HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/9/2022 - Regular - DRAFT
November 9, 2022
869
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 only regularly scheduled meeting
of the month of November 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 Derek Lam of City Light
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 3:03 p.m. The roll call
was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Paul M. Mahoney; Supervisors Martha B. Hooker,
Phil C. North, David F. Radford and P. Jason Peters
MEMBERS ABSENT: Supervisor David F. Radford
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. Recognition of Sgt. Cara Jacobs on her selection as one of the
International Association of Chiefs of Police "40 Under 40" Award
winners for 2022 (Howard B. Hall, Chief of Police)
Recognition was given.
November 9, 2022
870
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution authorizing an amendment to the engineering services
contract with Hurt & Proffitt, Inc., and consenting to the re-
allocation of $4,542,105 in previously appropriated Smart Scale
funding, and $4,352,469 in previously appropriated Surface
Transportation Block Grant Program funding for the West
Roanoke River Greenway Phase 1 Project, Catawba Magisterial
District (Lindsay B. Webb, Parks Planning and Development
Manager)
Ms. Webb outlined the request for resolution. There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 110922-1 AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT
TO THE ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT WITH
HURT & PROFFITT, INC., APPROVING THE RE-
ALLOCATION OF $4,542,105 IN PREVIOUSLY
APPROPRIATED SMART SCALE FUNDING, AND
APPROVING THE RE-ALLOCATION OF $4,352,469 IN
PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FUNDING
FOR THE WEST ROANOKE RIVER GREENWAY PHASE 1
PROJECT, CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Roanoke County is administering of the West Roanoke River Greenway
Phase 1 (VDOT UPC No. 97171) project proposed along West Riverside Drive in
Roanoke County and the City of Salem; and
WHEREAS, Hurt & Proffitt, Inc., the engineering consultant for the West Roanoke
River Greenway project, has submitted seven (7) previous contract amendments issued
for Phases II and III of the engineering services contract #2014-003 to reflect changes
in project scope that have occurred since 2014; and
WHEREAS, due to a recent change in project scope, Hurt & Proffitt, Inc. has
submitted a supplemental funding request for an eighth (8) contract amendment
(#2014-003) for Phases II and III totaling $157,780 for additional design and permitting
services for the project phasing and to provide construction support and administration
until project closeout; and
WHEREAS, County staff recommends amending the engineering services
contract with Hurt & Proffitt, Inc. to $816,806, an increase of forty-eight-point nine
percent (48.9%) over the original contract amount; and
November 9, 2022
871
WHEREAS, Roanoke County procurement regulations and the Procurement Code of
Virginia require that changes exceeding twenty-five percent (25%) of the original
contract be approved by the Board of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, County staff request approval to address possible future increases in
Hurt & Proffitt, Inc. engineering services contract, up to a maximum cost of $850,000;
and
WHEREAS, the Smart Scale (formerly HB2) funding in the amount of $4,542,105
was adopted in the Fiscal Year 2020 Capital Improvement Program and erroneously
appropriated to the capital fund instead of the project grant account; and
WHEREAS, the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG, formerly
Regional Surface Transportation Program, RSTP) funding in the amount of $4,352,469
was appropriated for the East Roanoke River Greenway project (VDOT UPC 91191) in
2015, at the County’s request was transferred by the Roanoke Valley Transportation
Planning Organization to the West Roanoke River Greenway project (VDOT UPC
97171) in 2020 and 2021, and needs to be re-allocated to the West Roanoke River
Greenway Phase 1 project grant account.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County that the County Administrator, Deputy County Administrator or Assistant
County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute an amendment to the
Professional Engineering Services Contract No. 2014-003 with Hurt & Proffitt, Inc. to
authorize expenses up to and not to exceed $850,000 for the West Roanoke River
Greenway Phase 1 project, which agreement shall be reviewed and approved as to
form by the County Attorney, re-allocate $4,542,105 in previously appropriated Smart
Scale funds from the capital account to the grant account, and re-allocate $4,352,469 in
previously appropriated Surface Transportation Block Grant Program funds from the
East Roanoke River Greenway (VDOT UPC 91191) grant account to the West Roanoke
River Greenway (VDOT UPC 97171) grant account.
On motion of Supervisor Hooker 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: FIRST READING OR ORDINANCE
1. Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of property at 6781 Mount
Chestnut Road (Tax Map Number 075.00-02-33.00-0000) for the
purpose of expanding Happy Hollow Gardens Park, Windsor Hills
Magisterial District, and authorizing execution of a deed and other
documents necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this real
estate (Lindsay B. Webb, Parks Planning and Development
Manager)
November 9, 2022
872
Ms. Webb outlined the request for ordinance. There was no discussion.
Supervisor Radford’s motion to approve the first reading and set the
second reading and public hearing for December 13, 2022, was seconded by
Supervisor North and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney
NAYS: None
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 110922-2 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM G- 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 November
9, 2022, designated as Item G - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 5 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes – July 12, 2022
2. Resolution amending and re-adopting a Grievance Procedure
3. Confirmation of appointment to the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board
of Directors and the Roanoke County Economic Development Authority
4. Request to accept and allocate grant funds in the amount of $6,200 from the
Jacqueline S. and Shelborn L. Spangler Fund of Community Foundation to
Roanoke County Fire and Rescue for the purchase of a thermal imaging
camera for the Back Creek Fire & Rescue Station #11
5. The petition of Panda Storage Rentals and Sales to obtain a special use
permit for equipment sales and rentals and a special use permit for mini-
warehouse on approximately 4.82 acres on land zoned C-2, High Intensity
Commercial District, located in the 5300 block of West Main Street and the
5400 block of Pleasant Run Drive, Catawba Magisterial District (First
Reading and Request for Public Hearing)
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
November 9, 2022
873
RESOLUTION 110922-2.a AMENDING AND RE-ADOPTING A
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15.2-1506 of the Code of Virginia, every locality
with more than fifteen employees must have a grievance procedure that “affords and
immediate and fair method” for resolving disputes between the locality and its
employees; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-1507 requires that such a grievance procedure be
adopted by the locality’s governing body; and
WHEREAS, section 4.01 of the County Charter, which sets forth the powers and
duties of the county administrator, states that “The county administrator shall appoint
each superintendent or department head of each county department … and each
superintendent or department head so appointed shall serve at the pleasure of the
county administrator”; and
WHEREAS, this is consistent with Section 15.2-1507 of the Code of Virginia,
which sets forth employees that are or may be ineligible to file grievances, including
· Officials and employees who by charter or other law serve at the will or pleasure
of an appointing authority, and
· Agency heads or chief executive officers of government operations; and
WHEREAS, the presently adopted grievance procedure is confusing on the point
of whether department heads may file grievances. Chapter 6, Section B states, in part,
that “Assistant county administrators and department directors may file grievances
regarding disciplinary actions limited to dismissals.” But then states, “The County
Administrator will determine which positions are exempt from the application of the
grievance procedure"; and
WHEREAS, it is proposed that the grievance procedure be revised and re-
adopted to clarify this issue and to make the grievance procedure consistent with the
County Charter, and to further make other minor revisions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, that
1. the County’s Grievance Procedure is hereby amended and re-adopted as set
forth in the attached document marked as Exhibit 1, and titled, Chapter 6 –
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE.
2. The amended and re-adopted Grievance Procedure shall become effective upon
its certification (by the County Administrator and County Attorney) to the clerk of
the Roanoke County Circuit Court, pursuant to Section 15.2-1507(A) of the Code
of Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Hooker to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
North and carried by the following recorded vote:
November 9, 2022
874
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney
NAYS: None
A-110922-2.b
A-110922-2.c
A-110822-2.d
IN RE: CITIZENS’ COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
John Palmari of 4317C Garst Mill Road stated he worked most of his life
until 2017. He lived in Roanoke and worked at Optic Cable, a local job. He broke his
neck and became medically disabled. In 2020, he got hit in a head on collision and
broke both his legs, his arms and had a mild head injury. The problem he is having is
that in 2019, his wife filed for divorce against him because she did not know where he
was going with his life. So, he had to find a place to live. Based on his income, he
called around and based on the Google searches, he found Ferncliff, who declined him
because he was $5 under. He called the next one, Garst Creek Apartment Complex,
which is now known as the Everett, which is owned by a new company called Drount
and Falkner. When he moved in, his rent was based on his income. He made $1346
on disability, which comes out to $700 for rent in that timeframe. Since then, he is
getting ready to pay $900 for rent, which is $10,000 a year and his income is now only
$1444, which would be 80% of his income. He went to their offices and told them about
the circumstances and was told to call the office in Florida. We called them and the told
us if you don’t like it, get out. He did not want this life; he does not deserve this. But the
people who are living there under Section 8 will be forced out because the funding is not
there for them either. When we talk to these people, they say they are tax credited,
never income based. When you put in income based in a search line and they are on
there; that is income based. This lease is income based; 50% of the $1346 that he was
getting monthly. Now he is paying $900. When COVID hit, everybody got the memo
that they did not have to pay rent because the Government said no, but every day and
every month, he pays his rent, his check was there. Now, he is being punished
because the new company comes in and raises his rent to $900. He cannot afford it; he
needs help. He has contacted TAP, HUD, Roanoke City, Ben Cline’s office and every
conceivable way to find help. He called Legal Aid and was told they cannot help him.
Departments are forcing people out of Roanoke County. His apartment is not worth
$1200; it does not come with a jacuzzi tub, tennis courts. They have basically said get
out. We need help. He did not ask for this. He is an implant, he moved here in 2006
and he loves Roanoke; is going to die in Roanoke and is just asking for some help.
Something that the Board can do to protect us because we are not getting protected.
Thank you.
Chairman Mahoney asked County Administrator Caywood to check with
Social Services and see if there is anything can be done. He thought the apartment
November 9, 2022
875
complex had a different approach, so let us look into that and maybe there is something
that Social Services can do.
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Hooker moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion was seconded by Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney
NAYS: None
1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report
2. Outstanding Debt Report
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING, pursuant to the Code of Virginia as follows:
At 3:50 p.m., Supervisor Mahoney moved to go into closed meeting
following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711(A)(1)
Discussion and consideration regarding present and prospective appointees to the
County’s Volunteer Fire Fighter Volunteer Incentive Program Board
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney
NAYS: None
The closed session was held from 6:01 p.m. until 6:44 p.m.
Chairman Mahoney recessed to the third floor for work session and closed
session at: 3:51 p.m.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to discuss the Rt. 460 Land Use and Connectivity
Study with the Board of Supervisors (Philip Thompson, Director
of Planning)
Megan Cronise started off the PowerPoint presentation
Supervisor North commented that mitigating those crossings will increase
opportunities for development.
Super Peters stated you said you're going to try to eliminate one of the
crossings, but tie the roads together?
November 9, 2022
876
Ms. Cronise responded what we would like to do, and that's what this
study will help us determine, is we would like to create a bridge over one of the
crossings, close the other crossing but connect which road that is to the road with the
bridge, so that everyone has access with a grate separated crossing and there are no
more opportunities for cars to cross the tracks at grade. So essentially, we want to take
care of both crossings but we would need to connect Glade Creek and Layman together
so that you can still get back and forth, because once you cross the railroad tracks
there's no other outlet, because you've come up against the Blue Ridge Parkway and
this is all agriculturally zoned land. So, we're trying to figure out ways to make this a
much safer location
Dave Anderson from Timmons briefly outlined the goals of the study. He
stated when we talk about limited capacity for improving ways in which people travel,
when you add topography and things like that, limited chances. You have to look closely
at how can you improve certain areas with growth coming, while still not creating
different ways in which people travel that creates other problems. Safety improvements
is a big part of that. You'll see that factored in a great deal into some of the work that we
did on some of the improvements we recommended. We talked a little bit about this and
this was sort of an add-on. When we started looking at this, we saw, and we do a lot of
economic development work at Timmons. One of the things we saw was lots of large
tracks of land and we were a little bit more aggressive with the idea, not necessarily with
residential, but how could this bring revenue to the county, because we know that a lot
of large users are trying to find those tracks of land. So, we actually wanted to take a
hard look at this while we're worried about the Challenger quarter itself. We wanted to
expand this and take a look at that. So that's what we did. And then this last one is an
opportunity that we thought was really important to look at, which is transportation is not
always motorized. And there's opportunities for people to be out to recreate and there is
a gem right in the midst of Bonsack that we hope will be able to be taken advantage of
in the future. So, I'll go through that a little bit as well. What you have here is basically
two rows of basically the timeline. We got started a little over a year ago and we are
here. So, we're coming to the conclusion after a lot of time together. Mr. Anderson
outlined the three stages of public engagement as outlined in the PowerPoint
presentation.
Ms. Cronise outlined the survey results and then went through the
remainder of the presentation.
After discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to take this to the
Planning Commission
The work session was held from 4:08 p.m. until 5:08 p.m.
2. Work session to review with the Board of Supervisors the status
of the County of Roanoke's Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
projects (Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and Management
Services and Steve Elliott, Budget Administrator)
November 9, 2022
877
Ms. Gearheart provided an overview of the work session and turned the
meeting over to Mr. Elliott who provided a PowerPoint presentation.
Supervisor Peters asked what is our planned payment after '27 with the
Broadband Authority? Mr. Elliott responded that is something actively being discussed.
We actually have a strategic planned meeting with Broadband Authority I believe, and
about, think it's in early January. But one of the things I've made clear is that our original
understanding that that would be an ongoing expense.
Supervisor North inquired what did Botetourt have to pay with Mr. Elliott
responding he does not believe they have a financial contribution. They are a member,
but de does not think they bought in nor did they participate in the operational subsidy.
Supervisor Radford asked about the debt service with Rebecca Owens,
Deputy County Administrator responding it looks like in the '22 fiscal year that amount
was $386,000 and that's the approximate amount each year through 2027. So, we have
a couple more years annually to pay that on the debt service.
Supervisor Hooker asked about Waldron Park? Their tennis courts I think
are in need of improvement. Allen Hayes, Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism,
responded we will be renovating three of the tennis and the six pickleball courts this
Spring, and then we will repair the cracks in the courts that were there. And so, we will
have five tennis courts and six pickleball courts in the Highlands Community, hopefully
sometime in April and May of next year.
Supervisor North inquired of Bill Hunter, Director of Communications and
Information Technology, on the national county calls and they talk about infrastructure
bill and so forth. Did we explore, have we explored, do we plan to explore the federal
grants for broadband that can come directly to the county? Do you know anything about
that? Mr. Hunter responded we are looking into those for the direct grants. And there's
some ins and outs to them, but I think we might have a shot at getting some money.
Supervisor Radford asked where are we with the fire station study. Toby
Martin, Deputy Chief, responded we're actually providing them with all the data. We're
currently getting them the data and the data piece. We just awarded that a couple of
months ago. They have a pretty quick turnaround, 180 some odd days from start to
finish. We're getting them all the data for the stations. George Assaid, Capital Projects
Administrator, is working on buildings, call data, things of that nature. So, it's all being
loaded and they're having access to it already. They should be in town before Christmas
to actually do some station visits and to look around properties. Ms. Owens advised we
should have the report by the end of March 2023. Supervisor Radford then asked Mr.
Martin what can he tell us about the strategic plan, the fire department strategic plan?
Deputy Chief Martins advised we completed a fire department strategic plan, just an
internal piece. We were going through the different pieces to that, and its kind of led into
this other plan that you guys wanted to have done as well.
Supervisor Mahoney commented he is a pessimist. If the United States
goes into a deep recession next year or the next two (2) years, what can we cut off this
list if we have to cut something. Ms. Gearheart responded everything on this this has
November 9, 2022
878
already been funded. County Administrator, Richard Caywood, stated one of the things
that recessions tend to do is reduce that rate of inflation of cost. And oftentimes,
projects can be less expensive to execute in that type of environment. Also, there is
also a lag as to when it gets to us.
The work session was held from 5:14 p.m. until 5:46 p.m.
Chairman Mahoney called the meeting back into order at: 7:02 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION 110922-3 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING
WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member’s
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies; and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor 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
November 9, 2022
879
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. The petition of Neil Aneja to obtain a special use permit to operate
a short-term rental on approximately 0.30 acre on land zoned R-1,
Low Density Residential, located at 2776 White Pelican Lane,
Cave Spring Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Director of
Planning)
Mr. Thompson provided an overview of the petition in the form of a
PowerPoint presentation.
Mr. Radford stated in the application under justification for variance
request, looking at item three, evidence 44. By the applicant. It says, "Short-term rental,
many in the area. Does not affect surrounding areas." Many in the area. Do we know
this is going on under our nose and we're not even aware of it? Mr. Thompson
responded he imagines this was going on and had been rented for a period of time, and
I think the applicant will talk about that. There were several. There’re several uses that,
unless people complain, they just use the property for that and don't get whatever
permits or a business license. Yeah. We're coming across those and we're getting quite
a few. You'll see more applications coming forward. People that have done this and are
seeking to do it permanently. So, the answer is yes.
Supervisor Radford responded we can catch these people just by having
our business license people go check the Airbnb website. You can do an audit real
quick. That's how the people were renting his rental house up the Town of
Christiansburg. The business department went through and did an audit on their
website and found everybody that wasn't going with their standards. His second
question is related to occupancy. They have 10 on their Airbnb, but who regulates that?
The occupancy? He thought we had a standard where there were two adults per
bedroom. And so, if this is a two-bedroom house, we're looking at four. Maximum. How
do we regulate that? If there's a use permit through the building code he does not know
how they go through that process. But I don't think we have an occupancy standard in
the County.
Peter Lubeck, County Attorney, stated when it goes through the building
process that it would be limited, by the health department as far as the number of
occupants that can discharge to a well system. But otherwise I do not know of any other
limits to the number of occupants that can stay within each bedroom. Supervisor
Radford stated he thought there was something in our subdivision standards, i.e. a
single-family house has to be … Mr. Lubeck responded, if this was classified as a
single-family use, then yes, we can't have more than five unrelated individuals living
there.
Supervisor North commented to piggyback off Supervisor Radford’s
comments, he has written down here, tax on rental fees collected by the County or paid
November 9, 2022
880
to the County by the owner. How does that work today in this example? They charge X
dollars a night, or they charge so much for 30 days? Mr. Thompson responded if they
haven't been paying it, he is sure the Commissioner of Revenue will address. If they get
a special use permit and they don't have a business license, they have to pay lodging
tax. Supervisor North so to Supervisor Radford’s point, we may have these places
going up all around us, because from time to time he get complaints about five or six
cars parked on a yard over in the Highlands area and in the Boxley Hills area. How are
we going to enforce this; do we have a process and asked Mr. Lubeck how are we
doing that today. Mr. Lubeck responded for taxation, Mr. Thompson raised a good
point, that often these do not come to the County's attention until someone complains.
Certainly, we could ask our Commissioner of Revenue if she has a staff person that
could, as Mr. Radford appropriately proposed, comb websites to see if they could track
these places down. That was a discussion he had with her when we were considering
these changes to the County code some years ago; that was something that she was
willing to consider. I don't know if she's doing it at this point in time. She or her staff. To
speak to the other point as to turning our neighborhoods, changing the character of
them, that is a valid concern. He believes the Board put this as a potential use within a
residential neighborhood with a special use permit. So that each situation would need to
come before the Board for the Board to approve changing the character of the
neighborhood in that type of a way.
Supervisor North then stated Delegate Head had a bill last year, where the
person that owns the property allows someone to come in and operate the home and
they lease it for them. In other words, a marketing firm leases it. He thinks the bill said
that the marketing firm would be responsible for paying the locality, the lodging tax. Mr.
Lubeck stated he is familiar with that bill and that bill enabled the County to also tax
what was called an accommodations intermediary. So yes, before these other platforms
such as VRBO and such, we were not able to tax them directly. But now we are able to
do so. Mr. Thompson added if they come in for a business license, there's a process
they go through, a zoning checkoff. They come in, they fill out the information, they
then have to come upstairs and get us to review to make sure the use is allowed. If they
come in through the business license, it would get caught that way.
Supervisor North then asked about the number of cars, with Mr. Lubeck
responding there is no restriction on vehicles in a single-family residence. But again,
you raise some very good points. The Board is able, when the board is granting a
special use permit, to impose conditions.
The petitioner, Neil Aneja, provided a brief overview.
Chairman Mahoney opened the public hearing with the following citizens
to speak:
John Bingham of 2725 White Pelican Lane stated, “He lives across the
street from the house that's in question for the special permit. A couple things I want to
say right up front is I'm opposed to this and I've had to live with this for a couple of
November 9, 2022
881
years, so they've been operating for a couple of years. Some of the things I heard
earlier about them collecting other taxes and being remitted, I don't believe that's been
happening. But I don't think it's the Airbnb's responsibility. I believe it's the owner of
these properties. And I believe the things I read about setting these up said that the
owners were responsible for all these taxes. On their website, the Airbnb site. So, while
they might provide a means in which to do it, I don't believe they are responsible for
doing it. That falls to the owner and I believe that's correct. But the main thing I'm going
to say tonight is this is a residential area. I bought that home that I live in, they bought
the home that his family lived in, and those were intended to be single family
residences. And the other 14 homes on the street are single family residences. At the
zoning hearing I saw a map on the screen that showed all these in green. We're wanting
to have our long-term plan for the county to keep this as a residential area. And so, I'm
just saying this business isn't a business like me having a little home office and working
there. This is a business that's bringing outside people to the neighborhood. I heard at
our last zoning meeting that he had made 500 rentals in the last 24 months. That's a lot
of traffic down a 14-home street. I'm just saying I don't think that that's the kind of
business I want across the street from me. I don't think he wants a business like this
across the street from where he lives either. But I guess in the end of the thing there's
going to be inconveniences no matter what goes on. Whether he resolves it at three
o'clock in the morning, it still means that the neighbors have been disturbed. I haven't
had that many disturbances in the 30 years that I've been on White Pelican Lane from
the neighbors, so I can just say this kind of thing is going to have more issues and the
people are going to be awoken at night with noise and so forth. That's not the reason
why I'm saying we should do this. The reason I'm saying is it's putting a commercial
business next to a residence that has small children. Most of the people that have
children in our street, the levelest place in our neighborhood is on the street and they
play in the street. And this is very dangerous for them. It's for these reasons that I really
think you should vote no on supporting this particular special use permit. I'm glad to
hear you all discussing all these other things surrounding these, because I don't think
they're a good thing to put in the middle of a residential neighborhood regardless of
which side of town you're on, whether in my street or on the next street over, or perhaps
in Hollands or these other areas. So, I just ask you to be careful as you make this
approach. And I would ask... I find it hard to understand why we would approve
something if someone's not abiding by the rules already, until they get everything in
order and pay for every little thing that's outstanding before we approve that. These are
the things that I wanted to mention to you.”
Holly Delaney of 2702 White Pelican Lane stated, “We not only have an
Airbnb on our street, but we have a deemed halfway house that is not zoned for R1 that
the ordinance hopefully will be amended soon. I don't know. We haven't heard anything
about what's going on with that, why they haven't been addressed with this yet. But we
were talking to Neil, me and about five other neighbors, outside when the advisory
board had met last week. And I had mentioned the danger of the children and possibly
November 9, 2022
882
one of these speeding cars that go by hitting a child. And he got really upset. He's like,
"Well, I could be really nasty and sell to a Section 8 and then you'd have druggies
walking around in your street." He threatened me with that if he doesn't get this. This is
the kind of stuff... This is why we need protections in our ordinances to protect the
neighborhood, to protect the children and the people living there. The advisory board
was touting that he's a Superhost, that he has all these positive comments on his
websites. Well, what about the neighbors, the permanent residents that live there
having grave concerns of danger? Do we not have a voice? Do permanent residents
have more power? Is it about the money? We need resolution on this and we need
protection. We need to know that types of housing that support halfway houses and
those types of things cannot be this close together. They are literally two houses apart
from each other, the halfway house and the Airbnb. This shouldn't be going on. We
have ordinances to protect us. I looked up the definition what an Airbnb is and it is
considered a hotel/motel. Under this paper we got it says that this does not include
existing uses defined in the zoning ordinance, including bed and breakfast, bed and
breakfast inn, boardinghouses, which basically what a halfway house is too, country inn,
hotel/motel, motor lodge. Those are not included even in this special use permit. Like he
said, this is the only one in the county. Do we want to set the precedent to let this
continue happening in our county? No. And he shouldn't be able to threaten me that
he's going to sell to a Section 8 if he doesn't get his way. Very concerning. He said he
was going to have a mountain of leaves moved right in front of his house. He said that
last week. He said he was going to have it moved because the renters have nowhere
else to park, so they park in front of other homes. He has still not moved those leaves,
and he added more leaves on those today. Now there's even more leaves out right in
front of his house where none of the renters are going to be able to park. Also, he hasn't
followed the laws for all these years. What makes you think he's going to follow your
laws now? Or any of your restrictions? He hasn't. Do you guys have any questions for
me?”
Supervisor Mahoney commented, “He knows this neighborhood very well.
Before my wife and I moved in May, we used to live on Skylark and my wife and I would
walk through the neighborhood and sometimes walk down White Pelican with my
granddaughter. We would ride our bikes down White Pelican, so I know White Pelican
very well. It's nice and flat and it's a great shot and very easy to move around. This
neighborhood, if any of you don't know it, it's a typical Penn Forest neighborhood. White
Pelican is one block long. It's a cul-de-sac. There are about 16 homes on it, 16 or 17
homes. As a couple of speakers indicated, our halfway house Pinnacle is a couple
doors down from this proposed use. The county is involved in an enforcement action
with respect to the halfway house. Things move slowly, but we are involved in an
enforcement action with respect to that matter, which is separate from this matter. He
sympathizes with the concerns of the citizens that this is becoming more commercial.
This neighborhood, this street is becoming more commercial. And so, I'm sort of
November 9, 2022
883
conflicted, because this kind of use is consistent with our comprehensive plan. We the
board have allowed these kinds of uses within our neighborhood conservation land use
designation. We have done that. That is us. I struggle with what I perceive to be a
negative impact on the neighborhood. At the same time, as other board members have
heard me speechify before, I'd like to provide a greater opportunity to private property
owners to use their property and to generate income with respect to their property. As
long as they don't adversely affect their neighbors. I struggle also with what's the
difference between a short-term rental and a long-term rental. All right, 30 days. I
understand that. But if I own a house and I want to rent it to somebody for six months or
nine months or a year, it's still a rental at the end of the day. I know that, on a personal
note, you could probably accuse me of being hypocritical, but my wife and I have had
the opportunity to travel. We've traveled to California, we've traveled to Boston, we've
traveled to Europe, to London, the UK, Ireland. Every time we have rented an apartment
or a home in a residential neighborhood. The difference may be that when we did that
we were about one block away from our rental to shops and stores and restaurants. In
this instance you're not a block away from anything. You got to hop in your car and drive
about a mile before you get to 419 for any kind of commercial uses. But again, in my
own personal basis, we've used Airbnb and VRBOs extensively. At the end of the day I
feel constrained by the fact that, at least as our staff report indicates, this is consistent
with our comp plan, and we have generally followed our comp plan with most of our
land use decisions in the past. So, at the end of the day, when I look at what our code
says and what state code requires, we have to make a finding to support this
application. We have to make a finding that this use will have, what is it, a minimum
adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood and community. And for the life of me,
I can't make that finding. But I may be wrong and I may be viewing this incorrectly. I'm
not quite ready to make a motion to approve or deny. I'd like to hear from my colleagues
on the board. Where am I wrong? What am I missing?”
Supervisor Radford commented, “Being in the real estate development
field, I'm looking for acreage. I know we just did this in my district a couple months ago
where we allowed an Airbnb. The applicant was only going to rent the basement unit, it
wasn't the whole house. It kind of flew through here real easy. We didn't have really any
opposition. That was an easy thing. Today we've got, to me, a much tighter piece of
land, 0.3 acres, and it's a five-bedroom house. We're cramming 10 people into it. I know
the applicant said four cars, but unless we are there to police it, it could get to five or six
cars real easy and they could be a congestion. The streets in these neighborhoods are
not conducive to that type of parking. I know, because when we develop the
neighborhoods, we have to go buy certain a standard for single family use and we have
to provide parking. We provide parking off the street, so whatever has to be parked on
the street's parked on the street. But we always apply parking in the driveway. So, I'm
having consternation too because of the size of the lot is smaller than (I noticed we don't
require this if it's over five acres. Is that correct? With Supervisor Hooker responding in
November 9, 2022
884
the affirmative.) Because you got plenty of places to park. So, I'm wrestling the same as
you are with this. We're really maxing out the capacity for the street to be able to handle
that on a short-term basis, even for a weekend. But look, I'm the same way with you.
We went up to Annapolis, Maryland for commissioning week. There was 10 of us in a
house. We stayed there for a whole week. We were very calm the whole week, but we
did bring four, five, six cars. And it was a neighborhood very similar to this. We were all
parking all over the place. But those people up in Annapolis are used to it for once a
week out of... one week out of a year. They actually leave town and strangers come in
and take it. So, it happens. It happens. I don't know. I'm kind of like you.”
Supervisor Hooker added, “I've got additional comments to piggyback on
what you're both saying, because I think probably all of us have used Airbnb and have
had some positive experiences with it. I struggle also with it being in the heart of a
residential area that is so compact. And the parking is an issue. We can't proffer offsite
situations. We can't do that. I appreciate the fact that they're trying to provide it in the
driveway, but if people were to park in the street, we can't really dictate that. That's not
ours to dictate. I am on a jag right now where I feel like we need to be paying very
special attention to our residential areas. That is the majority of our tax base. Let's make
sure we're taking good care of these people, and that it rung true in some of those
comments that I just heard. There are other Airbnb’s in the county and VRBO situations.
I am a little concerned that we're not processing those taxes. That's a problem. If they're
not being properly permitted, that's a problem. And there's a part of me that says,
"Should we take a pause, or go ahead and vote?" But I feel like this needs to be
researched. If we're going to be allowing this... And we're allowing it by right in more
than five acres and we don't have a good handle on what we've got. We are not a police
state. We don't go looking for problems. But we've got to have a better system than
this.”
Supervisor Peters commented, “, I will ditto your comments that, like my
other board members, I have used Airbnb, the VRBO, whether it's at a beach or
whether it's Alexandria or wherever we choose to travel. But what I will say in my
experience is most of those cases we have spent... we're renting one of those spaces in
an area that's either a commercial area; you go up to Alexandria off King Street, or you
go to the beach. You're in a rental area, period. I guess the problem that I have with this
is that, as Ms. Hooker said, this is in a residential area. We've had other circumstances
where the property owner lives there, it is their home, and they're renting out the
basement, as Mr. Radford spoke. This is totally a business use. It's what it is. I think that
having the property over there, it would give a little more stability to the neighborhoods,
protecting our residential areas. If this was downtown Roanoke and a condo, sure. That
kind of stuff's not a problem. But when you bring it back into our individual
neighborhoods and it's strictly for a business use. t's not a long-term rental. I think you
have some different security sometimes when it's a long-term rental versus a short-
term. I have a lot of problems with this and I'll let you know I don't think I can support it.”
November 9, 2022
885
Supervisor North added, “It seems like the theme tonight is questions.
Questions about something's new to Roanoke County, or maybe it's not new. I don't feel
like I know enough about how many of these exist in the county today. I think staff
should look into that, at least make an attempt to due diligence, and then determine and
reconcile that findings as far as addresses with the commissioner's office to see what's
being collected or what isn't. But what's even more problematic is learning tonight about
the Airbnb tax being collected but it's up to the county to try to get it. Now boy, I'm going
to tell you right now, there's an example of the state legislature dumping on the county
to fend for themselves, so we need to reconcile where these are elsewhere. Like Mr.
Radford said, we need to see if we can talk to somebody that's collecting this money
and cross reference that to the list of people that have these properties that are maybe
perhaps going on and we don't know about it. I lived in a rental house in Old Town when
I first worked for the railroad, because I was poor and didn't have enough money for an
apartment. It was close to where I needed to catch a bus to go to work, because I didn't
have a car. And you didn't drive into DC because you had parking, et cetera. That's
where I envision these occurring. Just like Mr. Peters said. You go to the beach, you
rent a condo in a building on the beach that someone owns, and you rent it. That's what
I think of. Now, I've heard other people... I've never gone and rented a house
someplace in a community. I know my son has and I look at my wife and I say, "Maybe
we ought to try that sometime." But that's as a consumer. But as a representative of this
county, we need to get some more information. Whether we pass this on to another
date in order to get this information so that we can educate ourselves a little more as to
what's going on with the wheels of government, or whether we vote on it. And I guess
you can bring it back up in 12 months, can you not? Isn't what the rule is? We have to
wait 12 months to bring it back up again? But I just don't feel comfortable doing it for this
reason. It could be precedent setting. And so, do we feel comfortable making a decision
tonight when we don't have a lot of information? That's not the way I was brought up in
this world. You need to find out more information before you decide what you're going to
do. It's problematic with 10 people and four cars. I'm sorry. When you talk about putting
cars on the property, well... I've had two people in my district who parks cars on the
street, in the driveway, the garage and in front of their house on the grass. They don't
take good care of their property. And in fact, staff's been out there investigating it and I
think they got the problem rectified, but it just takes our staff's time to go do all this stuff.
And then people are going to complain to the community, "Well, it looks terrible over
there." Even though maybe nothing's going on, it just looks terrible to the aesthetics of
the community. I wouldn't want a facility or home in my community to operate that way.
I'm sorry.”
November 9, 2022
886
ORDINANCE 110922-4 DENYING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO
NEIL ANEJA TO OPERATE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL ON
APPROXIMATELY 0.3 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1
(LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 2726
WHITE PELICAN LANE (TAX MAP NO: 087.13-02-11.00-0000),
IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Neil Aneja has filed a petition for a special use permit to operate a
short-term rental on property zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) District containing
approximately 0.3 acre, located at 2726 White Pelican Lane, in the Cave Spring
Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 25, 2022, and
the second reading and public hearing were held on November 9, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on November 1, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission recommends approval of
the petition; and
WHEREAS, during the public hearing on November 9, 2022 the Board
considered comments made by the petitioner and also considered comments made by
several citizens; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. The Board finds that the proposed special use is inconsistent with the
purpose and intent of the County’s adopted comprehensive plan or good zoning
practice, and
2. The Board further finds that the proposed special use will result in
substantial detriment to the community.
3. The special use permit is hereby denied.
On motion of Supervisor Hooker to deny the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Mahoney and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney
NAYS: None
November 9, 2022
887
2. The petition of Barnett Properties, LLC, to rezone approximately 9.38
acres from R-3C, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District with
conditions, R-1, Low Density Residential District, I-1C, Low Intensity
Industrial District with conditions, C-2C, High Intensity Commercial
District with conditions, and C-1, Low Intensity Commercial District, to
C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, for retail sales located in the
4400 block of Brambleton Avenue including 4449 and 4457
Brambleton Avenue, and the 4500 and 4600 blocks of Old Cave Spring
Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District (POSTPONED AT THE
REQUEST OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION)
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor North commented since we last met two weeks ago, nn
November 1st and 2nd he participated in discussions with local general assembly
members advocating for our five County priorities. Mr. Mahoney joined me and may
have some comments later on that topic. It was very productive. On November 3rd, as
Chairman of the Roanoke Valley Allegheny Regional Commission Annual Dinner where
Jeremy Holmes, Executive Director, provided the State of the Region Annual Report,
Also, we had several guest speakers there. On November 7th, Chair Mahoney and I
both met with two airport commissioners to discuss benefits of airport business
expansion, growth, and possible Federal and State funding, which incidentally is part of
our legislative agenda. On November 8th, participated in a call with our County and
school staff. Chair Mahoney had also arranged a call by director Jeremy Holmes of the
Roanoke Valley Regional Commission, and also participated in that call. The reason
we had it, was the federal EDA, Economic Development Authority to discuss funding
requirements for our new CTE project. One final note he wants to make tonight. After
much discussion, our Board, County staff is very supportive of our joint school and
County efforts to reduce construction cost for the new Burton CTE project and future
school projects using a four-point approach. For the record, Virginia School construction
grants for 20% funding for a school building that may cost upwards of $100 million may
result in $20 million savings. Nothing not to consider. Federal EDA grants to both
reduce construction cost and educational business partnerships for equipment for our
CTE school project estimated at $3 million potential for more savings. Workforce grants
like GO for Virginia and advocating our local general assembly representatives to
continue the state grants program beyond fiscal year '23 for school modernization and
construction, as well as workforce grants in the future. Considering traditional bonding
and alternative energy considerations for savings and tax credits for these school
construction and modernization projects to, again, reduce cost to the citizens. This
approach may be beneficial for our other county buildings as well, and I'm sure we will
be looking into that if that is the chosen option. This Board and the school board and our
November 9, 2022
888
staff and the school staff will accomplish much for both our citizens and our schools.
Thanks to the school CTE Citizens Committee for their volunteering efforts over a year
ago to site, which they have found a location, the size of the facility is recommended,
and solar, and all their recommendations.
Supervisor Radford commented he has done this in the past, but we lost a
giant of a developer in our community a couple weeks ago. The community knows him
as Frank Radford. I know him as my dad and my business partner. You only have to go
as far as Cave Springs Corners to see the footprint that he left in that area in the early
'70s, which is now Kroger. He developed that property and got a lease from WT Grant.
He was the original developer of that property. While he was building the site, an equity
investor came along and offered him a lot of money. He couldn't turn it down, so he took
that and sold it. It was by sheer luck, because six months later WT Grant went out of
business. He was very lucky in that transaction. If you go right above the hill, behind
Cave Spring Corners, there's an apartment complex called Normandy Knoll. It's still
there today. He built it. He developed all those apartments. It has the same structure,
the exterior, as when he put it in in the '70s. If you go across the street from Postal
Drive, you'll see a complex called Cedar Point. It used to be called Ravenswood when it
was originally developed. He developed that entire apartment complex on top of the hill.
I had a summer job there when I was a teenager. If you go west of that property, he
donated property there to Roanoke County for a library that was used there for quite a
while until recently we went to South County. If you continue west, he developed, along
with me, Mcvitty Forest. More housing. If you continue down around the corner, in 2001.
He felt so strong about our relationship with Roanoke County, we picked up our
business and left Roanoke City and came to Roanoke County and planted our business
there starting in 2001. It was a great day. Elmer Hodge came over and we had a grand
opening at the time. We have pictures of all that. But his footprint can be seen not only
in that area. He helped his father develop Green Valley, all the houses in Green Valley.
He did that. My father came back from the Korean War and helped my grandfather with
Cherry Hill Park. He did that one. That was my grandfather. And it's quite a unique story
of how that came about. But my father also developed Montclair with my grandfather.
After my grandfather passed away, he continued on a multi-family track, building
apartments in Blacksburg, Forest, Virginia, Lynchburg, and smaller apartments in Salem
and some single-family houses on the street and off (I can't remember what it's off) but
it's called Easy Street. He felt that he needed to have a street named Easy Street for
somebody to be able to buy a house and come home and say, "I live on Easy Street.
"He will be greatly missed. We have gotten so many phone calls and sympathy cards,
and I appreciate everything that you guys have done for us these past few weeks. It'll
take an adjustment for my mom and I, because he was in business with us. And at the
funeral I said... when I came in business with my dad I said, "Look..." When we both
decided to come together as a family, he said, "You better ask your mother to join us."
And I did and it turned out she was the greatest referee between the two of us, because
at times we thought that we worked for her and not the other way around. So, a great
November 9, 2022
889
father, a great businessman, a great leader. He really loved Roanoke County with all his
heart. He really put a lot into it. The last month that he was having this illness, it felt like
an eternity. It's still numb and still hard to believe he's not with us in the community. But
he's very, very proud of Roanoke County.
Supervisor Peters commented Supervisor Radford has some big shoes to
fill. Know that you are still in our thoughts and prayers. I want to thank the citizens who
came out tonight to speak on our petition. I'm going to echo comments of Ms. Hooker
that we've really got a... as we're moving forward with this, we want to promote business
in Roanoke County, we want to promote development, but we also need to make sure
we're preserving our neighborhoods. Because I will openly say I wouldn't want it beside
me. And so, that's a great concern, as I outlined my issues with it earlier. On a lighter
note, the Illuminights will be coming to Explore Park the end of this month, so tell you
friends and neighbors and let's load it up. I understand we've had great success in our
first few days of ticket sales, so we're looking for a great year. They've reversed the trail,
added more lights, so it's going to be a great time. Lastly, I guess over the last couple of
weeks I've been a bit concerned about comments that have been made regarding our
relationship with the schools and how we are moving forward with them on two issues,
on the CTE Center and with the SROs. And I just want to set the record straight that I
feel like that, as a board, and I'm proud of everyone that I serve with here, that we
have... We started last year when I was chair and we chose to put together a citizens
committee. We invited the schools to come and be a part of that and we charged those
individuals with the three tasks that Mr. North laid out earlier. We have walked this road
with the school board. We have encouraged the continued movement in the right
direction to find the property. We're looking to move forward to purchase that property,
we openly said at the last meeting. I think we have done everything that we can to keep
this moving in the right direction. We don't know what the final cost will be. But I
commend again our board for looking under every rock we can find for money. I mean,
$100 million dollars is a huge burden to put on the backs of our citizens. So, anything
that we can do, and I will openly say anything the schools can do to mitigate that cost,
we should be doing it. On the second issue, he does not want to go through all the
issues of the CTE, because Mr. North did a great job of outlining all the things that we're
trying to do. But on the second issue of SROs, comment was made that we as a board,
we're not doing our part. Well, I'll say it's not true at all. I think that, as I laid out and I
think Mr. North and others laid out in our last meeting with the school board, we have
applied for grants, we received the grants, we immediately put the offering out on the
street to hire folks. County administration came to us and said, "We're having problems.
We can't get these jobs filled. Maybe we need to look at benefits." The board came
together unanimously and said, "Give them benefits. Do whatever it takes. Let's make
sure we can move this forward." We sat down with our assistant police chief at our last
meeting and looked across the room at him and said, "What do we need to do?" Our
board is committed to the SRO program. We are committed to finding the people. But
as we also stated in that joint meeting, every locality in Virginia is looking for these
November 9, 2022
890
same people. I want to make it clear the miscommunication, if you will, that's been
spread over the last couple of weeks is completely false. This board is committed to the
CTE program. We're committed to providing a strong labor force in the Roanoke Valley.
As I said earlier, we are looking to grow Roanoke County. We're looking for economic
development, but we've also realized that we are going to have to have economic
development by training those folks that are going to be out in our community, who are
going to find that job, who are going to stay here, who are going to raise their kids, have
them in our schools and grow our communities. I know this board is committed to that. I
hope the school board understands that and that we are going to continue to press
forward.
Supervisor Hooker commented she had just a couple of things to say.
Supervisor Peters, I really appreciate that sentiment being expressed as well as you just
did. I think that we all are on the same page. It's pure pleasure working with these fellow
board members in that we have like-minded goals and we take a lot of pride in our
schools. I think that we're all of the same mind, that we want to do what is right by them
and work hard to give them the needs necessary to maintain a great school system.
And so, thank you for those words. I appreciate it. Every bit of it was spot on, I think, for
all of us. I had the pleasure of working the polls yesterday, as I know my peers did also.
It's really enjoyable. It is truly enjoyable to meet the citizens, to visit with them. They tell
us how things are going. They tell us how things are going and it's really a great day
seeing them come and exercise their right to vote. That is democracy. We're not in
danger of losing that. That is democracy. And then on a final note, David, your words
were so tender and thoughtful for your dad. We all knew him, we all loved him. We
grieve with you.
Supervisor Mahoney commented he got several earfuls yesterday at the
polls when he was working at Cave Spring High School. With respect to Frank Radford,
in the fall of 2019 when I was running for the Board of Supervisors, I was going around
knocking on doors. And I knocked on a door and who should answer it but Frank. He
talked with me for a long time and it was great, and he invited me into the house and all
that. It was wonderful. But I left there and about that time, Judy and I started looking to
downsize, to live in one floor housing. And I figured if the man who built those houses at
Glen Meadow is living in them, they must be pretty darn good. But they never went on
the market. They never went on the market. I asked David, do those houses ever come
on the market? He just laughed at me. He says, "No, they're all sold word of mouth."
And then probably January or February he said to me, "There might be one for sale."
So, a compliment to David. But it was a surprise to me knocking on the door and Frank
Radford answers it. This is great. As Mr. North indicated, we had, I felt, a very
productive series of meetings with our local legislators. We met with Senators Edwards
and Newman. We met with delegates Rasoul, Head, Austin and McNamara. We talked
with them about our legislative priorities. I really feel we made a lot of good positive
progress and laid a foundation for legislative priorities to benefit not just Roanoke
November 9, 2022
891
County, but our entire region. Particularly talking about the expansion at the airport. And
again, Phil and I had a meeting with our appointees to the airport commission, Mr. Gust
and Mr. Powers. And I think we all know Gary, because he gives us fantastic
summaries of every airport commission meeting. We had a busy week last week and I
think we got a lot of good things done. Finally, I want to give a lot of credit to Allen
Hayes, who's sitting in the back of the room here. On October 27th out at Green Hill
Park we had the CIAA cross-country championships. We had a bunch of just fantastic
young people who were killing themselves running for cross-country for 8K and 5K.
Allen and his staff put on a fantastic program. I really enjoyed interacting with the young
people and the coaches and all the people from CIAA. They even allowed me to be the
honorary starter. But no, truly. I can't remember how long our contract is with the CIAA
folks, but they're a wonderful group of people and I hope they enjoyed Green Hill. And I
hope they come back, because it was a beautiful day. It was just amazing watching
them running. How demanding that is, the cross-country championship work. And it was
very competitive.
Supervisor North asked to add to his comments stating last Monday a
week ago, before we went to meet with Delegate Head, I remembered that we had a
concept plan for the CTE. I remembered that what we got handed out eight and a half
by 10 paper, you couldn't read the concept plan very well. You knew there was one;
yep, that's the plan, but you got to get it blown up. So, I asked the Hollins representative
at the school board and chair if he could get those blown up for me and meet me before
we walked into the meeting. He stated, "Well, I don't know if I have time to join you." I
said, "Well, that's fine. But I want you to give the concept plan to Delegate Head."
Because last year we couldn't go forward with the EDA investigation for money that I
mentioned, because we didn't have a concept plan. In fact, Chris even said in
Richmond, "I need a concept plan." So, we delivered on what we said we'd come back
and give them a year later, and I want to thank Chairman Linden and the school board
for working with us on that. Several members of the school board have told me that they
are very supportive of the efforts on us trying to help schools, both our Board and our
staff. I just wanted to thank Chairman Linden and those on the school board.
November 9, 2022
892
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Mahoney adjourned the meeting at 8:14 p.m. to a joint meeting
with the Roanoke County Public School Board at 10:00 a.m. on December 7, 2022 at
Green Ridge Recreational Center.
Submitted by: Approved by:
________________________ ___________________________________
Deborah C. Jacks Martha B. Hooker
Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board Chairman