10/26/2004 - Regular
October 26, 2004
835
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
October 26, 2004
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day atthe
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of October, 2004.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Flora called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. The roll call was
taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairman Richard C. Flora, Vice-Chairman Michael W.
Altizer, Supervisors Joseph B. “Butch” Church, Joseph
McNamara, Michael A. Wray
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County
Administrator; Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County
Administrator; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board; Teresa
Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by Reverend David Walton, Belmont Christian
Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
October 26, 2004
836
Chairman Flora advised that Ms. Linda Blair called to advise that she
would be unable to attend the meeting; therefore, Item C-1 is being moved to the
consent agenda, Item J-9.
Chairman Flora advised that item E-1 was being moved to the evening
session, Item R.1-1.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Linda D. Blair,
Services Department, following thirty years of service
Social
Chairman Flora advised that this item has been moved to the consent
agenda, Item J-9,
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Request to authorize the execution of a performance agreement
between the County of Roanoke, Kahn Development Company,
and the Industrial Development Authority for public infrastructure
improvements to Keagy Road, pursuant to Roanoke County’s
Public Private Partnership Policy. (Elmer C. Hodge, County
Administrator)
Chairman Flora advised that this item has been moved to the evening
session, Item R.1-1.
October 26, 2004
837
2. Request to appropriate funds in the amount of $29,700 to
participate with Roanoke City in a library study. (Diane D. Hyatt,
Chief Financial Officer)
A-102604-1
Ms. Hyatt advised that the City of Roanoke has hired the firm of Hidell
Associates Architects to conduct a study of the City library system. In its present form,
this study will result in recommendations for the City library alone. They have offered
the opportunity for the County to join the study as an amendment to the contract to also
study the County library facilities, and County staff feels that it is advantageous to
participate in the study. The study will examine the County’s physical facilities,
programs, and demographics. It will result in recommendations for each library alone,
as well as on a more regional concept. The cost for the County to participate in the
contract is $29,700.
Supervisor Wray questioned how the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
will be affected if libraries are regionalized. Ms. Hyatt stated that at this point, a regional
library system is not being recommended. If that should occur, the County would need
to maintain all six of their current facilities. Mr. Hodge stated that if the County enters
into a cooperative agreement with the City, a source of revenue will need to be
identified to fund both the City and County libraries. He noted that this regional
approach would be slightly different than the formation of the Western Virginia Water
Authority (WVWA), where there was an established revenue stream from the sale of
October 26, 2004
838
water and it was a self-contained operation. Libraries are a general fund operation
which are funded by the City and County. An annual appropriation would be required
for the operating expenses as well as any capital funding.
In response to an inquiry from Supervisor McNamara, Diana Rosapepe,
Library Director, advised that Roanoke City issued the contract for the study as a
competitive bid and the County is now joining in the study.
Supervisor Church questioned how long the study will last. Ms. Rosapepe
stated that the study was originally scheduled for completion by February 2005;
however, the City has agreed to extend the study through April 2005 to allow for the
inclusion of the County in the study. In response to a further inquiry from Supervisor
Church, Ms. Rosapepe advised that the County’s cost to participate in the study may be
a bargain because we will be getting many of the same benefits as the City for a
considerably lower investment. She noted that during the City’s study, they frequently
discovered that many of the citizens interviewed were utilizing County facilities and
trying to exclude the County from the study was proving difficult.
Supervisor Altizer requested a synopsis of what a physical assessment of
the facilities would include. Ms. Rosapepe reported that the architects would conduct
site visits to the facilities, review diagrams and site plans, study traffic patterns and
access lanes, evaluate how the facilities are laid out, what services are offered
compared to services offered by other libraries, how effectively the building is meeting
its needs, and a projection of what may need to be done to the building to make it more
October 26, 2004
839
functional for the future. In response to a further inquiry from Supervisor Altizer, Ms.
Rosapepe stated that the study will make a projection based on the size of the County’s
buildings now compared to what will be needed to continue serving our population size.
She advised that it will also examine areas of growth and demographics within the
County.
Supervisor Flora noted that there has been a fair amount of discussion
regarding combining services, but at this point it is only discussion.He stated that he is
hopeful that the study will provide enough information to determine if there is a mutual
benefit to combining services.
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the staff recommendation
(appropriate $29,700 from the Board Contingency Fund to amend the City of Roanoke
contract with Hidell Associates Architects to include the County libraries). The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
Supervisor Flora moved to approve the first readings and set the second
readings and public hearings for November 16, 2004. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
October 26, 2004
840
NAYS: None
1. First reading of an ordinance to rezone 4.83 acres from I1C,
Industrial District with conditions, to R1, Low Density Residential
District, in order to develop a public park and recreational area
located in the 5600 block of Hollins Road, Hollins Magisterial
District, upon the petition of the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors.
reading of an ordinance to rezone 9.78 acres from R1, Low
2. First
Density Residential District, to I1, Industrial District, in order to
develop a warehousing and distribution area located at 7704 –
7706 Friendship Lane, Hollins Magisterial District, upon the
petition of New Century Development Co., LLC.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
R-102604-2, R-102604-2.h
Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the consent resolution with the addition
of Item J-9. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION102604-2 APPROVING AND CONCURRING
IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED
AS ITEM J - CONSENT AGENDA
October 26, 2004
841
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for October
26, 2004, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 8, inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes – October 2, October 4, and October 12, 2004
2. Request from schools to appropriate a grant in the amount of $25,030 from
the Region 6 educational technology grant
3. Request from Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate a grant
in the amount of $35,297 from the Virginia Department of Health for the
purchase of an ambulance
4. Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate a grant in the
amount of $10,000 from the Department of Motor Vehicles for use in
conducting checkpoints and roving patrols
5. Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate two grants in
the amount of $1,500 each from the Department of Motor Vehicles for the
purchase of field Alcosensors
6. Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate a grant in the
amount of $8,500 from the Department of Motor Vehicles to fund equipment
and training for the Blue Ridge Transportation Safety Board regional crash
team
7. Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate a grant in the
amount of $3,000 from the Department of Motor Vehicles to conduct strike
force DUI checkpoints
8. Request from the School Board to approve the sale of surplus property at
4808 Pleasant Hill Drive and retention of the proceeds
9. Request to approve resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Linda D.
Blair, Social Services Department, following thirty years of service
2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required
by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item
pursuant to this resolution.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION102604-2.h EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY UPON THE
RETIREMENT OF LINDA D. BLAIR, SOCIAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT, AFTER THIRTY YEARS OF SERVICE
October 26, 2004
842
WHEREAS, Linda D. Blair was first employed by Roanoke County on August 15,
1974, as a Social Worker Aide in the Social Services Department; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Blair also worked as a Clerk and Eligibility Worker and retired
from Roanoke County as Senior Eligibility Worker on September 1, 2004, after thirty
years of service; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Blair’s area of expertise was Medicaid and she worked
collaboratively with citizens, nursing homes, hospitals, and assisted living homes to
ensure eligibility for this medical program; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Blair, through her employment with Roanoke County, has been
instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of
the citizens of Roanoke County to LINDA D. BLAIR for thirty 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 Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS
1. Request to schedule a work session on November 16, 2004 for the
secondary road system six-year construction plan for fiscal years
2005-2011 and consideration of projects for fiscal year 2005-2006
in the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) revenue
sharing program. (Arnold Covey, Director of Community
Development)
It was the consensus of the Board to schedule the work session on
November 16, 2004.
October 26, 2004
843
2. Request to schedule a work session on November 16, 2004 to
review the drainage maintenance program. (Arnold Covey,
Director of Community Development)
It was the consensus of the Board to schedule the work session on
November 16, 2004.
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Altizer moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance
3. Board Contingency Fund
4. Future Capital Projects
5. Accounts Paid – September 2004
6. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for
the month ended September 30, 2004
7. Report of claims activity for the self-insurance program for the
period ended September 30, 2004
8. Proclamations signed by the Chairman
October 26, 2004
844
9. Statement of the Treasurer’s accountability per investment and
portfolio policy as of September 30, 2004
IN RE: WORK SESSION
1. Work session to discuss preliminary unaudited year-end financial
information for fiscal year 2003-2004. (Rebecca Owens, Director
of Finance; Brent Robertson, Budget Director)
The work session was held from 3:34 p.m. until 3:57 pm. Staff present
included: Diane Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer; Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance;
Brent Robertson, Budget Director; Laurie Gearhart, Assistant Director of Finance.
Mr. Robertson reported that there was an excess of revenues above initial
budget projections of $3.9 million. Of this amount, $527,115 was fire and rescue fees.
The surplus net of adjustments was $957,114 and he noted that an anticipated surplus
of $2.5 million was factored into the current budget year projections. He reported that
real estate revenues showed significant increase, and 30% of this increase was
reflected in new construction. The remaining 70% of revenues were the result of
reassessments. He also cited double digit growth in the sales tax revenues.
Ms. Hyatt reported that general fund operating revenues in excess of
budget were $3.9 million and excess fire and rescue fees totaled $527,115. Of this
amount, $400,000 will be used for pagers. The remaining $127,115 will be put toward
radios. This leaves a balance remaining of $3.4 million. She advised that staff is trying
to build up the unappropriated fund balance to 8% of the general fund, and $2,050,000
October 26, 2004
845
will be put in the general fund unappropriated balance, which will bring the total to $11.5
million. She stated that this is critical due to the pending discussions with the Senate on
the payment of personal property tax revenues. She noted that this still leaves $1.4
million to put into major capital items in the CIP.
Ms. Owens reported that during the 2003-2004 fiscal year, departments
had expenditure savings of $1.2 million. Of this amount, $406,751 is proposed as
departmental rollovers. The Board was provided with a listing of departmental rollover
requests.
There was general discussion regarding the need to purchase land to be
used for projected growth and future CIP projects.
Mr. Hodge advised that the audit and rollover appropriation requests will
be presented at the November 16 meeting.
session with Legislative Liaison to consider initiatives for
2. Work
the 2005 session of the Virginia General Assembly. (Paul M.
Mahoney, County Attorney; Pete Giesen, Special Assistant for
Legislative Relations)
The work session was held from 3:57 p.m. until 4:32 pm. Staff present
included: Paul Mahoney, County Attorney; Pete Giesen, Special Assistant for
Legislative Relations.
October 26, 2004
846
There was a consensus of the Board to include the following items in the
resolution adopting the legislative initiatives for the 2005 session of the Virginia General
Assembly:
Amending State Code to allow Franklin and Montgomery counties to participate in a
regional jail facility with Roanoke County and the City of Salem.
Supporting legislation allowing any chartered county to assess transportation impact
fees on new development
Requesting the additional power to levy and collect taxes on tobacco products
Amending §9.1-106 of the State Code to allow Roanoke County to charge a
processing fee in criminal or traffic proceedings to support a criminal justice training
academy
Opposing a state surcharge on tipping fees for the disposal of solid waste
Requesting the General Assembly to correct the 2004 amendments to the Personal
Property Tax Relief Act/SB5005, which in its implementation will cost Roanoke
County taxpayers $10 million
Requesting General Assembly funding for implementation of the Program
Improvement Plan for the Department of Social Services
Rail access funding
There was a consensus of the Board to schedule a dinner during
Legislative Day in Richmond on February 3, 2005. It was recommended that the
participants include the NewVA region.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of William R.
Hammond, Jr., Social Services Department, following twenty-
eight years of service
R-102604-3
Chairman Flora presented the resolution to Mr. Hammond.
October 26, 2004
847
Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION102604-3 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY UPON THE
RETIREMENT OF WILLIAM R. HAMMOND, JR., SOCIAL SERVICES
DEPARTMENT, FOLLOWING TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, William Hammond, Jr. was first employed by Roanoke County on
August 16, 1976, as a Social Worker in the Social Services Department; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hammond retired from Roanoke County as a Senior Social
Worker on September 1, 2004, after twenty-eight years and one month of service; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hammond served on the Advisory Council for the League of
Older Americans for two terms as a representative of the Roanoke County Social
Service Department, and also served on the Roanoke County Commission for Senior
and Challenged Citizens; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hammond, who worked with foster care children and provided
services for elderly and disabled adults, demonstrated great compassion, caring and the
willingness to always provide assistance to citizens in need; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hammond, through his employment with Roanoke County, has
been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of
the citizens of Roanoke County toWILLIAM R. HAMMOND, JR. for more than twenty-
eight 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 Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Request to authorize the execution of a performance agreement
between the County of Roanoke, Kahn Development Company,
October 26, 2004
848
and the Industrial Development Authority for public infrastructure
improvements to Keagy Road, pursuant to Roanoke County’s
Public Private Partnership Policy. (Elmer C. Hodge, County
Administrator)
A-102604-4
Mr. Hodge advised that this is a request by Kahn Development to obtain
reimbursements for infrastructure improvements. He stated that this was not new
information, and that this had been shared with the Board through the rezoning and in
recent days. He introduced the following individuals who were present at the meeting:
MaryEllen Goodlatte, counsel for Kahn Development; Frank Caldwell,
architect/engineer; Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; Doug Chittum,
Director of Economic Development; Anthony Ford, Traffic Engineer; and Paul Mahoney,
County Attorney.
Mr. Hodge stated that there are several objectives to be accomplished:
(1) provide the Board with information needed to make a decision; (2) share information
with the audience about how the County’s economic development program works; (3)
demonstrate that the County has scrutinized this request thoroughly; and (4) provide the
Board with reasons to support the request. Mr. Hodge further advised that Mr. Alan
Kahn wanted to be here but he is attending a marketing show in Atlanta to promote this
project. He expressed thanks to VDOT for their assistance with the road project and to
October 26, 2004
849
Allstate Insurance Company for their willingness to donate easements for the project
and for their assistance in the past.
Mr. Hodge provided an overview of road construction in Virginia and noted
that infrastructure improvements are one of the primary ways the County can participate
in an economic development project. He stated that in Virginia, VDOT builds and
maintains roads for counties; however, cities receive allocations from the state and build
their own roads. Historically, VDOT makes improvements after congestion occurs. The
annual allocation of funds from VDOT does not cover the cost of road repairs, and the
six-year road plan contains roads that have been on the list for more than ten years.
The improvements to Keagy Road would require one-third (1/3) of an entire year’s
allocation for all County road projects. He stated that a Roanoke County police officer
was placed at the intersection of Keagy Road and Route 419 to direct traffic during shift
changes at Allstate from 1988 to 1997. Mr. Hodge stated that even though a traffic light
at this intersection was justified, VDOT did not have the funding. When the light was
installed in 1997, it was paid for by Allstate and Roanoke County. Since 2000, Allstate
has increased its number of employees from 950 to 1,400. At one trip in and out per
day, the additional 500 employees generate 1,000 trips per day. He also noted that
many new homes have been built in this area, and none of the new residential
developments have helped improve the roads. He stated that just last week, the state
homebuilders association killed a bill in committee that would have helped Roanoke
October 26, 2004
850
County get homebuilders to assist with the cost of road improvements. He stated that
Roanoke County has few alternatives to use for improving roads.
Anthony Ford reported on the current conditions in the Keagy Road/Route
419 area and advised that Keagy Road is an urban collector street with two lanes, one
in each direction, and no turn lanes feeding into Allstate. At the intersection of Keagy
Road and Route 419, there is an exclusive right turn lane only which primarily serves
traffic exiting from Allstate, and there is also a shared left and thru lane which feeds out
to Route 419. The current condition of Route 419 is that there are two thru lanes and
exclusive right and exclusive left turn lanes that feed into Keagy Road, with a similar
situation on the other side with a deceleration lane and an exclusive right turn into
Keagy Road. Mr. Ford advised that one of the signed proffers was that Kahn
Development would comply with all VDOT requirements for mitigation of any decrease
in the level of service, and this road plan is a culmination of a number of meetings with
VDOT to examine not only what is the best fit for Kahn Development, but also for Keagy
Road, the Allstate users, and the adjacent neighborhoods. Mr. Ford provided the
following outline of the actual physical infrastructure improvements required by VDOT:
Keagy Road:
Right turn lanes and tapers on Keagy Road into the development
Left turn lane from Keagy onto Route 419 at the signal
Intersection sight distance improvements (improving vertical alignment
on Keagy Road approaching Route 419)
October 26, 2004
851
419 Electric Road:
Adjust and maximize signal timing
Southbound right turn and deceleration lane on Route 419 into the
development
Extend northbound left turn lane on Route 419 into Keagy Road
Mr. Ford outlined the following improvements that Kahn Development will
be making which are above and beyond the VDOT requirements:
Keagy Road:
Adding left turn lanes for Allstate
Drainage improvements on the south side of Keagy Road
Potential of curb and gutter up to the main entrance
Route 419 Electric Road:
Improving right turn radius onto Keagy Road and relocating signal light
pole
Mr. Ford noted that over the years, the County and VDOT have received
complaints from residents in the area and Allstate employees regarding road conditions
on Keagy Road when there is snow and ice accumulated on the hill. The proposed
improvements will help resolve those problems. He stated that if this project were to be
placed on the six-year road plan, it could potentially be 10 years before the project is
completed and the funding would come from State and County revenue. By using this
October 26, 2004
852
approach, there is an opportunity for a private developer to fund the improvements and
have them in place much faster.
Supervisor Church questioned how many lanes will be coming from the
proposed Keagy Village to the intersection of Route 419. Mr. Ford advised that
currently there are two lanes: a shared thru lane and a shared left turn going north
down Route 419, and an exclusive right turn on Route 419 heading south. What will
occur with the improvements will be two left turn lanes feeding out onto Route 419 north
and maintaining the exclusive right turn lane onto Route 419 south. Supervisor Church
further inquired about how many lanes were proposed at the initial rezoning. Mr. Ford
responded that the proposed plan presented today is what has been discussed from the
outset and is consistent with recommendations in the traffic impact study dated June
2004.
Supervisor Church inquired if any extra lanes have been requested since
the initial hearing. Mr. Covey advised that the additional left turn lane at Allstate is now
being requested. Mr. Hodge clarified that in the last two weeks, VDOT staff has been
working with County staff to realign and modify the entrance. He stated that VDOT has
requested realignment of the curb and gutter and a dedicated turn lane into Allstate.
Mr. Covey advised that early this week, staff met with the Department of Highways
regarding realigning the turn movements and radiuses into the project, as well as the
configuration of the lanes to provide better traffic flow for those coming north from Route
419 traveling east on Keagy Road.
October 26, 2004
853
Supervisor Church asked if there were any plans to ask for an additional
lane coming out onto Route 419. Mr. Covey responded in the negative. Mr. Hodge
stated that there was a request for an additional lane by VDOT; however, there was no
additional room on either side of Keagy Road. He advised that on the side where
Allstate is located, there is a major electrical line. He noted that Allstate is a call center
that operates 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. He stated that any disruption of
electric service will be a real concern for all parties, and the County has specified that
any requests for additional paving must fit within the existing right-of-way.
Supervisor Church asked if there would be an additional lane coming out
onto Route 419. Mr. Covey responded no.
Supervisor McNamara requested a differentiation between what is on the
plan versus what is a VDOT requirement. Mr. Ford responded that the additional
exclusive left turn lanes into the Allstate entrance are above and beyond the VDOT
requirements. In response to an inquiry from Supervisor McNamara, Mr. Ford
responded that this was not a proffered condition of the rezoning. Supervisor
McNamara further inquired if there was anything to prevent the developer from not
installing the turn lanes. Mr. Covey advised that the developer has to work with Allstate
and there are certain areas which Allstate needs to have corrected, and therefore
Allstate would want to participate in the process. The developer also needs some
easements from Allstate to do some of the required improvements.
October 26, 2004
854
Supervisor Wray inquired if Mr. Ford prepared the road design. Mr. Ford
advised that the design was principally designed by traffic engineers at VDOT. He
stated that when the initial plans were reviewed, they recognized that there were some
deficiencies in the existing road and Kahn Development was willing to improve the
entire area. VDOT has proposed this as the best case scenario for road improvements
in the area. Mr. Wray requested that Mr. Ford explain the County’s role in this process.
Mr. Ford advised that he has been involved in every meeting with Caldwell & White and
VDOT regarding the road design. He stated that all interested parties have met and
designed the proposed road plan.
Supervisor Wray referenced one of the proffers which states “the
developer shall comply with all VDOT requirements for improvements to adjoining
Route 419 and Keagy Road including any required easements for site distance as well
as the donation of any additional right-of-way along Keagy Road and Route 419”. He
asked if this was correct. Mr. Ford responded in the affirmative.
Supervisor Altizer requested that staff discuss the curb and gutter
component of the plan and whether it was required by VDOT. Mr. Covey advised that
County staff recommended that curb and gutter be installed. He stated that curb is
currently in place from Route 419 to the first entrance at Allstate; therefore, Kahn was
offering curb and gutter at their location.Mr. Covey stated that this would provide a
better finished product if curb and gutter could be provided from at least Route 419 to
the first entrance into the Kahn Development. He stated that adding curb and gutter
October 26, 2004
855
necessitates adding pipes and raises storm drain issues which must be addressed. He
advised that this is not a requirement, but that sometimes installing curb and guttering
allows you to narrow the road way and minimize the impact to the right-of-way.
Mr. Hodge stated that a number of changes have been made at the
request of VDOT for an additional lane in the last two weeks. He noted that it is a very
complex reconstruction, and reported that a 15” natural gas main and an 8” water main
are under the road. Any road improvements will have to deal with these variables if
there is a shift in the alignment. Also, Allstate has requested an additional lane onto
Route 419 for a number of years and one proposal has been to add a lane behind the
building coming out onto Route 419. Mr. Hodge stated that this is not something VDOT
or the County wants to do and if these improvements are not made, the requests by
Allstate still exist. He indicated that by doing the work required by VDOT and needed
for Kahn, the County also has the opportunity to correct conditions for employees and
those who travel the road. Otherwise, Kahn could revert to the bare minimum for their
project or if the project does not come to fruition, then the County will be back to
evaluating what improvements will be needed if a business locates on the site “by right”
and all of the needed improvements must then be handled by the State and the County.
Mr. Hodge stated that the County has received inquiries regarding why
they should assist retail development. He advised that retail is a major segment of the
County’s economic development strategy and outlined some of the information
contained in a recent Planning District Commission cluster study. He noted that in a
October 26, 2004
856
recent work session to discussion the County’s community plan, Mr. Covey presented a
map of slopes in Roanoke County and the amount of land available for development.
He stated that there is not a lot of land available for development, and the new
community plan proposes village centers throughout much of the County. He
questioned who will pay for the road and infrastructure improvements to these areas,
and recommended that the County use this model to partner with village developers and
contribute through reimbursements.
Mr. Hodge stated that the Public Private Partnership (PPP) was put in
place as a way to accomplish a number of things: encourage those types of businesses
that the County wants to locate in this area; encourage new job growth and, in some
circumstances, retain existing jobs; target manufacturing, commercial developments,
sports marketing, tourism (i.e., NCAA events); participate in assisting surrounding
neighborhoods with buffering, lighting, drainage, and correction of existing infrastructure
problems. Mr. Hodge stated that the partnership agreements are negotiated after
zoning takes place, not before, and that it would be inappropriate to conduct
negotiations for incentives during the rezoning process. He stated that the PPP is on
the internet and is available for existing and new businesses. He stated that the County
prefers to reimburse with money generated after a project is built rather than paying the
reimbursements up front; thereby placing responsibility back on the business. He
stated that through a contractual agreement, businesses are reimbursed out of the new
tax revenues generated by the project. Mr. Hodge stated that incentives requested by a
October 26, 2004
857
manufacturer or a commercial developer are not an entitlement and each is judged on
its own merit.
Mr. Chittum stated that upon completion of the rezoning, Kahn has been
working on the engineering for the project. Once the engineering reached a certain
point, Kahn came to the County and requested a PPP to partner with them on the
infrastructure improvements. The PPP agreement was drafted by Mr. Mahoney in
conjunction with Mr. Natt, attorney for the Industrial Development Authority (IDA). Mr.
Chittum advised that there were two guiding principles used in drafting the agreement:
1) Roanoke County’s past procedure has been to fund a portion or all the development
costs for public improvements such as roads, public utilities, offsite storm water
management facilities, and utility connection fees for qualifying industries; 2) In the case
of retail, the policy states that one year of new tax revenues generated by a project is
the maximum reimbursable amount for infrastructure improvements related to a project.
Mr. Chittum outlined the following major points of the agreement: (1) Kahn will develop
the property in accordance with the proffers; (2) Kahn will construct all highway
improvements to Route 419 and Keagy Road as required by VDOT, including the
signalization of Keagy Road and Route 419; (3) Kahn will extend public water and
sewer lines to serve the property and dedicate and convey at no cost to the County on-
site easements for drainage and public utilities; (4) The County and Kahn will mutually
agree to the cost of the qualifying public improvements; (5) For a period through the end
of 2009, Kahn can select one year and document to the County the amount of new tax
October 26, 2004
858
revenues generated from the project. The County will document these revenues and
through the IDA, an economic development grant will be made equal to that amount
which shall not exceed the cost of the public infrastructure. Mr. Chittum stated that the
agreement does not distinguish between proffered improvements or improvements that
go above and beyond what is required. He advised that the County’s past practice and
guidelines have been to pay for public infrastructure improvements regardless of
whether it is required or above and beyond what is required.
Supervisor McNamara noted that at the top of page 3 of the agreement,
the only agreement is that Kahn construct all public highway improvements as required
by VDOT to provide ingress and egress into the properties. He questioned why there
was a discussion of other improvements if they are not part of the agreement. Mr.
Hodge stated that he was not aware of a time when the County has been content to just
do the minimum required. He noted that when the County did the Route 460 project
with Wal-Mart, many drainage issues were corrected. He stated that the proposed
improvements being presented were viewed as an opportunity to assist Allstate and the
citizens in the area, as well as bring in an outstanding developer to Roanoke County.
He noted that the developer is improving County roads with their own money.
Supervisor Flora stated that Item #2 in the agreement states “construct all
public highway improvements to Route 419 and Keagy Road as required by VDOT to
provide ingress and egress into the property”. He stated that it does not mention
anything above and beyond what VDOT is requiring.He questioned if the Board
October 26, 2004
859
missed something. Mr. Hodge stated that it is possible that the County could go back to
VDOT and request that they prepare a plan that would cover only what is required for
Kahn Development. This approach would not accomplish some of the improvements
the County wants to make for Allstate and the citizens in the area.
Supervisor Flora stated that it is his understanding that if the agreement is
approved, Kahn would do what is required by VDOT and would also do what is
recommended by VDOT, including the left turn lanes into Allstate. Mr. Mahoney
questioned if it was the Board’s desire to change the word “required” to “recommended”
in the agreement. Mr. Flora stated that it was his understanding that the display which
was presented showed what is required by VDOT and did not include the left turn lanes
into Allstate. He stated that Allstate wants those left turn lanes and therefore is working
with Kahn to provide some additional right-of-way to accomplish this objective. Mr.
Flora stated that the agreement does not address this specifically. Mr. Hodge advised
that the decision is for Kahn to make and noted that if the County and VDOT continue to
add on requests for improvements, then there could theoretically be a situation where
VDOT is asking Kahn to improve the road even farther behind the project. He stated
that at some point, it becomes more than is required and the goodwill of a developer to
fix. There is a limit to what can be reasonably asked for a company to develop at their
own expense.
Supervisor Wray requested an itemized list of what comprises the
$970,000. He expressed concerns about the adequacy of the storm water management
October 26, 2004
860
pond in light of the recent flooding. Mr. Chittum stated that these costs are estimates
and indicated that no site plan has been engineered or submitted for storm water
management. He provided the following cost estimates which are currently available:
sanitary sewer extension - $164,000-$175,000; roadway costs - $450,000; and
additional improvements - $389,000. He stated that Kahn is committed to constructing
the road improvements up front and will be reimbursed one year’s tax revenue in an
amount not to exceed the cost of the improvements.
Supervisor Wray referenced Item #5 in the agreement which states that
Kahn “will construct storm water management facilities to control drainage arising from
offsite developments to downstream properties as required by and in accordance with
existing County standards”. He stated that he has a feeling this is not sufficient. Mr.
Hodge stated that without the storm water management included in this project, the
existing drainage problem will not be any better. He indicated that the design will be
reviewed by the County’s engineers and we will have input into and control of the
adequacy of the design. He stated that if the Kahn project pulls out, then nothing will be
done.
Supervisor Flora inquired if we were discussing storm water management
that is limited to this project or if there will be additional detention for other properties.
Mr. Hodge stated that the drainage pipes and drop inlet on the Allstate side are
inadequate, and advised that the existing storm water management measures would
not be accepted under today’s construction standards. Supervisor Flora requested
October 26, 2004
861
clarification if the proposed measures will remedy some of the existing drainage issues
on Keagy Road, in addition to the project itself. Mr. Hodge responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Chittum advised that the developer has several options: (1) build an oversize basin;
or (2) work the storm drain through a natural drain course. He stated that he does not
anticipate building an oversize basin and that Kahn will take care of drainage issues for
their own project in addition to the existing problems in the area. Mr. Hodge stated that
during the recent storms, Roanoke County did not experience a lot of the problems of
surrounding localities because the County has had an aggressive storm water
management program. He noted that the County has increased their standards and the
County requirements are above the State standards.
Mr. Hodge stated that one of the reasons that Roanoke County should be
willing to assist Keagy Village is because Keagy Road has been in need of upgrades for
years and the County cannot accomplish this alone. He stated that a much expanded
tax base is also needed to pay for County and Schools CIP projects. He indicated that
Keagy Village is a quality project that will add $800,000 - $1 million to the County’s tax
base annually with a quality development. He stated that the developer has addressed
all issues identified by the residents and has offered 3 of the 18 acres on the site as a
buffer for the community. He advised that the developer has met with the community on
many occasions and has sacrificed land that could be built upon for the County’s
benefit. He stated that they are now being asked to improve the road for Allstate and
the residents who travel the road, and VDOT has requested improvements that would
October 26, 2004
862
otherwise have to be made with State funding. Mr. Hodge stated that Khan
Development has been asked to resolve many problems far beyond what is required by
the project. He stated that this reimbursement is consistent with the County’s past
practices and the practices of competing localities across the country. He stated that
the reimbursement will be made only after the road is constructed and the revenues
have been received to cover the reimbursement. He noted that the Keagy property
could be developed by right for other uses without any of the road improvements and
the responsibility for paying for any improvements would have fallen on the County and
VDOT.
Supervisor McNamara requested that Mr. Mahoney interpret Page 3,
Section 2.A (5): Storm Water Management. Mr. Mahoney stated that the intent was to
address storm drainage that was generated offsite (not on the Kahn development) that
affected the downstream properties. He advised that three elements were included in
the agreement: (1) offsite development; (2) the effect on downstream properties; and
(3) the element of meeting the County standards which are above the State minimum.
Mr. Mahoney advised that there was a lot of offsite storm drainage being dumped on the
Kahn property and as it flowed across the Kahn property, it affected other downstream
properties. He stated that the County is leaving it up to Kahn to determine how to
address the offsite storm drainage: whether they want to pipe it around their property
or, in the course of doing their onsite development, build a larger detention pond that
will handle their own storm water runoff, as well as the other offsite drainage. In
October 26, 2004
863
response to a further inquiry from Supervisor McNamara, Mr. Mahoney stated that this
section of the agreement does not require Kahn to deal with the offsite runoff; however
if they choose to do so, it can be considered as part of the reimbursement.
The following individuals spoke at the public hearing:
Roger Smith, 3706 Hyde Park Drive, referenced the article in the Roanoke
Times which stated that if funds were awarded to Kahn Development, Slate Hill would
also request $2.5 million in incentives. He indicated that he does not recall any mention
of incentives at earlier public meetings as Mr. Hodge had stated. He stated that as a
business, you should study what will have to be done to build a project and have an
estimate of what you will be required to invest. He stated that a study should have been
conducted by Kahn which would have pointed out the existence of the gas, electric, and
water lines which need to be dealt with. He stated that the County should award
incentives discreetly and that with the opposition to this project, giving tax revenue back
to the developer adds insult to injury.
Charles Gonklin, 4569 Keagy Road, noted that the Board was aware that
potential tax revenue dollars were available to Kahn. He stated that when the rezoning
was approved, several Board members stated this was a win-win situation because the
developer will pay for badly needed infrastructure improvements. He stated that it is
disheartening that the Board knew about potential incentives. He indicated that he was
against the rezoning of the R-1 properties which cut into the residential areas. He
October 26, 2004
864
thanked Supervisor Church for his vote and requested that the Board not use tax dollars
to benefit businesses.
Mr. Hodge clarified that he had stated earlier today that during the
rezoning process, the County refrains from discussion of incentives. He stated that this
question came about during the rezoning and at that time both he and Mr. Chittum were
asked if they had serious discussions or made commitments to the developer. He
stated that they absolutely did not and he indicated that it would be inappropriate for the
County to do so until after the rezoning takes place. He stated that what he said earlier
in the meeting was that in recent weeks, it has been discussed with the Board because
they knew that the Kahn request was forthcoming.
Virginia Burns, 5614 Valley Drive, stated that she is against granting any
of the demands made in Kahn’s letter to Doug Chittum dated October 7. She indicated
that she interpreted the comments as threats because Kahn made it clear that they
have not yet purchased the land and without the incentives from the County, they may
withdraw their plans to purchase or develop the property. She stated that she was very
disturbed by the irregularity in the order of the vote at the Board’s meeting on June 22.
She noted that one Board member was quoted as saying that such a procedure
happens all the time, and she stated that never before or since June 22 had she heard
a substitute vote called. She stated that this showed a lack of respect for the hundreds
of persons present and to the 800 petitioners who signed petitions against the
development. She requested that the Board use integrity in governing the County.
October 26, 2004
865
Beverly Porter, 6529 Fairway Forest Drive, stated that she was not
surprised to read the article in the
Roanoke Times and indicated that some of the
improvements were promised by Kahn in order to obtain the rezoning. She stated that
the County’s engineer indicated that if the County doesn’t support Kahn’s request so
that they (Kahn) can improve Keagy Road, then the citizens will have to pay for it down
the road. She indicated that if the request is granted, that is what the County would be
doing. She also stated that the problem with Keagy Road is not at the intersection of
Keagy Road and Route 419, but rather it is poor site visibility on the portion of the road
from Allstate to Ridgewood Farms and the proposed development will only add to the
problem. She noted that Kahn has not signed a single tenant and will be competing
with businesses in Roanoke County who did not receive incentives. She stated that the
jobs offered will be minimum wage with no benefits. She advised that the residents are
still opposed to the rezoning and stated that County citizens should not subsidize
Kahn’s development.
Mary Ann Gwynn, 4843 Keagy Road, referenced a letter from Kahn
Development in which they state “in particular, we do not know the extent of the
infrastructure improvements to Keagy Road and Route 419. As we anxiously await
VDOT’s determinations, development costs are escalating. Yet we remain committed to
Keagy Village so long as it remains economically feasible”. She further referenced a
Roanoke Times article stating that new retail operations drain money from existing
ones, whose tax dollars effectively subsidize their competition. She noted that local
October 26, 2004
866
businesses are turned down for incentives but outside businesses are not. She
indicated that Supervisor Altizer stated that Kahn was going to save the County money
and that was not true. She stated that Kahn should have planned in advance and
questioned why studies were not conducted in advance. She agreed that Keagy Road
needs improvement from Allstate back toward Ridgewood Farms.
Marlene Perrott, 5911 Lakemont Drive, voiced opposition to the granting
of incentives to Kahn. She stated that the developer promised to do all these things in
order to obtain the rezoning, and now is coming back to the County demanding
incentives. She stated that a reliable businessman should have known that costs would
escalate. She stated that at the rezoning hearing, Supervisor Wray asked Mr. Covey
about improvements to Keagy Road and Mr. Covey advised that Keagy Road was not
on the road plan for six years. She indicated that at that time, Mr. Covey stated that this
would be an opportunity to get road improvements completed using someone else’s
money. She questioned what has changed since that meeting. She stated that it is
now going to be the citizens’ tax money, not someone else’s money. She also voiced
concerns about the fact that the architect has not submitted plans for the project, as well
as issues relating to storm water management. She distributed pictures of homes in the
area showing the effects of the recent flooding following tropical storm Jeanne. Ms.
Perrott noted that she was told by the County that there is no funding available to pay
for drainage improvements to her property and yet the County is considering a $1
October 26, 2004
867
million reimbursement to Kahn. She requested a definitive answer regarding how much
water will be coming off of the Keagy Village site.
Bob Seymour, 7552 Boxwood Drive, made the following observations with
respect to this and similar projects: Keagy Village will cost $1 million; Cotton Hill and
Route 220 road improvements could cost as much as $8 million; Route 221 needs
additional work; the Vaughn development that is forthcoming will necessitate a new
school that will cost approximately $8 million; the new Mason’s Crest development
needs fire and rescue, road, and school improvements; Slate Hill/Route 419 will cost
money to handle the traffic and intersection improvements. He questioned what is the
cost to the public of these developments, and advised that he is tired of hearing about
minimization of maximum allowed impacts, how thankful citizens should be because
someone is not doing all the harm they could do to us, and about the privatization of
public responsibility. He stated that this is a bad trend to exploit common resources for
private gain and questioned what type of precedence this is setting. He questioned if
this or any such items coming up for review by the Board are the citizens’ first priority as
a community. He inquired about the net cost benefit ratio of these types of projects and
activities.
IN RE: RECESS
Chairman Flora recessed the meeting at 8:45 p.m. The Board returned to
open session at 8:57 p.m.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED)
October 26, 2004
868
1. Request to authorize the execution of a performance agreement
between the County of Roanoke, Kahn Development Company,
and the Industrial Development Authority for public infrastructure
improvements to Keagy Road, pursuant to Roanoke County’s
Public Private Partnership Policy. (Elmer C. Hodge, County
Administrator)
Following the recess, the public hearing continued with the following
individuals speaking:
Louis Perrott, 5911 Lakemont Drive, stated that he was flooded in
September 2004 from the existing runoff before the Keagy Village construction has
even begun. He stated that he would like to see the plans for retaining ponds and
stormwater drainage, and he looks to the County to ensure that the proper plans and
precautions are being taken. He also indicated that he expects that whatever is done
should be implemented at Kahn’s expense. He advised that in response to citizens’
objections, Kahn clearly stated prior to approval of the rezoning that they would make
improvements to Keagy Road at their expense. Mr. Perrott advised that the same
concern now applies to the storm water drainage and he voiced opposition to giving
Kahn the reimbursement.
Elena DeRosa, 5102 Sugar Loaf Drive, advised she could not believe the
audacity of the developer asking people who were opposed to the project to now pay for
it. She stated that with the prime location on Route 419, Kahn should be paying the
October 26, 2004
869
County, not the County paying Kahn. She stated that Kahn was quoted as saying that
they remain committed to Keagy Village so long as it remains economically feasible, but
they need money from the County to make the project feasible. She indicated that it
sounds as though Kahn is blackmailing the County. She referenced the statements
regarding the Clearbrook area when Supervisor Wray wanted them to build on his land
as reported in the September 11 issue of the Roanoke Times. She advised that in the
article, it stated that Mr. Wray knew the company’s representative said “once they have
one project in the Roanoke Valley, they were likely to develop others”. She stated that
according to Mr. Chittum, the County has more demand than they do land. She
questioned if this was the case, why is the County giving away so much of the
taxpayers’ money? She indicated that the money could be used to attract an anchor
store at Tanglewood Mall or correct what she perceives as a serious security design
flaw at her child’s elementary school after it was renovated.
Frank Sims, 5880 Lakemont Drive, stated that the individuals opposed to
the project left the rezoning feeling somewhat comfortable with the proffers presented;
however, he is now concerned with integrity. He questioned if the County allows Kahn
to override or change the proffer, how good are the remaining proffers. If Kahn were to
come to the County and state that they need the three acre buffer area back in order to
make the project viable, would the County give them that property back and neglect the
neighbors? He stated his opposition to the reimbursement to Kahn because of
October 26, 2004
870
representations made at prior meetings wherein Kahn agreed to make certain
improvements.
Gene Rickter, 5452 Warwood Drive, stated that he had no idea that tax
money could be given away as incentives, and he advised that he had heard no
mention of this at any of the previous public meetings regarding this project. He
indicated that Mr. McNeil stated that he was voting to rezone the property based on the
fact that Kahn would make the improvements included in their proffers. He questioned
where the loss of funds will stop and stated that it is a never ending hole if this project
and Slate Hill are approved. He stated that the stores coming to this development will
simply steal sales from other stores in the valley. He requested that the Board not
approved giving tax dollars to Kahn.
Mike Griffin, 5847 Lakemont Drive, stated that he and his wife
disapproved of the original rezoning request and they are totally opposed to an
additional $970,000 of tax dollars going to a company not even located in Virginia. He
stated that the extra improvements will be at the taxpayers’ expense. He noted that
during the recent rains, he sustained damage to his home and yard by the overflowing
creek. He indicated that with any future above normal rainfalls, the yards and homes in
the area will be flooded. He noted that Mr. Hodge stated in today’s paper that Keagy
Village would improve existing road problems while building on the steep slopes of Slate
Hill will create storm water management problems. Mr. Griffin advised that Keagy
Village will create a water management problem by dumping excess drainage into the
October 26, 2004
871
existing creek and by joining their sewer system with his. He requested that the existing
problems be fixed and proposed that the County pay for removal of 2 to 4 feet from the
creek bed.
Steve Noble, 5376 Canter Drive, stated that it is past time Roanoke
County stopped subsidizing retail businesses. He indicated that transferring retail sales
taxes, business taxes, or real estate taxes to retail developers is poor economics,
distorts balanced open markets, and is unfair to existing Roanoke businesses. He also
stated that in this case, it is totally unnecessary for the reported purpose. He indicated
that he was confused by the County’s stance on new development and in tonight’s
presentation. He stated that the County wants to give away dollars today and wait
years to get back the original money. He advised that breaking the rezoning request
into two components does not make it any more palatable to the public. He indicated
that none of these problems with the property and surrounding roads were mentioned
during the rezoning process and he stated that the developer was initially excited about
the project; however now, he is asking for a tax rebate. Mr. Noble stated that the road
improvements are needed only for the developer and Roanoke County should not be
giving taxpayer money to developers to make a profit before the market is ready to
support it. He stated that the companies that Roanoke County gives money to don’t
need it and they will develop the property whether you give them the money or not.
Lowell Inhorn, 4576 Keagy Road, stated that he listened intently to the
proffers presented by Kahn at the rezoning presentations. He indicated that Kahn
October 26, 2004
872
implied that they would fund these improvements and at no time did they hint they might
require public funding assistance. Now, just 4 months later, Kahn comes to the County
requesting $1 million in tax credits. He questioned what has changed since June and
stated that he does not believe Kahn would have so seriously misjudged the cost to
develop this property. Mr. Inhorn indicated that he believes that Kahn planned all along
to request this financial handout which represents a fundamental lack of honesty. He
questioned why taxpayers should give Kahn this financial assistance. If Keagy Village
is seen as a money generating venture, then Kahn does not need any help. He
questioned why road improvements should be contingent on the building of a strip mall.
He stated that a retail mall is inherently different than jobs offered by Allstate and
indicated that this is not economic development, it is urban sprawl. He advised that the
innuendo that Kahn might not go forward with the project if the incentives are not
granted is a scare tactic. He requested that the Board vote no to the request.
Helen Sublette, 5577 Valley Drive, advised that it is outrageous that the
citizens are all back again opposing something that 800 signed petitioners opposed in
the first place. She stated that Kahn is now asking taxpayers to fund an almost $1
million incentive package for their project to do what they said they would do. She
stated that as experienced builders, Kahn should have known how much roads, water
and sewer lines, and storm water management would cost. She indicated that no site
or storm water plans have been shared. She stated that she had recent damage to her
home due to storm water runoff from development upstream from her home, despite the
October 26, 2004
873
fact that she did not build her home in a flood plain. Ms. Sublette indicated that
Roanoke County has not taken care of the water shed above her now and that existing
problems should be taken care of before addressing other concerns. She noted that
Supervisor McNamara was on the record as opposing incentive packages for retailers,
and that Supervisor Flora has told her twice that Kahn has gotten all that they are going
to get. She thanked Supervisor Church for his sense of fairness and his communication
with the residents.
Hunter Smith, 5260 Crossbow Circle, advised that he is representing Slate
Hill and requested assurance that both projects will be treated the same. He stated that
government’s role is not to promote economic development but to make sure that
citizens are treated fairly. He questioned how Slate Hill could be competitive if Keagy
Village is granted incentives. He advised that Slate Hill was required to set aside
$100,000 in an escrow account for the maintenance of their project, and questioned if it
would be fair if they were to come to the County and ask them to pay for this. He
questioned why Slate Hill was required to put up a $100,000 bond and the County is
willing to give incentives to Keagy Village. Mr. Smith noted that the Slate Hill project is
a local project that had three speakers who expressed concerns at the meeting, and he
advised that proffers were adopted to address those issues. He indicated that Kahn
had many speakers in opposition to their project and they offered proffers to address
those concerns. If incentives are granted to Kahn to ease the impact of the proffers, it
defeats the intent of the proffers. Mr. Smith advised that if the Keagy Village request is
October 26, 2004
874
granted, Slate Hill will be forced to ask for the same consideration; however if the Keagy
Village request is denied, then Slate Hill will withdraw its request for economic
consideration. He indicated that their concern was that there is a fair playing field.
Frank D. Porter, 6529 Fairway Forest Drive, stated that Kahn’s request is
a raid on the treasury and is unconstitutional.He indicated that Kahn is not providing
jobs, their tenants are. Kahn is a landlord that wants public funds for their purposes of
making money, which is prohibited by the constitution. He stated that tonight’s vote
could open a flood gate of other requests. He indicated that the County is imposing
their ideas on the citizenry and that staff stated that if the County could not do the road
improvements, VDOT will do it. He stated that VDOT has no money and the only offsite
item proffered related to VDOT improvements to Route 419 and Keagy Road. He
advised that the rezoning ordinance states nothing about extending water and sewer
service and if Allstate wants road improvements, this should warrant a separate public
hearing to discuss the matter.
Mr. Hodge advised that this project will potentially provide the following
benefits to the County: (1) $16 million investment in capital construction of the
buildings, most of which will be used to pay local contractors who will construct the
building. (2) Revenues will be approximately $800,000 - $1 million annually. If you use
a ratio of only 50%, half of those revenues will be derived from people who come to the
County for tourism and special events. This is $400,000 a year in revenues that the
County does not have today. He indicated that the request that is pending would give
October 26, 2004
875
up to one year’s revenues (in this scenario $400,000) not to exceed the actual cost of
the construction. Mr. Hodge stated that there will be a $16 million up front investment
over a 10 year period at $400,000 per year in new revenues totals which $4 million. He
indicated that this is $20 million that the County does not have today. He emphasized
that the County is not giving out anyone’s money that is in the bank today. He stated
that Kahn would be reimbursed with the money that is generated from the project for
one year of tax revenues not to exceed the cost of the construction. After that, the
County keeps all the tax revenues. He stated that these are public infrastructure
improvements for existing problems that will not be addressed otherwise.
Mr. Hodge advised that with respect to drainage concerns, these problems
exist today. It is anticipated that with this project the County might be able to find an
opportunity to address these concerns. He indicated that at the November 16 meeting,
a work session will be held to review all the drainage problems in the County. He
indicated that Mr. Covey advises that the lady who spoke regarding drainage concerns
is in a different drainage basin which is not impacted by this project. He stated that staff
will look into this issue nonetheless. He stated that Kahn came forward with the best
intentions to help the people in the community; however, he wished that the matter
could have been clarified better. He stated that Kahn likely did not anticipate that so
much would be requested of them.
MaryEllen Goodlatte, attorney for the petitioner, advised that she would be
available to answer any questions. She stated that the applicant is seeking assistance
October 26, 2004
876
with offsite public infrastructure improvements. She further advised that Kahn’s
engineering is not to the point where they can focus on external project aspects
because up to this point, they have been addressing external improvements being
requested by VDOT and others. She noted that the PPP has been successfully used by
Roanoke County since 1996, and Kahn is seeking this same consideration. She stated
that Kahn is the one who will be paying for the infrastructure improvements and after
providing the tax revenues, they will then be eligible for a targeted reimbursement
program.
In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Altizer, Mr. Covey confirmed
that the storm water management plan, irregardless of incentives, must conform to the
County Code.
Supervisor Wray noted that Mr. Griffith spoke regarding problems with the
creek bed and others spoke about flooding issues. He questioned if the County is
addressing those concerns. Mr. Covey advised that Barnhart Creek is a federal
designated flood plain and the County is limited as to what they can do in these areas.
He stated that with respect to Ms. Perrott’s concerns, there are federal permits and
regulations required and the County cannot simply go and dredge out a channel. Mr.
Covey advised that the homes built in that area were built prior to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regulations; he noted that today, many of
those homes could not be built or would have to be elevated. He stated that staff will
October 26, 2004
877
look at all drainage concerns but where it involves a FEMA designated flood plain, the
County is limited in what it can do.
Supervisor Flora inquired if these issues are under the jurisdiction of the
Corp of Engineers. Mr. Covey responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Flora advised
that the only recourse, in that case, may be a regional detention pond.
Supervisor Church advised that he had spent many sleepless nights since
the June 22 meeting because he felt that the citizens did not get a fair hearing. He
stated that the actions taken at that time were not illegal, but they were out of the
ordinary. He reported that substitute motions can be made, but usually occur only after
labored discussion and in an attempt to reach consensus. He stated that if something
has been done wrong and nothing is done to correct it, then nothing changes. He noted
that at the June 22 meeting, there building was full of concerned citizens who came and
poured their hearts out. He stated that the meeting was contentious, but in his opinion,
the Board dropped the ball when things happened that he did not feel should have
happened. He stated that the Board could have said to the citizens not to worry about
your four hours (that you spent waiting). He noted that a motion was made and then
there was a substitute motion. He indicated that there were things he was not happy
about and stated that things have to change and he has to do what is right. He stated
that he has nothing against Kahn; he is against the process that failed the people. He
noted that tonight’s item deals with incentives and money, but the issue is much more
than incentives. He stated that it is a chance to restore the faith that was lost on June
October 26, 2004
878
22 and to correct an error because the County did not allow the process to take its due
course on June 22. He questioned why the process wasn’t allowed to play out when
there were many people present who were against the project. He stated that in his
opinion if this issue passes, and he noted that he will oppose it, the County will be
taking a step back. He advised that the issue is about a fair process, not one that was
illegal, but highly unusual. He said that on June 22, the people of Roanoke County
deserved better than this and that people can come and express views, and the Board
can vote with you and against you. He indicated that we need to give both sides and all
districts a fair chance to win, and he stated that he is not sure that the County allowed
the process to happen on June 22 and for that he apologizes. He stated that it is easy
to say you never make mistakes, but it is better to admit sometimes when things do not
come out the way that you want. He stated that this is about an issue much greater
than the $970,000 or projected jobs proposed.
Supervisor Altizer advised that as Supervisor Church just stated, that is
his belief. He indicated that if he thought he had done something wrong, he would state
that; however he did not. He advised that he made a decision that he felt was right and
that may not agree with many of the citizens and he understands that. He stated that
during the meeting tonight, as he has listened to everyone, there are some things that
the citizens were concerned about. He referenced the $2.5 million request for
incentives from Slate Hill and advised that he did not know how that figure was derived.
He stated that with respect to surpluses, this is a reimbursement and is not taken out of
October 26, 2004
879
the County’s treasury. He noted that it has been done many times and he has been
consistent in supporting retail incentives. He stated that there is some truth to the fact
that this takes away from local businesses, but there is also a part that strengthens and
builds a synergy that is positive. He noted that the incentives provided for Finks were
used for a sewer line extension and that as a result, there is now another retail project
that will develop on the site. He stated that with respect to the incentives for Wal-Mart
and Lowe’s, all supervisors with the exception of Supervisor McNamara voted for it.
Supervisor Altizer stated that without incentives, these businesses would have located
in a neighboring jurisdiction and the revenues would not be coming to Roanoke County.
He noted that the County is reviewing Phase II of school improvements which will cost
an estimated $45 million and there is no designated funding stream. He stated that
through retail development, the objective is to gain revenue because at some point and
time the County must find a way to fund projects and take the pressure off of real estate
taxes. He stated that he shares the citizens’ concerns that it is the responsibility of the
developer and the developer knew going into the project that he had to do many of
these improvements.
Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the contract with the one year of tax
revenue of $970,000 limited to a maximum reimbursement of $500,000. Supervisor
McNamara requested that Supervisor Altizer withdraw the motion since the project is in
his district. Supervisor Altizer withdrew the motion.
October 26, 2004
880
Supervisor McNamara stated that he has listened to an allegation one
night that a deal was fixed; he stated that he waited and didn’t do anything. At the next
meeting, he heard the same thing that Supervisor Altizer fixed the deal and sold the
citizens down the stream.He stated that at that point, he spoke to the Chairman and
stated that he did not like egg smeared on his face when he had not done anything
wrong. He stated that the Chairman advised him to forget about it. He indicated that
three times was all he was taking and he wanted to clarify what occurred that night. He
stated that it is important to him that the citizens understand exactly what happened.
He stated that to be perfectly honest, he was very up in the air about Kahn. He advised
that he thinks Kahn is a good company, but he also recognized the intrusion into the
neighborhood. He stated that he can see that Kahn is going far above any developer
he has had the privilege to work with, and they have done a very nice job. But he stated
that in the final analysis, he could not find enough reasons to support the project. He
stated that while it is easy to play on emotions and say that something was fixed, there
is also something about good politics. He advised that sitting in the first seat is
something of a disadvantage with respect to voting order. He stated that he initially
passed on the vote, and when the vote came to him at 3-1 it allowed him to vote with
the majority so that he would have the ability to bring the vote up for reconsideration.
He stated that two days after the vote, he placed a call to Kahn to clarify where his vote
came from. He stated that if the vote had come to him 2-2, he would have voted
against the project; however since it was clearly approved, he wanted to work with the
October 26, 2004
881
developers. He advised that he does not worry about getting re-elected but to say that
a deal is fixed, when he doesn’t believe the gentleman from Catawba believes a deal
was fixed, is an attack on credibility and he has grave misgivings over this. He stated
that he had responded to the article in the newspaper because he had to respond to it.
Supervisor McNamara stated that he also does not think that Kahn has
sold anyone down the stream in coming back to the County for incentives. He stated
that he has been on the Board for seven years and every major project during that time
has been given incentives. He stated that Kahn will have to pay for all improvements
for VDOT requirements. He noted that he has consistently voted against retail
incentives and stated that in his seven years on the Board, he has been the only vote
against retail incentives. He again stated that it is nothing against Kahn, which he
thinks is a wonderful organization. He commended the staff for following the direction of
the Board, and emphasized that he is not against economic development and
incentives; however, retail incentives are a zero sum in the Roanoke Valley. He stated
that it would be his preference to keep government out of the competitive business
environment and recommended eliminating the Business and Professional Occupancy
License (BPOL) tax for up to the first $100,000 for businesses. He stated that it was
great to see citizens speaking their thoughts on the issues. Lastly, he noted that he had
heard a justification which stated that by offering incentives, the County can better work
with a developer to minimize the impacts to a neighborhood. He stated that if a
rezoning is involved, that is the appropriate process for addressing those issues.
October 26, 2004
882
Supervisor McNamara moved to deny the request. He further noted that
the Board should have a policy relating to retail incentives, and noted that it is not fair to
Kahn to turn down their request when no policy exists regarding retail incentives. He
stated that the County should not give mixed signals to the business community.
Supervisor McNamara’s motion to deny the request carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray
NAYS: Supervisors Altizer, Flora
Supervisor Church stated that if he said the word fixed, then he will
publicly apologize. He stated that he did not use that word and did not take kindly to the
insinuation. He stated that he does not think anything was fixed; he had stated that the
process was “unusual” or “out of the ordinary”.
Supervisor Wray commented, with respect to his vote, that he has not
heard anything significantly different tonight than what he heard during the rezoning
process. He stated that he has not heard anything that Kahn did not know at the outset.
He stated that it is agonizing to try to make a decision that you feel you must make as a
Board member. He noted that incentives were granted to Wal-Mart, Lowe’s, and
Novozymes; however they did not require rezoning and were allowed by right. He
stated that he wants to go on record as opposing this because the request was not
brought forward as part of the earlier rezoning process. He advised that the Board
October 26, 2004
883
should be included from the outset when incentives are discussed. He stated that the
vote about Keagy Village is a vote about the citizen’s perception.
Supervisor Flora commented, with respect to his vote, that he has
consistently supported retail incentives and he will not be hypocritical. He advised that
he was voting no on the motion, and recommended that the policy be examined
because incentives have now been denied for an eligible business. He stated that if the
Board wishes to remove commercial from the PPP, then it should be taken out.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1.This item has been postponed until November 16, 2004 in order to
allow additional time for citizen input. Public hearing to receive
public comments on a proposal to adopt a revised Community
(Comprehensive) Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia. The
proposed Community Plan is comprised of both text and maps.
Once recommended by the Planning Commission and adopted by
the Board of Supervisors, the plan will serve as a general guide
for long-range use and development of all land within Roanoke
County. The proposed plan has been prepared in accordance
with guidelines contained in Sections 15.2-2223 and 2224 of the
Code of Virginia, and Section 30-8-1 of the Roanoke County
Zoning Ordinance.
October 26, 2004
884
Chairman Flora advised that this item has been postponed until November
16, 2004.
2. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 2.37 acres from C1C
Office District with conditions to C1C Office District with amended
conditions and rezone .28 acres from R1 Low Density Residential
to C1C Office District with conditions in order to construct a
general office located at 3640 Colonial Avenue and a portion of
Parkwood Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the
3612
petition of the Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc. (Janet
Scheid, Chief Planner)
O-102604-5
Ms. Scheid advised that in February 2004, the petitioner requested a
rezoning from R1 to C1 to allow for the development of an office building. In the course
of developing the property and preparing the site plan, the petitioner determined that
more parking was needed and has acquired an additional .28 acre tract of property.
During the initial rezoning, two of the seven proffers related to the site plan and to
limiting the parking to no more than 60 spaces. With the ability to acquire the additional
.28 acres, the petitioner would like to revise the site plan to include that acreage and
also add 17 additional parking spaces to increase the parking from 60 to 77. The
remainder of the proffers from the original February rezoning will remain the same and
October 26, 2004
885
deal with signage, exterior building materials, square footage of the building, Colonial
Avenue guidelines, and the limited activities that can take place at the facility.
Ms. Scheid stated that the Planning Commission heard this petition on
October 5 and favorably recommended it with the revisions to the proffer and those
proffers being applied to the additional .28 acres.
Sam L. Lionberger, Jr., representative for the Roanoke Council of Garden
Clubs, advised that there is a parcel on Parkwood Drive, and a 50’ strip extends behind
approximately five (5) lots. He stated that the Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs has
entered into an option, subject to the rezoning, to acquire a portion of the 50’ lot behind
their property. This would make provide for uniform zoning of the entire parcel,
including the additional .28 acres. Mr. Lionberger presented a site plan which showed
an additional row of parking and extension of the buffer to the rear of the property. He
advised that drainage has been evaluated and approved by the County’s engineering
department.
Supervisor Wray advised that he has met with the neighbors and they
were supportive of the project, although some concerns were expressed regarding
storm water management. Mr. Lionberger reported that the property has an offset
around Dr. Dave Bittle’s clinic and the detention pond is adequate to handle all drainage
that currently flows onto the property and will be generated by the development of the
property. It was noted that some of the drainage concerns expressed involved
discharge onto Colonial Avenue which is beyond the scope of this project.
October 26, 2004
886
In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Wray, Ms. Scheid confirmed
that staff is addressing drainage concerns with several of the landowners and she
advised that she would have Chris Lowe, Associate Planner, contact Supervisor Wray
with an update on these issues.
Supervisor Wray moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE102604-5TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION
OF A 2.37-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE LOCATED 3640
COLONIAL AVENUE (TAX MAP NO.77.18-3-15) FROM C1C WITH
CONDITIONS TO C1C WITH AMENDED CONDITIONS AND TO
CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A .28-ACRE TRACT OF
REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT 3612 PARKWOOD DRIVE (PART OF
TAX MAP NO. 77.18-3-3) FROM R1 TO C1C WITH CONDITIONS, CAVE
SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT UPON THE APPLICATION OF
ROANOKE COUNCIL OF GARDEN CLUBS, INC.
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 28, 2004,
and the second reading and public hearing were held October 26, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on October 5, 2004; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing
2.37 acres, as described herein, and located at 3640 Colonial Avenue (Tax Map
Number 77.18-3-15) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the
zoning classification of C1C, Office District with conditions, to the zoning classification of
C1C, Office District with amended conditions.
2. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing .28
acres, as described herein, and located at 3612 Parkwood Drive (Part of Tax Map
Number 77.18-3-3) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the
October 26, 2004
887
zoning classification of R-1, Low Density Residential, to the zoning classification of
C1C, Office District with conditions.
3. That this action is taken upon the application of Roanoke Council of
Garden Clubs, Inc.
4. That the owner of the property has voluntarily proffered in writing the
following conditions which the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
hereby accepts:
(1) The subject property will be developed in substantial conformity with the
“Proposed Plan” bearing revised date of January 14, 2004, and with the
architectural rendering dated January 30, 2004, prepared by Rife & Wood
Architects.
(2) Use of the property will be limited to activities of or sponsored by the
Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc., including offices, meetings, and rental of
the building.
(3) Applicable Colonial Avenue Corridor Design Guidelines shall be in effect
with the word “shall” replacing the word “should” as determined during the site
plan review process.
(4) The proposed building shall be limited to 6,000 square feet of gross floor
area and 26 feet in height.
(5) Exterior building materials shall be of brick and wood.
(6) Total parking including rear and building-side drop off shall not exceed
seventy-seven (77) spaces and no parking shall be constructed in front of the
building.
(7) Monument-style signage at the entrance of the property shall not exceed
35 square feet. Total site signage shall not exceed 70 square feet. Temporary
signage shall be limited to activities directly related to the Roanoke Council of
Garden Clubs, Inc.
5. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
All of Tax Map No. 77.18-3-15 containing 2.37 acres and located at 3640
Colonial Avenue.
Part of Tax Map No. 77.18-3-3 containing .2783 acres and located at 3612
Parkwood Drive and more particularly described as: Beginning at a point 1.84’
north of concrete monument at the northwest corner of Lot 6, Section 4, Green
Valleys Subdivision Plat and continuing N 30° 42’ 00” W for 49.48’ to a new iron
pin, thence N 44° 49’ 00” E for 245’ to a new pin, thence S 30° 42’ 00” E for
49.48’ and thence S 45° 05’ 00” W for 245’ being a common property line with
the rear property line of a portion of Lot 9, and Lots 8, 7, and 6 of Section 4 of
Green Valleys Subdivision to the point of beginning and containing .2783 acres
and being a portion of Tract “B,” Section 4 of Green Valleys Subdivision.
6. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
October 26, 2004
888
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
3. Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to
operate a commercial indoor sports and recreation facility located
at 5205 Starkey Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the
petition of Roanoke Cheerleading Academy. (Janet Scheid, Chief
Planner)
O-102604-6
Ms. Scheid advised that the Roanoke Cheerleading Academy proposes to
use approximately 6,000 square feet of space in an existing 27,000 square foot
warehouse building on Starkey Road. The petitioner needs a large open interior space
for tumbling mats and high ceilings for aerial gymnastic training. The proposed
commercial use would have minimal impact to the neighborhood and is consistent with
the policies and guidelines in the community plan. The proposed use is for training
purposes only, and not for competition. She noted that there is not adequate on-site
parking for competition. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the
special use permit with the following condition: (1) the facility would be used only for
training purposes.
October 26, 2004
889
Supervisor Wray inquired what the original use of the building was. Ms.
Scheid advised that she was not certain, but there is currently an office furniture
business operating in the front of the building.
In response to a further inquiry from Supervisor Wray regarding the
adequacy of on-site parking, Ms. Scheid advised that there is sufficient parking for the
proposed use but that it would not be enough to accommodate competitions.
Supervisor Wray questioned if there was an avenue for overflow parking, possibly on
Terminal Road. Ms. Scheid indicated that there is not a safe place to park on Terminal
Road or Starkey Road.
Supervisor Wray questioned if there was a policy regarding the use of
industrial sites for commercial purposes and whether this was the best use for the
property. Ms. Scheid advised that in this situation, the owner has space and is willing to
lease it for this use. She indicated that if there were industrial users who wanted to
lease the property, the owner would likely have leased it to them. She stated that in the
past, the County has rezoned industrial property to commercial or for non-profit uses.
She noted that this is a special use request rather than a rezoning request.
Supervisor Wray questioned if there is adequate access for fire and
rescue personnel in the event of an emergency. Ms. Scheid responded in the
affirmative. Supervisor Wray also inquired if the County will be assured that the building
is not being used for competitions. Ms. Scheid advised that there is a condition on the
property which prohibits use of the building for competition and the owner, as well as
October 26, 2004
890
the owner of the Roanoke Cheerleading Academy, has agreed to this condition. She
further advised that the Fire and Rescue Department and the Utility Department have
indicated that this petition will not impact fire and rescue services. The building is also
currently served by public water and sanitary sewer service.
There were no citizens present to speak on this item.
Supervisor Wray moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE102604-6 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO
ROANOKE CHEERLEADING ACADEMY TO OPERATE A
COMMERCIAL INDOOR SPORTS AND RECREATION FACILITY TO BE
LOCATED AT 5205 STARKEY ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 87.15-2-7) CAVE
SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Roanoke Cheerleading Academy has filed a petition for a special
use permit to operate a commercial indoor sports and recreation facility to be located at
5205 Starkey Road (Tax Map No. 87.15-2-7) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
October 5, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on September 28, 2004; the second reading and public hearing
on this matter was held on October 26, 2004.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Roanoke
Cheerleading Academy to operate a commercial indoor sports and recreation facility to
be located at 5205 Starkey Road in the Cave Spring Magisterial District is substantially
in accord with the adopted 2000 Community Plan pursuant to the provisions of Section
15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said special use permit is
hereby approved with the following condition:
(1) The facility shall be used for training purposes only.
October 26, 2004
891
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
4. Second reading of an ordinance authorizing and approving
execution of an option and lease agreement with Virginia PCS
L.C., d/b/a NTELOS, for a 3,400 square foot tower site at
Alliance,
the Hollins Fire Station on Barrens Road, Hollins Magisterial
District. (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services)
O-102604-7
Ms. Green advised that there have been no changes in this item since the
first reading which was held on October 12, 2004. The major provisions of the
ordinance include the following: (1) NTELOS will construct the tower at the site; (2)
NTELOS will move the County’s current Fire and Rescue equipment to the tower; (3)
NTELOS will provide space for the County’s equipment at the base of the tower; (4) the
County will be provided additional space on the tower for future use; (5) NTELOS will
pay Roanoke County $6,000 annually in rent plus 20% of the rent received from any
third parties; (6) At the end of the 25 year lease option, NTELOS has agreed to either
remove the tower or give it to the County, at the County’s option.
October 26, 2004
892
In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Wray, Ms. Green confirmed that
there were no changes in this item.
There were no citizens present to speak on this item.
Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE102604-7 AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING EXECUTION
OF AN OPTION AND LEASE AGREEMENT WITH VIRGINIA PCS
ALLIANCE, L.C., D/B/A NTELOS, FOR A 3,400 SQ. FT. TOWER SITE
AT THE HOLLINS FIRE STATION ON BARRENS ROAD IN THE
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, OWNED BY THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, is the owner
of a parcel of land, containing 2.51 acres, located at 7401 Barrens Road in the County
of Roanoke, Virginia, designated on the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax Map
#27.13-4-1, and commonly referred to as the Hollins Fire Station; and,
WHEREAS, staff has been approached by and has negotiated with Ntelos for
lease of a portion of the Hollins Fire Station Site to construct a new telecommunications
tower, with space available for the County’s equipment and facilities; and,
WHEREAS, by Ordinance #082404-9 adopted on August 24, 2004, the Board
approved a Special Use Permit for this project at the County site; and,
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition or conveyance of an interest in real estate, including leases, shall be
accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 12,
2004; and the second reading and public hearing was held on October 26, 2004.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That lease of approximately 3,400 square feet of land, together with rights
of access, ingress and egress, and utility easements, at the Hollins Fire Station, located
at 7401 Barrens Road in the County of Roanoke, Virginia, to Virginia PCS Alliance, LC,
d/b/a Ntelos, for an initial period of five (5) years at an annual rental of $6,000.00,
payable annually in advance, plus installation and payment for its own utility services,
and to include the option to Ntelos to renew said lease for four (4) additional successive
October 26, 2004
893
periods of five (5) years at a twenty percent (20%) rental increase for each renewal
period, is hereby authorized and approved.
2. That an Option to Ntelos to exercise the rights set forth in the Lease
Agreement and authorized in paragraph 1 hereof, for a period of one (1) year during
which Ntelos shall have the necessary rights of access for feasibility studies and tests,
at an Option Fee of $500.00, to be applied to the rent in the event that the option is
exercised, is hereby authorized and approved.
3. That subleases of tower and equipment space to third party entities by
Ntelos, with 20% of the rental to be paid to the County, shall be subject to approval by
the Board through resolution.
4. That the County Administrator or an Assistant County Administrator is
hereby authorized to execute an Option and Lease agreement on behalf of the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Roanoke and to execute such other documents and take
such further actions as are necessary to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall
be upon form and subject to the conditions approved by the County Attorney.
5. That the revenue generated by this lease agreement, including future
subleases, shall be placed in the County Building Repair Account.
6. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: CITIZENS’ COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Pam Berberich, 6679 Mallard Lake Court, stated that in the past, she has
asked the Board to support development with appropriate infrastructure. She advised
that it could be controversial that a new school is needed in Southwest County. She
advised that with respect to the request to participate in the library study which was
discussed at the meeting, the Route 419 library has business equal to all the City
libraries. She noted that the Mount Pleasant library is in the school and needs to be
moved out into its own space. She further advised that if you combine all the park
space in the Windsor Hills and Cave Spring districts, there is still less space than any
other single magisterial district in Roanoke County. She indicated that both the Fire and
October 26, 2004
894
Police Departments are looking for new stations in South County. She requested that
the Board consider land banking and purchase land now for use in future projects. Ms.
Berberich stated that if the land is not purchased now, it will not be available when it is
needed. She indicated that if it is not used, it can be sold to a developer in three years
for twice what it cost.
Supervisor Flora responded that the CIP review committee is looking into
this approach and there appears to be a general consensus to begin projecting needs
for 15-20 years down the road. He assured Ms. Berberich that the Board is addressing
these concerns.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Wray: (1) He advised that on Saturday he attended a tree
planting hosted by Friends of the Blue Ridge Parkway, and stated that he looks forward
to other plantings by this group. He noted that the organization was conducting
educational programs for children and distributing seedlings. (2) He advised that on
Saturday, October 30 and Sunday, October 31, Explore Park will present the Legend of
Sleepy Hollow at 1:30 and 3:30 p.m. each day. He indicated that there would be
numerous children's activities at the park.(3) He requested that Mr. Hodge provide an
update on the status of the Clearbrook rescue squad. Mr. Hodge advised that he, Chief
Burch, and John Chambliss had met with members of the Clearbrook Rescue Squad
and they are making great progress in reorganizing and he is pleased with the approach
they are taking. The volunteers are going through the recertification process and have
October 26, 2004
895
reviewed their financial situation. They are now working under the County's umbrella.
Supervisor Wray thanked Mr. Hodge and Chief Burch for their assistance. (4) He
advised that he had received a request from the Clearbrook Civic League for County
staff to meet with them to discuss the overlay plan. He stated that the next civic league
meeting is not until February, so it will probably be necessary to schedule a special
meeting. (5) He questioned if there was an update on the mill off Starkey Road. Mr.
Hodge advised that staff is still working with VDOT on the exchange of land and he
indicated that the state and VDOT are interested in making an exchange. (6) He
requested confirmation from Mr. Hodge that the County is addressing some of the
recent drainage problems encountered by citizens. Mr. Hodge stated that a work
session is scheduled for November 16, and staff will present an overview of the entire
County's drainage issues. He noted that the easy projects have primarily been
completed, and the County is now facing major water shed improvements and will likely
need to revisit the storm water management fee. (7) He extended condolences to Ms.
Linda Wright, Principal at Penn Forest Elementary School, on the death of her father-in-
law. (8) He encouraged citizens to exercise their rights and vote next Tuesday.
Supervisor Altizer: He advised that he was fortunate to go with FEMA to
open the aid program on Friday, and he encouraged citizens who had damages as a
result of Hurricane Jeanne to call the facility, make an application, and try to receive
assistance. He stated that the FEMA staff should be in Roanoke until the second or
third week in November.
October 26, 2004
896
Supervisor McNamara: (1) He requested that Mr. Simpson in the
Community Development Department contact him with an update on pending drainage
issues. (2) He noted that the Board had received letters regarding a bicycle race held
on Poor Mountain. He requested that Mr. Hodge provide the Board with an update on
this situation. (3) He stated that there are many synergies that could occur if libraries
were located in schools. The library could be located on the exterior of the building
where the facilities could be made available to the public. He stated that the schools
are busy during the day and libraries are busy during the night, so it makes sense to try
to maximize the use of the facilities.
Supervisor Flora: He reminded citizens that Halloween will be recognized
on Sunday evening, October 31.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Flora adjourned the meeting at 10:48 p.m. to October 27 at 5:30
p.m., School Board Administration Office, 5937 Cove Road, N.W., Roanoke, Virginia,
for the purpose of a joint work session to discuss funding of the County and schools
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Submitted by: Approved by:
________________________________________________
Diane S. Childers Richard C. Flora
Clerk to the Board Chairman