HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/28/2022 - Regular - DRAFT
September 28, 2022
785
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second regularly scheduled
meeting of the month of September 2022. Audio and video recordings of this meeting
will be held on file for a minimum of five (5) years in the office of the Clerk to the Board
of Supervisors.
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
Before the meeting was called to order, Pastor Greg Irby of Temple
Baptist Church provided an invocation. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all
present.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Mahoney called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. The roll call
was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Paul M. Mahoney; Supervisors Martha B. Hooker,
Phil C. North, P. Jason Peters and David F. Radford
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator; Rebecca
Owens, Deputy County Administrator; Doug Blount,
Assistant County Administrator, Peter S. Lubeck, County
Attorney; Amy Whittaker, Public Information Officer and
Deborah C. Jacks, Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Proclamation commemorating the 30th Anniversary of Dominion
Metallurgical and expressing appreciation to Paul Huffman for 30
years of providing outstanding service to the Roanoke
community (Marshall Stanley, Economic Development Specialist)
Recognition was given and proclamation was read by the Clerk.
September 28, 2022
786
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
1. Briefing to introduce Jim Blanton, Director of Library Services
(Doug Blount, Assistant County Administrator)
Introduction was given.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution adopting legislative priorities for the 2023 session of
the Virginia General Assembly and petitioning the General
Assembly to favorably consider the priorities addressed herein
(Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney)
Mr. Eldon James joined Mr. Lubeck to outline the resolution. Mr. James
briefed the Board on what was happening in session.
RESOLUTION 092822-1 ADOPTING LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES
FOR THE 2023 SESSION OF THE VIRGINIA GENERAL
ASSEMBLY AND PETITIONING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO
FAVORABLY CONSIDER THE PRIORITIES ADDRESSED
HEREIN
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has identified
legislative priorities of local and statewide concern to be considered during the 2023
session of the Virginia General Assembly; and
WHEREAS, the Board adopts this resolution setting forth its legislative priorities,
and respectfully petitions the General Assembly to favorably consider such.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, that the following priorities are submitted for the General Assembly’s
consideration during its 2023 session.
PRIORITIES
1. Education K-12 Funding
a. The County supports making additional State resources and funding
available to localities to support school capital needs, including
rehabilitation and upgrades to existing facilities as well as construction of
new facilities.
b. The County urges the General Assembly to authorize and provide capital
grant funding for fiscal year 2024 (which funding is presently authorized
only for fiscal year 2023).
September 28, 2022
787
c. The County urges the General Assembly to provide economic
development workforce grants that could be used to fund career and
technical education capital projects.
2. Mental Health and Public Hospital Needs
a. The County urges the General Assembly to use available funds to
continue the operation and expansion of Catawba Hospital.
3. Airport Expansion
a. The County supports legislation that would provide funding for the
expansion of airports, to foster regional economic development.
b. The County specifically urges the General Assembly to provide funding for
the Roanoke-Blacksburg Regional Airport, to support a needed runway
extension and other airport improvements.
4. Authority to Impose Civil Penalties
a. At present, § 15.2-1429 of the Code of Virginia authorizes localities to
impose criminal penalties for violations of local codes; civil penalties are
not universally authorized. The County proposes that § 15.2-1429 be
amended (or that the Code of Virginia otherwise be amended) to allow
localities the option to impose civil penalties for violations of local codes, in
lieu of criminal penalties. The County further proposes that localities be
granted authority to issue civil summonses for such violations, that
violators be allowed to prepay such penalties in lieu of holding a trial, and
that localities further be authorized to impose liens on the real property of
violators who fail to pay such fines or penalties.
5. Broadband Expansion
a. The County urges the General Assembly to use available funding to
improve access to and affordability of broadband, to promote the goal of
statewide coverage.
On motion of Supervisor North to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney
NAYS: None
2. Resolution requesting the U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Railroad Administration fund a Planning Grant through
the Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program in the Bonsack
Area, Vinton Magisterial District (Megan G. Cronise, Assistant
Director of Planning)
Ms. Cronise outlined the request for resolution. There was no discussion.
September 28, 2022
788
RESOLUTION 092822-2 REQUESTING THE U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL RAILROAD
ADMINISTRATION FUND A PLANNING GRANT THROUGH THE
RAILROAD CROSSING ELIMINATION GRANT PROGRAM IN
THE BONSACK AREA, VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors is committed to advocating
for and ensuring safe transportation facilities both in the County and in the region;
and
WHEREAS, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funded the Railroad Crossing
Elimination Grant Program to enhance safety on railroads by eliminating at-grade
crossings, therefore reducing the risk of interaction between trains and roadway users;
and
WHEREAS, conceptual analysis of two railroad crossings in the Bonsack area has
been completed as part of the Route 460 Land Use and Connectivity Study; and
WHEREAS, a Planning Grant through this program focusing on the Bonsack area
would enable planning, environmental review and design of an eligible project for future
Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program application opportunities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors requests the U.S.
Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration fund a Planning Grant
through the Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program.
2. That the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby commits to
provide a twenty percent (20%) matching contribution for a Planning Grant through the
Railroad Crossing Elimination Grant Program, up to and not to exceed $100,000.
3. That the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby grants authority for
the County Administrator, or his designee, to execute project agreements for an
approved Planning Grant.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney
NAYS: None
September 28, 2022
789
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
1. Resolution adopting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
for Roanoke County, Virginia: amending the 419 Town Center
Plan by incorporating the 419 Town Center Design Guidelines
(dated June 2022) (Philip Thompson, Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the request for resolution.
Chairman Mahoney opened the public hearing with the following citizens
to speak:
Mr. William Skaff of 4815 Farmington Place Court submitted the following,
“Before I begin my Comment proper, may I say that I sincerely congratulate members
of the Planning and Economic Development Departments for the well-deserved
recognition of their excellent work represented by the awards that the Reimagine 419
Plan has received. As you can understand, however, from my perspective, I cannot
overlook the fact that these awards are from organizations that support the town center
density development ideology. Thus, I cannot help but observe that the awards should
not be considered an independent, objective evaluation and endorsement of the design
assumptions ably executed in the 419 Plan. Many of the 15 new business
announcements are the result of Blackwater Resources approach to the revitalization of
Tanglewood Mall. Ironically, Blackwater saved Tanglewood from the Reimagine 419
Plan. As they have repeatedly said in the media, “It’s the County’s plan, not ours.”
Thanks to Blackwater, we can stand in the Tanglewood Mall parking lot and still see the
Roanoke Valley Mountains, and the sky. But we will not be so lucky in the future. Now
to the matter at hand. I respectfully ask that the Board not approve the 419 Town Center
Design Guidelines without modification. I append proposed changes to site and building
features that reduce height, length, and width limits in order to check density
development. The recent approval of changes in zoning law does allow buildings of
such unprecedented bulk. But there is no reason to promote and encourage their
construction through official Roanoke County planning documents. The Board routinely
considers rezoning of individual and aggregated parcels of land. The Board can
continue to make decisions on the merits and consequences of specific projects
necessitating guideline and zoning variations. Bulk buildings with a large footprint—long
and wide—should be avoided, because they crowd out space for nature. Smaller
buildings are preferable, surrounded by indigenous vegetation, either left in place or
planted. Such successive adequately landscaped units, especially in commercial areas,
maintain the balance between nature and buildings. So, it is with suburban 419, right
now.
September 28, 2022
790
The 419 corridor already functions as a suburban town center as it is, and has
appropriately sized individual buildings, setbacks, open spaces, and natural areas
separating buildings. The sky is visible and sunlight enlivens the greenery, walkways,
parking lots, and 419 itself. It does not look like a city, nor should it. The apparent
purpose of the Core District, with its height limit of eight stories, is to create an inner city
with adjacent Character Districts the density of an outer city. But we already have a city.
It’s right next door. County residents want an alternative. That is why they live here.
Residents are not really aware of the density incorporated into this plan—for instance,
the effect on landscape and viewsheds of the bulk of an eight-story building that
stretches a tenth of a mile, at a length and width that covers 50 percent of the site, and
paving up to 90 percent of the lot, crowding out virtually all landscaping. No drawing
posted on a bulletin board can convey this oppressive massiveness. But residents will
get the idea when they stand next to it, or drive by it, or try to see over it from afar.
Substantial, if less excessive, density can also be repeated in other Character Districts.
The Planning Department is anticipating that Roanoke County will someday be
predominantly urban. They see as their mission managing this inevitable urbanization,
which amounts to facilitating it. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy only if we do
nothing about it. What we need to do is adopt zoning and guidelines that preserve the
suburban and rustic character of Roanoke County. We keep telling our young people to
put down their cell phones and laptops and get out and experience the real world that
they are typing about. Yet we keep planning built environments that will overwhelm the
human and the natural. We are condemning future generations to a life of artifice and
artificiality. Stop it here. Stop it now. The following table was submitted with Mr. Skaff
written remarks:
Proposed Changes to Design Guidelines
Feature Character District
Town Center Mixed Use Arterial Infill Residential
Core
Height 8 Stories 5 Stories 3 Stories 4 Stories
(Guidelines)
Height 3 Stories 3 Stories 2 Stories 2 Stories
(Proposed)
Block Length 250-450 feet 500 feet None 500 feet
(Guidelines)
Block Length 250-300 feet 250 feet 250 feet 250 feet
(Proposed)
Building 50% 50% 50% 35%
Coverage
(Guidelines)
September 28, 2022
791
Building 45% 45% 45% 35%
Coverage
(Proposed)
Lot Coverage 80%-90% 80%-90% 80%-90% 60%
(Guidelines)
Lot Coverage 60% 60% 60% 50%
(Proposed)
Units Per Acre 12 12 12 12
(Guidelines)
Units Per Acre 10 10 10 10
(Proposed)
Source: Roanoke County 419 Town Center Design Guidelines, June 2022, currently
posted as August 2, 2022, Pages 7, 11-14, 23.
►Lot Coverage is taken from Page 7, where applicable zoning law is described,
which differs from the 75% mentioned on Page 23.
►Block Length limits will prevent excessive building length.
►No Block Length prescribed for Arterial Infill encourages combining successive
parcels to create a single lot, resulting in excessive building length.
Chairman Mahoney closed the public hearing. There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 092822-3 ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
AMENDING THE 419 TOWN CENTER PLAN BY
INCORPORATING THE 419 TOWN CENTER DESIGN
GUIDELINES (DATED JUNE 2022)
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 15.2-2223 requires that every jurisdiction adopt a
comprehensive plan for the physical development of that jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 15.2-2230 requires that the Planning Commission
review the comprehensive plan at least once every five (5) years to determine whether it
is advisable to amend the plan; and
WHEREAS, it is proposed that the Comprehensive Plan be amended to
incorporate the 419 Town Center Design Guidelines (dated June 2022) into the 419
Town Center Plan, which is a component of the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on September 6, 2022, after providing notice as
required by Virginia Code § 15.2-2225; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that the Board of
Supervisors amend the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the 419 Town Center
September 28, 2022
792
Design Guidelines (dated June 2022) into the 419 Town Center Plan, which is a
component of the Comprehensive Plan.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1) The Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended by incorporating the 419
Town Center Design Guidelines (dated June 2022) into the 419 Town
Center Plan, which is a component of the Comprehensive Plan.
2) This resolution is effective upon its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Radford and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney
NAYS: None
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
1. The petition of the Gallery at South Peak, LLC, to rezone
approximately 10.83 acres from C-2C, High Intensity Commercial
District with conditions, and R-4C, High Density Multi-Family
Residential District with conditions, to R-4C, High Density Multi-
Family Residential with amended conditions, to construct 260
apartments located in the 5000 block of The Peaks Drive, Cave
Spring Magisterial District
Supervisor Mahoney’s motion to approve the first reading and set the
second reading and public hearing for October 25, 2022 was seconded by Supervisor
Radford and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney
NAYS: None
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance accepting and appropriating $290,700 and further
appropriating $75,000 of Capital Fund Reserves, for the purchase
of approximately 56 acres to expand public access to Read
Mountain Preserve, Hollins Magisterial District (Lindsay Webb,
Parks Planning and Development Manager)
September 28, 2022
793
Ms. Webb outlined the request for ordinance. Supervisor Radford inquired
as to what year the capital funds are allocated for with Ms. Rebecca Owens, Deputy
County Administrator, responding in the current year. There was no further discussion.
Supervisor North’s motion to approve the first reading and set the second
reading for October 11, 2022 was seconded by Supervisor Hooker and approved by the
following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney
NAYS: None
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance accepting and appropriating Transportation
Alternatives Set-Aside Program grant funds from the Virginia
Department of Transportation for fiscal years 2023 and 2024 in the
amount of $651,375 for the Glade Creek Greenway through Vinyard
Park West in the Vinton Magisterial District and in the Town of
Vinton (Megan G. Cronise, Assistant Director of Planning)
Ms. Cronise advised there were no changes since the first reading held on
September 13, 2022. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 092822-4 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES SET-ASIDE PROGRAM
GRANT FUNDS IN FISCAL YEARS 2023 AND 2024 IN THE
AMOUNT OF $651,375 FOR THE GLADE CREEK GREENWAY
IN VINYARD PARK WEST IN THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT AND IN THE TOWN OF VINTON
WHEREAS, the federal Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act)
was enacted in 2015 and provides a set-aside of Surface Transportation Block Grant
(STBG) Program funding for Transportation Alternatives; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Glade Creek Greenway in Vinyard Park West meets
the goals of the Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TA) Program by providing a
pedestrian and bicycle facility that will expand non-motorized travel choices, strengthen
the local economy, improve quality of life and protect the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Glade Creek Greenway is included in the 2018 Roanoke Valley
Greenway Plan, which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 25,
2018, as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2021, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
held a public hearing and endorsed a resolution supporting the TA Program application;
and
September 28, 2022
794
WHEREAS, on September 23, 2021, the Roanoke Valley Transportation
Planning Organization (RVTPO) endorsed the TA Program application; and
WHEREAS, on October 1, 2021, the County of Roanoke submitted an
application to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for Fiscal Year 2023
and 2024 TA Program funds for the Glade Creek Greenway in Vinyard Park West; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board approved the selection of
TA Program projects on June 21, 2022, through adoption of the Fiscal Year 2023-28
Six-Year Improvement Program in accordance with §33.2-221 of the Code of Virginia;
and
WHEREAS, the VDOT awarded eighty percent (80%) TA Program grant funds to
Roanoke County in the amount of $521,100; and
WHEREAS, the TA Program requires twenty percent (20%) matching funds from
Roanoke County in the amount of $130,275, which may be in the form of cash, private
contributions, donations of goods and services and land value; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be
appropriated by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 13, 2022,
and the second reading was held on September 28, 2022.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia as follows:
1. The Board accepts TA Program grant funding in the amount of $521,100
and appropriates such funds to the grant fund for the construction of the
Glade Creek Greenway in Vinyard Park West; and
2. The Board further appropriates the “local match” amount of $130,275 to the
grant fund (such amount having been previously designated for use in the
fiscal year 2023 Capital Improvement Program); and
3. That Board acknowledges that the County will be responsible for
maintenance, upkeep and operating costs of any facility constructed with TA
Program funds, unless other arrangements have been made with the VDOT;
and
4. That appropriations designated for the Glade Creek Greenway project will
not lapse at the end of the fiscal year but shall remain appropriated until the
completion of the project; and
5. That if Roanoke County subsequently elects to cancel this project, the Board
acknowledges that it will be required to reimburse VDOT for the total amount
of costs expended by VDOT up until the date VDOT is notified of such
cancellation. Roanoke County also acknowledges that it will be required to
repay any funds previously reimbursed that are later deemed ineligible by
the Federal Highway Administration; and
6. That the County Administrator, Deputy County Administrator, or Assistant
County Administrator are hereby authorized to execute such documents and
September 28, 2022
795
to take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County in this matter as are
necessary to accomplish this appropriation.
7. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance amending Chapter 5 (Animals and Fowl), Article II
(Dogs, Cats and Other Animals), Sections 5-27. – (Barking or
howling dogs) and 5-34 (Penalties) of the Code of Roanoke
County (Peter S. Lubeck, County Attorney)
Mr. Lubeck advised there were no changes since first reading held on
September 13, 2022.
Chairman Mahoney opened and closed the public hearing with no citizens
to speak on this agenda item.
ORDINANCE 092822-5 AMENDING CHAPTER 5 (ANIMALS AND
FOWL), ARTICLE II (DOGS, CATS AND OTHER ANIMALS),
SECTIONS 5-27 (BARKING OR HOWLING DOGS) AND 5-34
(PENALTIES) OF THE CODE OF ROANOKE COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Virginia Supreme Court, in the case of Tanner v. City of Va.
Beach, 227 Va. 432 (2009), ruled that penal ordinances must contain ascertainable
standards, and that violations must not be determined by police officers on a subjective
basis; and
WHEREAS, Section 5-27 of the Roanoke County Code, states, in part, "The
harboring or keeping of any dog which, by loud, frequent or habitual barking or howling
or by any other conduct, shall cause annoyance and disturb the peace and quiet of any
person or neighborhood shall be unlawful; and any such dog is hereby declared to be a
public nuisance"; and
WHEREAS, violations of Section 5-27 are punishable pursuant to the penalties
set forth in Section 5-34 (which have not been updated since 2006); and
WHEREAS the above Section 5-27 does not set forth objective standards as
required by the Tanner case, and is accordingly unlawful (it violates the constitutional
prohibition on vagueness for penal ordinances), and is therefore unenforceable; and
WHEREAS, it is proposed that Section 5-27 accordingly be amended to set forth
objective standards prohibiting the excessive barking or howling of dogs, and that
September 28, 2022
796
Section 5-34 be amended to provide increases to the schedule of penalties for
violations; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 13, 2022,
and the second reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on September 28,
2022.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors:
1. That Chapter 5 (Animals and Fowl), Article II (Dogs, Cats and Other Animals),
Sections 5-27 (Barking or howling dogs) and 5-34 (Penalties) of the Roanoke
County Code are hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 5-27. - Barking or howling dogs.
The harboring or keeping of any dog which, by loud, frequent or habitual barking
or howling or by any other conduct, shall cause annoyance and disturb the peace and
quiet of any person or neighborhood shall be unlawful; and any such dog is hereby
declared to be a public nuisance. Any such dog may, after reasonable notice has been
given by the community service officer or other law enforcement officer to the owner of
such dog, if known, or upon the complaint of any person, if such owner is unknown, be
impounded and confined in the county animal shelter by the community service officer.
The disposition of any such dog shall be in accordance with section 5-29.
a) The harboring or keeping of any dog that causes any sound or noise such that it
is plainly audible at least once a minute for ten (10) consecutive minutes
(i) inside the confines of the dwelling unit, house or apartment of another, or
(ii) at fifty (50) or more feet from the animal
is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and shall be unlawful.
b) A dog that is in violation of Subsection (a) may be impounded by a community
service officer or other law enforcement officer under the following
circumstances:
1) If, after reasonable efforts by the officer, the keeper of the animal cannot
be located and the noise in violation of this Section persists,
2) If, after being advised by an officer that the dog is in violation of this
Section, the keeper of the dog is unwilling or unable to take steps to stop
the dog from barking, or
3) The keeper of a specific dog has been notified on three (3) or more
separate occasions that the dog was in violation of this Section, and the
officer again observes the dog to be in violation of this section.
The disposition of any such dog shall be in accordance with Section 5-29.
c) It is requested, upon the first instance that a specific dog creates a public
nuisance (as set forth in subsection (a) above), that the affected citizen first
September 28, 2022
797
contact the dog’s keeper, prior to contacting the County Police Department, to
attempt to resolve objections with the keeper.
d) A community service officer or other law enforcement officer may institute civil
proceedings against any person that is in violation of this section. Citizens may
also institute their own civil proceedings to resolve barking dog problems.
Sec. 5-34. - Penalties.
A violation of any provision of this article and any "animal nuisance" as defined in
sections 5-21 may also be corrected, removed or abated through an appropriate
action at law or suit in equity by any person suffering injury or or damage therefrom.
Except as otherwise specifically provided, the penalties for violations of all sections of
this chapter shall be as follows:
(1) For the first offense, a fine of not less than twentyseventy-five dollars ($725.00)
nor more than one hundred and fifty dollars ($15000.00).
(2) For a second offense within a consecutive twelve-month period, a fine of not
less than one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) nor more than twoone hundred fifty
dollars ($2150.00).
(3) For a third and all subsequent offenses, a fine of not less than twoone hundred
fifty dollars ($2150.00) nor more than threewo hundred fifty dollars ($3250.00).
(4) The judge trying case may order any animal permanently removed from the
county within twenty-four (24) hours of such order.
2. That this ordinance shall be effective immediately.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Radford and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney
NAYS: None
2. Ordinance amending Chapter 13 (Offenses - Miscellaneous),
Article I (In General), Section 13-5.5 (Urban archery hunting
season) of the Roanoke County Code (Rachel Lower, Senior
Assistant County Attorney)
Ms. Lower advised no changes.
Chairman Mahoney opened and closed the public hearing with no citizens
to speak regarding this agenda item.
There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 092822-6 AMENDING CHAPTER 13 (OFFENSES –
MISCELLANEOUS), ARTICLE I (IN GENERAL), SECTION 13-5.5
(URBAN ARCHERY HUNTING SEASON) OF THE ROANOKE
COUNTY CODE
September 28, 2022
798
WHEREAS, Section 13-5.5 of the Roanoke County Code regulates certain
conduct while archery hunting deer during the County’s archery season; and
WHEREAS, Section 13-5.5(4) includes definitions for bows and arrows that may
be used while archery hunting in Roanoke County, and specifically includes the
following as the definition for “bow”: “all compound bows, crossbows, longbows and
recurve bows that have a peak draw of less than ten (10) pounds or that are designed
or intended to be used principally as toys”; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Code defines “bow” as “all compound bows, crossbows,
slingbows, longbows, and recurve bows having a peak draw weight of 10 pounds or
more”; and
WHEREAS, the County Code seems to have intended to mirror the Virginia
Code, but instead erroneously allows hunting with “toy” bows instead of prohibiting
such; and
WHEREAS, the County Code needs to be amended in order for the County’s
definition of “bow” to be identical to the definition included in the Virginia Code as it
relates to archery hunting; and
WHEREAS, the County Code also needs to be amended in order to reflect the
change in the Virginia state regulatory agency for urban archery hunting, namely from
the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries to the Virginia Department of
Wildlife Resources; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 13, 2022,
and the second reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on September 28,
2022.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors:
1. That Chapter 13 (Offenses Miscellaneous), Article I (In General), Section 13-5.5
(Urban archery hunting season) of the Roanoke County Code is hereby
amended as follows (all portions of Section 13-5.5 not specifically amended or
deleted below shall remain without amendment):
Sec. 13-5.5. Urban archery hunting season.
Archery deer hunting is permitted within the county limits by licensed hunters during
an approved state department of game and inland fisheries Department of Wildlife
Resources urban archery season. In addition to the urban archery season, archery deer
hunting is also allowed during the early archery deer season, the general firearms deer
season, and the late archery deer season. Licensed archery deer hunters must abide by
all applicable sections of the state code and state hunting regulations (including bag
limits and tagging/checking requirements). It shall be unlawful and a Class 4
misdemeanor for any person, while hunting deer during the county's archery season, to
violate any of the following additional county restrictions:
September 28, 2022
799
(1) Any person discharging a bow shall, at all times, while engaged in such activity,
have in his possession written permission from the landowner(s) to discharge
such a weapon on his premises.
(2) No person shall discharge a bow from, over or across any street, sidewalk, alley,
near primary or secondary highways, roadway, or public land or public place or
near a public school and county/town/regional parks within the county limits or
toward any building or dwelling in such a manner that an arrow may strike it.
(3) No person may discharge a bow unless from an elevated position of at least ten
(10) feet above the ground.
(4) It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in hunting with a bow or to
discharge arrows from bows within one hundred (100) yards of a dwelling house
or occupied building not his or her own. A "bow" includes all compound bows,
crossbows, slingbows, longbows and recurve bows that havehaving a peak draw
weight of 10 pounds or more. The term “bow” does not include bows that have a
peak draw weight of less than ten (10) pounds or that are designed or intended
to be used principally as toys. The term "arrow" means a shaft-like projectile
intended to be shot from a bow.
2. This amendment shall be effective immediately.
On motion of Supervisor Hooker to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney
NAYS: None
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 092822-7 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM L- CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for September
28, 2022, designated as Item L - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 3 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes – May 24, 2022
2. Request to participate in the Virginia Department of Emergency Management
multi-jurisdictional Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) Educational Grant
September 28, 2022
800
3. Resolution amending the Board's written policy for participation in Board of
Supervisor Meetings through electronic communication
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney
NAYS: None
A-092822-7.a
RESOLUTION 092822-7.b AMENDING THE BOARD’S WRITTEN
POLICY FOR PARTICIPATION IN BOARD OF SUPERVISOR
MEETINGS THROUGH ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION
WHEREAS, Virginia Code § 2.2-3708 allows members of local governing bodies
to participate in meetings through electronic communication means from remote
locations in certain situations; and
WHEREAS, the Board, in 2017, adopted a resolution setting forth a policy for
participation in Board of Supervisor meetings through electronic communication,
consistent with § 2.2-3708; and
WHEREAS, since adoption of the policy in 2017, the Virginia General Assembly
has amended the Code of Virginia in order to provide additional situations in which
members of local governing bodies may participate in meetings through electronic
communications; and
WHEREAS, it is proposed that the Board amend its prior policy to embrace the
additional authority granted by the Virginia General Assembly.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, that the resolution, establishing a written policy for participation in Board of
Supervisor meetings through electronic communication, adopted June 6, 2027, is
hereby rescinded and superseded by the following policy for remote participation, which
is today adopted and effective:
1. AUTHORITY AND SCOPE
a. This policy is adopted pursuant to authorization of Va. Code § 2.2-3708.3
and is to be strictly construed in conformance with the Virginia Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), Va. Code §§ 2.2-3700-3715.
b. This policy shall not govern an electronic meeting conducted to address a
state of emergency declared by the Governor of Virginia or the Board of
Supervisors. Any meeting conducted by electronic communication means
under such circumstances shall be governed by the provisions of Va. §
2.2-3708.2. This policy also does not apply to an all-virtual public meeting.
2. DEFINITIONS
a. “Board” means the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia.
September 28, 2022
801
b. “Member” means any member of the Board.
c. “Remote participation” means participation by an individual member of the
Board by electronic communication means in a public meeting where a
quorum of the Board is physically assembled, as defined by Va. Code §
2.2-3701.
d. “Meeting” means a meeting as defined by Va. Code § 2.2-3701.
e. “Notify” or “notifies,” for purposes of this policy, means written notice, such
as email or letter. Notice does not include text messages or
communications via social media.
3. MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS
Regardless of the reasons why the member is participating in a meeting from a
remote location by electronic communication means, the following conditions
must be met for the member to participate remotely:
a. A quorum of the Board must be physically assembled at the primary or
central meeting location; and
b. Arrangements have been made for the voice of the remotely participating
member to be heard by all persons at the primary or central meeting
location. If at any point during the meeting the voice of the remotely
participating member is no longer able to be heard by all persons at the
meeting location, the remotely participating member shall no longer be
permitted to participate remotely.
4. PROCESS TO REQUEST REMOTE PARTICIPATION
a. On or before the day of the meeting, and at any point before the meeting
begins, the requesting member must notify the Board Chair (or the Vice-
Chair if the requesting member is the Chair) that they are unable to
physically attend a meeting due to (i) a temporary or permanent disability
or another medical condition that prevents the member’s physical
attendance, (ii) a family member’s medical condition that requires the
member to provide care for such family member, thereby preventing the
members’ physical attendance, (iii) their principal residence location is
more than 60 miles from the meeting location, or (iv) a personal matter,
and identifies with specificity the nature of the personal matter.
b. The requesting member shall also notify the County Administrator and
Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board of his or her request, but failure to do so
shall not affect the member’s ability to remotely participate.
c. If the requesting member is unable to physically attend the meeting due to
a personal matter, the requesting member must state with specificity the
nature of the personal matter. Remote participation due to a personal
matter is limited each calendar year to two meetings or 25 percent of the
meetings held per calendar year rounded up to the next whole number,
whichever is greater. There is no limit to the number of times that a
September 28, 2022
802
member may participate remotely for the other authorized purposes listed
in (i) though (iii) above.
d. The requesting member is not obligated to provide independent
verification regarding the reason for his or her nonattendance, including
the temporary or permanent disability or other medical condition or the
family member’s medical condition that prevents the member’s physical
attendance at the meeting.
e. The Chair (or the Vice Chair if the requesting member is the Chair) shall
promptly notify the requesting member whether their request is in
conformance with this policy, and therefore approved or disapproved.
5. PROCESS TO CONFIRM APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF
PARTICIPATION FROM A REMOTE LOCATION
When a quorum of the Board has assembled for the meeting, the Board shall
vote to determine whether:
a. The Chair’s decision to approve or disapprove the requesting member’s
request to participate from a remote location was in conformance with this
policy; and
b. The voice of the remotely participating member can be heard by all
persons at the primary or central meeting location.
6. RECORDING IN MINUTES
a. If the member is allowed to participate remotely due to a temporary or
permanent disability or other medical condition, a family member’s
medical condition that requires the member to provide care to the family
member, or because the member’s principal residence is located more
than 60 miles from the meeting location, the Board shall record in its
minutes (1) the Board’s approval of the member’s remote participation;
and (2) a general description of the remote location from which the
member participated.
b. If the member is allowed to participate remotely due to a personal matter,
such matter shall be cited in the minutes with specificity, as well as how
many times the member has attended remotely due to a personal matter,
and a general description of the remote location from which the member
participated.
c. If a member’s request to participate remotely is disapproved, the
disapproval, including the grounds upon which the requested participation
violates this policy or FOIA, shall be recorded in the minutes with
specificity.
7. CLOSED SESSION
If the Board goes into closed session, the member participating remotely shall
ensure that no third party is able to hear or otherwise observe the closed
meeting.
September 28, 2022
803
8. STRICT AND UNIFORM APLICATION OF THIS POLICY
This policy shall be applied strictly and uniformly, without exception, to the entire
membership, and without regard to the identity of the member requesting remote
participation or the matters that will be considered or voted on at the meeting.
The Chair (or Vice-Chair) shall maintain the member’s written request to
participate remotely and the written response for a period of one year, or other
such time required by records retention laws, regulations, and policies.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney
NAYS: None
IN RE: CITIZENS’ COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. William Skaff of 4815 Farmington Place provided the following,
“Roanoke County 200 Plan Community Engagement: Underlying Assumptions, I would
like to point out some underlying assumptions of the slide presentation on community
engagement, Roanoke County 200 Plan. Your Community. Your Voice. Roanoke
County Board of Supervisors Work Session, August 23, 2022. These implicit
assumptions support density development, despite contrary resident sentiment in the
online survey. The current Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan—the plan about to be
replaced—states, “There exists a very intrinsic relationship between the natural beauty
that exists here . . . and people’s perception of quality of life here in the County.”
\[Chapter 3, Page 20\] The 12 Community Planning Area development policies, created
from community input, indicate that “natural beauty” is of fundamental importance to
everyone who lives here. The Planning Department appears to be in the process of
replacing this principle with “Protect and preserve rural and agricultural areas with
zoning and future land use designations. Develop and redevelop in areas that have
infrastructure and development now—suburban and urban growth areas.” (emphasis
added) \[Slide 10\] It is not credible that such deference on the part of suburbanites would
be so frequently articulated in community meetings that it should rise to such
prominence. Few suburban residents would be in favor of ruining their neighborhoods
with density development in order to spare rural residents. This opposition between
rural and suburban appears to have been fabricated and then encouraged by the
Planning Department. The online survey indicates that suburban and rural residents
both want to protect all of Roanoke County from density development. The oppressive
bulk of these buildings—length and width as well as height—will destroy the
architectural integrity of a neighborhood, as well as block the sunlight, eliminate natural
viewsheds, cause traffic congestion, and increase itinerant renters who often feel little
commitment to the community or the property. I am not advocating no development.
This is a straw man that the Planning Department has constructed to make opposition
September 28, 2022
804
to density development seem unreasonable: “Many citizens like it now, and don’t want it
to change, grow, or develop more” \[Slide 10\] This slide conveniently omits the fact that
building more “Single Family” housing received the most votes in the online survey,
exceeding by far “No Development.” \[Roanoke County 200 Plane: Progress Update,
Civic League and Neighborhood Associations meeting, May 2, Slide 7\]. Development is
positive when it preserves quality of life while the population and the built environment
increase. For Roanoke County, it is a balance, a mutual presence—suburban as well as
rural, local as well as regional—between the natural and the built. This can be done with
small, freestanding, multi-use buildings surrounded by indigenous vegetation. I
respectfully ask the Board to be vigilant when considering the Roanoke 200 Plan and
make the necessary adjustments when it is presented to you for review. The complete
plan, with all community planning areas, should be made public in its entirety, not the
redacted brochures the Planning Department envisions. Also, the complete report of the
online survey provided by the survey vendor should be made public. These belong to
the residents of Roanoke County, who paid for them, and whose future depends on
them.”
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Radford moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion was seconded by Supervisor Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker, North, Radford, Peters
NAYS: None
1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report
2. Outstanding Debt Report
3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of
August 31, 2022
4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of August 31, 2022
5. Accounts Paid – August 31, 2022
Chairman Mahoney recessed to the third floor for work session at: 4:11
p.m.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
September 28, 2022
805
1. Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors the
preliminary and unaudited financial results for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 2022 and Budget Planning for fiscal year 2024,
for the County of Roanoke, Virginia (Laurie Gearheart, Director of
Finance and Management Services; Steve Elliott, Budget
Administrator)
Ms. Gearheart provided PowerPoint presentation and turned the session
over to Steve Elliott to review revenues.
Supervisor North inquired about vehicle values for next year. Mr. Elliott
advised NADA is still showing vehicle values up significantly.
Supervisor Peters commented he does forecasting for his office and they
are expecting 2023 to be the same or higher and to have a dramatic slowdown in 2024.
Supervisor Mahoney asked Mr. Mahoney asked how much we had to
provide to Visit Virginia’s Blue Ridge by statute with Mr. Elliott advising 3/7ths.
Ms. Gearheart then reviewed the expenditures and noted there were two
individual capital projects that we're recommending be funded. There's a fire hydrant out
there in the West Main Street area that needs some work. We did not have funds
elsewhere. It's about $80,000 working with the water authority to approve that. Staff is
recommending that we possibly hold $500,000 aside for that. They will be submitting a
CIP project. We will be using hopefully the CIP funds. Second, we've had several
conversations with Mariah Ward in our Comm IT department and she is very, very
nervous about this project and understandably so. We're just trying to make sure that if
there's some unforeseen and when you're working with Microsoft they have a tendency
to have a lot of unforeseen, working out the details of the licenses is very, very tricky.
We were just trying to hold some money aside just to make sure that we have what we
need to make sure that we move forward with that project.
Supervisor Peters asked if this was just to shift from GroupWise with Mr.
Caywood advising in the affirmative and noted the ultimate goal would be to transition to
an Office 365 environment so that we have continuously updated product and that's
more of a kind of seat licensing approach. Whereas now with each computer we own
separate licenses for all the Microsoft products. So, depending on how old they are that
they can be different. And that also gives you cloud storage for a lot of your storage. But
in theory over the long haul it could be something that's simpler to support, probably
more redundant backups because my guess is every email I send at home that
Microsoft handles, they probably have 12 copies of it. They laughed when I said that to
them because they probably had more than that. And then just some of the risks that we
have as an organization through managing all these different individual licenses
because that's the its own exercise is very problematic. He thinks a lot of folks at home
have already probably made that transition and we're looking at that. But at a minimum
the number one goal is to get off of GroupWise. I'm not sure if we're the last user yet,
September 28, 2022
806
the number of active GroupWise users continues to dwindle and that creates some
security risks. And then just at least in my own opinion as a user, it's functionality and
some of its quirks have expanded as it's gotten older and less folks use it. So obviously
emails a mission critical system that we need to get on a supported platform.
Ms. Gearheart advised they would also like to build the health insurance
fund and put back what we took out last year for Public Private Partnerships and then
reviewed the fund balance policies. Next, Ms. Gearheart noted the Children's Services
Act costs continue to increase, that has been very challenging to meet the rising
demand for these mental health services for children. She reminded everyone that we
did put in 2.2 million from our fiscal year '21-year end available funds were added to the
CSA fund balance in fiscal year '22. And if we had not done that, a million of that came
from the schools in 1.2 was from the County, out of both of our year end available funds
from '21, we would've depleted our fund balance. She is thankful that we were able to
put that money in there. Unfortunately, staff anticipates that the costs will continue to
increase in this area as we look forward. In light of this, we are planning to work to try to
increase our general fund transfer over into this fund to kind of help mitigate these
deficits that we continue to see in this fund.
Supervisor North commented that Eldon James, our consultant, is going to
be setting a meeting with Dr. Danny Avula, who heads up social services in the
Youngkin administration and he is waiting to see what his take is going to be with regard
to social programs, which this one still is in his purview and hopefully will not go over to
the Department of Education.
Supervisor Hooker noted she wanted more information on CSA and the
continued rise in expenses because we were piloting a program in Roanoke County
trying to keep some of this programming inside our schools and are we not seeing any
savings? Ms. Geaheart advised not currently as it is too soon to know. We did have a
CSA meeting just this past week and Cheryl Austin who is our Chair stated they're really
struggling and a lot of it has to do with the parents and really demanding that their child
be a certain place or not accepting their recommendations. Additionally, they are
seeing more children, an increase of 68 children. Overall costs per child actually went
down.
Supervisor North asked to have a memo on these numbers and maybe a
short excel spreadsheet so that when we visit legislators and this comes up we can just
hand it to them. It is something to be proactive on.
Mr. Caywood advised the presentations you just saw are something we've
done annually, but thought it might be a good idea to take this opportunity to talk a little
bit about the '24 budget just at a high level before we start going into the CIP and then
hit operating early next year. There is a great deal of uncertainty when you look at next
year both on the revenue side and the expenditure side. We're in high inflation
environment, we don't know necessarily what's going to go on with the economy, either
we're in a recession, is it going to get significantly worse? It's kind of hard to see. And
September 28, 2022
807
then even since we made this slide, of course the feds seem to really be trying to slam
on the brakes and we need to think about the effects of that. So, there's a lot of
unpredictability, then when you think about some of the big-ticket items that we're
looking at for the upcoming year, the third year, this will be the final year of the public
safety step plan implementation. There may be some changes over the first couple of
years once we're out of implementation just because he does think the new pay plan
affects employee behavior. But again, over the long period of time he thinks the cost will
primarily be driven by any changes we make to the actual scale. He thinks public safety
in the future will look just like general employees in terms of, if we do change that base
we can do a calculation. But this will be the last year of a large number there. Then, the
only changes you're doing or what is the cost of actually if you want to move say the
whole scale or percentage point, you do your math on that. But for next year that's a
significant expense. It's way too early to start thinking about salaries and specific
numbers. But just as a placeholder you can see the cost for increases to everybody
else. On the fire and rescue side, we do have a couple of big expenses coming in that
arena. First is the ending of the most reset SAFER grant. So, we need to absorb those
folks back into the base budget. Then the new folks that we want to bring on board for
the Bonsack station, we do plan to make application for a SAFER grant for at least part
of those folks. The reason he says part of those folks is with the way the SAFER
program works, we're going to get into some timing issues if we actually want to open
the station when we think the station can be available. The Fire Chief thinks it would
probably be difficult to go hire and train 18 folks in one big batch. So, his
recommendation is we try to space them into two classes so we're not recruiting all at
once, which is probably wise. But then the next application deadline for SAFER is
January of '23. But it's my understanding that they still haven't announced the grant
awards from the last window, which was almost a year ago. We're going to have to just
keep an eye on this because obviously we'd like to maximize the utilization of grants but
you get into a little bit of a chicken and egg thing, if we go ahead and budget for it then
we can't get it from SAFER. But if we wait until we hear from SAFER, it's going to be
difficult to budget. We're just going to have to really watch that and see what happens.
But the plan at this point would be to probably put nine in the budget and then make
SAFER application for the other nine and hopefully we would pick up at least part of
them. So those are some things we're thinking about.
Supervisor Mahoney asked what has been our recent experience with
recruiting new eligible folks for fire and rescue? I know we have the difficulty with public
safety, police. Mr. Caywood responded Fire and Rescue has generally been very good.
So, we don't think long haul is going to be difficult to attract 18 great folks to come join.
He thinks it's just depends, again we could have Chief probably could speak to this in
more detail. His opinion was just trying to use that all at once might be challenging and
his recommendation was to probably split it in half. That may also make the most
financial sense than trying to put all the eggs in the SAFER basket and wait to see what
happens. Because again, if we apply in January and if they take a year again, then we
September 28, 2022
808
could really be in trouble in terms to trying to get people trained and ready to open the
station. So that's something that we're really going to have to give some thought to.
Supervisor North inquired what successes have we had with the fire
department, like the police department, trying to get people from outside this area to
transfer over. Have we had any successes with that? Supervisor Peters advised we
have. We've actually brought them from other departments within the area. They've
come over to the County or getting ready to start with the County.
Mr. Caywood noted one of the strategic goals on the board is for some of
the County to have AAA bond rating and Ms. Owens was doing some work on that here
recently. One of the things that's most in our control that we could probably do to move
us in that direction is to move that general fund and appropriated balance up. In other
words, we're actually very low on the percentage for that compared to many AAA
localities. So that's just something that we'll need to think about if we really do want to
make that change. Supervisor North stated we are at 12% now, what would it need to
be with Mr. Caywood responding many of them are at 20, 25, 30%. But what we'll be
doing, probably after the first of the year, it's actually inviting the financial advisor to
come in and we'll have a conversation with the Board to help us understand what it
would take for us to get there. Then we'll just work on a plan; it may take a couple years
for us just like we did when we put the 12% in place, we were at 6% and then we just
had a number of years that helped us to get to that point.
The work session was held from 4:25 p.m. until 5:25 p.m.
Chairman Mahoney called the meeting back into order at 7:01 p.m.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1. The petition of ABoone Real Estate, Inc., to rezone approximately
32.323 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential District, to C-2,
High Intensity Commercial District, and R-3, Medium Density
Multi-Family Residential District, to construct a hotel and
townhouses located in the 1300 and 1400 blocks of Edgebrook
Road, Catawba Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Director of
Planning)
Mr. Thompson provided a PowerPoint presentation outlining the petition.
Supervisor Hooker asked if was developed as R-1 would it have to be
clear cut with Mr. Thompson responding in the affirmative. She noted it would be great
for a greenway; has there been any discussion for that. Mr. Thompson noted there was
some conversation at the first community meeting, but does not know where it stands.
September 28, 2022
809
Supervisor Hooker then inquired I this would be considered a gateway into
the area because she has concerns about safety of that road where the townhomes are
on the curve. Mr. Thompson advised VDOT would approve the entrance and they are
in attendance and can speak to that. Supervisor Hooker then stated there was some
concern that this traffic study was being done during the pandemic and therefore not
accurate. Mr. Thompson advised he would let VDOT respond to that.
Supervisor Radford inquired if there is a picture right behind the park and
ride where the dirt is exposed. Mr. Thompson responded in the negative stating it is
further down.
Supervisor North commented these do not look like town homes, more like
community homes. What are they? Mr. Thompson advised it meets our definition of a
townhome.
Supervisor Mahoney inquired with regard to page 11, the Board received
a video yesterday pointing out an error with respect to the designation of the property as
core versus neighborhood conservation. Did staff do a rough calculation of how much
land in the neighborhood conservation triangle versus core? Mr. Thompson then
advised it was 1/5 or 1/6 of 3 acres.
Mr. Alexander Boone provided an overview.
Supervisor Peters advised a hotel that came back to us in 2022 and they
wanted to convert that to apartments. When he asked the question why, their answer to
us was, there's not a market for a hotel. So, he is curious to see where you received
your data that was different. They gave a very good explanation that business travel is
not what it used to be. People are using Zoom or Microsoft, whatever that's called.
They're using other forms rather than traveling and so that was their reason for wanting
to convert the site that we had previously approved to apartments rather than a hotel.
He is just curious to know the information that you have versus what we received from
them a few months ago.
Mr. Boone advised it's interesting that you ask that Mr. Peters. Before we
came in here, we were talking about the just explosion of multi-family development. I'm
a partner in a number of apartment complexes in Roanoke, Salem, Lynchburg, and the
lake. We've studied this market a lot and the multi-family market is really, really strong.
So, he thinks if somebody's looking at what do they want to do with their land,
multifamily is a great way to go right today. He thinks it was certainly a good decision to
do that. But the other thing is at exit 137, he does not know how many hotels there are,
10, eight. There are a lot of them there. So, our site, we're going to have one hotel,
that's it. It's going to be a high end, nationally branded, very nice hotel, well lit. And it'll
be what? Two to three minutes from Roanoke College, two to three minutes from
downtown Salem. It'll be right there at the parking ride where people were going to load
up to go to McAfee's. It's going to support the Moyer sports complex that was
announced, the enhancements that were just recently announced, it's going to support
Hanging Rock Golf Club. This is not going to be trying to just pick up person who's tired
September 28, 2022
810
at 11:00 at night on 81. This is going to be a strategic hotel in a great location where it's
all by itself. That will be well, well maintained.
Ben Crew with Balzer and Associates responded to questions concerning
elevation and what appears to be a wall with existing vegetation. Mr. Crew responded
that steep drop off is, if you're looking at the plan on the screen is planned south, it goes
down to the creek and to be able to facilitate the hotel construction, that area is being
leveled and a retaining wall is being installed.
Chairman Mahoney opened the public hearing with the following citizens
to speak:
Lynn Bledsoe of Kinloch Lane stated, “Tonight you only need to find one
of the following to make a motion to deny this commercial or C2 rezoning request. That
the rezoning is inconsistent with the county's comprehensive plan and good zoning
practice or that the rezoning will result in substantial detriment to our community. That
what you have right there is for a minute, so if you all can listen to me and look at that in
a minute, I'm not there yet. Since you've already watched our video, which was emailed
to each of you yesterday, you realize by now that the C2 rezoning requested in this
application encroaches on the area designated as neighborhood conservation. Now you
can look at that, with that yellow little piece that goes down into a point there. That was
really never made clear at the planning commission meeting to anyone. We discovered
that after the planning commission meeting. Planning actually explained this to you
tonight, but at the planning commission meeting three weeks ago, they actually misled
the planning commissioners and us by stating that the project's design was in full
compliance with the comprehensive plan, other than the 15 townhomes located up
further along on Edgebrook Road. When the requested C2 rezoning in this application is
not consistent, as we learned tonight, with the comprehensive plan, because part of the
hotel parking lot and a corner of the actual hotel falls within the area designated as
neighborhood conservation. Planning has decided to present the accurate information
tonight, no doubt because of our video and the recent media coverage. Planning has
offered no explanation, though, to us tonight for the erroneous information we were
presented with and what was actually in Planning's background information that you had
previously to review online. We would love to know what the explanation is for this
misinformation. In fact, we deserve that explanation. We didn't get one. Unfortunately,
tonight we were not allowed to show our video. Phillip Thompson has told us tonight
that the area designated as core was changed from transition to core on the 2005
comprehensive plan. That obviously was not a good zoning decision back in the day
because it eliminated that transition area that should be present to buffer neighborhood
conservation from core. The 2005 Planning apparently ignored their own guidelines with
that change, from that designation from transition to core. A strip of townhomes is not
enough of a transition for any commercial zoning, much less for a four-story hotel with
tons of commercial parking lot lighting, even though Mister Boone will try to argue that it
is. Any commercial rezoning in this area has to completely ignore the existing land use
pattern and existing R1 zoning that has clearly been established with the over 400
September 28, 2022
811
single family homes that surround this site now. There's no commercial zoning
anywhere even around this area. You can see that designated in yellow there on your
second handout. We have seen the county's economic development piece,
yesroanoke.com, where Mister Boone is praising the county's planning group for
working so closely with him on projects. We can see the extent of that relationship at
work. From the misrepresentation about the C2 zoning at the recent Planning
Commission meeting, to VDOT's use of 2020 COVID traffic counts, there appears to be
a coordinated effort at work in order to obtain a piece of the I-81 hotel pie at exit 140. So
far, our 375 voices represented on our petition against this rezoning application have
been utterly ignored. Our primary concern with this rezoning application has always
been the commercial rezoning. A hotel surrounded by single family homes is not the
best place to place a hotel. Hilton and Marriott do not care about our neighborhoods,
only profits, and developers come, and they go. Planning's misrepresentation of the
facts related to this rezoning request should render the Planning Commission's vote
invalid, and strengthens our case for an appeal, should you choose to ignore your own
guidelines related to making a motion to deny the C2 rezoning tonight. Tonight, your job
is easy if you follow your own guidelines. You must vote no to the C2 rezoning
application as it is not in full compliance with the comprehensive plan, and it does not
follow good zoning practice, not even to mention the detrimental effects it will have on
our community. Thank you.”
John Kesling of 1820 Hanging Rock Court in the Hanging Rock Estates
subdivision stated, “My home is approximately one half of a mile from the area that
we're talking about. This is the third meeting that I've attended dealing with this
situation, the first one at the meeting back in March, down on Kessler Mill Road, the
Planning Commission, and then here tonight. Two things that I've heard repeatedly. It
was said that this is all about money. I addressed that in my speech or my words to the
Planning Commission. The other thing that I've heard repeatedly is this, that it's been
said, "This is a done deal. This is going to be forced upon us." Well, I'm here to say
tonight, I don't believe that. If I believed that, I would not be here. I believe that you five
people are going to do the right thing. Supervisor Hooker, I will remind you that in the
meeting down on Kessler Mill Road, you were asked precisely, "Martha, would you want
this in your neighborhood?" You said, "Probably not." So, I ask the other four of you.
Would you want this in your neighborhood? Would you want it where you've invested
your hard-earned money, where you've paid your taxes, where you've raised your
children, where your family drives up and down the road? Would you want that in your
neighborhood? This is a residential area. Myself and all of my neighbors, we have
bought into this property because it's a residential neighborhood. We have made
tremendous investments here. I believe with all my heart that if you will look into your
heart, you will make the right decision. Mister Boone paints this motel in a really good
light when he keeps talking about it's going to be new. We're going to have the newest
thing. My concern is not when it's new. My concern, what's it going to be five or 10
years from now? What's it going to be when the Marriott or the Hilton has said, "We just
September 28, 2022
812
don't get enough business there, we're pulling out," and it turns into who knows what?
That's what my concern is. I am asking you all to keep our neighborhoods the way they
should be: residential. If we lose this battle, I am very proud to say that we went down
with a fight, that we did not just roll over and say, because I am proud to be a resident of
the Hanging Rock area. I am very proud of these people who have stood to the feet and
said, "We deserve better than this." Thank you.”
Thomas Gibson of Innsbrooke Drive stated, “He lives directly behind this
proposed building site. Thank you, Ms. Hooker. We spoke on the phone after the last
meeting, so I appreciated that. I have on here some of the things that have already
been discussed, so I'm not going to bleed those dry. You guys saw the Knights Inn on
every news channel yesterday, right? The developer for that didn't come to the Planning
Commission and say, "I want to build a drug haven. I want to build a sex trafficking bin."
No one's saying that in here. It's the fear we all have, though. That type of situation
permeates society everywhere. We're not immune. That's three miles away from where
we're talking about building. There are $300,000 homes in Ocean Lakes lined up
around the back of that. It is a very similar situation to what we're talking about tonight,
whether we see it today or 10 years from now. From a community perspective, our own
planning commissioner, Mister Troy Henderson, said he looked into the hotel, and we
didn't need it. There's a ton going up. He said we didn't need it. He voted for it based on
some personal property feelings that he had and ownership rights. I understand and
respect those. That's our expert. Mister Boone has his own. Mister Boone has also
claimed that houses in this parcel can't sell for $500,000. Everything around it is
$500,000. What you build there is going to be based off the value of those homes. We
actually called our realtor who sold us that home and said, "Hey, look, they're talking
about dropping a hotel in the middle of a neighborhood. What can we do about that if
we sell?" She said, "Be ready to rent for a year. There’re no homes in that $500,000
price range right now. Very few. There's nothing coming on the market. Those homes
would be absorbed if you built them. "Mr. Boone and Joe Thomas will compare this
project to the Fairway Homes, which are beautiful. Nice community. They'll compare the
hotel, also, to the golf course. The golf course sustains the community. It's basically a
wilderness preserve that people come and play on for 10 hours a day. It's not a hotel.
You're talking about dropping this commercial lot in the middle of a neighborhood.
That's it. After that, no commercial expansion can happen unless we wait for people to
die 20-30 years from now and buy up their homes as well. That's the reality of the
project that's being proposed. We can't compare the Hanging Rock Estates, the
Fairways, the golf course. Those aren't comparable to a hotel. It's a residential road that
he wants to build it on. Would you want this at your back door? I know your answer. I
assume. You said you lived close to one, and it was okay, but there's also a lot of
commercial area around there, so it's not a pit stop on 81. It's servicing a specific
business district. I just ask you to look into those questions and really consider your
neighbors and the community when you make this decision. Thanks.”
September 28, 2022
813
Eileen Hodges of 1295 Dennis Lane stated, “As Mister Thomas spoke at
the September 6th meeting, I realized I have a unique perspective to share as a
longtime resident there. Mister Thomas spoke of the developing of the golf course and
homes built has been community improvements. Since I've lived there since 1968, I will
share some of the changes I have observed. One, the small fish and duck pond just
below the 18th hole was fed by a stream whose flow was disturbed. That pond is now
filled with sludge and cattails. Two, the golf course required numerous new wells for
irrigation. The course opened in July of '91. Five months later, our home well dried up.
Three, a small wet weather creek through our neighborhood became a stormwater
runoff ditch that has cost my neighbor thousands of dollars in an attempt to prevent
further erosion and loss of their driveway. Basically, the response they've received has
been that they're the lowest point, so this is their problem. Four, the removal of many
acres of forest has increased the energy needed to cool our homes and has increased
the water runoff. The land clearing has also removed the natural habitat for wildlife who
now feed on our gardens and frequent our trash. Five, the traffic on Red Lane has
increased steadily, and no doubt will continue to with this development. However, the
road is the same as it was 54 years ago since VDOT finds it adequate. However, any
attempt at pedestrian activity is hazardous at best. Indeed, the community has
developed. Money has been made, but scarcely to the advantage of current residents. I
fear this rezoning will bring more of the same. My greatest concern now is that if these
two neighborhood roads are allowed to be used for anything but single-family
neighborhoods, that rezoning is going to cross Edgebrook and creep toward Red Lane,
bringing more multi-family buildings and businesses. Mister Boone stated at the last
meeting that it took 10 to 15 seconds from Thompson Memorial to the proposed site.
Well, it's just a few more seconds to the next undeveloped land. I fear the adage of give
them an inch and they'll take a mile, may apply with little regard for those who already
live in our community. Thank you for listening.”
Chairman Mahoney recessed for ten minutes – 8:37 p.m. and called the
meeting back to order at 8:47 p.m.
Mike Davis of 1601 Forest Highland Court stated, “Seeing as how I didn't
talk with Mr. Boone, evidently I'm irrational. So, I'll go from there. This is not right. This is
a democracy. You had 375 people sign a petition, okay? That's the majority. You five,
you can overrule that 375. So, it's not a democracy .The Bible tells me it's a sin to tell a
lie. I had the worst night that I can remember trying to sleep last night. I was picturing
your faces, and y'all saying, "Yes. Yes. Yes." I couldn't sleep. I'm serious. It would be a
sin for me to tell you a lie. I couldn't sleep, because all of y'all were going to vote yes. I
have not talked to one person who said they would have moved to where they live now
if they had known the motel was going to be put there. I wanted to buy some scales.
Justice scales. You know, you've seen the justice scales, okay? And they said it's about
money. It is about money. You have the justice scales. You have a hotel. You have
other developments. And see how far it goes down? Justice is up here, but the weight of
September 28, 2022
814
money, it's got this scale way down here. It's way out of kilter. It's wrong. I know you
might say this is irrational, but this is how I felt last night when I was lying in bed, and I
told you I couldn't sleep. There is a war going on now in the Ukraine, okay? This man,
with the few people backing him, wants to go and take this land and does what he
wants to with it. That's what's happened to our land. You're killing our dreams. Let me
read this to you. "For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world and loses his
own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?" I hope it's not
inappropriate, but I'd like to ask you a question, and you can show me by hand if you
would. If y'all vote yes for this, how many of y'all will come and help me and my wife
move? Because that's what I'll do. I'll remember your faces tonight in my dreams. Thank
you.”
Gene Szustakowski of 1707 Kinlock Lane, Salem, stated, “As a resident of
one of the communities surrounding this proposed development, I have a lot of
concerns with our property values going down if this rezoning application is approved.
Mr. Boone has addressed our concerns about property value reductions previously by
stating, "I have seen hundreds of projects like this and it's never the case." I would like
to request a list of multiple developments from Mr. Boone that had an established
residential neighborhood with R1 zoning around it, where zoning was changed to R3
and C2 zoning, so a hotel and town homes could be built in the middle of hundreds of
surrounding single family homes without affecting property values or traffic. I doubt he
has any examples of that. A development such as this one would most certainly affect
our property values. The property next to the park and ride just increased their price by
$200,000 on Monday in anticipation of your approval of a C2 rating tonight. They'll
expect an easy change to the rest of Edgebrook to a C2, resulting in Edgebrook being
all commercial property, and further reducing the property value of our development.
We have no doubt Mr. Boone will do an excellent job of building the town homes, but he
has no record I know of commercial building. However, we have not heard anything
specific on the square footage of the town homes. What will that be? The selling price,
he doesn't know yet. Obviously, the lower end range that he has spoken about of $250
would most certainly affect our home values. Mr. Boone has also said that he will build
these town homes to not rent out but sell them. What would stop him from having
another builder build those townhouses on his property, like is being done in Russlen
Farms? Then we would not know what the potential size or quality would end up being,
nor the further effect it would have upon our property values. Adding a proffer assuring
us that he will be the only builder of town homes would be the only way to ensure this.
When discussing this proposed rezoning at the recent planning commission meeting,
Troy Henderson said, "I don't see this as a bad use of land." He may not, and you may
agree. However, neither he nor any of you would have to suffer from the consequences
of your decision on this rezoning application on a daily basis, like my neighbors and I
most certainly will if you vote to approve this rezoning. Mr. Boone has suggested that
the hotel would support our neighborhoods by offering a location for visiting relatives to
stay, in addition to space for sporting goods. Currently there are 11 hotels within the
September 28, 2022
815
three-mile radius, and 29 in less than a five-mile radius of this property. A hotel is not
needed here. If Mr. Boone is concerned about residents of single-family homes having a
place for guests to stay, he could build a hotel and town homes near his development at
Fairway Forest. They might be able to use a hotel, since there are only two within a
three-mile radius that I'm aware of, and there are hundreds more homes in that area
than there are here. In conclusion, how can you allow commercial zoning in an area
designated as neighborhood conservation, according to the comprehensive plan? This
proposed rezoning is not compatible with the comprehensive plan. You must therefore
vote no to the rezoning tonight. Thank you.”
Kevin Connolly of 1555 Old Course Lane in Salem, stated, “ I'd like to
discuss again the traffic issues, and what we consider faulty traffic counts done by both
Balzer and VDOT. According to archived weather history, there was a quarter inch of
rain when Balzer and Associates conducted their traffic study on September 21, 2021.
Several engineering firms we've spoken to about say they try to reschedule their traffic
studies when there is rain. VDOT's own instruction guide for traffic studies states to
avoid days with inclement weather. I feel the study was flawed because of this, and
provided inaccurate traffic counts due to the rain that day. This is important, since
VDOT has based their recommendation that no turn lanes or tapers are warranted by
the proposed development based in part on this traffic study conducted by Balzer. And I
was thinking once they started mentioning the golf club, the golf course there, rain had
an effect on golfers that day, so I mean, you're not getting at a good traffic count.
Additionally, at the March meeting, Brian Blevins with VDOT was asked by one of my
neighbors if the traffic study numbers used in this rezoning app were low due to the
effects of COVID on traffic. Mr. Blevins admitted that the traffic counts were a little low
because of the effects COVID did have on traffic, and because of that, he went on to
add, pre-COVID traffic counts were used. However, if you look at the traffic information
from the rezoning application, there is nothing but VDOT's 2020 traffic counts, and
Balzer’s September 21, 2021, traffic turning figures, and no specific date or month was
given for the 2020 study done by VDOT. Please note, there are no pre-COVID 2019
VDOT traffic counts included anywhere in the application. According to Mr. Blevins,
VDOT found Balzer’s numbers acceptable, and if the pre-COVID 2019 traffic counts for
Edgebrook Road and Mountain Heights Lane were higher, shouldn't they have been
used and included in the rezoning application, and adjusted to include annual rate
increases from 2019 to the time of the study? Roanoke County residents deserve the
right to have the most accurate traffic counts analyzed when there's a rezoning request
of this magnitude. At the planning commission, Mr. Blevins and Mr. Mertz both stated
the numbers weren't that far off. If you remember back to beginning of COVID, a
number of large car insurance companies like State Farm gave partial premium refunds
back to their insured customers because they were driving a lot less and they had fewer
claims. People were no longer commuting to work as much, and staying working at
home. Traffic must have been impacted heavily for that to occur, yet for some reason,
we're repeatedly told that the COVID traffic counts were acceptable, and we just have to
September 28, 2022
816
have blind faith. Our community wants accurate numbers used when a decision this
important is made. We're requesting that all decisions be postponed until a new traffic
study is completed on a rain-free day, along with an additional year of traffic growth rate
factored into the traffic counts, since all the previous data was based on construction
beginning in 2021, not 2022. If you do not find that action appropriate, I urge you to vote
no tonight, as rezoning will result in a substantial detriment to our community. Thank
you for your time.”
Kim Baskette of 1625 Forest Highlands Ct in Salem, stated, “I want to talk
a little bit more about the anticipated traffic issues that were brought up at the planning
commission meeting, and that woe that this proposed rezoning will bring to our
neighborhoods. The previous planned section three of the Fairways that had 51 single-
family homes would have increased vehicles per day by only 30%. Compare that to the
vehicles per day increase of 73% from the 80 town homes and the hotel. The numbers
are on your handout. That is a significant increase. Additionally, if this rezoning is
approved, eventually something more than the simple existing stop sign that is currently
there will be required at the intersection of Thomas Memorial Drive and Mountain
Heights Road due to future traffic issues. Specifically, what type of future road
improvements at this intersection could VDOT implement here? Well, as previously
stated by Mr. Blevins of VDOT at the March community meeting, no traffic light can ever
be placed at this intersection because of the close proximity to I-81's ingress-egress.
The entrance ramp to I-81 South is less than one-tenth of a mile from this intersection.
According to Mr. Blevins, the only future solution to the inevitable traffic problem that will
occur at this intersection if rezoning is granted would be one of the following three
options. The first option would be an RCUT, which is a restricted crossing U-turn, which
means no left turn out onto Thompson Memorial from either Mountain Heights Drive or
from Debra Lane, which is located on the other side of Thompson Memorial Drive.
Second option, a close crossover, which is a right in, right out, once again eliminating
left-hand turns. Or the third option would be a reduced phase signal. All of these
solutions sound like they would only add more restrictive traffic control in an area that
already has I-81 ingress-egress, a narrowing of two lanes down to one on Thompson
Memorial Drive, which I've noticed can be pretty dangerous there with people flying off I-
81, coming from Salem, as you approach the park and ride, and a roundabout at the
next intersection down the road at Catawba Valley Road and Thompson Memorial
Drive. We also must not forget about the wide turns that the smart buses make coming
from or going to the park and ride 12 times a day. Adding additional traffic produced by
80 town homes and an 85-room hotel sounds like a traffic nightmare. I would like to
request a no decision be made on this rezoning tonight until the applicant conducts a
new traffic study and submits it for review. If you do not find that action appropriate, I
urge you to vote no to the rezoning of this property, as it will result in a substantial
detriment to our community. And I have a couple other things. One is that I'm going to
reiterate with some of my neighbors have said. If this was being proposed near you,
would you want this in your neighborhood, or would you be up here fighting as we are?
September 28, 2022
817
That's my first question. The second note I want to add is, we just moved in December
of this past year, and as my neighbor previously said, we would have had second
thoughts if we knew a hotel was going to be put on that property. So, thank you for your
time. Thank you for allowing me to speak.”
Donna Copenhaver of 1643 Forest Highland Ct., Salem, stated, “Tonight I
will be addressing the C2 zoning request for the hotel. This rezoning application states
that Edgebrook Park supports the residents of the surrounding communities. I'm not
sure how any of this rezoning would support our neighborhoods. On the contrary, if the
C2 rezoning is granted for a hotel to be built, we anticipate an increase in criminal
activity in our neighborhoods. This proposed hotel will facilitate break-ins, drug dealings,
and sex trafficking in our neighborhoods by bringing lots of people from out of the area,
off of Interstate 81. The hotel, along with the park and ride, will be a haven for sex
trafficking. What a mistake these two together will be. Just yesterday, federal officials
initiated steps to seize a county motel, which had been home to a known drug trafficker,
and a center for sex trafficking. The news story stated the county police had responded
to over 1,100 calls to this motel in the last three years. This type of activity is happening
already in the county. Sergeant Chidester, Roanoke County Police Motel Task Force,
says that suspicious activity is already happening at the park and ride related to sex
trafficking, and that a hotel across the street from that would increase such activity,
especially since it will be right off of I-81. Sergeant Chidester, who is very familiar with
the location of this proposed hotel, immediately commented on how the location is set
back from I-81, and how it is kind of isolated in a quiet little place, which could offer
more seclusion for criminal activity. Hotels and motels are their top police call producers
every month in the county police department, besides calls to the two county Walmarts,
according to Britney Money, who is a crime analyst for Roanoke County Police. She
said there are five hotels and motels in the Thirlane Road area, each averaging
between 2.6 and 29 calls per month. Sergeant Chidester said that the older ones tend
to get run down, and sometimes actually turn into long-term housing where drug use is
a frequent problem. We have no guarantee of what would end up here 10 to 15 years
from now when the property becomes run down and potentially sold. A majority of the
over 300 surroundings residents that signed our petition to deny Mr. Boone's rezoning
request wrote in either no hotel or no commercial. I urge you, please devote no to this
C2 rezoning request as it will be a determinant to our community. Detriment to our
community. Thank you.”
Stas Mavrides of 1561 Old Course Lane in Salem, stated, “. I would like to
continue with some other areas of concern containing this rezoning application and I
just want to say right off, we are not in principle opposed to diverse housing, it could be
a very good thing. This is all the beef is with the rezoning for the hotel, and Mr. Boone's
application states that the request for rezoning would offer services to many county
residents not available in close proximity to home called supportive services. If this is a
reference to the hotel, then it is simply not true. Exit 141 offers four hotels the availability
of 370 total rooms; exit 137 offers seven hotels away from our neighborhoods. Mr.
September 28, 2022
818
Boone repeatedly says that our homes come first typically in an area, then businesses
follow because the homeowners want to be close to things. How many homeowners
actually want or need a hotel in their backyard? I'm pretty sure perspective home buyers
do not look for that service on house hunting. According to Mr. Thompson, the area
designated as core in this parcel was changed from transition on the 1998
comprehensive plan to core on the 2005 comprehensive plan. Mr. Boone's property
rights aside, what about the property rights of us, the neighboring single-family
homeowners? Have we not any property rights relating to zoning. The piece of property
where the commercial zoning is being requested is still partially in neighborhood
conservation and not in full compliance with the comprehensive plan, even though
planning told us and planning commissioners three weeks ago reiterated that it was in
full compliance with regard to neighborhood conservation. This property is surrounded
by single family homes. Therefore, it makes most sense from a planning perspective to
maintain the current R one zoning for this piece of property, so the natural expansion of
the existing development pattern can be preserved. Currently, Roanoke County
Planning is examining zoning mistakes of the past with 419 frontage development plan.
The major goal of this plan from my understanding is to provide a framework for any
new development by respecting the existing land uses and taking measures to ensure
land use compatibility to prevent the "blight of the commercial strip, so common
suburban corridors.” That type of blight is exactly what you will see being created here if
you approve this rezoning by ignoring our existing land use patterns and allowing
commercial zoning in the middle of residential. And so, for the reasons I've stated and
that everyone else before me has stated, this proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the
purpose and intent of the county's adopted comprehensive plan and not in good zoning
practice and will result in substantial detriment to our community. Therefore, you must
and we request please follow your own guidelines in this regard and vote no to the C2
of commercial rezoning application. Thank you for your time.”
John Senter of 1502 Kinlock Lane, Salem, stated, “Tonight, I would like to
present some concerns that my neighbors and I have with statements made in Mr.
Boone's rezoning application report. I apologize in advance because some of the stuff
I'm going to say you've heard and it won't be \[inaudible 00:31:30\], but I think it's
important. Mr. Boone's application states that the rezoning for R1 to R3 will allow the
building of town homes to "help address a significant shortage of new housing in
Roanoke County. “Please note that section three of Fairways which could have been
developed but was never completed would've contributed approximately 51 new single-
family homes according to the site sign that was there for years and only removed
March of this year. In another part of the application, it states that Edgewood Park will
be an efficient, attractive, and compatible use of property. In September 6th, Roanoke
Times article, Mr. Boone is quoted as saying that his affordable townhomes could sell
between 250,000 and 400,000. With those price range, there's still no assurance that
Mr. Boone's proposed townhomes will be anywhere comparable to our existing single-
family homes either in price or in quality, nor can Mr. Boone predict with any certainty
September 28, 2022
819
the negative impact C2 or R3 zoning will have on our home prices. Mr. Boone
repeatedly stated at the planning commission meeting that neither he nor Joe Thomas
can find anyone interested in purchasing a single-family home located behind the park
and ride. I suspect that they would have the same results if they had canvased potential
homeowners to see if there was any interest in purchasing a townhome located behind
a park and ride I81 or either side over behind a large four-story hotel. No doubt Mr.
Boone would like to rezone a majority of this property to R3 to maximize the profits
under the guise of affordable housing while trying to convince us that this is the only
marketable development for this site with a callous disregard to already existing R1
zoning and the residents that will be negatively impacted by this proposed rezoning.
Finally, the recent rezoning application states that material revisions to the initial plan of
development were made following the March community meeting to address the
legitimate concerns of the residents who attended. There were no material concessions
made. The medical buildings were eliminated from the original project in order to move
the hotel from the neighborhood conservation, but the relocation is still clouded as a
portion of the parking lot in the corner of the hotel remaining in the neighborhood
conservation area. Let me be clear, the commercial rezoning of R1 property has always
been the most concerning part of the proposal for a majority of the surrounding
residents, and I'm confident would be the same position that residents along Huntington
Hills or Fox Ridge Road or anybody here that has a single family home and an R1
development that has a town home or a hotel move in beside it because what's going to
happen, your property's going to go down to value, and it is about money because most
of the people here that lived in these homes have put their life savings into making that
home maybe their final home. I know most people in our neighborhood have, and I just
say it needs to stop here. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Board of
Supervisors, I urge you to vote no to Mr. Boone's rezoning request and as it said before,
because it will result in a substantial detriment to our community. Thank you for your
time.”
Larry Shouse of 1536 Old Course Lane in Salem, stated, “My property
happens to back up to one of the buffered areas for this project. First, before I start
anything, I want to thank you guys for the opportunity to speak. I like the process that's
in place here where we can bring issues before the board and have it aired out, and I
thank you for that. I've been a homeowner in Fairways 2 for the last 14 years, and have
served as a member of the advisory committee that the developer Joe Thomas put
together for approximately nine years. And I've also served on the board of directors for
our HOA. I say this only because I have a history of knowing where things have
progressed over the course of the 14 years that I have lived here. I'd like to take a few
moments to just address the change in the history. When I purchased my property in
2008, I was told by my builder, Brad Graham of Graham Thomas builders that there
would be no nothing built directly behind my property. I beg to differ now because this
project will be directly behind my property, the creek that runs down through that
property. I was told at the time that I was standing in my future backyard that it was a
September 28, 2022
820
protected area and it would not be any building in that area. Now we know the move
forward a few more years, I was at an advisory meeting with Joe Thomas and he
brought forward what his plans were for that development, and indeed he was planning
to build another section of homes along the creek area. At that time, he said I will
probably have to shorten or cut the footprint of the homes at the entrance because it's
going to be right across from the park and ride and that would probably be an obvious
reason why, but he said as we move back on that property, we will increase the size of
the homes and the cost value of those homes. Some months later, a sign was erected
on the site that showed 50 homes coming into that area, and that sign stayed there until
the course of what's happening now came about. All of a sudden we learned the
rumblings that Mr. Thomas had sold the property to Mr. Boone and that there was going
to be a commercial property put in place. This brings us to where we at. You've already
heard, you know it well. We're asking that we not rezone this property to commercial
allow commercial. The 60 townhomes or 80 townhomes, that number keeps getting
bouncers around. They're a bit lesser of the evils here. In my opinion, Mr. Boone's
project, the price point for the townhomes seem to be somewhat fluid. We can't get him
to nail down exactly what it is that he's going to charge. We've heard from multiple
people including Mr. Thomas that we're a people that do not like change, that we're
been characterized as whiny butts to somebody degree. Joe didn't say that. But we are
just a group of people that do not want the intrusion of commercialism into our
neighborhood. I think what you're hearing tonight is very passionate individuals about
our community. I'm going to stop because I know my time is over. I will close with this
one thought: it's common for each of us to resist change that's human nature. Anytime
that we feel strongly or see an unneeded thing being pushed toward us or threatens a
peaceful hour, peaceful existence, I'll leave you with a thought here. The only person
that I can truly say enjoys change is a baby with a dirty diaper. And I leave you with that
stinky thought because this project stinks to those of us that live around it. Thank you
for listening to me, and I hope that what you hear tonight does not fall on deaf ears.”
Ken Bunning of 1514 Kinlock Lane, Salem, stated, “I'm a retired Marine
Corps lieutenant colonel, and after 20 years military service, I went to medical school
and became a surgeon. Since retirement, I have been active in local search and rescue
and on the Appalachian Trail, not only hiking but maintaining et cetera. And I have a
deep and abiding love for our community. I'm speaking tonight in the hope of averting
what I and many here tonight consider unnecessary and unwanted zoning change,
which will destroy the character of this portion of our county. This is not simply
resistance to change. The proposed development will decrease our property values,
introduce crime into what I'm sure you will acknowledge are housing areas that are
virtually crime-free and create a tremendous increase in traffic on a small county road.
How many of you have seen the traffic blocked as a bus attempts to turn in or out of the
parking ride? Trucks have an equally difficult and dangerous time negotiating the
intersections and there are two intersections: one is Edgebrook and then the other is
where it meets 311. The distance between where the entrance to this development is
September 28, 2022
821
proposed, and that stop sign is approximately four car lengths. So, put those facts
together and you're going to have a nightmare there. Finally, the proposed
southwestern entrance to the townhouses is built on a blind hill that will undoubtedly
produce fatal collisions. If you're coming from Red Lane towards the park-and-ride, you
go over that hill, you have no idea what's on the other side of that hill. Anybody pulling
out could be T-boned. How many of you have personally gone out and looked at this
proposed disaster in the making? We are in favor of progress and believe allowing
development according to the current county plan and zoning would produce the
progress without destroying why we chose to live here. Please do not permit the
proposed rezoning. The property in question was slated for development in keeping with
the current zoning until the developer discovered that our hills are more than skin-deep.
After recognizing that he would have increased costs dealing with the geology, he sold it
to another developer, who has continued to back this and has continued to back this
new developer at the cost to our community. The board of supervisors was elected to
guide the county. We elected you in part to protect our interests. In this case, I ask that
you listen to your constituents, the people who live in the affected area, and please do
the right thing, deny the zoning change. Thank you.”
Tap Kaseke of 1700 Conner Run in Salem, stated, “I'm really against this
thing because I mean, me and my wife moved into the area very young and you know
what it's like when you bring in all this development, hotels, there's a lot of activity
bringing in more attention that's unnecessary. As it stands right now, that land is vacant,
nobody really cares about it because there's nothing there. Once you bring something
there, you sort of bring in more attention like the activity that we're seeing at the other
hotels, which is drug activity, all the unnecessary stuff. It's a safe environment. It's been
safe, and I believe that bringing in all this other stuff is going to make it unsafe for
everybody that's living there. As it stands right now, you can leave your garage open
without fear of somebody walking in there and doing anything to it, but as it stands with
these guys wanting to do their development and making the changes that they want to
do, you're attracting more people that are going to work on the property and explore
what's around the area, which is bringing the attention that's going to cause all the
unnecessary traffic; per se, which is crime, the vehicles and not to mention the roads
that have to be fixed. We all see how long it's taken to fix the 81 right now it's still in
progress. It's not an overnight thing. We will have to deal with it. You won't have to deal
with it because you don't live there, we do. And he's talking about it as, "Oh yeah, we'll
come in and do all of this stuff," but he's not going to have to live there. When we have
the issue of the traffic, we can't get out, we can't get to work on time because somebody
from the hotel has had an accident there, they can't leave, they have to wait for the
police. There is no room for any development of this nature in that area. Thank you.”
Ron Buckley of 1788 Medinait Circle in Salem, stated, “I'm going to have a
very informal presentation tonight. A lot of my thunder has already been taken by
previous speakers. You've heard several of them addressing the concerns of this
proposal. My concerns are the hotel and how it will be detrimental to the residents and
September 28, 2022
822
the surrounding communities. There are four residential communities that surround this
area where this hotel is being proposed. And nobody that's spoken tonight, not even Mr.
Boone has made a statement to say how adding a hotel is going to be something
favorable to those residents around there. There's nothing favorable about a hotel being
in your backyard. I mean that's just a fact. I'm not going to get into the added crime, the
added traffic that's already been addressed that y'all have heard enough of that, but I do
want to bring up a couple of points. What does this bring for the county? Obviously, it
brings additional revenue. I understand that, but the taxpayers that live in those houses
that surround where this hotel is being proposed, they pay taxes too and they bought
those homes with the intention that they were going to be in a residential community
and not have a hotel in their backyard. And I think their tax dollars should be respected.
As you go forward with your considerations tonight. There's been talk about additional
benefits that the county or whatever might have from this hotel. I think Mr. Boone talked
about sporting events, things like that where we need added rooms on special
occasions, that may well be the case, but I think it's been well-documented that the facts
of hotel occupancy in Roanoke or below what is required for us to have more another
hotel. And if we do need another hotel, if you feel that another hotel, is what's proper for
the county, all you have to do is go one mile north, the Exit 141. There’re three hotels
already up there. There's a 10.25 acre plot of land commercially zoned available right
there across the street from it within a speeding distance of I81 that you could build
several nice hotels on. Rather than disrupting our neighborhood right here, go one mile
up the road and build as many hotels as you can fit in that 10.25 acres. Finally, what I'd
like to say tonight, you've heard everybody talking about how this proposal is
detrimental to our community. Well, I want to direct your attention to your sample
motions I think that you all will look at tonight as you go to vote on this. Number one
under motions to approve. I think, well, first let me ... Substantial detriment is addressed
in number three to the community. All right. It will not result in substantial detriment to
the community. I think several people have said that it would be substantially detriment
to the community.Number one in that motion to approve I don't think is properly even
addressed because number one, it says the proposed rezoning for the town homes is
not in conformance with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plans Future Land Use
Designation of court. Now, that's a partial statement of what is in there, but there again,
it doesn't meet that requirement. If you look at under motion to deny, one, it is
inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the county's adoptive comprehensive plan
and good zoning practice, or will result in substantial detriment to the community. I think
you have both there, but you certainly have one, and I urge you to vote against this
proposal. Thank you for your time.”
Barbara Miller Schott of 1820 Carleton Avenue, stated, “I'm going to say
ditto is set to the safety of our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren.
There's not going to be safety there. I've stood there for a week watching the traffic. I
can't come up there”
September 28, 2022
823
Richard Adkins of 1817 North Road, stated, “It's actually more towards the
end of Red Lane, but I still feel like this kind of affects me and my property, and I don't
know what I could add to anything that anybody said here tonight. Basically, I agree with
them a hundred percent, and I would respectfully ask you all to vote against this
rezoning. I think it's bad. If a man needs to build more houses, he said we were short on
them, so build more houses. Thank you.”
Lew McClung of 1486 Hollybrook Road stated, “I live very close to this
development, I've been there for 62 years. Even though I'm 80 ... Sorry, I've had 12
children. This is what it does too, it makes you look old. A lot of talk tonight is about the
keeping it as an R1. I can promise you that change will come. It will be a commercial
development one day. If change didn't happen, then a lot of people wouldn't be here
tonight because their homes wouldn't be there because Ripley wouldn't have been put
in to allow an access to their homes. Thank goodness for Joe Senior's foresight to
develop Edgebrook and put the golf course in there so that those that do live up there
don't have to go down Red Lane, Hawthorne, High Cleveland, and then on Thompson
Memorial to get to the interstate that they have the pleasure of listening to all night as I
do. Typically, the adages to fear the unknown. This is the known, and it's a pretty
handsome project as projects go that combine this type of development. Because it'll
be development, I fear a gas station, I fear a truck stop, I fear a Walgreens or a Sheetz,
or I fear a poorly developed neighborhood. I happen to own 14 acres on the other side
of the interstate in Salem and we had a beautiful development put together. It was shot
down by all the people who said, "Well, just not in my backyard." And so now, because
capitalism is apparently a crime now, I have been forced to exercise my altruism and
put in as many section eight homes as I can build in there, because I do believe in
helping the marginal in society. And that would be, of course, a by right development.
So I do think that this is a handsome development and instead of saying speculative
items like our house value's going to go down... Nobody can prove that. In fact, they'll
probably go up. And then, they'll be fussing about tax increases. But let's think about
how we can embrace this project. Let's think about having your family in for
Thanksgiving, but having them near you but not next to you. You know what I'm saying?
And having your children and grandchildren, great-grandchildren, sell lemonade during
the heavy traffic days of the hockey games. Now, that may not be allowed by a
licensure, but those are my thoughts and I thank you for listening to me.”
Joe Thomas of 6618 Campbell Drive stated, “I've made some prepared
notes here and I've got my glasses on, but I got a shot in my eye today and I'm not
seeing very well, so I apologize if I make a few things here. Larry, I appreciate you
clarifying that. One thing, first of all, I did have a letter from another resident who could
not be here tonight. He asked me if I would read it in his absence. His name is Nick
Thomas, no relation to me. I did build his house. He lives at 1624 Valhalla Court in
Fairways at Hanging Rock, section one. I've been a resident of Fairways One since
2005 and have lived in Roanoke County since 1984. Full disclosure, Alexander Boone
is a customer of the company I work for. I do not know anything about the hotel industry,
September 28, 2022
824
but I do know that Lee Wilhelm, chairman of the Visit Virginia's Blue Ridge, thinks we
need more hotels in Roanoke Valley to serve our tourism initiative. The decision to build
a hotel rests with the developer and owner if it is approved. There are many examples
of commercial development throughout the Roanoke Valley adjacent or near residential
neighborhoods. One could argue that done correctly, the commercial development
enhances the neighborhood. Also, I know the type of product that Alexander Boone
builds. It is done thoughtfully and with a high degree of quality. Thank you, Nick
Thomas. Couple things. My name's been thrown around here a lot tonight, so I had a lot
of different comments prepared, but I cut it way back because I wanted to be under the
three minutes. I know that we're not really telling anybody to sit down, so if I ramble on,
feel free to tell me to sit down. I've been involved in the development of the committee
surrounding this property since the 1980s. We developed and built Hanging Rock Golf
Club, which we've all heard and talked about. Ma'am, that's the first I've ever heard of
any issues there and I will try to look into it, but we don't irrigate a whole golf course with
wells. I just want you to know, it's only used at certain times. It was a fight to get the golf
course approved as well. We went through it and part of why Edgebrook Road was
built. That was a requirement. Because of the complaints about traffic, we had to extend
Edgebrook Road. It used to dead end right there at Tommy Barber's house. We built
Edgebrook Road up through there, which enabled The Fairways and Hanging Rock
sections one and two, which is where a lot of the folks here tonight have spoken. It
wouldn't have even been there if we hadn't done the golf course. That's why we had to
build Edgebrook Road, to help ease that traffic, to give access over to Mountain Heights
and subsequently Thompson Memorial. Just a little bit of history lesson there. We later
developed Fairways and Hanging Rock sections one and two. I'm very proud of those
subdivisions. I don't know that I've ever been more proud than I am tonight, because
obviously the folks who built there and the homes that we built, they're proud of where
they live and they love their community and hopefully that's a testimony to what we did
accomplish when we built those houses there. As you can imagine, it's a little bit difficult
sometimes. These people are my friends, they're my customers, they play golf at my
golf course. So, I just want to try to explain a lot of the things that happened here tonight
if you give me the time. When I owned the property, we did originally plan to put new
patio homes there that were proposed to be similar to the ones at Fairways one and
Fairways section two. This is one thing I want everybody to understand. These are two
different pieces of property and I was probably naive when we developed it. We started
meeting with people and we met with people when we did Fairways one and two.
Everybody was so excited. "I want this house on the golf course." "I want this one over
here." "I want this one there." It was a very exciting thing. When I started meeting with
people at this section, and we met with them prior to construction of course, not one
person wanted to be there. They said, "I can't be here. It's right beside the park and
ride. We're sitting here looking at the interstate. Maybe when you get on back to the
backside, when you get there, give me a call." Not one person was excited about living
right there in a home comparable to what we had been building. It was a big letdown for
September 28, 2022
825
me, because I was real proud of what we had done and what we had accomplished and
those were successful properties, but not one person wanted to be there. They couldn't
stand to be that close to the park and ride and the exit ramp of Interstate 81. This wasn't
a view of a golf course and woods and surrounding things that all these other houses
had. It was a view and you were located right beside the park and ride and a view of an
interstate. It was evident to me that people would not pay anywhere near the same
amount for a home that's located 100 yards from a park and ride and a busy interstate
as they would for a home that sits adjacent to the golf course. If we were going to build
single family homes here, they were going to have to be much less expensive and we
were going to have to squeeze as many of them in there as we possibly could. The
grading and land clearing was just too extensive, too expensive. It was going to be an
extensive operation. It wouldn't have these buffers that we're talking about in this
project. We postponed our development plans even after spending countless hours
seeking alternatives, and I spent probably close to $100,000 dollars with my friends,
Balzer and some of these other folks trying to figure out what to do here. After this
careful, expensive and extensive deliberation, it became apparent that we needed a
better plan that included a buffer between the residential construction and the park and
ride. I didn't know too much about commercial development other than doing a bunch of
grading for them and things like that, so I approached Alexander Boone, who I felt was
the best, most knowledgeable, most honest developer in the valley to give me some
ideas. Alexander ended up buying the property and he's carefully developed a plan that
makes sense from a development perspective. It provides a need for the overall
community. We can sit here and debate hotels all the time. I'm telling you what Nick; the
director of the Virginia's Blue Ridge says. "Lee Willa told me, before the pandemic there
were 11 hotels slated to be built in the Roanoke area." There's that much of a need for
hotels here according to Virginia's Blue Ridge Fund. Additionally, having a development
and a quality hotel in close proximity to our golf course would also help generate
additional play and revenue and hopefully open up other possibilities for our business.
Since the golf course has been a driver for this community for over 30 years, anything
that can be done to help provide additional revenue streams will help ensure the golf
course's survivability and thereby preserve and enhance the property values for those
homes in the neighborhood. Please know, I would never support anything that I believe
would hurt this community, which is why I didn't want to squeeze that many single-family
homes on this piece of property. I was here 35 years ago when we started developing it.
I care about the community. I've invested most of my adult life here. It can't support
homes like those on the golf course in Hanging Rock Estates. They're different pieces of
property and you just can't compare them. The last thing that I wanted to say was, I've
always said that smart development does not harm property values, it enhances them.
This is why I sold it to someone who knows how to develop that type of property, do it
well and do it in a manner that we can all be proud of when it's complete. Thank you so
much.”
September 28, 2022
826
Mike Arthur of 2235 River Oaks Drive stated, “After attending the zoning
board meeting September 6th, I felt compelled to respond to statements and
accusations tossed around there, so thank you for the opportunity to do so here tonight.
I've been around the building industry the bulk of my career here in the valley and in the
region, and I've known Alexander for quite a good while and I challenge anyone to find
an example of anything other than quality workmanship and attention to the detail of his
development to the area that he has developed. No one should expect anything less
here. Alexander Boone is one of the good guys in the building industry. Now, to me
that's another sound reason just to grant yes on this proposal. Now, I live in the county
about two miles by the way the crow flies from the development in question, and in my
humble opinion, when all is said and done, I'm going to be impacted about as much as
the people in this adjacent neighborhood, which I feel is very little. Well, and let me
reiterate, there are hundreds of residential areas that are buffered or have adjacent
commercial beside them. This is not unique. In fact, it's quite commonplace. I think in
the news the other night there was a hotel mentioned. And we've heard about people
thinking about, "Well, no. This is going to be crime," and "It's just going to breed crime,
sex, drugs, rock and roll," or whatever. That motel was a Knight's Inn on Thirlane Road
out by the airport for gosh sakes. This proposed hotel is just not the type of hotel that
will attract drugs or sex trafficking, as the residents have suggested. The upscale brand
name proposed and this situational placement of the hotel is not similar to this type of
motel which I just mentioned. There's definitely a need for a hotel. I think the other night
we saw that Salem was putting I forget how many millions of dollars to the Moyer
Complex, which already is used 230 days a year hosting 26 weekend tournaments.
They're putting that much money to draw even more sports tournaments and players
around the calendar. Now, as Alexander had stated, the proposed development will
preserve the beauty of the trees and other vegetation as buffers to the surrounding
community. Based on his experience, this type of development will only increase the
property values of the surrounding homes, and I genuinely believe that as well. And one
last question. If you can't put a hotel across from a park and ride beside an interstate
and in the designated core by the comprehensive plan, then where can you put one?
So, I urge you to pass this resolution as it is the best thing for the community and for
Roanoke County. And again, I thank you for your time.”
Chairman Mahoney closed the public hearing.
Supervisor Peters inquired about traffic, weather and COVID. Chris Burns
with Balzer and Associates advised First off, the weather conditions. I don't remember
the exact weather conditions on that day. I believe, in talking to Brian, that it rained in
the afternoon. Generally speaking, we do numerous traffic studies per year. We have a
lot of experience with them. It's true that if you have inclement weather or days when
school's not in session, things of that nature, it's very common to postpone traffic
counts. We don't typically postpone traffic counts for just rain. Generally, people are still
traveling as they normally would on those days. So that's that item. As far as the COVID
question, we've dealt with that numerous times over the last few years. These traffic
September 28, 2022
827
counts were performed on September 21st, 2021. During that timeframe, this was a
question that came up on every traffic study. I just want to make a point that there aren't
any turning movement counts pre-COVID that I'm aware of that are available. There's
generic traffic data from the VDOT website. What our process was, as far as that's
concerned, we performed the traffic counts. We compared those generally to the VDOT
data that was available pre-COVID. The data seemed to match what we would've
expected for typical travel patterns. And so, in discussion with VDOT, we determined
that we really didn't need to make any adjustments or try to go back in time. What we
did do, as an additional safety factor, we used a 4.5% growth rate per year to bring
traffic to the development year, which is very high. Typically, that's half a percent to 1%,
something like that. Through that process, those traffic volumes were increased by
about 10%. In addition to that, I also want to make the point that a traffic study was also
completed under the previous proposal with the medical offices with the same results.
There weren't any traffic improvements needed under that proposal. The current
proposal reduces traffic in the peak hours by 25 to 30% from that original study. And so,
there's really no improvements needed as a result of the development. I'm sure that
you'll want to confirm that with VDOT. Brian Blevins of VDOT stated . I know that that
was mentioned, the 2020 counts. There are 2020 counts in the study. Those are the
generic counts that Mr. Burns just mentioned. We issue those counts every year. We do
not count every road every year. If you look at those three sheets of paper in the study...
I think myself or Ashley explained to Ms. Bledsoe over the phone a couple of times, but
if you look at that, those are growth numbers. Off to the right, there's a date of 2018.
That's actually when the physical counts were taken and they're grown to that date. We
don't actually reduce them, generally. They're usually grown to that date. But as Mr.
Burns just explained, we don't actually use those numbers. They're just more for
comparison. For a development of this size, you just actually look at the peak hour
counts, which is what they took in 2021. And kind of looking at those in comparison to
what you'd expect, they were acceptable for what we could see as far as being normal
traffic numbers, COVID or post-COVID or pre-COVID.
Supervisor Mahoney asked Mr. Blevins about the comment we received
with regard to the other townhouse development as you start to go around the curve,
believe there's 15 units that were there. The concern being, I think from Dr. Bunning, the
blind curve and coming down the hill. He remembers when Supervisor Hooker drove me
around the community a couple months ago. He is seeing a problem there. Mr. Blevins
responded, the general location is conceptual on the plan. We have not and nor have
they, I would assume, done a complete grading plan or an actual full development plan.
If this is approved, as a part of the development review process through the county,
through VDOT, we would look at that as a commercial entrance. All commercial
entrances need to meet intersection site distance, which has a required site distance
looking to the left and the right based on the speed limit of the roadway. We don't
usually base it on operating speed. So, I know that a lot of folks will tell you they drive
faster than the speed limit. That's not a VDOT thing, that's a police and enforcement
September 28, 2022
828
thing. But they look at it from the left and right and to the left turns turning in. If they can't
make that, then yes, there are some exceptions and some things, but they also have
the option to grade to improve that site distance or cut back vegetation, get site distance
easements. There are ways to make it work. It may not work there. I don't know if
they've investigated it quite that far.
Supervisor Mahoney then asked with regard to the stacking or the queue
when you come out on both roads, when you first come out and then you have to make
the right before you get to 311. If you're looking at four cars stacking up plus the park
and ride traffic, that seems to me to be a problem. How does VDOT perceive that? Or
Mr. Burns, how do you perceive that? Mr. Burns responded he is not sure where four
cars came from. I took some measurements and I came up with seven cars at the
Thompson Memorial intersection. I came up with 12 cars at the Mountain Heights
intersection. But one of the things we look at in the traffic study is queuing, which is how
far cars are backing up and comparing those to what's available. And we didn't identify
any issues with queuing based on the volumes that we had.
Supervisor North commented in 2019, he requested the Allegheny
Regional Commission to do a regional housing study, and it came back in 2020 that we
needed more housing in the region, but most importantly in Roanoke County. Our
young people today are leaving this valley, going to Charlotte and other places,
because there's not affordable housing for them to begin their careers in this county. We
are becoming a senior citizen community more and more every day. He does not have
an objection to that, because he is a senior citizen myself and it's a great place to live;
don't laugh, you're going to be too one day. We need more housing. I struggle with the
hotel. He has sat here and listened tonight and has heard that it's going to be an
upscale hotel; believe that it will be similar to the one on Plantation Road one day. He is
not sure the hotel's going to happen before the townhomes. He would like to call these
something else other than townhomes, because he really doesn’t believe that they're
really townhomes like he grew up seeing in my lifetime. This is a difficult decision, he
weighs the townhomes as a higher priority than the hotel. But because it's one petition,
you have to consider it all in one bowl. You can't look at it separately, which is not really
something I'm proud to say I've got to decide on here tonight. But will tell you this, from
his experience many years ago with the Boone organization, they are a good
organization and he does not believe that Alexander Boone's going to put a hotel in
there that's going to cause problems five years from now, or 10 or 20. Now, he knows
we are tainted with the news last night. It's a sad commentary and I believe that efforts
are going to be made to clean up that part of the industry that exists in our community
today. We do need more housing. Salem's putting $27 million, if I heard right, in Moyer
Complex. It's not going to be ready until 2024. This hotel probably won't be either. The
hotel's not going to be in that great of an eyesight of people that own homes around
there. He probably wouldn't want that hotel in my backyard neither. But there's some
place along 460 where we need them over in the Hollins area that he represents, and if
it was a suitable hotel like is being proposed here, he would probably not object to it. He
September 28, 2022
829
certainly wouldn't want it in my community, but if it's on 460 parallel to the community in
the right place, he probably could support it. So, this is a difficult decision and I hear
everything you all have said tonight. Here is what I've told people in the Hunt Ridge
area where development's going on there by right. Everything's going to be all right. It's
not going to result in anything detrimental in the long run. It's going to be good and it's
going to help the community and Roanoke County.
Supervisor Hooker commented she has listened to all the comments and
know you all have been on the property. You've all visited it. I think I stand by my
commentary that while Mr. Boone does very good work, I would not want a hotel in my
backyard. That's really where she is standing firm. We've got, let's see, 85%
approximately of the people in this community are retired. They've put a large
investment in their homes. She thinks it's our responsibility to be protecting those
homes and their value and not to forget that this home value is a substantial portion-not
to forget that this home value is a substantial portion of our tax base and there is
conundrum here. Maybe we do need hotels, she just wouldn't want it in her backyard
next to her house. She is going to represent her people as she thinks she hears their
concerns. The beginning of the hotel phase she see as it being great. She thinks it
would be a good hotel. It's the deterioration over the years and if it were sold to another
entity where I could see that it could decline, then it could become problematic. That
haunts her thinking about that over the years. She wants to respect the existing land
use. She wants us to take good care of it. There was very strong commentary from fire
and rescue and our police saying, "I think we have enough resources to protect this
going forward." She just wants to make sure if we take on a project that we do have the
resources. We have the protection in place. We're taking care of their home values
appropriately. She is not sure she can say that we're doing it in this situation. She does
think that the timing is poor with what has gone on just recently with a very bad example
of a hotel. There's a poor taste. Having the police staff, the fire and rescue staff, is it
inside our reasonable limits to be able to take on this additional project? She will not be
supporting the petition
Supervisor Radford commented he is a professional custom home builder
and a developer. He has done a lot of developments around the last 35 years in
Roanoke County. He looked at this property back in the late '80s when Bob Carlton
owned it. My dad and I looked at it and we wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole because
we are not going to build single family homes behind a park and ride. There's no way.
They're not going to sell and he stand to that today. He thinks that the townhouses are
what we're looking for with the diverse price tag. Mr. North mentioned about everybody
moving away. My son has got a college education. He's moved back to town, but he
can't find anything affordable to live in. It's not there. It still might be hard for him to
afford a $300 townhouse, but maybe you can rent one of them. When he looks at that
property he sees the townhouse as a buffer for that hotel. To him, the hotel is a good
transition from the park and ride to that space. He hears the comment about would you
live behind that? Let me tell you what he has lived behind. I bought my first house in
September 28, 2022
830
Columbus; Ohio and it was behind a strip mall and a hotel. I bought the house for
$86,000. The house today is worth $225,000 because I looked at it about a year ago for
property values. The house, the value went up. He spec'ed some homes over two years
ago on View Avenue and Manassas Avenue. I bought a lot and split it in half and the
houses all around us were valued around $100,000 to $120,000. We put two $325,000
homes there and they sold like that. The value difference didn't matter if the value was
here or there. The value of the town homes to me is not going to bring the value down.
The last thing about property values, he has residents on Bent Mountain and they've got
a pipeline going through their backyard. Their values are not dropping. Their
assessments went up. People are still buying up there. He is showing them lots and
houses up there. If a pipeline is not knocking out their values, how is a hotel that's
buffered with townhouse and a park and ride? That's really hard for me to swallow. We
don't know. He heard a comment that the market is still strong for expensive homes. I've
had four contracts for homes over $500 cancel because of the inflation. The lumber
prices and the interest rates have gone up. The market is not still strong for expensive
homes. The things he looks at when he is developing like Mr. Boone is he will look at
the buffers. He will look at the traffic and he worries about the storm water. All those are
handled in the development review process. They're looked at. They're scrutinized. You
might not believe the traffic study. You might not feel comfortable with the buffers, but
we have to do them by the regulations. We have standards that we have to develop by.
Those are put in place to protect everybody around the development. He asked Mr.
Boone about the HOA. Now the HOA, he assumes the residential behind or around it
are HOAs also, but HOAs can be very strict. They're fussy about how the yards are
kept, how the outside maintenance is kept up, the condition of the homes. They're really
strict. He would say the HOA is going to help protect the quality of the townhouse. Then,
if you put that in and if you wrap the hotel in there with the HOA master, they're going to
have to the live up to the letter of the law with those requirements. He thinks Mr. Boone
will be able to keep his thumb on that if he stays involved with that project. He was
around in the '70s when Knights Inn was built. It was a different motel then and it was
great. I grew up in North County and that was a fantastic hotel, but over time the wrong
person owned it and that's what happened. The wrong people got ahold of it and now
they're paying the price. That property will be redeveloped one day. It'll come back, but
comparing that to what we're hearing tonight is really a leap in my opinion.
Supervisor Mahoney commented, “He see this as two issues and he is
going to piggyback on some of the comments that Mr. North made. The hotel to me is a
problem and he will make a lot of people mad because he thinks the original proposal
that Mr. Boone had was a far greater benefit to the community than just the hotel. He
thinks some of the doctors’ offices or other commercial offices out front would've
supported and benefited the neighborhood much more, but that's water over the bridge
or under the bridge. With respect to the townhouses, he understands and hears the
concern. He is in Cave Spring district. In Cave Spring district is Hunting Hills. He thinks
Hunting Hills probably has some of the highest house values anywhere in Roanoke
September 28, 2022
831
County. In Hunting Hills, there are two different developments with townhouses in
Hunting Hills and it has not hurt the property values one bit. He even tried to buy one
and couldn't afford it. He appreciates the fear that comes from that, but truly don't see
a detrimental effect of town homes. If this application was solely about town homes, in
my opinion this would be a slam dunk. This is easy. It is consistent with the
comprehensive plan and, as has been mentioned earlier, Roanoke County was involved
in a housing study a couple years ago. We need a different diversity and mix of housing
in our community. As other Board members have commented, it's a need and we have
to do that. He struggles with the traffic data that was handed out. I've heard different
numbers thrown around about single family homes that could be built or should be built
or Mr. Thomas would've built at some point in the past whether it's 50 houses or 60
houses or 90 houses, whatever. To me, he does not understand how 50 or 60 single
family homes that'll generate X number of cars a day is okay, but 60 or 80 town homes
that generates Y number of vehicle trips a day is somehow bad or evil. That does not
compute in my head. The traffic load is the same to me. He is not a traffic engineer, but
doesn’t see a difference. When he looks at the plan that is before us for the town
homes, he sees it protecting Gish Creek and I see that as a positive. With respect to the
town homes, this to me is an easy vote. Now the problem for me is the hotel because I
see that as a problem for your community. He hears Mr. Thomas and Mr. Boone and
they talk about the difficulty of maybe putting any kind of house on what I call the front
closest to the park and ride. He appreciates the fact of being right at the park and ride
and right beyond the park and ride is the interstate. When my wife and I first moved to
Roanoke County we looked at several subdivisions. Our realtor showed him
subdivisions that were beautiful homes and they backed up to the interstate and all you
heard was the roar of traffic all the time. He does not know if somebody would want to
build a house there. That doesn't necessarily mean that a hotel is the better choice. I
struggle with the hotel concept. He was particularly impressed by Ms. Bledsoe's
information that she provided us with respect to the determination by the county in the
past with respect to designating this area as core. That's not mandatory in my mind. It is
a guide, but that guide leads us to certain conclusions. If you sit back and look at a map,
it makes sense from a planning perspective that you would have some commercial use
along a park and ride and near the interstate. If you're going to, he thinks one of the last
speakers talked about where else would you put a hotel? Right near the interstate exit,
that makes sense, but I'm troubled. He is troubled by the adverse impact that has on the
neighborhood and that one gives me heartburn. He knows Mr. Boone builds good
projects and, in his experience, when he looks at it he used to be county attorney here.
We had a lot of problems with different developers in Roanoke County. We never had
any problems with Boone and we never had any problems with Radford. He could give
you a list of some other developers that we've always had problems with, but those
were two of the better developers. Whether or not Mr. Boone is a good guy or a bad
guy, he can't look at that. That does not move me. He has to look at what is an
appropriate land use for this property. With that, I'm struggling.
September 28, 2022
832
Supervisor Peters stated he wanted to follow up to what Supervisor
Mahoney just said. He does not know that he made that clear enough that he has a
problem with the hotel also. He has less problems with the town homes. He does think
that that's an adequate buffer in between most of the neighborhood and the park and
ride. I also want to compliment the residents. You all have been very well-educated.
You've educated yourselves well. You've brought forth the arguments he thinks very
well and I really appreciate it. It helps us understand the concerns and we look at it from
a study in a book, but you live it. He appreciates everything that you've done. He knows
that in the future land use map when you just look at the paper from an academic it
looks like that could work, that there could be core there. Looking at it today, he
struggles with it. He struggles with that component of the commercial, the hotel property
going there right next to the residential.
Supervisor Hooker moved to deny the ordinance. There was no second
so the motion failed.
ORDINANCE 092822-8 REZONING APPROXIMATELY 32.323
ACRES FROM R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT TO
C-2 (HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL) DISTRICT AND R-3
(MEDIUM DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT IN
ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A HOTEL AND TOWNHOUSES
LOCATED IN THE 1300 AND 1400 BLOCKS OF EDGEBROOK
ROAD, IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (TAX MAP
NO: 035.04-02-33.00-0000)
WHEREAS, ABoone Real Estate, Inc. is requesting to rezone approximately
32.323 acres from R-1 (Low Density Residential) District to C-2 (High Intensity
Commercial) District and R-3 (Medium Density Multi-Family Residential) District in order
to construct a hotel and townhouses located in the 1300 and 1400 blocks of Edgebrook
Road, Catawba Magisterial District (Tax Map No: 035.04-02-33.00-0000); and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on August 23, 2022, and
the second reading and public hearing were held on September 28, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on September 6, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the petition with
certain proffered conditions, as requested; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. The petition of ABoone Real Estate, Inc. to rezone approximately 32.323
acres from R-1 (Low Density Residential) District to C-2 (High Intensity
September 28, 2022
833
Commercial) District and R-3 (Medium Density Multi-Family Residential)
District is approved, with the following proffered conditions:
a. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the
“Edgebrook Park – Development Plan” Exhibit A and Exhibit B
prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc. dated July 8, 2022 subject
to any changes required by the County of Roanoke, Virginia
Department of Transportation, or Western Virginia Water Authority
during the site plan review process.
b. A maximum of 80 townhomes shall be constructed with this
request.
c. The allowable use for the commercial parcel shall be a hotel.
d. The proposed hotel shall be a maximum of four (4) stories in height.
2. The Board finds that the proposed rezoning of approximately 32.323
acres is substantially consistent with the purpose and intent of the
County’s adopted comprehensive plan.
3. The Board further finds that the proposed rezoning of approximately
32.323 acres is consistent with good zoning practice, and will not result in
substantial detriment to the community.
4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final
passage. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district
map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this
ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Radford and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, North, Radford, Mahoney
NAYS: Supervisor Hooker
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Radford stated he got to meet our new director of library and
we had a meeting with a group up at the Bent Mountain Library. They brought to our
attention and have requested and will bring more information to the fellow board
members, but they would like to add an addition to that small library for program use.
We did look at a conceptual plan that was developed back in 2004, 2005. It's a small
space they want to add. Mr. Blount went with me and we met up there for about an
hour. As I get more information from Mr. Blount, he will be bringing that, sharing that
with the other board members to let you see what that's all about. Also, he thanked
everybody for keeping my dad in your prayers. He's probably gone to bed now, but he
usually watches this. He's had some respiratory issues and I think we're over the hill or
past that point and he's hopefully on the road recovery. We'll check up on him, but thank
you all so much for your prayers and consideration.
September 28, 2022
834
Supervisor Hooker stated she attended the Virginia Career Works
leadership meeting in Charlottesville yesterday. She learned a lot about our local and
state workforce percentages, discussed how to increase those numbers, had an
opportunity to discuss specific issues in Roanoke County with the Virginia secretary of
labor Brian Slater. Thank you for your patience with changing the date of this meeting
tonight. She appreciates that. She was pleased to attend a block party near my
neighborhood on Engel and it was a first and look forward to more.
Supervisor North commented tomorrow we have a meeting at Bonsack
Elementary on the 460 College Avenue land use and connectivity study. It's the final
community meeting running from 5:00 to 7:00. An excellent presentation online can be
viewed, but also will be shared tomorrow beginning at 5:30. Several citizens have
complimented on it was a great presentation. They can't be there. He also took this
opportunity to thank staff for helping to arrange a part of this meeting. We'll have an
easel set up with the plans for the by right construction of town homes and apartments.
Those citizens that want to ask questions in person can attend and take benefit of folks
there also from the developer as well as development services so that they can get
answers to concerns and questions about schools, traffic, etc. He has tried to mitigate
as much as he can. Everything is going to be all right at the end of the day. This is not
as difficult as what we have gone through this evening, but I am optimistic that this too
will be good for the community. I encourage those people to come out tomorrow night
from the Bonsack Huntridge area to get some answers.
Supervisor Mahoney commented the first item he wants to promote is on
October 8th, which is a Saturday, from 10:00 AM to 1:30 there will be a Triad meeting.
Triad, it's an organization comprised of law enforcement, senior citizens, senior
organizations who partner together to share information for how seniors can avoid
becoming victims of crime and enhance the safety and quality of their lives.
Our police department is very active in this. The attorney general's office promotes it.
We have a flyer that I hope we can circulate to everybody. They say it's going to be an
event filled with food, fun, and education. Again, Saturday, October 8th 10:00 AM to
1:30, it's going to be at the Roanoke Police Academy, which is 5401 B Barnes Avenue
right off Peters Creek Road, the second item, I just want to report to everybody that Mr.
Caywood and I had an excellent lunch at Mission Barbecue with Mr. Stewart, the airport
director. I'm very happy that the board agreed to put on our legislative program
supporting the airport expansion. I think all of us realize how critical the airport is to our
economic development and to our community. If you read anything in the news media,
because a lot of the major legacy airlines, they don't have enough pilots. They're pulling
back from some of the smaller cities and smaller airports. This is so critical to us to keep
the airport here in Roanoke. Finally, just I've spoken to a bunch of board members. I just
want to remind everybody on October 25th we have a very full agenda, but on the 25th
we will be meeting with the Roanoke County School Board and our citizens committee
as part of the new Arnold R Burton, the CTE program. The citizens committee is ready
to give their report to us with respect to solar. I'm hoping the school board can also talk
September 28, 2022
835
about the progress they're making with respect to the due diligence of the site that
we've looked at. Also, I understand that the school board has also partnered with a local
development organization. They get enough free advertising as it is because they
always show up here and they're sitting here in our audience. They're supposed to give
us a concept plan and also some estimates of costs for the new CTE facility.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Mahoney adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
________________________ ___________________________________
Deborah C. Jacks Martha B. Hooker
Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board Chairman
September 28, 2022
836
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY