11/16/2004 - Regular
November 16, 2004
897
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
November 16, 2004
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day atthe
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the third Tuesday and the only
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of November, 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 John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County
Administrator. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
November 16, 2004
898
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Mr. Hodge requested that the closed session item pertaining to the
regional jail facility be moved to Item E-4. Supervisor Church requested that this be
moved to Item R-2. There was a consensus to move this to Item R-2.
Mr. Mahoney added a closed session pursuant to the Code of Virginia
Section 2.2-3711 A (7) consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members
pertaining to probable litigation, namely boundary line adjustment with Botetourt County.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Recognition of the Community Development Department for their
collaborative efforts with the National Parks Service, Radford and
Co., Friends of the Blue Ridge Parkway, and the Western Virginia
Land Trust which resulted in the receipt of the 2004 Scenic
Virginia Award for Best Preservation of a Scenic Viewshed
The following individuals were present for the recognition: Arnold Covey,
Director of Community Development; Janet Scheid, Chief Planner; Frank Radford,
David Radford, and Tom Wilson, Radford & Co.; and Roger Holnback, Western Virginia
Land Trust.
2. Recognition of the Police Department for receiving the Virginia
Association of Counties 2004 Achievement Award in the category
November 16, 2004
899
of Criminal Justice and Public Safety for the Crisis Intervention
Team program “A Caring Solution to a Community Issue”
The following individuals were present for the recognition: Ray Lavinder,
Chief; Donna Furrow, Assistant Chief; Sergeant Tom Kincaid; Dr. Lola Byrd and Dr.
John Heil
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING
Public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding proposed
1.
amendments to the fiscal year 2004-2005 budget in accordance
with Section 15.2-2507, Code of Virginia. (Diane D. Hyatt, Chief
Financial Officer
)
Ms. Hyatt advised that Section 15.2-2507 of the Code of Virginia requires
a public hearing when the Board is considering appropriations in excess of $500,000.
She advised that an advertisement was run in the Roanoke Times on November 9
outlining the following proposed appropriations:
1. Appropriation of an amount not to exceed $50,000 to authorize a
refund to Public Facilities Consortium for a deposit made on the Phase
II unsolicited proposal for the construction of the public safety center
2. Appropriation of an amount not to exceed $527,115 in fee for service
revenues in excess of budget to be used for capital fund purchases
3. Appropriation of an amount not to exceed $280,400 for renovations to
the Vinton Fire and Rescue building
November 16, 2004
900
4. Appropriation of an amount not to exceed $8,900 for grant from the
Loyal Order of the Moose to purchase a new total mapping station
5. Appropriation of an amount not to exceed $6,000 from the Court
Community Corrections Alcohol Safety Action Program
6. Appropriation of an amount not to exceed $550,000 for a grant from
the Department of Justice for the hiring of additional police officers
7. Request to appropriate an amount not to exceed $1,420,000 to the
major County capital fund
8. Request to appropriate an amount not to exceed $255,000 to
CORTRAN for capital expenses
Ms. Hyatt advised that no action is required at this time and requests for
appropriations will occur later in the meeting.
Supervisor McNamara requested that Ms. Hyatt expand on Item 1. Ms.
Hyatt responded that this item was included in the advertisement that was published in
the newspaper but it has since been removed from the agenda and will therefore not be
part of the public hearing.
There were no citizens present to speak on this item.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Request from the Police Department to appropriate a grant in the
amount of $450,000 from the Department of Justice for the hiring
of six additional police officers and appropriation of an additional
November 16, 2004
901
$42,300 in local funds for the purpose of creating an additional
patrol district. (Ray Lavinder, Chief of Police)
A-111604-1
Chief Lavinder advised that for a long time, there have been concerns
regarding the inability to provide rapid police response to the Bonsack area. In order to
address this problem, staff would like to create a new police district in that area. To
provide coverage 24 hours per day, 7 days per week will require approximately 6
additional officers. Chief Lavinder stated that he would like to create a district in the
northern section of the County and he had applied for a grant to accomplish this
objective. The creation of an additional district will affect every district in Roanoke
County and requires a shift of districts. With the Board’s approval, he advised that he
anticipates having the additional district in effect after January 1, 2005.
Supervisor Church requested clarification of the department’s vehicle
status, as outlined in the board report summary. Chief Lavinder stated that the
department vehicles currently on the surplus list are approaching 100,000 miles. He
stated that the County garage will examine the vehicles to ensure they are safe. He
stated that after July 1, 2005, the vehicle committee will examine a request for new
vehicles in the Police Department. Supervisor Church requested that staff examine the
possibility of funding vehicles for this purpose. Mr. Hodge stated that the source of the
County’s required match is the additional 599 monies received from the State this year.
The remaining funds from this source will be used to purchase the additional vehicles.
November 16, 2004
902
Supervisor Altizer advised that he read a report recently issued by the
Police Department regarding response times to life threatening calls, which has been
lengthening for the last three years. He stated that he sees this grant as a direct benefit
to the citizens of Roanoke County and noted that the Board has supported funding for
Fire and Rescue, and the same should be done for the Police Department in order to
address response times for life threatening situations.
Supervisor Church moved to approve the staff recommendation (accept
and appropriate grant funds totaling $450,000 over a three year period; appropriate an
additional $42,300 for a half year match for salaries and benefits and additional
operating expenses - the source of these funds is an increase in the 599 budget of the
same amount; increase the sworn personnel count by six positions to 120; and increase
the vehicle count of the Police Departmentby six to 131.) The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
2. Resolution adopting a legislative program for the 2005 session of
the Virginia General Assembly and petitioning the General
Assembly to favorably consider the topics and issues addressed
therein. (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney)
R-111604-2
November 16, 2004
903
Mr. Mahoney advised that following the October 26 work session, he
prepared a list of issues which were of concern to the Board. He summarized the
following key points:
1. It was noted that the tobacco tax charter amendment, sponsored by
Senator Edwards in the 2004 session of the General Assembly, has been carried over
in committee and was referred to the Senate Finance Committee.
2. Request legislative support for an amendment to the State Code to
allow Franklin and Montgomery Counties to participate in a regional jail with Roanoke
County and the City of Salem.
3. Request continuing support for additional funding for transportation,
in particular funding for improvements to I-81 and for passenger and freight rail
improvements along the I-81 corridor.
4. Request that the General Assembly correct the personal property
tax relief act amendments from Senate Bill 5005. It was noted that this could have a
potential impact of $10 million to Roanoke County in the 2005-2006 budget.
5. Request state funding to fully implement the program improvement
plan for Department of Social Services to address changes in federal and state law.
6. Request opposition to initiatives at the state level regarding a state
surcharge on tipping fees for each ton of solid waste received by the Roanoke Valley
Resource Authority (RVRA). In addition, there are some initiatives at the state level to
November 16, 2004
904
place a surcharge on water usage, which would have a significant impact on the
Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA) and the water customers in Roanoke County.
7. Request an amendment to Section 9.1-106 of the State Code to
allow the County to impose a processing fee on certain criminal and traffic proceedings.
This fee would be used to support the criminal justice training academy.
Supervisor Altizer advised that the impacts of the proposed Chesapeake
Bay flush tax of $4.00 per month will benefit another area of the state. He stated that
County customers are already facing upcoming rate increases due to compliance with
the Department of Environment Quality (DEQ) regulations. He reported that the
wastewater plants in the Chesapeake basin will tie up funding for years, and the cost of
anticipated improvements is likely to far outweigh the revenue generated. He further
advised that it is unlikely that the customers of the WVWA will see any benefit of this
legislation. He indicated that it is unclear at this time if the proposed legislation will
authorize grants for projects outside of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and noted that
phosphorous and wet weather overflow control is much more of a concern for the
Roanoke River watershed. He requested consensus of the Board to add this to the
County’s legislative agenda and to request opposition to this bill as it will be a detriment
and result in a tax increase to the citizens of Roanoke County. There was a consensus
of the Board to add this to the legislative program. Mr. Mahoney recommended that this
change be made either as an addition to Item #8 or as Item #10. There was a
consensus to add this as Item #10.
November 16, 2004
905
Mr. Hodge advised that staff has received a letter from a citizen requesting
that her comments regarding this item be included. Supervisor Flora requested that Ms.
Peckman’s information be included in the archived agenda information and noted that
Ms. Peckman has requested the Board’s support of impact fees on developers. He
stated that legislation regarding impact fees was killed in committee in the 2004 session
of the Virginia General Assembly.
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the resolution as amended (to
include Item #10 opposing the implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Flush Tax) and
with Item #6 emphasized in bold. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 111604-2 ADOPTING A LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR
THE 2005 SESSION OF THE VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND
PETITIONING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO FAVORABLY
CONSIDER THE TOPICS AND ISSUES ADDRESSED HEREIN
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has identified
major legislative issues of state-wide concern to be considered by the 2005 session of
the Virginia General Assembly; and
WHEREAS, the Board adopts this resolution as its Legislative Program for the
2005 session of the Virginia General Assembly.
NOW, THEREFORE, Be It Resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, that the following legislative initiatives are submitted for its legislative
program for the 2005 session of the Virginia General Assembly for its favorable
consideration and adoption.
1) Approve an amendment to the Roanoke County Charter as follows:
Sec. 2.02 - Taxing powers. - In addition to the powers granted by other sections
of the charter and general law, the county shall have the additional power to levy and
collect taxes on cigarettes and tobacco products, pursuant to Section 58.1-3832 of the
Code of Virginia. Senate Bill 478 (Patron: Edwards) was carried over from the 2004
session to the 2005 session.
November 16, 2004
906
2) Support the JLARC recommendations to address the shortfall in state
funding for K-12 education and to fully fund the state Board of Education proposals.
The estimated annual cost of funding both the JLARC recommendations and Board of
Education proposals is $870 Million.
3) Support tax restructuring that grants localities additional revenue authority
and increases local revenue diversification.
4) Support amending the State Code to allow Franklin and Montgomery
counties to participate in a regional jail with Roanoke County and the City of Salem.
5) Support additional state funding for transportation, and in particular,
funding for improvements to I-81, and funding for passenger and freight rail
improvements.
6)Support legislation to correct the 2004 amendments to the Personal
Property Tax Relief act/SB 5005, which in its implementation will cost Roanoke
County taxpayers approximately $10 million.
7) Support state funding to implement the Program Improvement Plan (PIP)
for the Department of Social Services.
8) Oppose the proposal to impose a state surcharge on tipping fees for each
ton of solid waste received by any municipal solid waste disposal facility, or a state
surcharge on water usage.
9) Support amending Section 9.1-106 to allow Roanoke County to charge a
processing fee in criminal or traffic proceedings to support a criminal justice training
academy.
10) Oppose the proposal to impose a state fee or tax (the "Chesapeake Bay
Flush Tax") on all sewer customers in the Commonwealth to support improvements to
sewage treatment facilities for the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay. Roanoke Valley
sewer customers are already paying their fair share for improvements to the regional
sewage treatment facility, and the Roanoke River does not flow into the Chesapeake
Bay.
II.
That the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors is directed to send a certified copy of
this resolution to Senator John S. Edwards, Senator Brandon Bell, Delegate H. Morgan
Griffith, Delegate Onzlee Ware, Delegate William Fralin; Mary F. Parker, Roanoke City
Clerk; Members of the Roanoke City Council; Forest Jones, Clerk for Salem City
Council; Members of the Salem City Council; Clerk for the Town of Vinton; Members of
the Vinton Town Council and the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission, and
the Virginia Association of Counties.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution as amended to
include Item #10 and with Item #6 emphasized in bold. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
November 16, 2004
907
3. Presentation of results of operations for fiscal year ended June
30, 2004, and appropriation of funds. (Rebecca Owens, Director
of Finance)
A-111604-3
Ms. Owens advised that the County’s auditors, KPMG, completed the
audit of the financial operations of both the County of Roanoke and Roanoke County
Schools for the year ended June 30, 2004. A favorable opinion was delivered to both
the County and Schools. She stated that actual revenues received exceeded budgeted
revenues by $3.9 million. The additional revenues collected were primarily from
increased tax collections in the areas of real estate, sales, business license, and cellular
phone tax. and the increase is attributed to a more positive economic climate. Ms.
Owens reported that revenues from the fee for service exceeded budget by $527,115.
At the time the ambulance fee was approved, these revenues were verbally committed
to Fire and Rescue and she advised that they will need to be appropriated accordingly.
She indicated that staff is recommending an appropriation of $400,000 for pagers, as
outlined in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), and appropriation of the remaining
$127,115 to capital for the radio system. She advised that this leaves a balance of
$3,466,838.
Ms. Owens indicated that in recent months, the School Board and Board
of Supervisors have been working on a joint funding policy to provide for a sustainable
funding stream to school and County capital improvements. In the near future, staff will
November 16, 2004
908
present a policy to the Board of Supervisors that designates portions of the year-end
balance for major and minor capital projects as well as revisions to the County’s fund
balance policy. Based upon these policies and Board discussions, Ms. Owens advised
that staff recommends the following appropriations:
?
$2,050,000 to be added to the general fund unappropriated
balance. This will increase the general fund unappropriated balance from $9,738,285 to
$11,788,285 at June 30, 2004 which is 8% of the 2004-2005 general fund revenues.
No action is required from the Board for these funds to close to the unappropriated
balance.
?
$1,416,838 to be appropriated to the major county capital fund
Ms. Owens reported that departmental expenditure savings were
$1,170,570. From this amount, the Board previously approved at the June 22, 2004,
meeting, funding for the purchase of land from Mr. Mason in the amount of $250,000
from year-end money. Also as part of the 2004-05 CIP, funding for Vinton Fire and
Rescue renovations were approved in the amount of $400,000. Of this amount,
$280,400 is to be appropriated from year-end money and the remainder was part of the
2004-05 capital budget. Based upon the policy for rollover of year-end savings, the
departments were able to request up to 60% of the savings within their own department
for special purchases and programs approved by the County Administrator. These
approved department rollovers total $406,751, leaving a net expenditure savings of
November 16, 2004
909
$233,419. Based upon the rollover policy, this amount will be transferred to the
County capital fund unappropriated balance (minor County capital).
Ms. Owens advised that the Roanoke County schools ended the year with
a surplus of $3.7 million. The additional revenues collected were primarily due to the
higher than anticipated enrollment for the school year. She noted that this information
was presented to the School Board on November 10, 2004 and will be approved at their
December 9, 2004 meeting. She stated that Penny Hodge, Director of Budget and
Finance for the schools, was present at the meeting.
Ms. Owens stated that staff recommends approval of item 1 which is to:
(1) appropriate the fee for service in excess of budget of $527,115 to Fire and Rescue
capital of which $400,000 is for pagers and $127,115 for radios; (2) appropriate
$280,400 for the Vinton Fire and Rescue Renovation to capital; and (3) appropriate
$1,416,838 to the Major County Capital Fund.
Supervisor Church questioned how many years the County has
experienced a surplus. Ms. Hyatt advised that there were two years when the County
had a deficit but in all other years, a surplus has been experienced.
Supervisor Church advised that it was his understanding that the monies
generated by the fee for service would be used for fire and rescue personnel. He noted
that volunteers tire out, move, quit, etc., and he stated that he is looking for the excess
revenues to be used for additional personnel. Mr. Hodge stated that staff recently
researched this in order to clarify what had been discussed and the expectations of the
November 16, 2004
910
volunteers. He noted that the County does not designate funds by allocating them for a
particular use; but when the fee for transport was put in place, the Board agreed that as
a result of citizen and volunteer firefighter requests, these monies would be reserved for
use by Fire and Rescue. One of the fears of the community was that the money would
be used for Parks and Recreation, rather than using it to strengthen the system. This
was generally agreed to by the Board to be used for public safety purposes. He noted
that the pagers were a one-time non-recurring use of funds for the Fire Department. He
advised that staff is comfortable using some of these funds for the public safety building
and allowing recurring funds from debt service to go to the public safety building. He
stated that the County can accommodate the future staffing needs with the built-in 20%
incremental increases.
Supervisor Church advised that the general consensus was that the
monies would be used for Fire and Rescue personnel. He stated that as long as
adequate funds exist for the personnel that will need to be hired, he is okay with this
approach.
Mr. Hodge noted that when staff was researching this, it was determined
that this understanding was not documented. He stated that this is an opportunity for
the Board to reaffirm that these monies will be used for Fire and Rescue purposes,
including personnel.
November 16, 2004
911
Supervisor Church stated that he vividly remembers the concerns of the
volunteer firefighters regarding personnel needs, and he recalled that they were advised
that the fee for transport revenues would be used for this purpose.
Supervisor McNamara noted that when the fee for transport went into
effect, the revenues were used to fund the additional staffing in Fire and Rescue. He
indicated that the fee for transport would increase with inflation and continue to fund
these needs. He advised that what has changed is that the Board did not realize that a
high percentage of the fee would be paid by third parties, and a substantial portion is
now coming from the federal government. This has put the County in a nice position
with increasing revenue streams for the next few years.
Supervisor Altizer requested confirmation that the Vinton Fire and Rescue
renovation funds are not coming from the fee for transport revenues. Ms. Owens
advised that the $280,400 for Vinton Fire & Rescue is coming out of excess
expenditures and not from the fee for transport excess revenues.
Supervisor Wray inquired if the joint CIP funding extends to 2012. Ms.
Hyatt reported that the major and minor capital funds are established for spending
money without debt service and she indicated that the debt service payment program
will be brought to the Board for approval in December. The major and minor capital
funds can be spent for items in the CIP. Supervisor Wray further inquired if the revenue
stream is combined between the County and Schools. Ms. Hyatt advised that there are
two separate funds, one each for County and Schools. Ms. Owens stated that in future
November 16, 2004
912
years if there are excess revenues, they will be appropriated to these funds. Supervisor
Flora noted that this information was reviewed in a recent work session and the
numbers are the same.
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the staff recommendation
(appropriate the fee for service in excess of budget of $527,115 to Fire and Rescue
capital, of which $400,000 is for pagers and the remaining $127,115 is for radios;
appropriate $280,400 for the Vinton Fire and Rescue renovation to capital; and
appropriate $1,416,838 to the Major County Capital Fund). 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
With respect to the Nextel Partners, Inc. petition, Supervisor Altizer
questioned whether the appropriate locality for this request has been properly identified.
He also questioned if any issues relating to the boundary line will also be resolved prior
to the second reading. Mr. Mahoney advised that he and David Holladay, Roanoke
County Zoning Administrator, have addressed this matter with their counterparts in
Franklin County and all parties are satisfied that the issue is resolved and the site is
located in Roanoke County.
November 16, 2004
913
Supervisor Flora moved to approve the first readings and set the second
readings and public hearings for December 21, 2004. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
1. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to
construct a 199 ft. broadcast tower located at 432 Bandy Drive
near Windy Gap Mountain, Vinton Magisterial District, upon the
petition of Nextel Partners, Inc.
2. First reading of an ordinance to rezone .98 acres from C1 Office
District to C2 General Commercial District, and to obtain a special
use permit on 2.22 acres for the operation of a fast food
restaurant and drive-thru located at the intersections of
Brambleton Avenue, Colonial Avenue and Merriman Road, Cave
Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Seaside Heights,
LLC.
3. First reading of an ordinance to rezone 158.657 acres from AR
Agricultural Residential District to AG-1 Agricultural District for
the development of single family housing located at 6944 Bent
Mountain Road and Bergenblick Lane, Windsor Hills Magisterial
November 16, 2004
914
District, upon the petition of Vaughn & Jackson, LLC. Withdrawn
at the request of the petitioner.
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. First reading of an ordinance authorizing conveyance of an
easement to Appalachian Power Company to provide electric
service to 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,
Hollins Magisterial District. (Anne Marie Green, Director of
General Services)
Ms. Green stated that at the October 26 meeting, the Board approved a
lease to NTELOS at the County’s Hollins Fire Station for the erection of a
communications tower. NTELOS does require power to the site, and this request will
grant an easement to Appalachian Power Company for this purpose. She stated that
staff recommends that the first reading be approved and the second reading be
scheduled for December 21, 2004.
Supervisor Flora moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading for December 21, 2004. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
2. First reading of an ordinance approving a residential lease at the
Roanoke County Center for Research and Technology, Catawba
November 16, 2004
915
Magisterial District. (Anne Marie Green, Director of General
Services)
Ms. Green advised that Roanoke County owns over 400 acres at the
Center for Research and Technology (CRT) in the Catawba District. She stated that
one corner of the property has a small log cabin that has been leased periodically in the
past. The last tenant moved out in August and staff has since been preparing the cabin
to be leased. Ms. Green reported that an advertisement has been placed in the
Roanoke Times to secure a tenant. She noted that keeping the cabin occupied is good
for the site and advised that in the past when the facility was not occupied, poaching
had occurred. In addition, having a tenant in the cabin secures the back entrance to
CRT. Ms. Green reported that the Board previously authorized any rent revenues to go
into a special account which is used to maintain the cabin. The cabin will rent for $600
per month or $7,200 per year and the revenues will go back into the account to
replenish the funds used to refurbish the cabin.
Supervisor Church inquired if Ms. Green would have a tenant in time for
the second reading of this ordinance. Ms. Green advised that she would. Supervisor
Church further noted that staff had a valid concern with respect to insurance if the
property is left vacant.
Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading for December 21, 2004. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
November 16, 2004
916
NAYS: None
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
1. Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare
Supervisor Flora nominated Roger Laplace to serve an additional three-
year term which will expire on December 31, 2007
2Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (Appointed by
.
District
Supervisor Altizer nominated Tim Guilliams to represent the Vinton
Magisterial District for a three-year term which will expire on June 30, 2007. He
requested that confirmation of the appointment be added to the consent resolution.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
R-111604-4, R-111604-4.b
Supervisor Wray requested that Item J-4 be removed from the consent
agenda.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution with Item J-4
removed, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 111604-4 APPROVING AND CONCURRING
IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED
AS ITEM J - CONSENT AGENDA
November 16, 2004
917
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
November 16, 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 9, inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes – October 13, October 26, October 27, and November 1,
2004
2. Request to accept and appropriate a grant in the amount of $255,000 from
the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation on behalf of Unified
Human Transportation Services, Inc. (RADAR)
3. Request to accept Cezanne Court into the state secondary road system
4. Request to adopt a resolution fixing the compensation that may be received
by non-employee members and non-elected officials of the boards of the
Western Virginia Water Authority and the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority,
and establishing an effective date
5. Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate a grant
(donation) in the amount of $8,900 from the Loyal Order of the Moose to
purchase a new total mapping station
6. Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate a grant in the
amount of $6,000 from the Court Community Corrections Alcohol Safety
Action Program
7. Request to approve the execution of a contract to provide Commonwealth
Attorney services to the Town of Vinton for $6,000 and appropriation of funds
8. Request to approve the execution of an amendment to protective covenants,
Mountain View Farm Technological Park
9. Confirmation of committee appointment to the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission
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 McNamara to adopt the resolution with Item J-4
removed, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt Item J-4 and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
November 16, 2004
918
RESOLUTION 111604-4.b REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF CEZANNE
COURT INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SECONDARY SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the street described on the attached Addition Form SR-5(A), fully
incorporated herein by reference are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk’s Office of
the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation
has advised this Board the streets meet the requirements established by the
Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and
WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have
entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999, for comprehensive stormwater detention
which applies to this request for addition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to add the streets described on the attached Additions
Form SR-5(A) to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code
of Virginia, and the Department’s Subdivision Street Requirements, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage,
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Moved by: Supervisor McNamara
Seconded by: None Required
Yeas: Supervisors, McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
Nays: None
Supervisor Wray inquired when the resolution regarding compensation for
non-employee and non-elected officials of the WVWA would take effect. Mr. Hodge
responded January 1, 2005. Supervisor Wray questioned if the only representatives on
the WVWA Board at that time would be citizens. Mr. Hodge advised that only citizen
representatives will be eligible for payment and noted that the resolution applies only to
non-elected, non-appointed staff and is meant to cover their time commitment in
establishing the WVWA. Supervisor Wray noted that he wanted to clarify the exclusion.
November 16, 2004
919
On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt Item J-4 and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 111604-5 FIXING THE COMPENSATION THAT MAY
BE RECEIVED BY NON-EMPLOYEE MEMBERS AND NON-ELECTED
OFFICIALS OF THE BOARDS OF THE WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER
AUTHORITY AND THE ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE
AUTHORITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of §15.2-5113.C, Code of Virginia, the
governing bodies who appoint members of the boards of the Western Virginia Water
Authority and the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority are authorized to fix by resolution
compensation for the members of such boards; and
WHEREAS, Council and the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors desire to fix
the compensation for the board members of the Western Virginia Water Authority and
the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority, but to limit such compensation to members
who are not employees or elected officials of such jurisdictions.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County as follows:
1. A monthly sum of $250 is hereby fixed as the amount of compensation
that may be received by members of the boards of the Western Virginia Water Authority
and the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority, provided that such members are not
employees or elected officials of the City of Roanoke or the County of Roanoke.
2. This resolution shall be in full force and effect on and after January 1,
2005.
On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: CITIZENS’ COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Anne Rogers, representing Virginians for Appropriate Roads (VAR), spoke
regarding the request by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) that the
County sign a memorandum of agreement (MOA) to serve as a consulting party in the
November 16, 2004
920
process for I-73. She noted discrepancies regarding the amount of right-of-way that will
be required and the potential impact on Clearbrook School. She requested that the
County join with VAR in requesting a meeting between all the signatories prior to
approving the draft MOA. She stated that the purpose of the meeting would be to
examine what VDOT is planning with regard to design considerations. She also noted
that West Virginia is not building their portion of I-73 to interstate standards, and she
requested that the Board consider requesting that Virginia also build their portion of I-73
to non-state, non-interstate principal arterial standards.
Supervisor Flora requested that the Board be briefed on this matter at a
future meeting. Mr. Hodge advised that this matter will be discussed in a work session
later today. He also stated that in the evening session, staff is requesting approval of a
designee to work with VDOT on this matter. Mr. Hodge noted that the MOA simply
requests a designated representative from the County for ongoing communication with
VDOT during the design, planning, and construction phase. He stated that it does not
give the County any power but rather places them in more of an advisory capacity. Mr.
Hodge recommended that Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development, be
designated as the County’s representative for this purpose.
Supervisor Wray requested clarification that the MOA only gives
authorization for the County to participate in discussions regarding the negotiations with
VDOT and the vote itself. Mr. Hodge stated that Mr. Mahoney advised that VDOT has
invited Roanoke County and the other localities to participate in an attempt to mitigate
November 16, 2004
921
any potential adverse effects of I-73 through the MOA. He stated that VDOT and the
Federal Highway Administration (FHA) intend to mitigate any adverse effects to the Blue
Ridge Parkway (BRP) through consultation with a variety of parties to ensure that the
design is consistent with the historical character of the BRP. He stated that VDOT has
examined the potential impact to other facilities and has found that there is no adverse
impact to other facilities by this route. The purpose of the MOA is for the County’s
continuing participation in the process to represent our communities. If the County
chooses not to do this, VDOT will proceed without our involvement. Mr. Hodge advised
that the County has 30 days to execute the MOA.
Supervisor Wray voiced concerns about mitigating any impact to the
Clearbrook community. He stated that it is his understanding that this is still in the
discussion stage regarding what will actually occur. Mr. Hodge advised that staff has
worked with this project from the beginning and has concerns about the entire I-73
corridor, as well as the widening of I-81. He stated that the best way to participate is to
continue to be involved and stay informed during the process. He noted that it will be
many years before I-73 is ever designed and built.
Supervisor Wray requested clarification regarding whether Mr. Hodge
would be working with Ms. Rogers and VAR on this project. Mr. Hodge confirmed that
staff will be working with Ms. Rogers and VAR.
Supervisor Flora inquired if a representative from VDOT will be present at
the meeting who can speak regarding the I-73 issue. Mr. Hodge advised that Fred
November 16, 2004
922
Altizer is the I-73 representative with VDOT and he will not be at the meeting today.
Richard Caywood, Salem District Administrator, will be representing VDOT at today’s
meeting.
Ms. Rogers stated that VDOT is inviting approval of a draft MOA. She
stated that as a consulting party for I-73 representing VAR, she is asking VDOT to
convene a meeting to specify what their plans are for the I-73 corridor. She stated that
at this point, she is unable to visualize the proposed changes.
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 – October 2004
6. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for
the month ended October 31, 2004
7. Statement of Treasurer’s accountability per investment and
portfolio policy as of October 31, 2004
November 16, 2004
923
8. Economic Development Report for the month ended October 31,
2004
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 4:38 p.m., Supervisor Flora moved to go into closed meeting following
the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (5) discussion
concerning a prospective business or industry where no previous announcement has
been made; Section 2.2-3711 A (7) consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff
pertaining to legal matter, namely Virginia Department of Social Services; Section 2.2-
3711 A (1) discussion or consideration of the performance of specific public officers;
Section 2.2-3711 A (3) discussion or consideration of the acquisition of real property for
public purposes, namely regional jail facility; Section 2.2-3711 A (3) discussion or
consideration of the acquisition of real property for public purposes, namely Southwest
County library branch. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: WORK SESSION
1. Work session to discuss the six-year secondary system
construction plan for fiscal years 2005-2011 and review of the
revenue sharing priority list for fiscal years 2005-2006. (Arnold
Covey, Director of Community Development)
November 16, 2004
924
The work session was held from 4:50 p.m. until 5:38 p.m. Staff present
included: Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; George Simpson,
Assistant Director of Community Development; Anthony Ford, Traffic Engineer; and
Aaron Hofberg, GIS Technician. The following individuals were also present from
VDOT: Richard Caywood, District Administrator; Jeff Echols, Resident Engineer; Susan
Hammond and Bill Manning.
Mr. Ford advised that VDOT funding allocations have decreased from $3.1
million last year to $2.7 million this year, a reduction of $350,000. He reported that the
following numbered projects will receive funding in 2005-2006: Indian Grave Road,
Hollins Road, McVitty Road, Old Cave Spring Road, Colonial Avenue, Buck Mountain
Road, Mountain View Road, Boones Chapel Road, and Hardy Road.
Mr. Ford also advised that the following roads remain on the road plan but
no funding is allocated for the projects: Catawba Creek Road, Dry Hollow Road,
Merriman Road, John Richardson Road, Shadwell Drive (Old Mountain Road), and
Garman Road. He further advised that due to insufficient funds, improvements to
Colonial Avenue from Route 419 to Ogden Road will be removed from the plan. He
stated that the unpaved construction program includes Rocky Road and Moncap Trail.
There was general discussion regarding continuing reductions in state funding for
construction projects.
Mr. Ford outlined the following revenue sharing improvements: Gerard
Drive, Farmington Drive – Route 1652, Farmington Drive – Cave Spring Lane, Miller
November 16, 2004
925
Cove Road, Olsen Road – Route 1832, Colonial Avenue/Lanewood Drive, Friendship
Lane, Lofton Road/Tamarack Trail/Fall Road, Luwana Drive, and Longhorn Road.
There was general discussion regarding a proposed land swap between
VDOT and Mennell Milling Company. There was a consensus of the Board to support
the land swap since it provides benefits to all parties involved, and that the Chairman
send a letter to local legislators requesting their support in the 2005 Session of the
Virginia General Assembly.
2. Work session to review the drainage maintenance program.
(Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development)
This item was re-scheduled for the December 7, 2004 meeting.
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
The closed meeting was held from 5:55 p.m. until 6:40 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
R-111604-6
At 7:04 p.m., Supervisor Flora moved to return to open session and adopt
the certification resolution with the following item removed: Section 2.2-3711 A (1)
discussion or consideration of the performance of specific public officers. It was noted
that the remaining closed session item will be discussed following the evening session.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
November 16, 2004
926
RESOLUTION 111604-6 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS
HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies, and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor 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 memorandum of
agreement among the Federal Highway Administration, the
Virginia State Historic Preservation Officer, the Virginia
Department of Transportation, and the National Park Service
regarding the Interstate 73 Corridor - Franklin, Henry, and
Roanoke Counties and City of Roanoke, Virginia. (Elmer Hodge,
County Administrator)
A-111604-7
November 16, 2004
927
Mr. Hodge reported that this item was discussed briefly in the afternoon
session. He summarized that the MOA provides an opportunity for Roanoke County to
be involved in the ongoing development of I-73. He read the following information from
the MOA: “VDOT shall provide all signatories to this MOA an opportunity to participate
in the design process for I-73 crossing of the Blue Ridge Parkway by consulting with the
signatories during the project scoping conducted prior to initiation of preliminary design
and providing the signatories an opportunity to review and comment on preliminary and
detailed design plans.”
Mr. Hodge advised that VDOT is narrowly defining this as to the impact on
the Blue Ridge Parkway. They have evaluated a number of concerns that have been
provided by citizens regarding the potential impacts to buildings, schools, and other
facilities. The findings by VDOT and the FHA are that there will be no impact to the
other items studied (i.e., architecture, archaeology, cultural landscape, etc.). The report
indicates that the Trent House and Clearbrook Elementary School will not be affected;
however, the Blue Ridge Parkway will be adversely impacted and they are proposing a
visual alteration. Mr. Hodge recommended that Arnold Covey, Director of Community
Development, be designated as the County’s contact person for participation in this
process.
Supervisor Wray voiced concerns regarding the potential impact to
Clearbrook Elementary School. He questioned if the County’s participation in the MOA
will allow some type of control with respect to minimizing the impact on the school. Mr.
November 16, 2004
928
Hodge advised that the County does not have the authority to affect the design, but he
indicated it is important to stay informed and involved in the process.
Supervisor Wray questioned if only one contact person is designated or if
an alternate is allowed. Mr. Mahoney stated that he is of the opinion that VDOT is
requesting a single representative from the County. Supervisor Wray emphasized the
need to keep the Board informed of any changes regarding I-73.
Supervisor Flora stated that I-73 is a controversial project and he voiced
support for Arnold Covey being the County’s designated representative.
Supervisor Altizer advised that he supports the MOA but stated that he
would hope that VDOT and the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) understand
that there is a fiscal impact to I-73. He spoke regarding the effect this has on the
families who live in the proposed corridor if they attempt to sell their property and the
value of the property is adversely impacted by the proposed I-73 corridor. He
encouraged that funding be made available to individuals in the proposed corridor in
order to opt out early with VDOT or the CTB purchasing their properties.
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve staff recommendation (authorize
the County Administrator to execute the memorandum of agreement on behalf of
Roanoke County). The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
November 16, 2004
929
2. Request to authorize the execution of one or more option
agreements for potential sites for the proposed regional jail
facility. (John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator;
Elmer Hodge, County Administrator)
R-111604-8
Mr. Hodge reported that this is an item that the Board has established as a
priority in the CIP process to move forward with the construction of a regional jail. It is
best to approach this on a regional basis in order to obtain 50% state funding for the
project, versus 25% if the project is pursued independently. This will also allow the
County to distribute the costs over a larger base. At this point, Franklin and
Montgomery Counties and the City of Salem are partners in the project. He advised
that the request before the Board is to authorize the execution of one or more option
agreements for the sites for the jail. Staff has discussed this matter with the Board
during the last year and he advised that following the 2004 Session of the General
Assembly, information was obtained regarding the process that must be followed. On
October 12, 2004, the Board approved proceeding with plans for the development of a
regional jail facility. The Board also approved the execution of a letter of intent allowing
the required studies to be completed by the statutorily imposed March 1, 2005 deadline.
If the deadline is not met, State Code mandates that this issue can not be reintroduced
until 2007. Mr. Hodge reported that a two-year delay could result in the loss of partners
for the project and state funding. If authorized by the Board, staff will secure one or
November 16, 2004
930
more options on real estate and these sites will be brought back to the Board for their
selection at the December 7 meeting. The use of options allows staff to use due
diligence to analyze the potential sites. Mr. Hodge stated that it is anticipated that 30
acres will be needed for the facility, and it is difficult to find this amount of land. When a
site is selected, the County will work with the surrounding community regarding any
concerns. Mr. Hodge stated that staff will review the evaluation criteria and will be
available to answer any questions.
Sheriff Holt advised that the proposed regional jail facility has been a long
time in coming and he reviewed the needs of the Sheriff’s Office. He stated that the
facility was designed in 1977 and opened October 1, 1980 with an inmate population
between the County and the City of Salem of 80 inmates. He stated that today, the
facility is holding 270 inmates in the same structure and the overcrowding is extremely
stressful to the facility. He stated that the kitchen was designed for approximately 9,000
meals per month and it is currently running 23,000 to 25,000 per month. He advised
that projections anticipate 354 inmates by 2011. He stated that the Sheriff’s Office has
used all available means to reduce the inmate population and the only inmates currently
incarcerated in the jail are those in the maximum security classification and those
serving time for mandatory sentences (i.e., DUI, use of firearms, etc.). All other inmates
of lower classification are on electronic monitoring programs or some other type of
diversion program outside the facility. Sheriff Holt advised that the needs are real and
the facility was overcrowded when he took office in 1982; at that time, the facility was
November 16, 2004
931
operating at 125% of capacity. He voiced appreciation to the Board for their support of
this project.
Supervisor Wray inquired about the cost savings associated with building
a regional facility. Sheriff Holt responded that the same ratio of staffing to inmates
would exist in the new facility, which will hold inmates for four localities. Pre-sentenced
inmates would be housed in the existing facility and post-sentencing inmates would be
transferred to the new regional jail facility. The level of staffing would be reduced by
approximately 19 employees from the current level of 99.
Supervisor Church questioned if this was the same information presented
to the Board in a recent work session. He noted that this item is to inform the public of
the needs for the future. Mr. Hodge recapped the minutes from the October 12
meeting, at which time Mr. Chambliss requested approval of a letter of intent for the
participating localities to continue to pursue the feasibility of a regional jail. At the
October 12 meeting, it was noted that two specialized studies must be completed on
behalf of the localities, one of which is the program plan. This study becomes the
schematic drawing and the budget document for the proposed facility and must be site
specific. The reports and supporting documentation must be filed with the State before
March 1, 2005 in order to be eligible for inclusion in the Governor’s capital budget. Mr.
Hodge indicated that by March 1, 2005, the County must have control of the site, a
conceptual design of the building, the participating localities, and the budget for the
facility. Mr. Hodge reported that at the October 12 meeting, Mr. Chambliss also advised
November 16, 2004
932
that the four jurisdictions have agreed to share in the cost of the study based on
population; however, it is anticipated that this will be amended in the final agreement
and will be based on the number of beds utilized by each locality. The request for
$85,000 in funding was approved unanimously at the October 12 meeting.
Mr. Chambliss requested approval of the letter of intent for the
participating localities to pursue the feasibility of a regional jail facility. At this time, he
provided statistical background information and advised that there were two specialized
studies that must be completed: (1) the community based corrections plan, which
includes a needs assessment based on the current inmate population in each local jail,
trends over the past several years, utilization of diversion programs, and a 20 year
projection of needs; (2) a program plan which becomes the schematic drawing and
budget document for the proposed facility. This study will be site specific and provides
the basis for the amount of funding that the state will provide for the new facility. Both of
these reports and other supporting documentation must be filed with the State by March
1, 2005 to be eligible for inclusion in the Governor’s budget for 2006.
Mr. Chambliss advised that each of the participating localities will continue
to operate their existing local jails to handle pre-sentencing inmates. Inmates will
remain in the local jails until sentencing unless they have special needs or overcrowding
exists in the local jail. It is anticipated that the regional facility will be used for post-
sentencing inmates and special needs populations. Transportation to and from the local
jails will be handled by the regional jail facility. He reported that the existing Roanoke
November 16, 2004
933
County-Salem jail is rated for 180 bed capacity; Franklin County is rated for 49 beds;
and Montgomery County is rated for 60 beds.
With respect to the program plan, Mr. Chambliss advised that an
architect/engineer examines the projected need for beds and devises a security plan,
security facility, and works with the law enforcement and Sheriff’s offices to design the
facility for the specific site. He noted that there are some diversion opportunities not
currently being fully utilized by the other Sheriff’s Offices, and it is anticipated that they
will begin to use more of these. Franklin County is also housing approximately 75
inmates per day in Roanoke City due to overcrowding.
Mr. Chambliss stated that the jail study group is comprised of the Sheriff of
each participating jurisdiction, the County Administrator/City Manager or Assistant
County Administrator/Assistant City Manager, plus other corrections officials within the
organizations. The schedule being followed is set forth by State Code and must be
submitted on or before March 1 in odd numbered years. Following submission to the
State, the request is forwarded to the Department of Corrections. After review, it is then
acted on by the Board of Corrections and if approved, the request is forwarded to the
Governor for inclusion in the capital budget which must be submitted by December. It is
then considered by the General Assembly and at this time, the County anticipates
consideration in the 2006 session. If the budget is approved, the monies will become
available July 1, 2006 to begin the construction process. It is anticipated that the facility
will be operated as part of an authority, whereby the local governments would adopt
November 16, 2004
934
resolutions allowing them to issue debt for this purpose. He stated that the County can
receive up to 50% of allowable costs from the State for a regional jail facility.
Mr. Chambliss further advised that staff is working with Hayes, Seay,
Mattern & Mattern (HSM&M) to design the program plan. Dan Bolt, HSM&M, presented
a work schedule outlining all aspects that must be completed before submission to the
Department of Corrections. He reported that a workshop was held to discuss the types
of programs offered by the jail and how it will operate. Staffing costs over a 30 year
period will approach 80% of the total costs, whereas the building is 10% of the 30 year
cost. He stated that the next workshop will take the needs assessment and use this to
design a floor plan for the facility. He indicated that these concepts will be presented to
the Department of Corrections on November 23, and they will develop a
recommendation by December 15 with plans, sections, costs, staffing, etc. At that
point, a draft planning study will be prepared with Department of Corrections input and it
will be presented to the Board of Supervisors on January 13, 2005. Following this, the
finished document will be implemented and submitted on February 22, 2005. Critical to
this process will be the selection of a site, which must include analysis of the size
needed to accommodate future expansion needs.
Mr. Chambliss advised that the remaining general criteria are the need for
a 30 acre site to allow for future expansion needs. Based on past growth and current
standards, facilities are built to accommodate growth for a 10 year period. As sites
have been examined, the following selection criteria have been established:
November 16, 2004
935
?
Willing buyer and seller
?
Worked with economic development to determine appropriate size
sites
?
Proximity to courts and partner agencies
?
Type and proximity of neighboring development
?
Availability of utilities and road structure
?
General topography of the land
?
Drainage issues for the facility and surrounding community
?
Asking cost of property and cost to develop the site
?
Access to major highways
?
Other major limitations such as existing hazards that must be mitigated
?
Zoning considerations
Mr. Chambliss stated that it is significant to realize that Franklin and
Montgomery Counties are working with the County as partners at this time, and they will
be petitioning the General Assembly for permission to participate in the regional facility.
However, Roanoke County and Salem still need a facility to accommodate present
needs regardless of the participation of these partners. The County has taken the lead
in this process due to the size of our inmate population and the needs that currently
exist for a new facility.
Supervisor Church noted that Mr. Hodge mentioned the October 12
meeting and the March 1 deadline, and he stated that the Board is aware of the
November 16, 2004
936
mandates. He questioned who the team members are. Mr. Chambliss responded that
the representatives are from the four jurisdictions: (1) Roanoke County: Sheriff Holt,
Charlie Poff, Major Mike Winston, Captain Barry Tayloe, and John Chambliss. (2) City
of Salem: Assistant City Manager Jay Taliaferro, Sheriff Roger Surber; (3) Montgomery
County: Sheriff Tommy Witt, County Administrator Clay Goodman, and Captain Robert
Hall, Chief Corrections Officer; (4) Franklin County: Assistant County Administrator
Chris Whitlow, County Administrator Rick Houff, Sheriff Quint Overton, Captain Vickie
Meadors, and Lieutenant Ewell Hunt. He stated that these representatives have been
involved in the process of establishing the consulting groups needed to develop the
plans and in conducting site visitations and evaluation of the criteria.
Supervisor Church questioned how the proposed sites were selected and
how many sites are being considered. Mr. Chambliss advised that there are five sites
currently being considered and others have been reviewed to varying degrees.
Supervisor Church further inquired if all the sites are in Roanoke County. Mr.
Chambliss responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Church inquired if all five sites are
in the same district. Mr. Chambliss advised that the sites are in two districts. He stated
that based on the criteria, which includes proximity to the partner agencies, the
committee focused on the area from Christiansburg through the Salem-Roanoke County
and Franklin County areas.
Supervisor Church voiced concerns that the citizens have been left out
and he inquired if there has been any citizen involvement in this process. Mr.
November 16, 2004
937
Chambliss advised that there has not been citizen involvement up to this point because
negotiations have not been conducted with any of the property owners to that degree.
Supervisor Church stated that you cannot get an option on land and say to the citizens
“here is what you should have and I think you should like it”. He stated that the County
could have an urgent need and the finest building, but we must remember that we work
for the citizens of Roanoke County. Otherwise we will take actions that are
counterproductive. He stated that the Board cannot just pick a site since we are not
talking about a hardware store; we are talking about a regional jail. He stated that jails
do not house user friendly citizens. He stated that he adamantly disagreed with this
item being discussed in closed session tonight. He stated that the Board must
remember that you do not take something of this magnitude and just decide where you
are going to put it. He recommended that citizens be involved in the process. He
stated that the citizens are the people who pay the salaries of everyone who works in
Roanoke County. He advised that he will vote no on a project based on the principle of
how it is handled and that he does not take kindly to finding out information 48 hours
before a Board meeting. He stated that the Board cannot take on a situation like this in
a fast track manner and if this is the case, then the project needs to be moved back to
2007. He noted that his district has been the recipient of the landfill, Spring Hollow
Reservoir, Police Firing Range, Regional Fire and Rescue Training Center, and the new
Public Safety Center. He stated that the people have to be willing to accept the project,
and he is not willing to create another storm. He advised that he knows Sheriff Holt
November 16, 2004
938
needs the facility, but thinks the County is getting the cart before the horse. We must
remember the citizens. He stated he is not satisfied and that wherever the proposed
site is located, the citizens must be involved.
Supervisor McNamara noted that the County is in the midst of a
reasonably successful PPEA project with the new public safety center, and he
questioned if the jail lends itself to this same type of construction process. Mr. Hodge
stated that this is certainly still an option; however in this case, the needs assessment
has already been conducted and the County may be beyond the design/build aspect of
the PPEA process. Supervisor McNamara further inquired if there was a fundamental
reason why the PPEA process was not utilized from the start. Mr. Hodge stated that the
public safety building was used as a pilot project. Mr. Bolt, architect with HSM&M,
reported that the bid situation has been proven to be a safe way for public facilities to be
constructed because you can specify exact requirements. He also stated that the bid
situation will also yield the best price for the project. Mr. Hodge further advised that Mr.
Chambliss also pointed out that the jail construction is a specific process regulated by
the State and it does not easily lend itself to the PPEA process. Supervisor McNamara
stated that it is certainly his hope that the PPEA process gets the best price for the
public safety building.
Mr. Hodge responded to several of the concerns voiced regarding the
projects mentioned by Supervisor Church. Mr. Hodge stated that Roanoke County won
a national award for their efforts in working with the people during the construction of
November 16, 2004
939
the landfill. He advised that staff is willing to consider any sites that the Board might
recommend and there are four or five potential sites currently being considered that are
a good distance away from residential communities. He again noted the deadline in
order to keep the project on track and retain the partners and State funding. He stated
that the County’s past track record will serve us well in the future and we will work with
the surrounding community when a site is chosen.
Supervisor Altizer requested details regarding the options including what
the County is committing to and what the options are subject to. Mr. Hodge stated that
in order for staff to determine if a site is feasible, it cannot be examined on paper. Due
diligence, including soil and geological studies, must be conducted to ensure the
feasibility of the site. He noted some of the key criteria previously reviewed by Mr.
Chambliss and stated that at this time, staff needs access to the sites to evaluate them
relative to other potential sites. He also expressed the need to be careful in these
negotiations in order to avoid increasing the price of the land by discussing it publicly.
Supervisor Altizer questioned what the options are made subject to. Mr. Hodge stated
that the acquisition of the land will be subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors
and may also be subject to environmental studies, soil borings, etc.
Supervisor Altizer noted that the requested action states “options”, and
questioned if it is anticipated that multiple sites will be presented to the Board. Mr.
Hodge advised that there may be up to five potential sites presented, depending on the
results of the studies conducted on the sites.
November 16, 2004
940
Supervisor Wray questioned why the County is only looking at 30 acre
sites. Mr. Chambliss reported that this is the minimum feasible acreage and some of
the sites being considered have more acreage. He advised that many jails today are
being constructed as part of industrial parks, and the County is looking at sites with
more than 30 acres, as well as aggregating parcels to come up with 30 acres of suitable
developable property. He stated that one of the factors to be considered is what is
surrounding the proposed sites and the potential impact to those areas. Mr. Chambliss
stated that staff is examining all of these components and there may be other related
tracts that will need to be evaluated based on the impacts to them.
Supervisor Wray requested that Mr. Chambliss expand on the statement
that there is limited housing around the potential sites. He stated that any housing will
be a problem. Mr. Chambliss advised that if there is a school site in the middle of a
residential neighborhood, this would be viewed as a negative factor. If there is a site
which is surrounded by open land or agricultural/ industrial use, this would not be as
disruptive to residential properties. Staff would then examine what can be done to
minimize the impact to the surrounding areas.
Supervisor Church posed the following question to Mr. Hodge: “If
someone came to you and said they wanted to test the site near where you live, and
you had a feeling they were going to put a regional jail there, would you like to know
what is going there? Mr. Hodge replied that he would.
November 16, 2004
941
Supervisor Church stated with respect to the landfill, the people protested.
He stated that the County is looking at a huge endeavor. He noted that the need to not
drive up the price of the property was mentioned, and he questioned at whose price are
we forsaking here. He stated it is at the price of the citizenry when the County worries
about negotiating price and that price is not the most important underlying factor. He
suggested that the criteria include how many miles away the site would be from
residential development, and he further recommended looking at sites in other counties
such as Montgomery. He stated that the citizens were not willingly led to the altar with
respect to the landfill. He stated that you must treat people with respect and involve
them in the process, and he cannot be a willing participant without the people being
involved. He noted the need for traffic impact studies and further advised that the
Catawba District may be the choice for several of the sites. He also indicated that he
would be saying the same thing if the other districts were in the same position.
Mr. Hodge concurred with Supervisor Church and stated that in his time
with the County, he has never forgotten the people. He stated that when the landfill
opened, the County won a national award and the people in the community treated
County staff to lunch. He stated that if the site must be miles away from housing, he
does not know where a site can be found. He recommended that the Board visit the
regional jail in Charlottesville, which is in the midst of a nice commercial area. He also
noted that the County is faced with the constraints of locating in proximity to utilities; and
if the site is located several miles away from any residential, then there will not be easy
November 16, 2004
942
access to utilities. Mr. Hodge stated that in order to take care of the citizens, the County
attempts to locate a nice mix of utilities and other criteria and then take steps to protect
the surrounding community. Some of these steps could include purchasing additional
land as a buffer zone, or implementing a land value guarantee such as the one used
with the landfill. With such a program if the properties around the facility are affected
and the property owner wants to sell their property, this process allows them to sell the
property and the County works with them to protect their property values. Mr. Hodge
stated that at tonight’s meeting, staff is asking for the opportunity to go forward and
evaluate the sites and guarantee that we will work through the process. He stated that
the decision tonight is whether the Board wishes to move forward with this project in
2005 or 2007.
Supervisor Wray inquired if Montgomery or Franklin County have offered
any potential sites in their jurisdictions. Mr. Hodge advised that we know that the
Roanoke County jail is overcrowded. If the partner localities decide not to go forward,
the County must still proceed alone. If there is any hesitation on the part of the partner
localities or if there is no access to necessary utilities, this will cause the County to miss
deadlines if we pursue potential sites that do not work out. Mr. Chambliss noted that
the other localities had expressed lukewarm participation in the initial phases of this
project, so the County has been moving forward with the site selection process. He
advised that sites have not been presented from any of the participating jurisdictions,
November 16, 2004
943
and the committee focused primarily in Salem and Roanoke County because the
existing facility is in this area.
Supervisor Church questioned what is wrong with letting the citizens in the
district know what is being proposed. He stated that he will accept the process only if
the people are included at the outset. He advised that he is not afraid to stand up and
test the waters and the County must do what is right for the citizens of Roanoke County.
He stated that he is more than a little aggravated by some of the things we are saying to
our people: here is what we think you need, we hope you like it. He indicated that it is
much easier to bring them into the process and the County cannot do business like it
has in the past. He stated that people have changed and are only willing to allow so
much to go on.
Supervisor Flora inquired if it was possible to advise property owners that
the purpose of the option is to build a regional jail. Mr. Hodge advised that this is
something the County must do. Supervisor Flora requested clarification that the
individuals will know up front, before they ever enter into an option agreement, that
there is a possibility that a regional jail could be built on that site. Mr. Hodge confirmed
that this was correct. Supervisor Flora further advised that once the options are
secured, then price is not an issue and the sites can be made public. This would allow
for public comment on the proposed sites. He advised that he feels this will not impede
the process to proceed with securing options as long as the individuals are advised of
the proposed use of the property.
November 16, 2004
944
Supervisor Church advised that if the sites are made public up front, he
will be satisfied with that process.
Supervisor Wray stated that we also need to consider the time frame we
are working within. Mr. Hodge clarified that there is tremendous opportunity for citizen
involvement because tonight is the first step in communicating with the individuals in
those districts. He stated that the County is looking for willing sellers and does not want
to get into condemnation of properties. He stated that we will tell the potential sellers
that much work must be done in a short period of time, and staff will narrow down the
potential sites and then the rezoning process will begin. At that point, there will be
further opportunity for community input. Mr. Hodge stated that Supervisor Church said
it well on October 12 when he asked Sheriff Holt if the statistics regarding inmate
population that he reviewed were accurate (248 inmates for 108 beds) and the Sheriff
confirmed that this was correct. Supervisor Church then stated that “this is a dire
situation and needs to be addressed”. Mr. Hodge stated that a decision is needed
regarding whether to proceed with the new facility in 2005 or 2007.
Supervisor Church thanked Mr. Hodge for the quote, but stated that what
is being discussed is involving citizens in the process. He advised that the quote is
totally irrelevant to this discussion, and indicated that he has always known that a
regional jail is needed. However, it is not appropriate to put this information in an email
requesting a closed session 48 hours before a meeting. He stated that this is not user
November 16, 2004
945
friendly and this is what upsets him. He advised that he expects the media to be able to
report the potential districts for the regional jail site within a few days.
Supervisor McNamara advised that he thinks staff has the inclination to do
everything above board. Supervisor McNamara moved to approve staff
recommendation.
Supervisor Church made a substitute motion to approve staff
recommendation with the condition that the districts of the proposed sites be publicly
identified before contacting the property owners. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
Supervisor Flora requested clarification regarding when the options will be
brought back to the Board. Mr. Hodge advised that this will occur at the December 7
meeting.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. This item has been postponed until January 25, 2005. 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
November 16, 2004
946
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. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner)
Chairman Flora advised that this item had been postponed until January
25, 2005.
2. Second 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. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner)
O-111604-9
Ms. Scheid advised that the Board of Supervisors recently purchased this
property in order to expand Hollins Park; however the existing zoning of I1, Industrial
District, does not permit public parks and recreational areas. The Board is therefore
petitioning to change the zoning on the property to R1, Low Density Residential District.
Ms. Scheid stated that the property was designated Principal Industrial in the 1998
Roanoke County Community Plan and this designation was appropriate when the
property was available for industrial land use. Since the Board of Supervisors has
November 16, 2004
947
purchased the property to expand Hollins Park, the land use designation is proposed to
change to Neighborhood Conservation in the current update of the plan. Ms. Scheid
reported that the proposed use conforms to the policies and guidelines of the proposed
new land use designation of Neighborhood Conservation.
Ms. Scheid advised that the need to provide additional park and recreation
areas prompted the Board of Supervisors to purchase this property in order to expand
Hollins Park. The rezoning is necessary in order for the property to be used as a park.
She further advised that the Planning Commission heard this petition on November 2
and forwarded it to the Board with unanimous consent.
Rodney W. Gentry, 5691 Hollins Road, questioned the County’s future
plans and whether this property will be used as a park. He questioned if the property
will be sold for residential development. Ms. Scheid advised that the Board purchased
the property to allow for expansion of the park, which is undersized. She noted that the
immediate need is for additional parking. Mr. Gentry questioned if there were any maps
available showing the proposed plans. Ms. Scheid advised that the park will undergo a
master planning process in the future. Mr. Gentry further inquired if there were any
proposals for the remaining portion of the property that will not be used for parking. Ms.
Scheid advised that there are no plans at this time. Mr. Gentry noted that in the past,
residents were informed that walking trails would be developed. Supervisor Flora
advised that these will be in place in 2005.
November 16, 2004
948
Betty L. Barton, 5696 Hollins Road, stated that the park is supposed to
close at 10 p.m. every night, and she noted problems with cars parking in the area late
at night. She requested that something be done to address this problem.
Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 111604-9 TO CHANGE THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF A 9.78-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE
LOCATED AT 7704-7706 FRIENDSHIP LANE (TAX MAP NOS.
18.18-3-4, 18.18-3-5) IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R1 TO THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF I1 WITH CONDITIONS UPON THE
APPLICATION OF NEW CENTURY DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 26, 2004, and
the second reading and public hearing were held November 16, 2004; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on November 2, 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
9.78 acres, as described herein, and located at 7704-7706 Friendship Lane (Tax Map
Numbers 18.18-3-4, 18.18-3-5) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed
from the zoning classification of R1, Low Density Residential District, to the zoning
classification of I1, Industrial District with conditions.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of New Century
Development Co., LLC.
3. 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:
November 16, 2004
949
(1) Owner/developer shall prepare the site in full accord with Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality regulations pertaining to wetlands and
Roanoke County storm water management requirements.
(2) The property shall be accessed from Friendship Lane by a street
built to Virginia Department of Transportation standards directly opposite the
center line of existing Garland Circle as depicted on rezoning exhibit by Lumsden
Associates, PC, dated September 22, 2004.
4. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
Beginning at Corner #1, said point located on the northerly right-of-way
Friendship Lane, VA Secondary Route 1895, said point also being the
southwesterly corner of property of Danny R. Myers, Roanoke County Tax
#18.18-3-3.01; thence leaving Myers and with Friendship Lane for the following 7
courses: S 46° 38’ 49” W 38.62 feet to Corner #2; thence S 49° 03’ 22” W 57.08
feet to Corner #3; thence S 55° 05’ 00” W 48.96 feet to Corner #4; thence S 58°
50’ 37” W 100.72 feet to Corner #5; thence S 61° 00’ 21” W 148.77 feet to Corner
#6; thence N 33° 00’ 00” W 14.93 feet to Corner #7; thence S 61° 40’ 00” W
106.00 feet to Corner #8; said point being the southeasterly corner of property of
David L. Myers, Roanoke County Tax #18.18-3-5.01; thence leaving Friendship
Lane and with Myers for the following 2 courses: thence N 33° 00’ 00” W 206.10
feet to Corner #9; thence S 61° 40’ 00” W 106.00 feet to Corner #10; said point
being the southeasterly corner of property of Tracy L. and Julian C. Starr, Jr.,
Roanoke County Tax #18.18-3-7; thence leaving Myers and with Starr for the
following 2 courses: thence N 33° 00’ 00” W 107.85 feet to Corner #11; thence
S 61° 40’ 00” W 208.08 feet to Corner #12; said point located on the easterly
boundary line of Rebecca K. White, Roanoke County Tax #18.18-3-8.01; thence
leaving Starr and with White N 33° 00’ 00” W 138.57 feet to Corner #13, said
point being the southeasterly corner of Jearldean and George W. Wilkerson
property; thence leaving White and with Wilkerson, N 26° 10’ 00” W 309.07 feet
to Corner #14, said point being the northeasterly corner of property of Jeraldean
and George W. Wilkerson , Roanoke County Tax #18.18-3-10, said point also
located on the southerly right-of-way of Interstate 81; thence leaving Wilkerson
and with I-81 for the following 4 courses: thence S 89° 10’ 59” E 7.80 feet to
Corner #15; thence N 83° 04’ 09” E 169.90 feet to Corner #16; thence N 63° 58’
58” E 301.98 feet to Corner #17; thence N 74 ° 06’ 36” E 214.98 feet to Corner
#18, said point being the northwesterly corner of property of Donna S. & Robert
W. Paxton, Roanoke County Tax #18.18-3-3.02; thence leaving I-81 and with
Paxton for the following 3 courses: thence S 25° 25’ 08” W 8.90 feet to Corner
#19; thence S 00° 26’ 08” W 111.60 feet to Corner #20; thence S 20° 03’ 52” E
passing the southwesterly corner of Paxton at approximately 75 feet, in all
305.20 feet to Corner #21, said point being the southwesterly corner of Phyllis W.
and Henry C. Boitnott, being Roanoke County Tax #18.18-3-3; thence continuing
with Boitnott, N 60° 47’ 52” E 239.38 feet to Corner #22, said point being located
November 16, 2004
950
on the northerly boundary of property of Danny R. Myers; thence leaving Boitnott
and with Myers S 29° 07’ 52” E 251.84 feet to Corner #1, the place of Beginning
and containing 9.78 acres, as more particularly shown on rezoning exhibit
prepared by Lumsden Associates, PC, dated September 22, 2004.
5. 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 Flora 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 rezone 9.78 acres from R1,
Low Density Residential District, to I1, Industrial District with
conditions, 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.
(Janet Scheid, Chief Planner)
O-111604-10
Ms. Scheid advised that this is a request by New Century Development
Company, LLC to rezone 9.78 acres on Friendship Lane approximately 0.25 mile east
of its intersection with Plantation Road for the purpose of developing a warehousing and
distribution area. She stated that portions of the site are subject to Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) wetlands regulations and potential Interstate 81 right-
of-way acquisition. The proposed rezoning complies with policies and guidelines of the
Principal Industrial future land use designation which encourages employment centers,
November 16, 2004
951
industrial parks and conventional warehousing and wholesaling uses. The applicant
has worked closely with VDOT on the potential impacts of I-81 expansion and is
awaiting VDEQ and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers input on the extent of onsite
wetlands and possible mitigation of development impacts. The petitioner’s proposed
layout indicates nine potential lots, all except proposed Lot 9 to be internally accessed
by an extension of Garland Circle. The applicant has not submitted a grading plan,
although cut and fill slopes are anticipated adjoining I-81 right-of-way. The petitioner
intends to construct custom industrial buildings approximately 5,000 square feet in size.
Ms. Scheid advised that the Planning Commission heard this petition on
November 2 and approved the request with the following proffered conditions: (1)
Owner/developer shall prepare the site in full accord with Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality regulations pertaining to wetlands and Roanoke County
stormwater management requirements; and (2) The property shall be accessed from
Friendship Lane by a public street constructed directly opposite of the center line of
existing Garland Circle as depicted on the rezoning exhibit by Lumsden Associates, PC,
dated September 22, 2004.
Mr. John Shoulders, representative of New Century Development, LLC,
was present at the meeting. He thanked staff, the Economic Development Department,
and the adjacent property owners who have worked closely with them on this rezoning.
There were no citizens present to speak on this item and there was no
discussion.
November 16, 2004
952
Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 111604-10 TO CHANGE THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF A 4.83-ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE
LOCATED IN THE 5600 BLOCK OF HOLLINS ROAD (TAX
MAP NO. 28.13-1-27.05) IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF I1C TO
THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R1 UPON THE
APPLICATION OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 26, 2004, and
the second reading and public hearing were held November 16, 2004; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on November 2, 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
4.83 acres, as described herein, and located in the 5600 block of Hollins Road (Tax
Map Number 28.13-1-27.05) in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby changed from
the zoning classification of I1C, Industrial District with conditions, to the zoning
classification of R1, Low Density Residential District.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of the Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors.
3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
All that certain lot or parcel of land, together with any improvements thereon,
rights incident thereto and appurtenances thereunto belonging, situate in the
County of Roanoke, Virginia, being designated as “New Tract B-1A-2 – 4.83
ACRES” upon the ‘Plat Showing the Resubdivision of Property of Norman D.
Mason Creating Hereon New Lots, New Tract “B-1A-1” (2.33 ACRES), New Tract
“B-1A-2” (4.83 ACRES), Being Original Tract “B-1A” (P.B. 17, PG. 5) Situated
Along Hollins Road (Route #604)’ dated March 1, 2000, prepared by Lumsden
Associates, P.C., and recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of the
County of Roanoke, Virginia, in Plat Book 23, page 19, said plat being by
November 16, 2004
953
reference incorporated herein. Said parcel of land is more particularly described
as follows:
Beginning at a point on the west side of Hollins Road (VA Secondary Route 601)
designated as Corner 5A on the above-referenced plat, said corner being a
common corner to the property of DePaul Family Services, Inc., referenced as
Tract B-1A-1 on the plat, as recorded in the aforesaid Clerk’s Office in Deed
Book 1460, Page 1292, and to the property of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, referenced as Tract B-1A-2, as recorded in the
aforesaid Clerk’s Office as Instrument #200415966, thence N 68° 41’ 45” W with
the division line between Tract B-1A-1 and Tract B-1A-2 a distance of 624.09 feet
to Corner 2A as shown o the above-referenced plat; thence turning and running
N 21° 16’ 30” E a distance of 313.26 feet to Corner 3 at an existing iron pin;
thence turning and running S 73° 04’ 25” E a distance of 599.09 feet to Point 4;
thence with a curve, an arc distance of 41.18 feet with a radius of 25.00 feet and
on a chord of S 25° 53’ 05” E 36.68 feet to Point 5 at an existing iron pin; thence
running parallel with Hollins Road S 21° 18’ 15” W 334.06’ to Corner 5A, the
Point of Beginning of the said Tract B-1A-2 containing 4.83 acres.
Said parcel of land is identified upon the Roanoke County Land Records as Tax
Map #28.13-1-27.05
This being all of the same real estate conveyed to the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, by deed dated August 26, 2004, from Norman D.
Mason, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk’s Office as Instrument #200415966.
4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor 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
Helen Sublette, 5577 Valley Drive, spoke regarding the proposed regional
jail facility. She stated that it is the standard mode of operation for Roanoke County to
November 16, 2004
954
address issues after the fact and that she failed to see where the regional jail facility
was placed on the agenda today. She stated that the magnitude of a regional jail facility
has many questions for the community to address and for the County to answer. She
questioned when this matter was going to be discussed publicly and what the potential
impact of such a large facility will be on the County.
Marlene Perrott, 5911 Lakewood Drive, advised that she grew up next to a
jail and that it never caused any problems. She voiced a deep appreciation for the
dangers to staff and inmates when jails are overcrowded. She also voiced support for
Supervisor Church regarding the lack of public information regarding this matter. She
voiced objections to only receiving this information today, and questioned if Franklin and
Montgomery County need permission to proceed with this project. Mr. Mahoney
advised that legislation is needed from the General Assembly authorizing Franklin and
Montgomery counties to participate in the project. If the legislation is not secured,
Roanoke County still must address their existing overcrowding situation. Ms. Perrott
inquired if there will be a public announcement regarding this prior to the Board’s
December 7 meeting. Supervisor Flora advised that the specific locations will be made
available prior to December 7.
Bonnie Barrett, 6051 Lakemont Drive, advised that citizens look to the
Board members for guidance. She stated that she does not object to many of the things
that have happened, but she does object to something being “rammed down her throat”.
She stated that bringing a regional jail to Roanoke County without the citizens being
November 16, 2004
955
informed is a lot to digest. She stated that the County is having an integrity problem
and is losing the desirability it once enjoyed. She indicated that it is terribly important
that the citizens know what is going on.
Supervisor Flora clarified that at the beginning of today’s meeting, it was
announced that this item was moved to the evening session.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor McNamara: (1) He expressed appreciation to Butch Workman
for his efforts in examining numerous drainage issues. (2) He advised that there is talk
of closing Back Creek Family Practice. He noted that it is not the Board’s position to
dictate how medical centers operate but requested that with the concurrence of the
Board, a letter be sent requesting that they review this decision and see if there is a way
to continue operating. (3) He advised that he spoke with two or three citizens regarding
the new voting machines and stated that the general consensus was they liked them.
However, several people expressed concerns that people walking behind the machines
can view the vote. He requested that this information be given to the Registrar's Office
to ensure isolation of the voting machines in future elections.
Supervisor Church: (1) He requested that Arnold Covey contact Ms.
Norma Williams on Bradshaw Road regarding a drainage issue. (2) He expressed
condolences to the family of Leo Trenor and noted that Mr. Trenor was a community
advocate. (3) He asked the citizens to not forget those serving our country in Iraq and
pray that the conflict comes to an end.
November 16, 2004
956
Supervisor Wray: (1) He requested an update on the Mennell flour mill,
specifically with respect to the land behind the gas storage tanks. Mr. Hodge advised
that in work session today this information was reviewed with VDOT. He stated that key
to the location of the flour mill is the exchange of a piece of property owned by VDOT
with property owned by Mennell Milling. If the exchange can occur, it moves the flour
mill further from surrounding homes and benefits VDOT with better access to their
regional facility. He stated that a design of the facility is not yet available but it will be
modern in its concept and design. He inquired if a January briefing to the Board on the
status of this situation would be acceptable. Supervisor Wray advised that it would be
and he requested that information be sent home with students through the school or
that County staff notify all adjacent property owners. Mr. Hodge advised that people in
the surrounding area will be notified. (2) He reported that he had attended Veteran's
Day ceremonies at Green Valley and noted that it was a moving experience to see
young children developing patriotism. (3) He advised citizens that there will be a
community meeting with the Colonial Avenue residents on Monday, November 29 at
7:00 p.m. at the Brambleton Center, Room 18. The purpose of the meeting will be to
discuss the proposed Bojangles which will be located on the corner of Merriman Road
and Colonial Avenue. (4) He noted that he had received a request from a citizen
regarding the County's ordinance relating to boats parked on corner lots. He stated that
he is under the understanding that there is pending litigation and he requested that Mr.
Mahoney furnish him with information to review. (5) He advised that he read to
November 16, 2004
957
students at Oak Grove Elementary School today as part of the American Education
Week celebrations. (6) He wished everyone a happy and safe Thanksgiving.
Supervisor Altizer: (1) He reminded Mr. Covey to notify him once a
meeting has been scheduled and advised that he will make sure he is present.
Supervisor Flora: (1) He stated that he feels that once citizens get
accustomed to the new voting machines, they will like them. He concurred that privacy
during the voting process is an issue that needs to be addressed. (2) He noted a
drainage concern in Starmount and requested that Mr. Covey be provided with this
information. (3) He stated that the discussion tonight regarding the regional jail was a
healthy discussion that was productive and resulted in a consensus. (4) He advised that
the Roanoke County Christmas Tree Lighting will be held on Monday, December 6 from
6-8 p.m. at Tanglewood Mall.
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
The closed meeting pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A
(1) discussion or consideration of the performance of specific public officers was held
from 9:25 p.m. until 10:30 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
R-111604-11
November 16, 2004
958
At 10:30 p.m., Supervisor McNamara moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 111604-11 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS
HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies, and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Altizer, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Flora adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
________________________ ________________________
Diane S. Childers Richard C. Flora
Clerk to the Board Chairman