Committee for 14 years, and the National Emergency
Number Association (NENA), where she served as the Region VI Director and Director
at Large for 6 years.
Ms. Coleman’s knowledge and professionalism have been recognized by her
peers and all of public safety. Ms. Coleman has earned various awards throughout her
tenure; in 2006 she earned the Roanoke County Police Department Leadership Award,
in 2008 she was awarded the Virginia APCO “Outstanding Team Performance in a
Critical Incident Award”, also in 2008, Ms. Coleman earned the American Red Cross 9-
1-1- Dispatch Hometown Hero Award for her leadership in the Green Ridge Mountain
Fire, and in 2013 Ms. Coleman earned the Communications Supervisor of the Year
Award. In 2019, Ms. Coleman was the manager of the Emergency Communications
when they were awarded the most prestigious Commission on Law Enforcement
Accreditation (CALEA) award, Accreditation with Excellence Award; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens
of Roanoke County to ALETA COLEMAN for more than thirty (30) years of capable,
loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy
and productive retirement.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
February 23, 2021
166
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution appointing representatives to the Roanoke County
Towing Advisory Board (Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney)
Mr. Lubeck outlined the request for resolution. There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 022321-9 APPOINTING REPRESENTATIVES TO
THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE TOWING ADVISORY BOARD
WHEREAS, on this date, the Board, having amended Section 12-4 of the
Roanoke County Code to create a towing advisory board, desires to appoint
representatives to such board.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors as follows:
A. Law Enforcement Community Members
a. The Board of Supervisors hereby appoints four (4) law enforcement
representatives to the County of Roanoke Towing Advisory Board, each of
whom shall be members of the Roanoke County Police Department and
designated by the County of Roanoke Chief of Police.
b. Two of the representatives designated by the Chief of Police shall serve
for a term beginning on February 23, 2021 and ending on June 30, 2023.
c. The two remaining representatives designated by the Chief of Police shall
serve for a term beginning on February 23, 2021 and ending on June 30,
2025.
d. The Chief of Police shall automatically make such designations, as
needed, which need not be reviewed and approved by the Board of
Supervisors. Accordingly, if a designated member of the County Police
Department resigns or is otherwise unable to continue serving on the
Towing Advisory Board, the Chief of Police may designate a replacement
member, who will serve for the duration of the vacant term.
B. Towing and Recovery Community Members
a. The Board of Supervisors hereby appoints the following four (4)
representatives from the towing and recovery community to the County of
Roanoke Towing Advisory Board:
i. Charles Brown, for a term beginning on February 23, 2021 and
ending on June 30, 2023.
ii. Jeffrey Robertson, for a term beginning on February 23, 2021 and
ending on June 30, 2023.
iii. Shane Spradlin, for a term beginning on February 23, 2021 and
ending on June 30, 2025.
February 23, 2021
167
iv. Joseph Wood for a term beginning on February 23, 2021 and
ending on June 30, 2025.
C. Citizen Representative Member
a. The Board of Supervisors hereby appoints Rick James to the County of
Roanoke Towing Advisory Board, for a term beginning on February 23,
2021 and ending on June 30, 2025.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1. The petition of R. P. Fralin, Inc. to rezone approximately 41.85
acres from I-1, Low Intensity Industrial, District to R-1, Low
Density Residential, District to develop a 124-lot single-family
home subdivision located at 5524 Old Mountain Road, Hollins
Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the request for rezoning and provided a
PowerPoint Presentation.
Supervisor North asked Mr. Thompson if he heard back from Roanoke
City on January 20, 2021 with Mr. Thompson responding in the affirmative. Supervisor
North added and since that point in time, you then prepared letters that went out to
these 584 citizens, is that correct? Mr. Thompson responded in the affirmative, but
stated they probably went out after we got that email. Mr. Thompson added one of the
things from the email that you sent me yesterday. There's a statement in there from one
of the City transportation engineers regarding the existing entrance of Nelms and Old
Mountain Road where the existing subdivision comes out, and there was a statement
there, that there would be a requirement or if there's a need for a left turn lane. In your
packet, there is an analysis that the developer's engineer has that shows that need is
met today. So the need for a left turn lane exists today under the existing traffic
conditions. We then tried to follow up as well about was their statement a requirement
or was it a recommendation? He had Becky James follow up with Hong Liu today, and
then that generated the other email that you all received that has a list of questions
about stormwater and transportation. I think he called her on the phone and said it was
more of a recommendation than a requirement for the turn lane at Nelms and Old
Mountain Road. Supervisor North stated so Mr. Thompson is saying the City
recommended it, but under the current traffic data study it would be required today with
Mr. Thompson responding in the affirmative. Supervisor North stated the left turn lane
February 23, 2021
168
would be coming from the City to make a left turn up off of Old Mountain into Nelms.
Mr. Thompson advised he would let Bobby Wampler talk about that, but he believes that
would be the case, it would be a left into the subdivision. Supervisor North then asked
what is the normal reasonable time period to send notifications out before a Planning
Commission meeting? Mr. Thompson responded staff tries to send them out sooner.
Obviously, we had a lot more this time on trying to get the information from, but normally
its two to three weeks before the meeting. We had the letters dated the 13th, and he
thinks it went out a little bit later because we were trying to do the address labels
associated with that. So we try to get it out as close to what we can as possible.
Obviously, we didn't want to send it out during the holidays because they'd get lost. We
tried to work that in with the two cases that we have in getting them out. So what's
required is five (5) days’ notice. He is sure it was a lot more than five (5) days in this
case. What we tried to do is we had the links with both dates of the Board meetings, the
links that they have to submit to view the meetings, email address of the staff member
so they can send it to them. There was another issue that I think should be raised, is
that there were some comments that we didn't read the email comments at the Planning
Commission meeting. When we have a packet, any emails that we receive up to when it
goes out is included in the Planning Commission packet. Anything that we receive after
that to the public hearing, we make copies at hand and distribute to the Planning
Commission members. During the meeting, staff asked the Chair, the Planning
Commission Chair, did he want us to read them verbatim or would he prefer us to
summarize them? The direction from the Chair was to summarize the email comments
that we had received. Now, mind you, they had to have a hard copy of every comment
that had been submitted. So there were some comments that their comments weren't
read into the record. So just trying to clarify how that came about.
The petitioner then provided a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is
on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. The petitioner also
introduced several members of the team working on this project.
Supervisor Radford stated he is reading some of these comments that are
coming from, he assumes, the residents. One of the things he gleaned is, how is
stormwater going to affect Horsemen? And then there's another circle, Gulfview and
Ichabod; explain to me how stormwater is going to affect those two from your property.
Mr. Wampler advised the stormwater from the existing site will be reduced from what is
currently running to those areas. There's about seven acres of the existing site that's
currently flowing to that vicinity, and that's where we'll be reducing the acreage by about
half. But even without the acreage reductions, we will have to reduce the water quantity
and improve water quality to that area. Supervisor Radford added going down to the
other end of the property, he assumes you're talking about the stormwater pond,
whatever, down at the very end of the property, whatever the name of the long street is
coming up to the Longacre Drive. Is that where you think you're going to have the
stormwater with Mr. Wampler confirming stated in a low part of the site. He added they
have not identified the exact location yet.
February 23, 2021
169
Supervisor Peters stated so that is the lowest part with Mr. Wampler
advising the location would be determined in the final design and how the project was
phased, but yes, it would be down at the lower end. Supervisor Peters added that is
where the existing water is coming through right now with Mr. Wampler confirming.
Supervisor Peters stated near the railroad with Mr. Wampler confirming. Supervisor
Peters then asked where the sewer is with Mr. Wampler advising it is at the cul-de-sac
of both roadways we're connecting to. Supervisor Peters stated so at the end of
Longacre and Nelms. Supervisor Peters then asked about the water connection with
Mr. Wampler advising same locations and Old Mountain Road. Supervisor Peters then
asked if they have adequate fire flow with Mr. Wampler advised that is yet to be
determined.
Supervisor North asked with respect to Old Mountain Road. Now, if he
remembers during the Planning Commission, there was discussion about getting to Old
Mountain Road sooner than four to five years, because that is truly going to be the
marketing pinpoint if you will, for the subdivision. It would seem to him, even though he
is not a builder like some people, that if you started up there all you'd have to do is to
put in your sewer because you got water at Old Mountain and then kind of work
downwards into the subdivision, and then you would mitigate all the concerns that
people are having over in the Nelms and Longacre area. Can you comment on that? He
means, he knows what PDOT says, and know what the Senate bill was, and he knows
that it's permissible to use interconnectivity, but you eventually wouldn't get to
interconnectivity if you started Old Mountain going downward. So can you comment on
that? Is a possibility and why you don't prefer it or it would be feasible? Mr. Wampler
responded it would be feasible, and obviously, because you're not connecting to the
roads, it would be less impact on the neighborhoods because there's no connection.
The concern he would have from an engineering standpoint is it requires you to make
some assumptions. Normally, you want to build from the lower end up, not just from a
sewer standpoint, but also from a stormwater. So if we're putting all our development in
at the top of the development, we've got to make a lot of assumptions of what's going to
happen to that stormwater, how it's going to get routed. Normally, you would start at the
lower end putting your bigger pipes and you just put in smaller pipes if you go upstream.
So it would increase risk for there to be issues later on in the development that you'd
have to address, but it is feasible. Supervisor North stated so what he is hearing you
say though, from the engineering standpoint, because he is not an engineer, that if you
start from the bottom up, you have less risk associated with storm water issues. Mr.
Wampler confirmed. Supervisor North asked if it were possible with Mr. Wampler
advising it is possible.
Chairman Peters recessed the meeting from 8:03 p.m. until 8:13 p.m.
to allow for comment.
Chairman Peters opened and closed the public hearing with the following
speakers on this agenda item.
February 23, 2021
170
Chris Craft of 1501 East Gate Avenue, speaking on behalf of the
Wildwood Civic League stated “I'm here, how can I say this? I'm not for this 100%, I'm
not against it 100%. It's just the way it was done, I don't agree. I have a letter from the
city. I'm the president of Wildwood Civic League, which, my neighborhood association is
where this is going to happen in the city park. It says, it says the city, the traffic staff
has, can discuss the issue of connecting the Boxwood with Nelms Lane. Let's see, they
suggest that all the property owners along the effected streets as required, but give
public notice shall include, but not limited to the public meetings for neighbors,
precautions in place and direct mail notices for the public hearings. We also suggest
that Mr. Craft president of Wildwood Civic League be contacted so he can help support
his neighbors and his neighborhood? I was never contacted. I knew nothing about it
until the young lady back here from Old Mountain Road put it on their Facebook page. I
didn't know nothing about it. Didn't know nothing about the planning commission
meeting, which I think was done as back door politics. And I think this needs to either be
denied or put on hold until the neighbors can get social distanced. I know a couple of
churches in the neighborhood that would be glad to let the fellowship center be used,
where you can sit six feet apart in a circle and discuss it appropriately, answer
questions, sit down with the people and find out what, how we can get this thing to go
through, but the right way. I have neighbors from my part of the city calling me. They
were never notified. There's enough traffic accidents and traffic going down Old
Mountain Road now. They don't need no more. Nelms Lane got school kids walking up
and down. Have you been over in that part where Old Mountain Road is in the
afternoons? As a county school employee, cars don't stop for them stop signs on the
buses. And I'm scared one of these kids is going to get hit. We need to either put this on
hold and discuss it. I have nothing against Mr. Fralin and his company, but I would've
appreciated them contacting me because I represent city citizens. And I can't do my job
as president of our neighborhood association. And you know what neighborhood
associations like in the county, if I know nothing about it. So I ask this either be put on
hold until the next meeting. Or just denied. Thank you.”
Betty Waldron Whitaker of 4799 Long Acre Drive stated, “I am speaking
on behalf of myself tonight, as well as the neighborhood group that formed very
expeditiously on January 23rd, once some of us received notification. This also reflects
the petition which I have here that has over 300 signatures requesting the proposed
rezoning and subdivision be denied in addition to several neighbors that are here
tonight and will be speaking. To our knowledge, there has not been an updated traffic
study on Old Mountain Road or on the neighborhood streets. The one that is being
referenced comes from 2018. The developer has stated that he prefers to have his sign
on Old Mountain Road because it is just marketing. The development is not just
marketing. It's about the quality of life that is currently enjoyed in the existing
neighborhood. The County has so many rich resources. An entrance off of Old
Mountain Road would allow for the developer to invest in what he believes is his
strongest asset. And that's living in the county. The proposed development does not
February 23, 2021
171
reflect Roanoke County's comprehensive plan. The plan indicates that 124 homes will
be built on 41.85 acres. The proposed plan does not address key elements, such as
storm water retention, soil, retention of trees, green spaces. The lack of communication
and collaboration with the neighbors in the existing neighborhood have left us with no
confidence that this will be addressed. The developer also has said he will only be
building 10 to 12 houses a year. How does that address such an urgent housing need
that we have currently? You know, we've heard it all before. A former developer came in
and said they were going to take care of flooding issues. We are faced every time it
rains with water and flooding on Longacre, Ichabod and Horseman. We have got to
have a more in detailed discussion around this. We have issues with regard to the way
Roanoke County and the developer presented this whole situation with the lack of
proper and timely notification. And it was coupled with no outreach or any attempt for a
collaborative dialogue by the developer. COVID has been used for a lot of things. Now
is the time for COVID to be used to allow a step back, and to evaluate the number of
homes, land uses and the impact of the quality of the existing neighborhood. We do not
oppose rezoning and a reasonable development, but we must insist on honest, two way
and collaboration to reach common ground moving forward. We respectfully request this
proposal be rejected and start the process over with open dialogue and communication
from all parties. Thank you.”
Sandra Lucas of 4783 Longacre Drive stated, “You'll have to excuse me.
I've never done anything like this before. My name is Sandra Lucas and I live at 4783
Longacre Drive, where I've lived for 18 years. One of the things when I was looking for a
home to buy that I liked about it, was its location close to a cul-de-sac, which would
mean less traffic. I was going to reiterate what the others have said about being so
disappointed in the fact that we weren't notified until the very last minute and some
weren't notified at all. And the proposed development doesn't comply with your
Roanoke County comprehensive plan. Mr. Fralin wants to put 124 houses on 42 acres,
and that doesn't reflect your County community surrounding it, of 37 houses on 72
acres. There are a lot of things we don't know about, but what we do know is that the
traffic will be greatly increased and that we already have flooding on Longacre. I know
that very well due to run off and I don't think that this is a responsible development. We
haven't been informed of a great many factors. Since I received the notice in the mail, I
have been very upset about how this will change our neighborhood for the worse. I
understand the construction will start in the cul-de-sac on Longacre. We will have these
problems for the longest time. Therefore, I'm asking you to please consider our
concerns and table your decision until we know more about these issues. Thank you.
And I also believe that some of the reasons that Mr. Fralin is starting on Longacre is
because it's cheaper.”
Lynn Meredith of 1127 Marie Drive in Huddleton, Virginia stated, “Thank
you for allowing me to speak to you regarding my grandparents' home and farm at 5524
Old Mountain Road. My name is Lynn Ellen McCutcheon Meredith, the eldest
granddaughter of John William McCutcheon and Lynn Graham McCutcheon, the
February 23, 2021
172
original owners of the McCutcheon property. They built their home in 1910 after
purchasing the land in 1908, reared two boys and had a producing farm with cows,
chickens, horses, and pigs, and grew vegetables and the best cantaloupes in the Valley
that granddaddy sold at the Roanoke City Market. My grandfather and grandmother
lived there until their deaths in 1938 and 1964, respectively. After my grandfather's
death, my grandmother continued to keep her home and outbuildings in repair and the
fields continued to be used for grazing livestock and growing vegetables. She also
allowed a local farmer to grow alfalfa for his personal use. Uncle Dabney McCutcheon,
retired to the farm, living there until his death in 1997. He continued to keep the house
in good repair, and even a few days before his death, at just a few days before 94, he
had just finished cleaning the gutters around the house. He loved his home and was
truly a Renaissance man. Since his death, the house has gone into disrepair and
vandals from nearby areas have stolen and destroyed much inside and outside of the
house. Even alarm system did not keep them out. We had to board up all the windows
as they had been broken. And even this did not keep out intruders. In fact, my sister
who lives across the road on Old Mountain Road, has had to call the Roanoke County
Sheriff's Department numerous times to report the theft destruction and where persons
have been dirt biking and making trails throughout the property, which was definitely
without permission from us. "No trespassing" signs were ignored and torn down. In fact,
at one time deputies from the Roanoke County Sheriff's Department found an illegal
drug operation near the railroad tracks. We have worried years about someone being
injured here and thank goodness that has never happened. This type of destruction and
trespassing must stop and building a beautiful community of homes and families is the
answer. What has become an eyesore, and I know it is, can now become a beautiful
village with lovely homes and walking trails. Roanoke County needs more affordable
housing, and this is the perfect place for it. Families and children will bring the farm back
to life again. For this, I am very happy and excited. Just a few points, and some of them
probably have been said before, this property is in Roanoke County and can never be
annexed into the City of Roanoke. The density of the homes will meet the same or lower
than the adjoining communities. There are several ways to enter the property, so this
should not affect traffic flow from Old Mountain Road, Carlos Drive, or even the city
streets. Building a community of homes with families living in them will be a breath of
fresh air, instead of fumes and chemicals from a factory or trucking terminal in your
backyard, with huge lights on day and night and trucks in and out at all hours, 24/7.
Would the neighboring homeowners rather have these fumes and chemicals from a
factory or lights from a trucking terminal, or do they prefer beautiful single family
homes? I know what I would choose. And I thank you very much.”
Bill Newberry of 5633 Old Mountain Road stated, “It's my first shot at this
too. My name is Bill Newberry. I live at 5633 Old Mountain Road, which I just moved
into in November. So when I saw this, I was a little shocked. I had no idea that this type
of development was going to be on my front door so quickly. Not that developments,
and we don't need more housing. That's not my point. I'm just going to speak on behalf
February 23, 2021
173
of the rezoning and the Boxwood proposal. I sent everyone an email with a lot of the
information that I've gleaned from the comprehensive plan. One thing that was
interesting to me was that some previous neighborhood council meetings there was a
quote and I quote, "The development community has too much influence. And there is
the perception that many land use decisions have been made prior to public hearings." I
had to go to the planning commission meeting remotely because that was on the
website and I just didn't have enough notice to get my stuff together to go there. And
that was kind of the feeling I walked away with was that, he had a nice presentation,
he's a businessman, I'm a salesman, I'm a businessman. I know how all this works. A
second communication was that input from citizens should be solicited in all rezoning
decisions. Well, they did read some of our comments. They didn't read them all because
there was a time constraint there. But I just think that this whole process was started a
long time ago. The proposal was sent to the board on September the 11th. And then the
meeting was announced to us in January. I believe that the Mr. Fralin could have
reached out to us, got some input. He did that previously when he tried to build
something next to... Actually, plantation in \[inaudible 01:34:37\] and that ended up not
getting built, but he had community meetings. He had people coming in and granted, we
were under COVID and I get that. But I use zoom every day. I have meetings all across
the country with zoom because I'm in sales. So I used that tool and it's very simple. We,
as neighbors, have used it already and we did it in a number of days and coordinated
that. So I just wish he would have done that. Given the timeframe that we're looking at.
The zoning. So R1, residential one, shows or allows for one to three units per acre.
Okay. He's jamming the maximum number, three per acre into that subdivision. 124 on
42 acres approximately. Comprehensive plan states that design guidelines should be
done by preserving and enhancing the existing neighborhood character. Now, the
existing characters it's already been stated, the neighborhood consists of 37 homes on
almost 78 acres. This area is from the property in question down Old Mountain Road
and up Carlos. So, that's an average of about two acres per person. Some as small as a
half. They're six houses on a half-acre or less. Everybody else is more than an acre.
Everybody else is more than an acre. Design should have tree preservation. We don't
see any of that, but we don't see the final plan either. With the density, I don't see how
they can have any trees because the lots are so small, if you look at the plan that he
has submitted. It needs be balanced with rural lifestyles in Roanoke County. Our
neighborhood is rural in nature. If you go and ride around, it's a lot of land and there's
even a working cattle farm just down the road on Old Mountain. So it's a rural area.
Throughout the plan, it states preserving, conserving, maintaining existing quality of life.
I don't think this proposal, as it is right now, meets that. It meets the adjoining
neighborhood in the city, but we're a county. So it needs to kind of abide by the county
plan. And I ask that you review the comprehensive plan and some of the information
that I emailed to you and table this. Let's have some conversations. I'm not opposed to
it, but I like it to match the area. I don't want to have this giant neighborhood just right
February 23, 2021
174
there across the street from me. Why can't we have fewer homes and match what's
already there? That's my ask.”
Chairman Peters reminded the audience of the three (3) minute time limit
on speaking, especially since we have several to speak tonight.
Brenda Wheeling of 5653 Horseman Drive stated, “I'll keep it on three. I've
done this before. Good evening, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, Mr. Chairman
and members. My name is Brenda M. Wheeling, and I live at 4653 Horsemen Drive
Northeast, and I am a member of the Old Mountain Neighbors Group, which is
represented by many here tonight. My husband Dwayne and I purchased our home in
June of 1994, and immediately after moving in, noticed, after a heavy rain storm, that
when stepping up our deck at the back of the house, we had water up to our ankles.
This was within the first 30 days we were in the home. After walk into the yard, on both
sides of the house, we could see a small river of muddy water coming through the yard
and down on both sides of the driveway. Husband walked straight up the back yard,
past the fence of our property to see water pouring through the woods and down onto
our property. The husband being in construction sales knew this was an issue and we
needed to act immediately, which we did. He called one of his customers who did site
work, drainage work, and he came shortly to see what could be done. He walked up to
the back of the yard into the woods and could see the large amount of water coming
from the area above our lot. He immediately noticed that the homeowner had turned
their backyard into an off the road, Old Mountain Road into a parking lot for their cars
and watercraft, instead of using it for green grass. Roanoke City and Roanoke County
were contacted regarding the issue and we soon realized that the two municipalities do
not work together on issues like this. The Roanoke City contact came to our house and
walked up to the house and tried to talk to the homeowner, and the door was slammed
in his and my husband's face. This house is in Roanoke County. Unfortunately.
Roanoke County never responded. After looking at what needed to be done, the
contractor installed french drain across the back of the yard and drainage pipes and
pop-ups on both sides of the house. We continued to have water coming down our hill
onto the property, and it has washed out one side of the driveway. The expense of the
french drain worked for a while, at our expense. Our concern is if this project comes to
reality, that the flooding issues that the residents of Ichabod, Horseman Drive, Nelms
Lane, and Long Acre will only double the flooding issues we have in our area more, and
all residents will be forced to spend their own money to make repairs to our homes and
property. Let alone the additional traffic coming through Old Mountain Road, both cars
and tractor trailers taking the shortcut through Old Mountain Road to get to Hollins
Road, Route 460 and the downtown area, the Nelms Lane entrance and exit from
Nelms is constant disaster with wrecks and with the traffic with the additional usage is
only going to make it worse in that area. The developer talked of an increase in property
value. He failed to say that would increase our property taxes to Roanoke City also. We
are on a fixed income as both have recently retired. We cannot afford any higher taxes
that have to be paid to Roanoke City. My husband and I are 100% against this project
February 23, 2021
175
because of the effect it will have on us personally and all of our neighbors in the
affected area. We do hope that Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will seriously
look at this project and regret the project proposal in it’s entirely.
Deborah R. Ingram of 4759 Longacre Drive stated, “I will chime in that I'm
first time too. Our primary need is to slow down the action on this project, this will also
allow that all issues are addressed and understood. This is a third quarter 2020
application to Roanoke County from our Freeland. We, city residents were made aware
of the planning commission schedule vote just days before the meeting, most notably a
small sign on the western side of Old Mountain Road. Letters were mailed to a
scattered number of cabinet and city residents a few weeks before the meeting.
Admittedly, there were gross misses in expected communication. The standard
residents meeting was abandoned due to COVID-19. The expected phone calls, email
communications were absent because of COVID-19 concerns. Our city properties bear
the burden of added traffic, storm water runoff on our aging infrastructure, rowing
erosion and continued and devastating flooding to homes on Ichabod, Horseman, and
Long Acre. Our quality of life will be diminished by the increased traffic, which can
measure in the hundreds per day, on narrow, overcrowded, city streets. Our children
and pets are at risk of injury or death, no longer able to walk, ride their bikes, or play in
a manner they currently understand. Every resident in these neighborhoods will feel the
burden of this project. Our quality of life will be altered by increased traffic and
pollutants. Increased traffic on Old Mountain Road could number in the hundreds per
day in the next few years. The traffic counts presented with the application or from 2018
data collected by VDOT, and absolutely not representative of current number of
vehicles. As the developer's plan lays now, the entire Boxwood subdivision will begin on
city land at the end of Long Acre Drive. The county entrance to this development is not
expected for four to five years per the developer's own expectation. Due diligence, we
asked the developer to explore the resources available to this project from the county
side. It was presented to the planning commissioner by the developer there were
expansive resources afforded to this project by being in the county. Why should the
project not start on county land? Why shouldn't the developer use existing county road
frontage for the good of the plan? Why, being a borderline, pristine subdivision at the tail
end of the property, not invest in future county growth by adding sewer and entrance,
and other utilities from Old Mountain Road? We don't feel the developer's put forth
enough time or resources to move this plan to about tonight. We have a flat map with no
topographical readings. We are not aware of any written scope of work that is presented
to the county for full review. We asked VDOT for a current traffic study to show actual
uses on Old Mountain Road as of today, 2021. Recent conversations with county
officials have indicated a lack of customary contact. We did not have the usual public
neighborhood meeting, no customary talks, emails, phone calls due to COVID-19
concerns. We ask, for that reason and many more, that a vote from tonight meetings be
stopped and the project be tabled for COVID-19 reasons as well. COVID-19 has
affected the entire project. A vote tonight would be premature. Many factors have not
February 23, 2021
176
been discussed or evaluated, and could lead to irreparable damages to county property.
The county and RP Freeland have resources to contain this proposed development
within their county boundaries. We ask that you explore those opportunities and take
this time to reach out to city and county residents for a respective dialogue.”
Anne Hoffman of 642 Winesap Road stated, “Thank you, Mr. Chairman
and the Board. I guess I'm going to be talking about a different side of this. My name is
Anne Hoffman and I live at 642 Winesap Road in Roanoke. My daughter, Gina Arthur,
and I are both full-time realtors with RE/MAX All-Stars. I personally have served the
Roanoke Valley for over 41 years and have seen many exciting changes and
developments help Roanoke grow. I'm here to talk about the real estate need in this
area. We ask for your consideration and approval of the rezoning of a partial land that is
zoned now I-1 to R-1. The sellers came to us to sell their family farm. Every way we
turned, we were told that the land had to be industrial. Land in that area that is being
offered for sale as industrial has no buyers. This is when I decided to call Mr. Freeland.
So that was, as he told you, last May. So he's been in the works with this for quite some
time and really, really worked hard on getting it done. We own average have over 6,000
active listings in a multiple listing service. Of which, 3,800 to 4,200 of these listings are
residence that a buyer can purchase and live in. This includes all homes, condos, and
townhouses. However, even with the past year and all that we of a nation has endured,
one thing came to be known is that the American family wants a home. And what better
place to purchase that home but in Roanoke, Virginia. We have experienced a robust
housing market in the Roanoke Valley that has grown in volume over the last four years
so much so that we now have only 2,198 total active listings in our MLS system and
only 515 residential listings that the citizens like in Roanoke can purchase and make a
life for their family. Meaning that with only 515 available residence to purchase leaves
major housing shortage for our area. Currently, there are only 20 total homes available
to be purchased in Roanoke's North Carter. And that covers all price ranges from $1 to
whatever. The average price of a home in the Roanoke Valley is now $278,870. This
project will hit right within that price range. This 41.8 acre property touches residential
properties, both City and County. As you all know, it backs up the large residential
development of Monterey Hills, Monterey North, and Reed Mountain North subdivisions.
I've sold 100 of homes in this valley in my career and it's becoming more difficult to find
affordable housing for people who want to live here or move here. A plan residential
development by experienced builder like Mr. Freeland would be a better enhancement
to the area than a large industrial building with large industrial traffic, meaning large
heavy trucks of some kind, rather than the residential traffic already active in the area
and I really do feel like the rezoning would also work well as the residential community
for the Hollins Center plan. I know that there would be neighbors that would ask you to
turn down this request to rezone because they do not want development in their
backyard. But I say, "If not here, then where?" Roanoke is very limited in available land
to develop that has public access and public amenities. In my opinion, this development
would only increase the property values enhancement of the surrounding properties. As
February 23, 2021
177
for my client, the McCutcheon family, they deserve the right to sell their land for the
price they want and for the best use of their land. All industrial businesses that could've
purchased this property have not done so. Changing the zoning to R1 would be
beneficial to all parties. Mr. Freeland has the means and the know-how to make this
land assessable to many buyers wanting to live in north Roanoke County. With all that,
let him help your county prospect.”
Chairman Peters then asked for written emails and calls.
The first one is Rebecca Hamlin of 4608 Golfview Drive Northeast. She
would like to voice her comments and concerns with the rezoning of 5524 Old Mountain
Road in Roanoke County. Bullet one. Area residents learned of the proposed
development from a letter sent by the county planning department one week before the
planning commission meeting. Planning department said that they sent out over 500
letters. However, we found many neighbors that had not received one. The county's
comprehensive plan states that developer should include and encourage citizen
participation in development plans. We have never heard from the developer. Bullet
two. We feel like we were ignored by the planning commission. Residents' emails with
comments on the proposal or summarize did not reflect our true concerns. The planning
commission approved this proposal, despite the fact that the planning department
recommended against it. Bullet three. 124 homes on 41.85 acres is not responsible
development. The proposed lots are small. The majority appear to be the minimum of
7,000 square feet required by the county's comprehensive plan. This development does
not match the surrounding county neighborhoods to have homes sitting on one to three
acres. Since this property is in the county, the surrounding county homes should be
used as a reference, not the homes in the city. Bullet four. The proposal does not show
that all growth trees will be preserved as required by the comprehensive plan. The
number of homes should be reduced to allow for larger lots, green space, and retention
ponds. The developer should be required to keep as many existing trees as possible to
maintain the feel of the surrounding area and help reduce soil erosion. Homes on
Ichabod and Horseman already have problems with flooding from storm water runoff.
This development will only exacerbate the situation. Bullet five. The developer wants to
extend Nelms and Long Acre to allow access into this development, and indicated that
traffic would increase 14% to 15% on those two streets. The city of Roanoke included a
comment in their remarks that they feel that the usage of our streets could be as high as
40%. This will greatly impact and compound existing issues in our neighborhood. These
increases do not take into consideration that the developer stated during the planning
commission meeting that he was not going to create an entrance from Old Mountain
Road until he had come close to completing the houses on Long Acre. This would mean
all construction traffics will have to access the site through our neighborhood. At a rate
of 5 to 10 houses a year, it could take five years or more for him to create the entrance.
Bullet six. A turn lane needs to be created for cars turning off Old Mountain Road into
Nelms. This is already a tricky intersection and increased traffic will only make it worse.
Bullet point 7. The engineer stated that they need to start from the bottom up, but Long
February 23, 2021
178
Acre is much higher than the rest of the development. I support rezoning and
responsible development of the property. I do not feel that the number of homes on this
size piece of property is responsible. Thank you for your time and consideration.”
The second email comes from Ronnie and Linda Powell at 4757 Ichabod Circle
Northeast. My husband and I are concerned about the traffic on Old Mountain Road.
There have been several deaths since we have lived out here. There is enough traffic
now on Old Mountain Road and new building of additional houses will create much
more traffic. It is hard enough to come out of our subdivision from Horsemen onto Old
Mountain Road. There is a blind curve on Old Mountain Road to the left of us trying to
come out and the speed limit is 35 miles per hour. At some point, the building of new
houses in this area needs to stop and solve our problems, runoff water and traffic
issues, instead of creating more on top of what we already have. Solve our problems
first, and then you can build. Enough is enough. We pay taxes too. We are tired of
developers building with no concerns with the current residents. We do not want to
return to a river going down our street again, nor can we afford to lose any more of our
land, yards, fences or buildings being flooded again.”
Supervisor North asked Mr. Blevins of the Virginia Department of
Transportation to come to the podium. We've heard from some citizens tonight talking
about the traffic study of 2018 using 2018 data. Can you comment on that? Is that the
best data you have and why it's 2018 and not 2020? Mr. Blevins responded we update
our traffic information yearly, but on secondary roads, we don't actually count them
every year. They're counted usually every seven years, maybe. On a road like this, we
may count a little more often, but that's just the last time we took actual real traffic count.
We generally use multipliers to increase that traffic from year to year, but that was just
all that was available at the time whenever the engineer for Mr. Freeland did his work.
But in general, unless there's a major change in, say, volume or, say, a new
development along a roadway, you won't see a big change in traffic volume anyway. It
doesn't change much from year to year. And in fact, if they would've tried to count it this
year, it probably would've been lower than normal. COVID we saw significant drops in
traffic up to 30%. It's rebounded somewhat now. As you can tell if you've tried to travel
anywhere, but it's still low. It's still 5% to 10% low on most roadways. Supervisor North
thanked Mr. Blevins and advised he wanted to share some news with you too that we
just received today from Roanoke City, I understand Lou and Ian will be conducting
current condition traffic counts in that area beginning tomorrow. Whatever that means. I
don't know if you want to talk to them tomorrow and find out what that's all about, but it
sounds like to me they're going to do traffic counts in the residential area. Probably
putting down the counters that go across streets. That's number one. Number two, I
also understand, and we heard from Mr. Thompson, that the traffic count is sufficient at
Nelms and Old Mountain today to warrant a left turn lane. Do you have any comments
on that? Mr. Blevins responded he did look over the data that the developer's engineer
prepared. Since that's actually across the line in the city. VDOT really has no control or
responsibility over it, but I don't discount it. I mean, we found that what he provided us to
February 23, 2021
179
be correct and acceptable at this point without further information from the development
plans. Based on what they have so far, I have no doubt that that would be the same. I
don't know how they generate the volumes but, like I said, it looked to be correct as far
as I could tell. Supervisor North stated so today the City could, if they wanted to, work
with VDOT to affect that left hand turn lane, never mind this petition. Is that correct? Mr.
Blevins responded they could fund it themselves. They could work with us to apply for
funding and through various programs to try to do something. Supervisor North asked if
they could file a smart scale application. Mr. Blevins responded maybe in a couple of
years. Supervisor North stated that is correct it is now two years off for the next
iteration.
Supervisor North stated he has questions for Mr. Thompson. He stated
that in 1997-1998, American Planning Association, APA, came out with guidelines on
subdivision not regulations, but suggestions or guidelines. And a lot of the things that I
hear tonight that I hear people are opposing is opposite of what they said. For example,
wanting interconnectivity with streets. Do we not want that in the county? Mr.
Thompson responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Radford stated so we can
encourage that, correct? Mr. Thompson again responded in the affirmative. Supervisor
Radford then stated looping waterlines and power lines are preferred because its
redundant services in case of breaks or damages. Mr. Thompson responded in the
affirmative stating and also for water pressure. Supervisor Radford then stated he
hears talk about the size of lots. So the subdivision that a lot of these folks live in close
by are living in a subdivision that was developed 30, 40 years ago. Density changes
have dictated smaller sizes and it's another one of those suggested items in that
guidebook from the American Planning Association, right? Mr. Thompson responded in
the affirmative. Supervisor Radford then commented also developing smaller lots cost a
lot more today than it did 30 or 40 years ago because of the cost of regulations. Storm
water now has to have quality and quantity. So I'm just kind of up here making sure
we're doing the right things as the County in terms of what the applicants asking for.
Mr. Thompson responded in the affirmative adding he would say what you have before
you is a concept plan. We went with them and you look at it, there's no storm water on
the plant, right? Supervisor Radford confirmed. Mr. Thompson added 124 is the max
that you're ever going to see. I would be surprised if they get that field. Does have a lot
of typography and other issues. But they wanted to show what the maximum could be
and what could be generated from a traffic standpoint always goes to the worst case
scenario. You build less, it's going to be less than that. Also, he had a conversation with
Mrs. Ingram who spoke. You're talking about development regulations and she
mentioned that she has a wet basement; she has water leaking into the basement and
their issues. You mentioned that subdivision being built 30, 40 years ago. The
courthouse was there 35, the others were 40. There weren't any storm water
regulations. So, part of the issue with the subdivision is it doesn't drain well because it
was built in a time when there wasn't those regulations put in place. Obviously, there is
probably runoff from the existing property that's coming in, but there's a lot more
February 23, 2021
180
regulations today than there was 30 or 40 years ago. So I understand their concerns
with runoff because they have current issues in the subdivision. They have current
transportation issue with the turn lane on Nelms in Old Mountain. So they have
legitimate concerns, but they exist today. Right? And I understand the concern that the
proposed development might make it worse because they've lived there. So it's
understandable. Mr. Thompson added he does think some of the mention of the
question of what we sent out, we did send out 584. Now, Mrs. Ingram, when I talked to
her yesterday, said that she did not get one. So that raised my curiosity to a little bit.
And I looked on our list and her name is on our list, our address list. This morning, I
came back and looked at it. If you look at all the ones on Long Acre, they have a 24019
zip code. When you look at her address, it had a 24017. Again, so then it kind of, "Okay,
why is that case? So I went to the City GIS system, and that's how it's listed. So we
pulled information from the GIS for our mailing labels to send to the city residents. If the
information in there's not correct, then they wouldn't get a notice. Just want to kind of
explain that to somewhat. So again, we try to do everything we can to make
notifications. We did send out 584 notices, we've gotten four returned. So he doesn’t
know where they're in the mail system or whatever, but that's what we currently have.
Again, we encourage the public debate as planners. That's what we want to happen.
Supervisor North stated he was listening to the Governor’s press
conference today. The restriction on social gathering events remains at 10 people. So
that's a challenge as we continue to move forward with COVID, which certainly
contributes to the fact why we haven't had any community meetings per se. Another
point, today, Roanoke City just shared with us some late information reply, if you will.
Do you have that with you in front of you there? Mr. Thompson responded in the
affirmative. Supervisor North asked Mr. Thompson to read the transportation division
comments as well as storm water. Mr. Thompson responded in the affirmative stating
this email originated from an email that the City sent to Becky James, who's our zoning
administrator. There was a comment in there about the intersection of Nelms and Old
Mountain Road, and the need for the left turn lane. So we're trying to get clarification. Is
that a requirement the city would have upon the connecting to a city street or is that a
recommendation? So we sent the email seeking that clarification, and then we got the
email response, which has all these new issues that were raised today. Mr. Thompson
stated for the transportation division comments, it says, "City Street shall not be used as
means for construction activity access. To the Boxwood development, due to the
burden of construction traffic resulting in noise, debris, undue wear on street or other
nuisance. The second comment they have is connection to city streets from the
Boxwood development is allowed only after the newly constructed road within the
development is completed and opened to the traveling public. Road completion shall
include the final surface mix layer and all curb gutter and sidewalk installed. The newly
constructed road shall have a viable ingress egress to the Roanoke County portion of
Old Mountain Road. In addition, the Boxwood site development must be at least 90%
complete along the county road connecting to city streets." So then it says the comment
February 23, 2021
181
that you mentioned earlier. I understand that Lou and Ian will be conducting current
condition traffic counts in that area beginning tomorrow.” Mr. Thompson responded
there’s a lot of stormwater comments as well that are little bit or kind of pretty technical.
You are very aware that, at the rezoning stage, you invest so much money in, to a
certain degree, but until you have approval, that's when all the detailed engineering
plans happen after that fact. He thinks a lot of these big issues would be addressed in
the process if it was approved. It's not, obviously they're not going to have to address it.
Supervisor North then asked Mr. Thompson, from what you read there, assuming this
rezoning occurs tonight with the Board of Supervisors, the petitioner, Mr. Fralin is going
to have some discussions with the Roanoke City folks. Mr. Thompson added on a State
road, state-maintained road, the entrance onto Old Mountain Road in the Boxwood
would be permitted. Mountain Road in the Boxwood be permitted through the
Department of Transportation. VDOT does not permit the entrance onto a city road. The
city would do that. Now the question is what are their requirements? Any developer is
going to have to work with them to get that permit if they want to develop and abide by
whatever conditions that jurisdiction puts in place. I don't know if these are requirements
or recommendations or what have you, but that's an issue that Mr. Fralin would have to
deal with.
The petitioner, Mr. Fralin, came forward to respond. He stated as we all
know, this came sort of at the 11th hour. He didn't receive it today until 1:30 p.m. and so
I haven't had any time to address it. He will say in respect to Ms. McCutchin, he is firmly
willing to take the risk and deal with the City and obviously they're the municipality and
without a permit, there is no-go and I'll have to plan accordingly. But respectfully, if it's
your wish, I am more than willing to take that risk and get Ms. McCutchin paid.
Supervisor Peters stated one of the things he heard tonight, what's kind of
concerning to him, is there any way to have a construction entrance off of Old Mountain
Road? Mr. Peters responded, he wanted to also apologize to Ms. Huffman. He should
have introduced her at the beginning. She's an important player in this and has worked
really hard. But yes, he is happy to make that work, he thinks that's reasonable. I mean
anything reasonable, he is more than happy to accommodate. Respectfully, he just
thinks a 2:00 PM email before Board of Supervisor meeting was, was a little hard to
handle. And I'll take that again, take that risk.
Mr. Thompson stated he would like to read some comments just as
quickly as I can, because he knows time is of the essence, but these are questions that
he received over the weekend. Studying this rather large package, as did other Board
members. He communicated with Mr. Caywood, our Assistant County Administrator and
so I'm just going to briefly share the questions and what the replies were from staff. And
I want to do this in the framework of letting the public know that there are processes to
address mitigation and concerns specifically first with storm water. Number one, he
asked the question, does this acreage have staff concerns over storm water and runoff?
Question number two, how does the 170 foot slope front to back of the property impact
this site of storm water? Mr. Fralin refers to as 160 feet. He thinks we know that is
February 23, 2021
182
somewhere in that range. He got the 170 from the package. Are there other
subdivisions in the county with same/similar drop-offs and how were they mitigating with
respect to storm water? And so here is what staff at Roanoke County shared with me.
They tell us that developers must meet the applicable storm water requirements to
address these concerns. While they have many options for how this may be achieved,
their requirements cannot be waived simply because the site has substantial elevation
changes. We have many subdivisions located in steep terrains. Ponds are generally
used as a primary water quantity control method. Although underground storage is
occasionally utilized, the regulations are intended to ensure that post-construction water
quantity levels are not increased within the parameters of the regulation. Moving on to
question four, dealing with stormwater. Would a topographic map helped in the
assessment of stormwater? Staff states they have topo maps to analyze this site.
Secondly, under the concern of roads, and we just asked this question several times
tonight, why not require the entrance off Old Mountain Road start the subdivision rather
than starting the city streets to mitigate the challenges there. We've heard Mr. Fralin talk
about that and our staff also advise the developers stated the reason they're developing
the development off the city streets is because that is where the water and sewer are
located today. Mr. Radford was showing me middle link water and sewer locations are
all over that area. Water is available along Old Mountain Road entrance, but there is no
sewer. The developer stated that during the Planning Commission meeting that he
wants to get to the Old Mountain Road entrance as quickly as possible, perhaps within
four to five years, maybe even three, because the quicker he gets there, the better it is
to market the homes that are for sale. He mentioned that if the rezoning is approved,
that it would take a year to fully design and engineer the project subject to County inputs
and approvals, and perhaps the City's as well. Typically, they build 15 to 20 houses a
year. Full build-out is roughly nine years, one year design and eight years of
construction. Question number two, concerning roads. Has any traffic study had been
even asked or discussed as relates to Carlos Drive, its narrowness and its congestion?
No study has been done as yet. Question number three, has any review of the collateral
impact on the already congested Hollins Road and Sanderson intersection been
studied? Nut staff replies with this application, the applicant submitted some traffic data
regarding turning lane analysis for the entrance on Old Mountain Road for both a right
turn lane and a left turn lane. They also provided some peak hour a.m. and p.m. data
and a site distance analysis, no analysis was done on Carlos Drive or on the Hollins-
Sanderson interchange. Typically, VDOT is mainly concerned about the entrance. If a
land use is a high traffic generator, then VDOT would look at the intersections near the
proposed development. Typically, the function of an intersection is more of a concern
than a road segment. According to what was submitted in the application, the p.m. peak
shows 88 vehicles trips per hour entering Old Mountain Road. The directional split is
roughly 50-50, where there are 44 vehicles headed north on Old Mountain and 44
vehicles headed south. Due to this low volume, there was no further analysis beyond
the entrance. When a subdivision plan comes into a county, VDOT part of that review
February 23, 2021
183
process. If the rezoning is approved, the developer will have to get an entrance permit
from both VDOT and the city Public Works Transportation Division, and will have to
submit the necessary information to those agencies. If there are any improvements
needed, based on those permits, then the developer would be responsible for those
improvements in accordance with those agency requirements. Mr. Thompson added, as
we’ve said tonight, the City could be doing something about the interchange between
Old Mountain and Nelms today if they wanted to. The traffic data supports that. They
can work with VDOT, as many people do to seek out state funding, it happens every
two years. It's a process, but it can be done, irrespective of this petition for a rezoning.
In conclusion, while I favor the rezoning of this land to residential to meet the housing
needs of Roanoke County Highlands and the region, we have heard your concerns from
the public. What we have not answered here tonight will one day within the next 10
years, be an even greater challenge for both road size and traffic issues. Additionally
requests this area for industrial development, as well as other land development that
are for sale will occur one day. So let's be realistic about this. Old Mountain Road,
Carlos Drive and Hollins and Sanderson will face more collateral impact challenges one
day.
Supervisor North stated he would encourage staff at Roanoke County and
VDOT, and even the City to work to mitigate these issues on a regional approach. A
road which cannot allow anyone to be pulled over to change a flat tire is dangerous, nor
will it allow speed boards to enforce speed limits or permit a law enforcement officer
from pulling someone over. There's just no place to do that both now and tomorrow.
Growth and industry and residential homes begets improvement and transportation
arteries. Mark these words in the minutes, Ms. Jacks, of tonight's meeting, they will ring
true in the next two years. So he would encourage the conversation between staff, the
region, the City, and to be proactive and not reactive and start tomorrow meaning in the
near future to have discussions. Because one day road improvements will occur, never
mind this subdivision, because things grow and change and that's a good problem to
have in today's world, especially when housing developments are needed to house our
residents and keep them here in the beautiful Roanoke Valley.
Supervisor Mahoney stated he has no questions, his problem is that we
on the board have discussed many times, and that is the problem of our comprehensive
plan. Sometimes being out of sync with actual uses of development, he has always had
a hard time supporting land use changes that are inconsistent with our comp plan. He
hates taking industrial property off our very meager listing of commercial and industrial
properties. What troubles me though is as he has heard tonight, we're thinking it was
1992 rezoned I-1, and since 1985 has been principal industrial. With all due respect to
our citizens, and he has read all the comments over the weekend, he thinks they'd be
screaming a whole lot louder if there was an industrial use on this property, that's
surrounded on three or four sides with residential development. What Mr. Thompson
has indicated is Mr. Fralin has done what he should do. He's laid out what is the
potential maximum development. He is not a builder, he is not a developer, but there's
February 23, 2021
184
no way in heck you're going to get 124 units there. He understands the concerns about
storm water. He respectfully suggests that having a responsible developer put in the
development, if you look at the Department of Environmental Quality regulations and
statutes, you'd look at Roanoke County's regulations and ordinances. I think there'll be a
substantial improvement, the storm water and E and S issues. Mr. Mahoney indicated
he would support this application. He thinks it would be a benefit in the long run. What
opened my eyes also was Supervisor North last month sent to all of us a copy of the
housing study and we see what the housing needs in our community are. He sure
hopes that if Mr. Fralin can put in 124 houses, and each one of them have one or two
children that would help our average daily membership, which we need. So having said
all that Mr. Chairman, he is willing to support this application.
Supervisor Hooker stated she had one quick comment because it's getting
late. But to your point that this has been industrial for many years, since 1985, and there
haven't been any takers, but if something did come along, that it would come in without
this process because it would be by right. So I think you're actually getting more input
now than you may had it gone through as an industrial zoning.
ORDINANCE 022321-10 REZONING APPROXIMATELY 41.85
ACRES FROM I-1 (LOW INTENSITY INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT TO
R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT TO DEVELOP A
124-LOT SINGLE FAMILY HOME SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT
5524 OLD MOUNTAIN ROAD, HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT (TAX MAP NO. 039.01-01-13.00-0000)
WHEREAS, R.P. Fralin, Inc. is requesting to rezone approximately 41.85 acres
from I-1 (Low Intensity Industrial) District to R-1 (Low Density Residential) District to
develop a 124-lot single-family home subdivision located at 5524 Old Mountain Road, in
the Hollins Magisterial District; 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 23, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on February 2, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the petition as
requested; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. The petition of R.P. Fralin, Inc. to rezone approximately 41.85 acres from
I-1 (Low Intensity Industrial) District to R-1 (Low Density Residential)
District, is approved.
February 23, 2021
185
2. The Board finds that the proposed rezoning of the approximately 41.85
acres is not consistent with the Future Land Use Designation of “Principal
Industrial”; however, the property is adjoined by properties that are
residentially zoned, the property is unlikely to be developed for an
industrial use, will result in good zoning practice, and will not result in a
substantial detriment to the community.
3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final
passage. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district
map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this
ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor North to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Radford and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
1. The petition of Zye and Gaven Reinhardt to obtain a special use
permit in an AR, Agricultural/Residential, District for a special
events facility on approximately 31.32 acres, located at 2875
Timberview Road, Catawba Magisterial District (Philip Thompson,
Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson provided a PowerPoint presentation and outlined the
request.
Supervisor Hooker stated she has several questions for staff. She knows
that in the staff notes that there were several comments regarding possible conditions
that might be placed on this petition and on the special use petition. And you mentioned
buffering, screening and buffering. Mr. Thompson responded, yes, staff went back and
looked at Triple J and the things that were raised with that and obviously buffering was
an issue. He thinks the issue here is, and that's why we listed those things that they
may want to consider as part of the conditions. But when you go to the site, it's pretty
well wooded and there are buffers around it. When you look at Triple J it was 11 acres
and it was really the front two and a half acres. This is 31 acres and the house is kind of
in the middle of the site, so a little bit different. Supervisor Hooker stated she also saw
something about hours of operation; that has been an issue also. Did you have a
recommendation? Mr. Thompson responded in the negative stating the issue comes
really with the noise ordinance. There is a 10:00 p.m. that was the issue that we ran into
with Triple J. Events go beyond that 10 o'clock and then having, to call in the police to
get there for noise ordinance where it's located by the time they get there, it's done. So
our point being is if you wanted to, the 10:00 p.m. might be an opportunity to, if you
wanted to coincide that with the noise ordinance and make that a condition versus
making an enforcement mechanism of the police department of our noise ordinance.
February 23, 2021
186
Supervisor Hooker stated she has just one more question before we move on for others
questions, but explain to us just for the record about how an SUP works and how it
travels with the property. So if there was a change in ownership. Mr. Thompson
responded the way it works, it's similar to proffers. If there is a change in ownership, it
would go with the land. So the new buyer could buy it and it would go with them. There
is a caveat that if you stop use or operation of that special use permit for a period of two
years, it then ceases its use. It basically terminates the special use permit after it's been
vacant for two years. The Planning Commission can recommend, staff can recommend,
but the Board can impose conditions on the approval so that it would be subject to those
conditions. So you have that authority, whereas the rezoning, it has to be a proffer that
you receive from the developer. So you have the right to place conditions on that. We
have learned from Triple J what works and what doesn't work with this particular type of
event or facility. When we did Triple J we limited the number of events. He would say, if
you wanted to do that, time of year restriction is better than that, because it's a lot easier
from an enforcement standpoint. There was some discussion about, can you require
them to place a condition that talks about the shuttle services, part of the thing. And we
were advised because that's a lot of that's taken place off site, right? The shuttling
service is really, so if that was the condition or thought process that you want to limit,
the amount of vehicles on the property, to me, the way you get to that is you look at
limiting the amount of parking. Supervisor Hooker stated so there is some parking
designated as they have, as they have drawn it. Mr. Thompson responded if you
wanted to deal with, and you want everyone coming to the site, which could happen,
you can say there's limited amount of parking. Supervisor Hooker commented if it was
a business party, it probably would not be 250. Mr. Thompson responded in the
affirmative stating that is why they kind of put the limit on the 250 is they kind of mashed
it up with trying to limit how many people could actually, be there.
Supervisor Mahoney sated he knows that the issue before the Board
tonight is a land use issue and not a building code issue. We don't have that power.
Building code is statewide building code, but thinks you may have had an opportunity to
see the email exchange that he had with the chief building official. Was there any
discussion at the Planning Commission level with respect to the change in use
requirements under the building code, and specifically with the sprinkling of the facility
and particularly the sprinkling requirements for public safety in that area of the
basketball court that would be turned into the chapel. Was there any discussion at the
Planning Commission? Mr. Thompson responded it was more that they would have to
comply with it, right? As he mentioned, we always have a pre-application meeting. So
we knew that building code would be an issue and so we try to advise any applicant of
all the issues that they ever have to deal with. Our suggestion was that they get an
architect, right? Cause that's usually what the building code is going to require, is get an
architect and sort of have them look through it and bring it to us.
February 23, 2021
187
Obviously they have an architect. Jake Jones, I believe is who they have
on board helping design the chapel space. My understanding is Jake has been in
contact with Morgan about those requirements. So, they have an architect they're aware
of the issue to move forward with.
Mark and Brianna Reinhardt, the petitioners, provided a video and a
PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board
of Supervisors.
Supervisor Hooker stated she has just a couple comments because your
presentation is beautiful and it's very intriguing. She thinks you have accentuated all the
things that are beautiful about the property and all the wonderful things that could
happen. She has concerns, which she will address. Let me ask a couple of precursory
questions first though. One is, regarding the shuttles, she knows at one point I saw
something about two shuttles that you were considering and at one point she saw that
the park-and-ride is where you were looking at, maybe having people come to park
while you picked them up there. She would like to hear about that process, about how
quickly you think the turnaround could be. She was trying to do the math and she was
figuring about 80 minutes for a group of 250 to come all by shuttle. So I'm just trying to
figure out how you plan to make that work. Mr. Reinhart stated starting off, we've talked
to the hotels that are currently a couple of minutes away. They have agreed with us
that, they would offer special rates and permission to pick up guests in their parking lot.
That is one aspect of it, we discussed the parking round, but that was an initial thought
of where we can pick up the guests. But the hotel is mainly, because this isn't just going
to be a wedding for people locally. This is something that other people out of town will
want to come to. So, hotels would be a great place to pick up. If we have the availability
for the park-and-ride, we can have those details written better for the Board, but that
was kind of. Mr. Zye Reinhardt introduced himself and advised he is also going to be
the co-owner of this venue. We talk about 250 being the number that we can reach for
the building. But on average, we saw that 115 guests are usually the average for
weddings. So 250, that would rarely happen. It's only on exorbitant occasions, but 115
being the average, its 25 passengers and five trips give or take. He thinks that time limit
would be some substantially shortened. Supervisor Hooker responded she is also
intrigued by your conversations with the hotels. So, she hears you saying that you
anticipate that most of your people coming would be from out of town, that you don't
expect this to really be a local event.
Ms. Reinhardt stated we plan on it being an upscale venue that the name
is known, so people, when they're looking for venues, maybe several hours away,
they're going to get a hotel. She actually used to work at one of the hotels when she
was younger and we would have wedding parties, you create a block of rooms and it
benefits the people having the wedding and the hotel. So, they are more inclined to give
those preferred rates, which the guests of the wedding, like, because usually they're
cheaper than a normal hotel.
February 23, 2021
188
Mr. Reinhardt stated another thing he wants to touch on, with being 28
years old, a lot of my friends around me are getting married at this time. They're having
to go to locations outside of Roanoke and use other counties facilities, because what
they want is something out with beautiful views, but something that's elegant. We've
looked from what we viewed, there's not a lot of that to offer in Roanoke County
currently and we feel that we can bring these people that are local here to come to us
because we provide such beauty and scenic and really accentuate what Roanoke
County has to offer.
Supervisor Mahoney stated if you heard his question to Mr. Thompson
about the building code requirements, about having to sprinkle the gym or the
racquetball court, he is not a building code person, but knows enough to be dangerous,
sprinkling facilities, particularly retrofitting them is expensive. But have you all calculated
what would be involved in having to sprinkle the facility? Mr. Reinhardt responded they
don't have an exact figure on what it would cost to sprinkle the system. This is
something he is working with Jake Jones on, and we haven't gotten all the information
back on it yet. We're prepared though, to go ahead with this venue. So, if the sprinkler
system needs to be done, we'll do it. As simple as that. Mr. Reinhardt then provided a
lengthy dissertation on the history of this property and his family in Roanoke County.
Supervisor Hooker stated your passion is evident and thinks we're getting
a glimpse of your vision, of what you're hoping to see come with this property. We have
gotten a lot of emails; we've gotten a lot of phone calls. He is sure she has gotten most
of them and most of them have not been very supportive. She thinks it is all coming
around the traffic issue, and knows with the shuttles, that it's perceived that's taking
away that issue. She has hear you say Saturdays, is it Saturdays only? Because I
haven't heard that. That's just when you think most of the venue operations will be
taking place. Mr. Reinhardt responded Saturday is a typical day for weddings.
Supervisor Hooker stated but you're really offering to exclude any other days, you want
all the days to be available. Mr. Reinhardt responded that would be really busy. If we
wanted to switch to some other days other than Saturday, that could be years down the
road if we wanted to do that. But we will have some Friday traffic for just the bride and
the group that comes together to have dinner there, and go through the rehearsal. So
it'll be some but not any more than the amount of bike riders that we have come down
the road or the school buses that we have come down. The important thing about this
road that people are so concerned about the road is that, it's small country road and yet
the school buses have come down to twice in the morning, twice in the evening, the
FedEx trucks have been up and down the road. If you stay on your own side of the
road and drive the speed limits that are on the road in that speed, and the road is not a
problem, I've lived there 40 years, never been off the road. Never have swerved off the
road and it's always been safe for me. That's a point that you look at Lock Haven Road.
The road, right in front of us. I've had patients die on that road and it's straight that you
can build up speed and a deer ran out in front of you or whatever. There's been a lot
more serious wrecks and deaths on Lock Haven Road than we ever even thought about
February 23, 2021
189
having on our road. He has actually talked to someone from VDOT about that, and
they said they thought that it was comparable, but they thought that Lock Haven was
probably a better road.
Supervisor Hooker stated so she has a couple other things that she
wanted to ask about. She understand the wedding venues, but is also hearing about
business parties and things like that. I think it seems appropriate. I would just like to
hear about the vision for what other kinds of things you see happening there. Mr.
Reinhardt stated wedding typically end in October, you have some weddings in
November and some weddings in the colder months. But during those months that are
colder that it is the Christmas season, then it'd probably be good for my two boys to
start looking at drawing businesses. We already had Roanoke College ask our wedding
planner that we had, that my daughter had there, he wasn't there that weekend, but the
video showed us all and Roanoke College wanted to have an event there. With this
pandemic situation going on right now, I'm a real stickler for not wanting to get this thing
going until the vaccines are out and everybody is in good shape to show up to
weddings. It's going to take a while to do the construction. He does not know how much
he is going to do the construction myself in the gym, and how much he won't, but right
now construction costs are up, the two by fours and materials like that are three times
right now than what they normally are. So, this time that we've got until this virus takes a
hold of everybody, gives us time to start working on doing different things with the gym
and getting that ready. He don't know if that answered any of the questions. Supervisor
Hooker stated what about business parties with Mr. Reinhardt responding that the
wedding planner that hosted this October wedding, she was contacted by upwards of
five, six, seven people, different businesses that wanted to have their business parties
there and like my father mentioned, that would be a good income for us in the off
season, especially in the off season, that's going to be limiting traffic on the road too. He
driven on that road for 12 plus years, you can imagine, me, a young guy, you'd think I'd
be driving fast, but I always take my time.
Supervisor Hooker stated you mentioned parking, and knows that there's
parking allotted for the caterers and for the wedding party. But you want all the guests to
come by shuttle. Am I understanding that correctly? Mr. Reinhardt responded the
majority but not the wedding party itself and not the caterers. We do have a substantial
part of that land that's flat. If we want to get 200, the average is 115, guests to come up,
we could provide that for them. But we decided that it's a better idea to not have those
many cars on the road for our neighbors who we deeply care about. So we want to limit
it to shuttling. Supervisor Hooker stated she would back and make some commentary
summarizing what people have talked to me about.
Supervisor Radford indicated he is a mountain biker and I go out
Timberview. When I drop back I about wreck and drive off the road looking at your
beautiful house. The shuttle to him is a game changer, didn't know that until tonight.
Maybe it was in the documents, but to me, it didn't occur to me. But to me, that's going
to help alleviate a lot of the problems. Even if you have business meetings in the winter
February 23, 2021
190
months, thinks if you still do the shuttle that would go a long way. Supervisor Radford
asked if they would invest in the actual vehicles with Mr. Reinhardt responding in the
affirmative.
Supervisor North states just one question about the transportation. he
noticed that the road's 16 feet and has been that way for years, if it was being built
today, it'd probably be 20 feet because that's the new standard for the amount of traffic
that's on there currently. A road from Lock Haven over there, have you thought about
that with Mr. Reinhardt stated he has a patient that approved of this situation who, I
guess, he's about 80 years old, something like that. There's a nice path from the back of
my property right through his property. He does not want to say, well, when are you
getting ready to move out of your house. But as tactfully how to put that. But that would
make a good path, the best pass across there. There's a piece of land for sale on the far
right hand corner of my property that has got a creek going across it and a swamp on
the other side of the creek, real low land kind of situation. You'd have to go up that big
hill I've got in the back and then go down that big hill; it just wouldn't be practical. But if I
can talk C.P. Lockhart into selling his house when he wants to move.
Supervisor Hooker stated we have not opened it up for public comment
yet, but I'm wondering if she should go ahead and just kind of list a summary of what
she has heard. So, what I'd like to do is just mention some things that is basically a
summary of the emails and phone calls that she thinks most of us have gotten and she
has probably gotten the majority. But this is some of the concern. She knows that the
shuttles are a good alternative. There's still a lot of resistance from what I'm hearing. So
I just want to put it out there. Mr. Reinhardt stated with regard to .shuttles, they have no
problem with enforcing that. We feel that what we have to offer, that will not hinder us in
any way of being a successful business by forcing shuttles on people. Supervisor
Hooker stated she just wants to summarize some of this. This has been repeated by
most, some version of this, probably from every call or email that most of us got. So just
some recap on Timberview issues. Because we know it's a beautiful road actually, but
it's not meant for high traffic and s these are some of the areas that they are focusing
on: (1) Undersized culvert pipes and crumbling pavement, road width is 14 to 16 feet,
apparently one lady actually went out and measured it. (2) They say it's difficult to fit a
bus on one side of the road. And so they were saying that just on some of the curves
that are somewhat blind, that it's hard to keep the traffic on their side of the road and
they felt like a bus was going to have a hard time. A shuttle would have a hard time
doing that. Mr. Reinhardt stated if the bus school bus has gone down the road for so
many years, which we are, what, maybe half the size, or maybe even a quarter of the
size of a school bus, that logic stands for itself. Supervisor Hookers continued with (3)
blind hills, curves, no adequate shoulders, no pull off, large vehicles have difficulty
navigating the road and passing other vehicles, especially with bikes that are going
back and forth and people who are hiking. She knows that between the Hinchee Trail
and Carvins Cove, that's been a real issue, just with increased hikers and bikers and
people on the road, not in vehicles, motorized. (4) Timberview is one way in and out, it's
February 23, 2021
191
a dead end road. (5) On the other end, with Allstate and with The Retreat, that it's
increased traffic on that end. So there's been some difficulty with that busyness on that
end and then get to Hinchee and people crossing the road. Mr. Reinhardt stated that is
where they are doing the roundabout. He knows people who disapprove, people will
disapprove about this roundabout, but it's going to be a whole lot safer. Because you
pull on there, you take a right, and you go down around the roundabout and you come
right back up without having to pull across traffic that you can't see what's coming up on
the other side. Supervisor Hooker continued (6) it is surface treated, it's not a real
asphalt road, and it’s just a slurry. Mr. Reinhardt commented the State has come in and
paved. Supervisor Hooker stated it was even mentioned that it's a priority for rural
bikeway, and I know that's accurate. She just doesn’t have any confidence on how quick
the improvements will really be happening. So that's a quick summary of what she has
been hearing and it's almost exclusively about the road.
Supervisor North commented with regard to the shuttles, he thinks it's a
great idea. That's what they were using up in Lexington at some wedding, He went up
there last year, and it was canceled. So they're going to redo it again this June. Boy,
that was an experience, driving there in my car, just beautiful view, but getting there was
concerning. So the shuttles are appreciated. What are you going to do, where are the
cars parked? Let's say he was going to a wedding there, and I'm not staying at a hotel,
so therefore I don't need a shuttle. Are you offering folks to go to the hotel and park and
then take the shuttle? Or you have spaces for them to park up at your home? Mr.
Reinhardt stated his daughter picked up people with that bus at the park and ride. Right
where you hit the interstate right there. I'd like to talk to Supervisor Hooker about me
building a parking lot for the hikers, bikers and so on. Because right now, at the
beginning of the road where they had that little spot of parking, there's only about six or
eight people. But the Hinchees, who used to be patients of mine, donated all the land,
and you've got a, going down Dutch Oven, you've got a big barn right there. Right past
that barn would be a beautiful spot to have parking for hikers, bikers, venues. It would
be neat if these people that make trails for the bikes could make a trail that goes up the
side of the hill right there and join right up with the Hinchee Trail. So, he would be
pleased to bush hog it with my tractor, to put the gravel on it, and make it whatever size
we need to make it. So not only would it accommodate the bikers and hikers, but
accommodate our bus too. Supervisor Hooker stated she has had a conversation with
another citizen from that area who wants to have that same kind of discussion.
Chairman Peters recessed the meeting from 10:27 p.m. until 10:37 p.m. to
allow for comment.
Chairman Peters open and closed the public hearing with the following
speakers commenting on this agenda item.
Cathy Ashby of 2870 Timberview Road, Roanoke stated, “I live right
across from Mark and he's married to my sister, Susan. Felt pretty good coming here
February 23, 2021
192
tonight, but then he mentioned about those people in their golden years, and I am a
retired teacher of 35 years, so I do fit into that pattern. A couple of things I do want to
talk about. I know that I had spoken before, and I heard someone say, well, what do you
expect her to say, she's related? Well, anyone that knows Mark knows that Mark has a
mind of his own. And anyone that knows me knows I have a mind of my own. And I
would not speak in favor of it if I were not for it. My sister, one of my other sisters,
bought property and lives actually at the edge of Mark's property. And my son lives
behind me, and he's been there 15 years. And I say that because quite a bit of our
family lives on Timberview. I was so glad when Gavin got to buy John Hubbard's house.
John Hubbard lived there, I don't know, maybe 25 years, 30 years. And now Gavin lives
there. And it shows that our family loves Timberview Road. We love Roanoke. We love
living in Roanoke. Roanoke has a lot to offer. And we want Timberview to stay the
same. We don't mind stopping for the people walking their dogs on Timberview. We
don't mind stopping for the bikers that come in and out. I know there's Roanoke College
students who do their running on our road. We don't mind that. We don't mind the
neighbors who walk in the middle of the road. We know who they are. We know they
walk in the middle of the road. And we are like, well, we know the speed limit and we're
going to stop for all of those people. The Hinchee walkers, the bikers, the Sherwood
Archers, I am so glad we have these things to offer for other people, not just in the
Roanoke Valley, but people that come from all over. And the venue to me is going to be
one more thing that the Valley has to offer. I come from a family of 11 brothers and
sisters, and we all have children. And I've had to have several nieces that have gone to
Greensboro because they wanted a big house outdoors that was beautiful venue, and
they could not find it in this area. And Mark's house fits that bill. He's always kept it up
and Mark's house fits that bill. He's always kept it up. The landscaping is absolutely
phenomenal. It's always gorgeous, well kept. It would be an absolutely beautiful venue
for a wedding. And another reason why I'm here is because I live right across the street,
and Mark and Susan told me a couple of days before that wedding that his daughter
was involved in, that they were going to have the wedding. So the evening of the
wedding, my husband and I, we were in the house and I knew the wedding had started.
I didn't hear anything, so we turned the TV off. Still didn't hear anything. We went out
onto the driveway and then we heard some voices. We couldn't make out what was
being said, but we knew they were using a microphone. So we could hear some, but
that was in the front of the house. But I can honestly say, those people that are
concerned about the noise, the reception was in the back of the house. I heard nothing.
We heard none of the music, and I don't know why. I don't know if it's because the
house is so big and the property is far back off the road. Mine's a little bit back off the
road. We heard none of the music, we heard none of the noise. So I don't really know. I
personally don't feel like the noise is going to be an issue. They've got their shuttles
worked out. I just don't see that there's going to be anything that's going to change
Timberview from what the beautiful area that it is now, and the house isn't going to
change. The outside's not going to change. It's not going to change the wildlife. It's not
February 23, 2021
193
going to change the neighbors. I'm sorry, my mouth is very dry. Anyway, we're for it. My
husband and I are for it. We think it would be wonderful. And those of us that are getting
older, I personally have three young grandchildren. I want to see them enjoy things like
that. My most precious memory is seeing my sister go up that driveway and get married.
I would love to see other young people that want to get married have that memory
ingrained in their brain, like I do with my sister. I thank you for listening to me and if you
have any questions, let me know.
Sandra Hunter of 1564 Rosewalk Avenue stated, “My family has owned
22 acres on Timberview for four generations. So I am representing those who came
before me and worked hard to keep the land and pay the taxes. But I'm also
representing those who will come after me, in my family and in my community. I too
have lived in Roanoke County most all of my life and have a deep connection with the
area of the county. I grew up here. And although I may be an old-timer, and we've been
talking about old timers tonight, in the eyes of some, I am forward-thinking and I'm wise
enough to know and understand the balance that you, the Board of Supervisors, must
consider tonight. Please look carefully at the needs of the neighborhood and the
community as you make your decision. I am here to express my strong opposition to the
proposed special use request for the rezoning of 2875 Timberview Road for a special
use venue. And apparently, I must be the only one because it seems like that everyone
else has backed away. But I still, I guess, have this opportunity to share. The area is
rightly zoned residential agriculture, and should remain that designation. And I believe
that zoning changes should be the exception, not the rule. Driving north on 581 and
then 419, Green Ridge and Brushy Mountain, meet the sky and make it one of the most
scenic areas anywhere. As you turn into Timberview, you immediately know why
families have lived there for many decades and why others come day after day to enjoy
the surroundings by hiking, birding, watching wildlife, bicycling, or just sucking it all in. It
is a beautiful, open green space that buffers the county. Timberview will always bring
others to its community. I do not have this written, but in the last... It's been maybe two
and a half years ago. I received a phone call out of the blue, from a young woman, a
young mother, who grew up on Timberview. And she wanted to know if I would like to
sell the family property, and we talked several times. She had lived there, loved it and
wanted her children to experience what she had experienced during her time there.
People like being there and she certainly wanted to go back. We were not wanting to
sell the land. Couples certainly deserve to have a beautiful wedding day. Some want
their day to be in a rural environment and wedding venues are popping up everywhere,
all across the country. Many farmers have supplemented their incomes by using their
land and barns for wedding venues. And I'm not inferring that the residence is a barn on
venue, but this is something that's going on everywhere. But the proposed venue, it's
not out in the middle of nowhere like farmland or barns might be. It's not in the middle of
a farm. It's in the middle of Timberview Road. Up to 750 people at a time could be
coming and going. That is what, at the planning meeting, was shared. So accordingly,
tonight that has changed. This activity will infringe on the lives of the residents and the
February 23, 2021
194
environmental integrity of the area. People are people. If they are at a wedding or
retirement party, they will do what people do. No matter what the guidelines or rules on
the wall are, or in the contract state, they do pretty much what they want to do.
Celebrations are for celebrating. And if a family pays and have $4,000 to $5,000 for
renting the venue, then they will get their money's worth and it will be at the expense of
the residents in the community. So what will that expense be? Increased traffic, heavy
traffic. Again, tonight we've had discussion concerning that. I'm not sure how subjective
all this is, but there would be an increase in traffic, increased safety issues, increased
risk of destroying parts of the natural environment. Decreased property values,
increased loss of privacy, increased noise, lights, and constant disruptions and
increased feelings of a genuine loss of freedom. A major purpose of this Board is to
plan for the future development of Roanoke County and the preservation of agriculture
and forested lands. I urge you to disapprove of the application for the special use venue
at 2875 Timberview Road, Roanoke, Virginia. And I thank you for your continued
support and service to the County.
The following written comments were submitted
The first is from Garnette Stewart of 1975 Virginia Deer Road in Roanoke.
I have empathy for any neighbor regarding their desire to improve their property and I
dislike having to disagree with their need to use Timberview Road to do so. However,
after much thought and discussion with my daughter, Rebecca Ross Tan, who is an
adjacent land owner at 6672 Mallard Lake Court, we are not in favor of the special use
permit for the special events facility at 2875 Timberview road. I have lived at my
address since 1974 and we purchased the property because it was
agricultural/residential and private. This is where I wanted to raise my family. The road
is narrow, curvy, and quaint, just the way we like it. It in no way could support the usage
that a facility such as this would require. There is no outlet at this time to divert traffic. I
supported the Hinchey trail that crosses over Timberview because parking could be
supported at the monument. Hinchey Park walkers have two crossovers that they must
safely cross in order to access the trail. And they have to park parallel to Timberview
between the two crossovers. I often see walkers, runners and bicyclists along
Timberview. There's also quite a lot of auto traffic carrying bicycles back and forth to the
end of Timberview Road, past the Reinhardt property to ride all the trails that can be
accessed from there. This has been popular for years and is becoming even more so. I
believe this added traffic on Timberview would be hazardous and change its need to be
safely walked and by cycles it is needed.”
The second one is from Marsha Beard at 2451 Timberview Road. “I own a
home in 58 acres of land with approximately three quarters of a mile of road frontage on
Timberview Road. I've invested a significant amount of money to live where I do for
several reasons, including privacy, safety and peace and quiet. The road began as a
dirt trail, and aside from some undersized culvert pipes and crumbling paving has seen
little in the way of upgrades from the time his grandparents were the last house on the
road in the like late 1950s at 2186. This, despite the major increase in tax base, here
February 23, 2021
195
the construction of a significant amount of expensive homes. The road, which we own
and pay taxes on isn't sufficient to serve the residents of Timberview Road, much less
the traffic, the County has added with bikers and hikers now flying up and down it with
little regard for the speed limit that sees zero enforcement. The last thing we need is
rural zone land and a single family residence being turned into an event venue causing
more traffic, not only from cars, but buses and event delivery trucks that don't fit on a
lane and a half rural road. The residents know how to safely navigate the twists and
turns and pass safely. Strangers, especially in bigger vehicles do not. Roanoke College
discovered this the hard way when they send a small bus to pick up runners and caused
an accident. Is it going to take killing another person on this road to finally wake the
County into realizing infrastructure must proceed development to promote safety for the
tax paying residents who own the land on which the road resigns? We already can't get
out of Dutch Oven Road due to traffic from 311, combined with Allstate and the
apartments that were permitted off Cove Road without any infrastructure improvements.
The trail has brought that congestion to our front doors. And now this proposal will
further destroy the small amount of safety and privacy we paid for and are losing more
of every day. There are no services on the road, such as sewer, gas, internet, and fire
hydrants. It would appear by code hydrants would be required at a minimum to ensure
the safety of guests, as well as the adjoining land owners in the wooded rural setting.
Alcohol would seem to present another safety issue. Most events feature some form of
drinking, and you must assume this will be a factor in driving as well as fire hazards. I
happened to have a firsthand experience with Mark Reinhardt and a wedding party from
his home. A tree fell across Timberview Road, and he drove his large pickup truck down
the road with numerous people in the back. They appeared to be intoxicated as they
were very loud and in full party mode. Mark proceeded to turn off Timberview Road and
drive through the front yard of my house at 2186 Timberview Road. His window was
down and I was screaming at him to stop, as he was driving over the 60 year old septic
system, composed of Orangeburg piping with that heavy load. He couldn't hear me for
the noise in the back and his own involvement in the ongoing party. I'm trying to be kind
and assuming alcohol was involved, as I wouldn't want to think of someone as that
simple without outside influence. When I finally got through to him and could explain
what he had just done, his response was, well, it wasn't marked. I asked him if this was
how he would drive through your yard and see what you have to say. He drove off
saying nothing. If this is how he conducts himself on his own... at his own function or
respects the people on the road and their property, I can't see him controlling others any
better. For all the above reasons, you must deny this application.
The Chairman asked the Clerk if the written comments had all been
distributed to the Board with the Clerk responding in the affirmative. Chairman Peters
then asked the Clerk to only read the ones they did not have a copy of.
Bobby and Courtney Harless, wrote, “We reside at 2388 Timberview
Road. We have known Mark and Susan Reinhardt for decades and are aware of their
desire to turn their home into a wedding venue. We have been to their home multiple
February 23, 2021
196
times over the years and know that it would be a perfect location for a wedding venue.
The 30 plus acres that their property sits on have always been well-maintained and add
to the beauty of our road. Speaking of Timberview Road is a beautiful road that bikers,
hikers and residents get to enjoy. As residents, we have never had any issues on the
road. Whenever we need to pass the school bus on the road, we're able to do so. We
approve of this new chapter for the Reinhardts and look forward to seeing this venue
positively impact Roanoke and the surrounding areas.”
Mrs. Whittaker provided the following telephone comment from John and
Tracy Costgrove of 2620 Timberview Road. “They expressed concern about the bike
traffic becoming more immense on the road with the opening of more trails. It will add
more people onto the road. People ride their bikes during the evening hours when the
Reinhardts are proposing that people will be leaving the venue. They wanted to mention
too, that there were two school bus accidents, a couple of weeks ago and six months
prior on this road. That should be a big concern for people. There are a lot of safety
issues. There are a lot of liability issues as well, shuttling people from the home, back to
the park and ride. And if they've been drinking, they will be leaving, getting on the road
and then drinking.”
Supervisor Hooker stated you have made a really beautiful proposal. The
home is exquisite. It's a very unique property. I think it has a lot of potential and she
really wants to endorse it except for this road. I think it will be difficult to regulate
shuttles, although she thinks many would take the shuttle. There would be some who
don't get there in time or who don't want to take the shuttle. There would still be some
traffic that would have to be mitigated. There's a lot of ongoing traffic just because of the
hikers and the bikers, and things that are continuing to increase the outdoor enthusiasts
who are coming through that property. She is also concerned about the proposed use
of Timberview Road to access the property, and I hesitate to support approval unless
the concept plan is amended to provide for a different principal method of ingress and
egress. So she would like to ask a direct question to Dr. Reinhardt, maybe you would be
the one that she would address this to, but would you be willing to consider amending
your concept plan to provide for a principal method of ingress and egress that does not
utilize Timberview Road? Would you be willing to consider that? Dr. Reinhardt
responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Hooker then moved to postpone this matter to
allow the applicant time to explore alternative methods of ingress and egress. She really
believes that this could make it the perfect place and the perfect event place. If we can
avoid some of the controversy that's going on with using Timberview Road, because
that is almost exclusively what our phone calls and our emails have had concerns
about. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Radford and carried by the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Supervisor Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford Peters
NAYS: None
February 23, 2021
197
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Mahoney commented he had one said item, a friend of his,
Terry Harrington passed away last week. Terry, if some of you may recall, or maybe
not, used to be planning and zoning director of Roanoke County, late eighties, early
nineties .He unfortunately passed away this past week. There was a note from one of
his friends and then wife texted me, just sad. A lot of friends are passing away this past
12 months.
Supervisor Hooker stated she just has a couple of quick comments at this
late time. Also she shares those condolences to Terry's family and spent years with him
as the planning director and offer our sorrow for his family. With the proposed new
development from Mr. Fralin, she is looking forward to hearing more about school
attendance, between that and our increase in the County population. Next, we need to
be looking at a plan to mitigate current safety concerns for Timberview Road concerning
the hikers, the bikers and the traffic occurring there because of Hinchey Trail and
Carven’s Cove. So at some point, whether it be a work session or something else, and
this may be a summertime conversation, but we need to look at some of those safety
opportunities. Ms. Hooker then publicly thanked Peter Lubeck for being patient with us
this week. She thinks we put him through the ringer on a couple of issues. So thank
you, Peter.
Supervisor North commented Mr. Lubeck enjoys it, he's very responsible.
He really wishes we could give him more to do in an even shorter period of time
because he can meet the challenge and be responsive., In all seriousness, Peter, we
thank you. You have the patience of Job in dealing with us and without you, he is not
sure where we've been this week.
Mr. Lubeck thanked the Board.
Supervisor North added although you have a great staff as well, so you've
trained them well, and that's a testimony to your leadership and example. Just real
quick, cause he loves talking about what's going on in Richmond, Senator Stanley's bill,
Senate Bill 1109 provides for a Statewide referendum on the question of whether the
general assembly shall issue State general obligation bonds in the amount of $3 billion
for the purpose of K through 12 building construction repair of other capital projects and
modernizing schools. This is the third year. This time the bill came out of the House.
The bill was referred to the Proust appropriations committee by the house privileges and
elections committee, 21 to one on February 10th. Of course it was also approved by the
Senate by a wide majority. It is now of course, in house appropriations committee. Since
it's been laying there since February 10th, He does not what that means. It could be that
it won't pass, but if it does, the referendum would go on the ballot in November of 2022,
which could provide funding for many schools in the State of Virginia and who knows,
maybe Roanoke County might reap some of that funding if it passes. There was another
bill that didn't pass that was a Senator Norman, House minority leaders bill, Senate bill
1170. Why it didn't pass when eight bills like it passed last year, he will never
February 23, 2021
198
understand, but I think it's a play on the political partisan. The other party across the
aisle will come back next year with its own proposal to allow for a sales tax referendum
or sales tax restructuring. He would submit that because we only get 1% of the 5.3% in
Roanoke County and in other localities, the State may be trying to increased tax for their
coffers to help give money to the schools in some other fashion, he is just not quite
sure. But we will not be able to use this option next year if we wanted to, because this
bill's fate demonstrates that ours would probably fall on the same fate as well. So we
have to wait and see what the General Assembly is going to come up with and that's all
he has on school construction.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Peters adjourned the meeting at 11:08 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
________________________ ___________________________________
Deborah C. Jacks P. Jason Peters
Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board Chairman