5/23/2023 - Regular - DRAFT (2)
May 23, 2023
175
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 May 2023. Audio and video recordings of this meeting will be
held on file for a minimum of five (5) years in the office of the Clerk to the Board of
Supervisors.
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
Before the meeting was called to order, a moment of silence was
observed. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Hooker called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. The roll call
was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Martha B. Hooker; Supervisors Paul M. Mahoney,
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: BRIEFINGS
1. Legislative briefing regarding the 2023 session of the General
Assembly (Peter S Lubeck, County Attorney)
Mr. Eldon James provided the legislative briefing.
May 23, 2023
176
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution adopting 1) the fiscal year 2023-2024 Operating and
Capital Budget Revenues and Expenditures for the County of
Roanoke, Virginia and Roanoke County Public Schools and 2) the
fiscal years 2024-2033 Capital Improvement Program for the
County of Roanoke, Virginia and Roanoke County Public Schools
and 3) the fiscal year 2023-2024 Fee Compendium (Steve Elliott,
Budget Administrator)
Mr. Elliott outlined the request for resolution and provided a PowerPoint
presentation.
Supervisor North asked with regard to page 14 of the packet, which refers
to schedule number three, summary of county schools funding sources, more
specifically line item debt fund hyphen schools. There's a sum of money each year
through 2029, but he does not see any sum of money beyond 2029. Why, he thought
that was part of our agreements to continue, is that just the interest amount of money is,
what does that have to do with our MOU on the 1.8 million? Could you comment on
that? Rebecca Owens, Deputy County Administrator asked for more information, which
Supervisor North responded, page 14, more specifically schedul3d three of the 22
through 31 capital improvement summary of County and schools funding sources. It
goes down to Roanoke County Public Schools at the bottom of that Excel sheet or chart
if you will, where it says debt fund dash schools. Ms. Owens advised it's the actual
Roanoke County Public Schools all funding sources in that section there. So, the third
line there, the debt fund hyphen schools. So that is the planned money through fiscal
year 2029 that we were actually bringing in that was remaining in the debt fund. So
those were funds that were available, cash, that was actually in the debt fund. In the
County we actually have a little bit of that as well. For example, when we had a planned
amount that we were going to issue debt for and it actually sold at a better interest rate
than that assumed 6%. Then we actually had some cash savings and so there was a
period of time that we were actually pulling money out to be able to help fund some of
those projects. Couple years ago, the board made the decision that we would just leave
all the money that was in there and it would just go to fund the debt in the future and
that's why after fiscal year 2029, you're not actually seeing any money allocated for
fiscal year 2030 through 2033 because we're not pulling any cash out of the debt fund
and back over in to be able to fund the capital projects. Because now we have a
different plan where we've got borrowings that are allocated each and every year we've
identified the amount of money that we need to actually put into that fund on an annual
basis from the county and the schools to be able to fund that appropriately. We felt like
by leaving that cash, any cash available in there that would long term minimize the
amount of money that we would have to keep putting into the fund.
May 23, 2023
177
Supervisor North stated let's say fiscal year 2028, fiscal year 2030 and so
forth, the school's years, if you get a bond that's 20 million, but you have some, if you
purchase it at a lower price, then that extra money would then go back into this debt
fund. Is that correct? Ms. Owens responded in the affirmative.
Supervisor Radford inquired with regard toward the building and trade
permit fees. When he read the second column, effective date, it says 2004. Mr. Elliott
responded in the affirmative, stating we have update of the fees last year, but not all.
Supervisor Radford stated the building code changes every two years and they have a
suggested fee cycle in each of those updates. He is just making sure we're staying up
with the suggested fees. Mr. Elliott responded staff does examine those fees annually
from all departments and departments can make requests to change fees every year as
part of our budget cycle. Additional we also compare again surrounding jurisdictions
and try to maintain those fees at a similar level. There was no further discussion.
RESOLUTION 052323-1 ADOPTING 1) THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-
2024 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET REVENUES AND
EXPENDITURES FOR THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
AND ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AND 2) THE
FISCAL YEARS 2024-2033 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM FOR THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA AND
ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AND 3) THE FISCAL
YEAR 2023-2024 FEE COMPENDIUM
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-2503 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended,
provides that the governing body of the County shall prepare and approve an annual
budget; and
WHEREAS, said budget shall be prepared and approved for informative and
fiscal planning purposes only; and
WHEREAS, this budget contains a complete itemized and classified plan of all
contemplated expenditures and all estimated revenues and borrowings for the ensuing
fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, a brief synopsis of said budget was published as required by the
provisions of Section 15.2-2506 of the State Code, and the public hearings as required
thereon were held on April 25, 2023 and May 9, 2023.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia:
1. That there is hereby approved the annual operating and capital budget
revenues and expenditures for fiscal year 2023-2024 for Roanoke County,
Virginia, and Roanoke County Public Schools, as shown on the attached
Schedules 1 and 2.
May 23, 2023
178
2. That there is hereby approved the Capital Improvement Program for fiscal
years 2024-2033 for Roanoke County, Virginia, and Roanoke County
Public Schools, as shown on the attached Schedule 3.
3. That the preparation and approval of these budgets is for informative and
fiscal planning purposes only.
4. That there is hereby approved a Fee Compendium which lists all fees and
charges imposed by the County for providing specialized programs and
services. The Fee Compendium provides details on the type of fee,
authority to levy the fee, current fees, and proposed changes to the
current fees.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker
NAYS: None
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinances to appropriate funds for:
(a) Fiscal year 2023-2024 operations budget and approval of the
Classification and Pay Plan for fiscal year 2023-2024 for the
County of Roanoke, Virginia;
There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 052323-2 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 OPERATIONS BUDGET
AND APPROVAL OF THE CLASSIFICATION AND PAY
PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 FOR ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, public hearings were
held on April 25, 2023 and May 9, 2023 concerning the adoption of the annual budget
for Roanoke County for fiscal year 2023-2024; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, approved
said budget on May 23, 2023, pursuant to the provisions of Section 13.02 of the
Roanoke County Charter and Chapter 25 of Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended; and
May 23, 2023
179
WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was held on May 9,
2023, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 23, 2023, pursuant to
the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the respective
funds for the period beginning July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024, for the
functions and purposes indicated:
County of Roanoke, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2023-2024
County Operations
First Reading May 9, 2023; Second Reading May 23, 2023
Appropriation
Amount
Revenues:
General Fund - County:
General Government$ 246,847,274
Public Works Projects 175,732
Fleet Service Center 4,086,231
Communications & Information Technology 13,952,894
Recreation Fee Class 5,198,646
Children's Services Act 7,948,166
Grants & Other Funds 2,024,936
Parks, Recreation & Tourism - School Operations 418,291
Police E-Citation 60,000
Community Development Technology Fee 40,000
Police Special Programs 2,500
May 23, 2023
Criminal Justice Academy 454,152
Subtotal, General Fund281,208,822
180
Debt Service Fund - from County 14,878,894
Debt Service Fund - from Schools4,125,345
Subtotal, Debt Service Fund19,004,239
Internal Service Fund - Health Insurance13,365,987
Internal Service Fund - Dental Insurance821,204
Internal Service Fund - Risk Management1,604,003
Subtotal, Internal Service Funds15,791,194
Total Revenue - County Operations Funds$ 316,004,255
Expenditures:
General Government - County Operations:
General Administration
Board of Supervisors$ 496,434
County Administration 1,059,288
Internal Auditor 194,520
Public Information 344,133
County Attorney 752,968
Human Resources 1,130,173
Subtotal, General Administration3,977,516
Constitutional Officers
Commissioner of the Revenue1,054,580
Commonwealth's Attorney1,567,615
Sheriff's Office14,951,433
Treasurer1,260,683
Clerk of the Circuit Court1,363,258
Subtotal, Constitutional Officers20,197,569
Appropriation
Amount
Judicial Administration
Circuit Court$ 257,068
General District Court 103,440
Magistrate 1,590
Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court 39,086
Court Service Unit 670,144
Courthouse Maintenance 60,000
Subtotal, Judicial Administration1,131,328
Management Services
Real Estate Valuation (Assessor)1,057,944
Finance & Management Services2,831,811
Subtotal, Management Services3,889,755
Public Safety
Police17,152,104
Fire & Rescue23,049,523
Subtotal, Public Safety 40,201,627 May 23, 2023
181
Community Services
Economic Development590,862
Development Services3,838,282
Planning2,384,396
General Services9,549,321
Subtotal, Community Services16,362,861
Human Services
Parks, Recreation, & Tourism5,838,532
Public Health579,181
Social Services14,560,683
Library4,865,913
Virginia Cooperative Extension115,391
Elections (Registrar)878,412
Subtotal, Human Services26,838,112
Non-Departmental
Employee Benefits2,458,302
Transfer to Communications & Information Technology11,908,477
Contributions - Discretionary, Contractual, Dues & Memberships2,480,357
Miscellaneous1,646,411
Board Contingency50,000
General Government Expenditure Contingency608,162
Addition to Fund Balance2,974,113
Subtotal, Non-Departmental22,125,822
May 23, 2023
182
2. That the County Administrator may authorize or delegate the authorization of
the transfer of any unencumbered balance or portion thereof from one
department to another.
3. That all funded outstanding operating encumbrances at June 30, 2023, are
re-appropriated to the 2023-2024 fiscal year to the same department and
account for which they are encumbered in the previous year.
4. That all General Government Fund unexpended appropriations and all
General Government revenues collected in excess of appropriated revenues
at the end of any fiscal year not lapse but shall be re-appropriated and
presented to the Board of Supervisors for allocation based on guidance
provided in Section 10-1 through 5 of the County of Roanoke Comprehensive
Financial Policy as approved by the Board of Supervisors.
5. Account balances remaining in the Fee Class Fund collected by the Parks,
Recreation and Tourism Department will be allocated to accounts as defined
by the Fee Class Accounts Procedure.
6. Account balances remaining in Children’s Services Act (C111), Police
Confiscated Property (C120), Police Special Programs (C121), Forfeited
Asset Sharing (C122), Sheriff Confiscated Property (C123), Sheriff Jail Fees
(C124), Inventory Accounts (C125), Criminal Justice Academy (C126), Police
Training Facility (C127), Garage - Fleet Service Center (C130), Motor Pool
(C132), Grants (C135), Opioid Abatement Settlement Fund (C136),
Communications and Information Technology (C141-C144), Fee Class
(C150), PRT Schools Ground Maintenance (C151), Public Works Fund
(C170), South Peak Community Development Authority (C201), County Debt
Fund (C310, C320, C330, C340, C360, C365, C375), County Capital and
Economic Development Funds (C420, C421, C425, C428, C440, C445,
C451, C455, C475), County Trust Funds (C501, C502), Internal Service
Funds (C700, C705, C710), Special Welfare (C810), Regional Fire/Rescue
Training Center (C814), Commonwealth Fund (C815), and Economic
Development Authority (C818) funds will carry over 100% and be re-
appropriated to the individual funds.
7. That the Board of Supervisors anticipates receiving various grants, donations,
and other miscellaneous revenues. These anticipated funds are appropriated
to the Grants Fund for the various functions and purposes as provided
therein, and said appropriation shall be acknowledged and allocated to the
appropriate fund upon approval by the Board of Supervisors on the Consent
Agenda.
8. That the Board of Supervisors approves the County of Roanoke Classification
and Pay Plan. The Classification and Pay Plan included as part of this
ordinance is effective July 1, 2023. The County Administrator shall implement
the County Classification and Pay Plan pursuant to Board of Supervisors
Resolution 082515-1.
May 23, 2023
183
9. That the Board of Supervisors recognizes that the General Assembly has
presently approved a 5% increase in pay for each of the Commonwealth’s
elected constitutional officers. The Board desires to further supplement the
pay of the County’s presently-elected constitutional officers in recognition of
the essential services that they perform. Accordingly, in accordance with
Section 15.2-1605.1 of the Code of Virginia, the Board appropriates such a
supplement to the County’s presently-elected 1) Treasurer, 2) Commissioner
of Revenue, 3) Clerk of Circuit Court, and 4) Commonwealth’s Attorney, in the
amount of 13% above the salary set by the General Assembly and State
Compensation Board. If, however, the General Assembly amends its
proposed budget for fiscal year 203-2024 to adjust the constitutional officers’
salary increase to an amount either below or above the presently-approved
5% increase, the supplement provided by the Board of Supervisors will be
adjusted so that the compensation received by the County’s presently-elected
constitutional officers will be commensurate with the Commonwealth’s
presently- budgeted 5% increase, plus the above-stated 13% County
supplement. Such supplement will be provided to each of the presently-
elected constitutional officers in future fiscal years, so long as they remain in
office, or until the Board of Supervisors takes additional action to reduce,
increase, or eliminate such supplement.
10. This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2023.
On motion of Supervisor North to adopt the ordinance, seconded by
Supervisor Radford and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Hooker, North, Radford, Mahoney
NAYS: None
(b) Fiscal year 2023-2024 capital budget for the County of
Roanoke, Virginia; and
There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 052323-3 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 CAPITAL BUDGET FOR
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, public hearings were
held on April 25, 2023 and May 9, 2023 concerning the adoption of the annual budget
for Roanoke County for fiscal year 2023-2024; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, approved
said budget on May 23, 2023, pursuant to the provisions of Section 13.02 of the
County of Roanoke, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2023-2024
County Capital
First Reading May 9, 2023; Second Reading May 23, 2023
Appropriation
Amount
Revenues:
County Capital:
Transfer from General Government Fund$ 7,615,000
County Unrestricted Cash (excl. Transfer from General Govt. Fund) 6,680,078
County Restricted Cash 325,000
Non-County Funding Sources 517,550
Total Revenue - County Capital$ 15,137,628
Expenditures:
County Capital:
FY 2024 Capital Fund supported by General Government Fund excluding General
Government Transfers to CIP & Fleet Replacement$ 4,015,000
May 23, 2023
FY 2024 Capital Year Budget - Assessments and Studies750,000
184
FY 2024 Capital Year Budget - Buildings and Facilities2,685,000
FY 2024 Capital Year Budget - Computer Infrastructure, Software and Hardware2,662,628
FY 2024 Capital Year Budget - Capital Maintenance Programs and Recurring3,825,000
FY 2024 Capital Year Budget - Transportation500,000
Subtotal, FY 2022 Capital Year Budget10,422,628
FY 2024 Fleet Replacement Budget700,000
Total Expenditures - County Capital$ 15,137,628
Roanoke County Charter and Chapter 25 of Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was held on May 9,
2023 and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 23, 2023, pursuant to
the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the respective funds
for the period beginning July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024, for the
functions and purposes indicated:
2. That the County Administrator may authorize or delegate the authorization of
the transfer of any unencumbered balance or portion thereof from one project
to another so as to provide for the completion of a capital project.
May 23, 2023
185
3. That all funded outstanding capital encumbrances at June 30, 2023, are re-
appropriated to the 2023-2024 fiscal year to the same account for which they
are encumbered in the previous year.
4. That appropriations designated for capital projects will not lapse at the end of
the fiscal year but shall remain appropriated until the completion of the project
or until the Board of Supervisors, by appropriate action, changes or eliminates
the appropriation. Upon completion of a capital project, staff is authorized to
close out the project and transfer to the funding source any remaining
balances. This section applies to appropriations for capital projects at June
30, 2023, and appropriations in the 2023-2024 fiscal year budget.
5. That the Board of Supervisors anticipates receiving various grants,
donations, and other miscellaneous revenues. These anticipated funds are
appropriated to the Grants Fund for the various functions and purposes as
provided therein, and said appropriation shall be acknowledged and allocated
to the appropriate fund upon approval by the Board of Supervisors on the
Consent Agenda.
6. This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2023.
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
(c) Fiscal year 2023-2024 for Roanoke County Public Schools
Categories (Laurie Gearheart, Director of Finance and
Management Services)
There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 052323-4 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 ROANOKE COUNTY
PUBLIC SCHOOLS CATEGORIES
WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, public hearings were
held on April 25, 2023 and May 9, 2023 concerning the adoption of the annual budget
for Roanoke County for fiscal year 2023-2024; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, approved
said budget on May 23, 2023, pursuant to the provisions of Section 13.02 of the
Roanoke County Charter and Chapter 25 of Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended; and
County of Roanoke, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2023-2024
Roanoke County Public Schools Categories
First Reading May 9, 2023; Second Reading May 23, 2023
Appropriation
Amount
School Categories
Schools Instruction$ 141,100,293
Schools Administration, Attendance, and Health 8,937,355
Schools Pupil Transportation 10,790,025
Schools Operation and Maintenance 19,795,233
Schools Food Service and Other Noninstructional Operations 8,534,234
Schools Facilities 28,299,221
Schools Debt and Fund Transfers 22,605,537
Schools Technology 14,015,177
Schools Non-Categorical Spending:
Schools Health Insurance Fund$ 20,722,738
Schools Dental Insurance Fund 1,682,564
May 23, 2023
Schools Risk Management Fund 383,500
Schools Other Post-Employment Benefits Trust Fund 142,790
186
Schools Activity Funds 3,931,065$ 26,862,657
Total - Schools Categories$ 280,939,732
WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was held on May 9,
2023, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 23, 2023, pursuant to
the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the respective funds
for the period beginning July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024, for the
functions and purposes indicated:
2. That the Non-Categorical Spending represents $20,722,738 for the Schools
Health Insurance Fund, $1,682,564 for the Schools Dental Insurance Fund,
$383,500 for the Schools Risk Management Fund, $142,790 for the Schools
Other Post-Employment Benefits Trust Fund, and $3,931,065 in School
Activity Funds.
May 23, 2023
187
3. That all funded outstanding categorical encumbrances at June 30, 2023, are
re-appropriated to the 2023-2024 fiscal year to the same category for which
they are encumbered in the previous year.
4. That all appropriations unexpended and remaining at the end of this fiscal
year shall, pursuant to Section 22.1-100 of the Code of Virginia, revert to the
fund of the Board of Supervisors from which derived, with the expectation that
such funds will be re-appropriated back to Roanoke County Public Schools
for use the next year, in accordance with Section 10-6 of the County’s
Comprehensive Financial Policy.
5. This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2023.
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
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Public hearing for citizen comments and second reading of an
Ordinance Amending Section 10-3 (Levying of License Fees and
Taxes) of the Roanoke County Code, raising the threshold of
annual gross receipts for those entities required to pay the
County Business License Tax (from $135,000 or more to $150,000
or more); and requiring entities that are below that threshold to
pay only an annual $50 license fee (Steve Elliott, Budget
Administrator)
Mr. Elliott outlined the request for the ordinance. No changes since first
reading.
Chairman Hooker opened and closed the public hearing with no speakers
on this agenda item. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 052323-5 AMENDING SECTION 10-3 (LEVYING OF
LICENSE FEES AND TAXES) OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY
CODE, RAISING THE THRESHOLD OF ANNUAL GROSS
RECEIPTS FOR THOSE ENTITIES REQUIRED TO PAY THE
COUNTY BUSINESS LICENSE TAX (FROM $135,000 OR MORE
TO $150,000 OR MORE); AND REQUIRING ENTITIES THAT
ARE BELOW THE THRESHOLD TO PAY ONLY AN ANNUAL
$50 LICENSE FEE
May 23, 2023
188
WHEREAS, Section 58.1-3703 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended,
authorizes localities to enact an ordinance levying a local license tax and/or fee for
issuing a business license; and
WHEREAS, Section 10-3(1) of the County Code presently imposes a fifty dollar
($50) annual license fee upon those entities whose annual gross receipts (during the
prior year) are less than one hundred thirty-five thousand dollars ($135,000); and
WHEREAS, Section 10-3(2) of the County Code presently imposes an annual
license tax upon those entities whose annual gross receipts (during the prior year) from
a business, trade, profession, occupation or calling are one hundred thirty-five thousand
dollars ($135,000) or greater; and
WHEREAS, in order to encourage and benefit small businesses in Roanoke
County, it is proposed that the above County Code provisions be amended to 1) raise
the threshold of annual gross receipts for those entities required to pay the County
business license tax from one hundred thirty-five thousand dollars ($135,000) or more
to one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) or more, and 2) require that entities
below the threshold to pay only the annual fifty dollar ($50) license fee; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 9, 2023, and the
second reading and public hearing was held on May 23, 2023.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors as follows:
1. That Sections 10-3(a)(1) and (2) of the Roanoke County Code are hereby
amended as follows:
Sec. 10-3. - Levying of license fees and taxes.
(a) Subject to the limitations provided in § 58.1-3703.C. of the Code of Virginia (1950,
as amended), and except as otherwise specifically provided for in this chapter of the
Roanoke County Code, there are hereby imposed and levied for each and every
year, beginning with January 1 of each year and ending December 31 following,
and there shall be collected the following license fees and taxes upon the privilege
of doing business or exercising a profession, trade, occupation or calling, including
all phases thereof, in the county, which license fees and taxes shall be for the
support of the county government, payment of the county debt, and for other county
and public purposes:
(1) There is hereby imposed and there shall be collected an annual license fee
in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) for issuance of a license on businesses,
trades, professions, occupations and callings and upon the persons, firms and
corporations engaged therein within the county; provided, however, that this
license fee shall not be charged to any person whose gross receipts from a
business, trade, profession, occupation or calling are one hundred thirty-five
thousand dollars ($135,000.00) one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000.00)
or greater during the preceding calendar year and who is subject to levy and
payment of the annual license taxes as provided in subsection (a)(2) hereof; and
May 23, 2023
189
(2) There is hereby levied and there shall be collected the annual license taxes
at the rates and in the amounts hereinafter set forth in this chapter upon any
person, firm, or corporation engaged in a business, trade, profession, occupation
or calling subject to licensure in the county. Except as may be otherwise
authorized by specific or special provisions of chapter 37 (§ 58.1-3700 et seq.) of
the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and this chapter of the Roanoke County
Code, the annual license taxes shall not be imposed upon any person whose
gross receipts from a business, profession, trade, occupation or calling are less
than one hundred thirty-five thousand dollars ($135,000.00) one hundred fifty
thousand dollars ($150,000.00) during the preceding calendar year.
2. All ordinances or part of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are, repealed.
3. This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2023.
On motion of Supervisor North 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. The petition of Boing US Holdco, Inc. to obtain a special use
permit to operate a car wash on approximately 1.97 acres of land
zoned C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, and CVOD,
Clearbrook Village Overlay District, located at 3434 Buck
Mountain Road and 5147 Franklin Road, Cave Spring Magisterial
District (Philip Thompson, Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the request for the special use permit.
Supervisor Mahoney stated a significant number of documents in our
agenda materials references the proposed VDOT work next year. In terms of that
intersection. Do you see that VDOT work, if it comes about, having an adverse impact
on access ingress and egress to the car wash? Mr. Thompson responded it's going to
somewhat, so what it will do, from what his understanding of the drawings, right now,
you have that, so the four (4) intersections along Rt. 220, they're making plans for to
limit the through movement on the side streets. If you're on Buck Mountain coming onto
Rt. 220, you have a left turn, a left through to Walmart and then a right turn. I think with
the improvement that's made, you kind of get rid of that middle lane the left through. So
potentially if this was built today, you could wait probably and get into those left turn
lanes and make the left on. He thinks it's going to be more difficult once those
improvements are made at that intersection because you only have the one left turn
lane. Supervisor Mahoney asked with regard to the concrete median that's there on
May 23, 2023
190
Buck Mountain, would that remain or would that be extended? Mr. Thompson advised it
will remain.
Supervisor North stated he reached out to VDOT and the car wash will
have to deal with a right turn, out a right turn in and a right turn out, which means, that if
I'm someone living along Buck Mountain in Brandon Wood or Kings Chase or up there
off Starkey Road and I want to take my car to get washed, I'm going to go on down
Buck Mountain and I'm going to turn right in. I'm going to go in there, I'm going to get the
car washed. Then when I leave, I'm not going to be able to turn left to go back up Buck
Mountain and I'm going to have to take a little jaunt down 220 and I can't remember the
median size there today. Hopefully it's large enough to accommodate a few vehicles
that are going to have to make a U-turn, come back up, catch a left turn stoplight and go
back home up Buck Mountain Road or wherever I live off Starkey or over the Cave
Spring area. So that exists already today. It's just going to be something you have to
contend with tomorrow. So, the one question he has that he couldn't find an answer to
in this enormous monstrosity of a package was how many cars are going to be stacked
up before they start backing up on Buck Mountain Road? Mr. Thompson responded, so
go back to the concept plan, what they show from the pay stations, you can see on the
bottom where they're stacked up a little bit, there are 14 cars. There are two rows of
seven that come back and they only come back a certain distance, not even to the end
of the parking. So, you probably have at least that going back to the entrance; you
looking at 28 vehicles potentially. That was the worst-case scenario. It meets our
requirements, because there's a requirement for how much stacking you have to have
at a drive-through facility, which is what I'll see to consider.
Supervisor North then asked is the sidewalk along Franklin Road that was
planned already, never mind this application, is that correct? Mr. Thompson advised as
part of the application. What they're proposing at both this intersection of Buck
Mountain 220 and Indian Grave, is that there will be crosswalks across 220. This is
VDOT’s proposal. This is part of the project of Rt. 220 that has already been approved
advised Mr. Thompson.
Andrew Barclay spoke on behalf of the petitioner. Supervisor North
inquired about the price point system and any of these located any please else with Mr.
Barclay advising they have over 400 locations in the United States. We have different
levels for membership and thinks the lowest one's about 15 to $16.
Supervisor Mahoney stated this is a challenging intersection and did they
have any discussions with the credit union to have a frontage road with Mr. Barclay
responding in the negative.
Chairman Hooker opened and closed the public hearing with the following
citizens speaking on this agenda item:
Judy Hawks of 5314 Amanda Lane stated, “I'm asking this board to deny
the special use permit for a car wash in Clearbrook because it clearly violates the
Clearbrook Village overlay (CVOD), and according to Dr. Google, there are already 41
May 23, 2023
191
car washes in Roanoke. We don't need number 42, and now I hear we may get 43.
When I moved here 20 years ago, I knew the area was zoned commercial, but was so
impressed that the residents of this community created a plan for smart economic
growth, that it would embrace our culture and had the vision of a village type
development with nice shops, restaurants, and maybe a motel or two to welcome
travelers from the parkway in 220 into the valley. First it was the Walmart and now a car
wash. Is this really the best we can do? Is a board ever going to honor the overlay and
vision of growth that the residents who live here want? They dedicated their time and
energy to create the CVOD. For what? It's just a waste of time if you keep ignoring the
overlay and approving special use permits. We're not opposed to smart growth, and this
isn't about Willow Tree, but it would be awesome to incorporate the shop in their village.
The store amplifies the culture of Appalachia and the Blue Ridge. The artifacts, primitive
item in antiques from the area, all sorts of craft, pottery, jewelry and woodworking, all
made from local artisans. In fact, I have a picture of how one the garden is visualized.
The village could work, look like. We still have the opportunity to create something
unique and different to welcome travelers from the Parkway 220 into the valley. Think of
something like an upscale Fancy Gap, Meadows of Dan, Explore Park, Tuggle Gap and
other things that dot the Blue Ridge. We can promote tourism, economic growth and
have the village that our community works so hard to create. The other reason you
should deny the permit is the traffic. Doesn't take a traffic study or engineer to realize
the traffic is only going to get worse. You've already discussed the Buck Mountain issue,
but at Tanglewood you go from six lanes to four lanes and it's horrific. It backs up at
Clearbrook and that's only going to get worse. I remember a few years ago there were
plans for a second ingress egress at Buck Mountain Road in 220, but it was going to be
very expensive and the developer didn't have to pay for this, and we're going to make
the same mistake again. Or will the developer pay for the road improvements to
accommodate the traffic or must we wait until VDOT has the time and money to fix the
traffic problems? Thank you for your time. Please uphold the CVOD vision this
community has for growth.”
Shelby Campbell of 5498 Indian Grave Road stated she is one street over
from Buck Mountain Road. “I've been living there for the majority of my life, so I deal
with the traffic, the wrecks, the jam up. Sometimes I barely make it to my stop
\[inaudible\] to get home because I file the traffic. I'm also one of the vendors, a hundred
plus give or take, at Willow Tree Antiques since 2018. This place has really turned
around and I feel like we give so much back to the community and to Roanoke. I mean
you see on TV all the time, people say support the small businesses. That's who we
are. We are small businesses and we have grown tremendously. We are looked after by
our owner Robin Barker. She's done a tremendous job with us. I mean, I know, and
even in the parking lot, like y'all mentioned, when we are down there and we're trying to
leave, we have to sit there to either go, if we want to go to Walmart or if we want to go
and get on 220 or even find one to go home, we sit in that parking lot waiting for
someone to either let us out or they like to change. But it's been a big deal there with
May 23, 2023
192
the traffic, the way it is and everything and you sit and think about the stuff, it's there.
We're just a small community. That's all we ever have been. We'll never be a big town,
probably and when you think about what's there, we have two stoplights. We have a
dealership that changes in and out from one type of car to another. We have an empty
motel, we have a graveyard behind, we have a Walmart, an elementary school, a park,
fire station, rescue squad, 21 townhouses that's been pushed in behind the elementary
school that we filed against. But that didn't have to change. Two doctor's offices, a
rundown, excuse me, bug infected motel down the road, one convenience store, one
beauty shop, one tattoo shop, one piano shop, and another rundown restaurant's been
sitting vacant for many, many years. So, I don't want to see this car wash be squeezed
into this small community of family-owned people that know each other for generations
back. I just think if it doesn't work, it becomes an eyesore. Then you've labeled it as just
a car wash, so the next person that wants it, are they going to have to be a car wash?
Well, if it didn't do good the first time, it may not do good the second time. It's that like a
building where you can go in and paint it, stain it, add bricks to it, whatever, and make it
sellable again. But I just don't think it fits our community and we're not busy there and
we all have wells. We can wash our own car in our own yard. But this, just like I said, I
just, I'd hate to see this be taken away. We may not make the money that the carwash
might make, I don't know. But I just think we work hard to give back to our Valley and
we are known by so many people, visitors, people going in and out of states, people
coming in there. I'd appreciate it if y'all would stand for us and put this down that the
carwash should not fit in our community that we all love and have been there for so
many years to see you. Thank you.”
Marsha Underwood of 2909 Tamarack Trail stated, “I have been a
resident of Roanoke County for 53 years, a transplant from Indiana through GE,
choosing to stay in Roanoke County after being annexed by the city and wanting our
children to have the best education possible. I'm here not as a big business owner, not
as an attorney, but as a concerned resident of Roanoke County speaking from the
heart. Do visitors who have families in the area or people just traveling the 220 corridor
to other destinations stop and say, "Oh, there's a car wash, let's go check it out." No, I
don't think so. But I know firsthand and I have heard many times, "We love stopping in
at the Willow Tree when we visit," or, "I was driving by last weekend on my way to the
beach and saw the Willow Tree yard sale." This lady just had to stop, shop and that was
on her way to North Carolina taking her purchase treasures to share with her friends.
This would not happen if a carwash was on that corner. I know the Clearbrook area is a
close-knit community. Unfortunately, the owner of Willow Tree, a lifelong resident was
outbid by big business from out of state. Is this what we want from Roanoke County? To
not support those whose dreams or to have a business and choose Roanoke County as
their choice to have it? And not only is this one big business owner's dream, but also the
dreams of 75 vendors who have their little shops in Willow Tree Antiques and
Primitives. I am one of those vendors and I have been one for eight years. We love our
customers and are always so excited to hear how much they love browsing, shopping
May 23, 2023
193
and finding unique items, not just not found elsewhere, only at Willow Tree. Will they
say the same about a car wash? I don't think so. Being frequently at Willow Tree, I also
have observed firsthand the traffic and many accidents on the corner of Buck Mountain
Road and 220, there is not an easy access into this property. Would a carwash make
this a more difficult corner for traffic? Maybe so. In closing, I was at the planning
commissions meeting and I know now it is in your hands to make the final decision. Is
big business best or is it best to support your community? I think supporting your
community is best. Thank you so much. Oh and by the way, Willow Tree Antiques and
Primitives was voted platinum in the Roanoker Magazine's best of 2023. Thank you so
much.”
Supervisor Radford stated one of the speakers talked about the
Clearbrook Village Overlay District and that this petition does not meet the requirements
and asked Mr. Thompson to explain. Mr. Thompson advised the way he understands it
is that it happened is there was a citizens committee that was formed to develop the
design guidelines piece, and so in your document there's the design guidelines piece. It
talks about how the placement of buildings and the village concept and certain things
like that, about the architectural treatment and some of those things as well, and also
talked about a lot of issues that were site development related. A lot of those
requirements were incorporated into the overlay district ordinance, and so they're going
to have to meet those, one way or the other. But when you get to how it looks, right, the
architectural treatment, that's going to be more in the design guidelines piece and how
it's laid out and what they envisioned for that back in the late '90s, the 2000s, so that's
where it's probably inconsistent with that. Some of the design guidelines in the design
guideline document. Supervisor Radford then asked are we here because of the
special permit that is needed. Mr. Thompson responded the special use permit is
because of the C2 district, not the CVOD. The C2 district requires a special use permit
for a car wash.
Supervisor Mahoney commented he is not a fan of car washes. The Cave
Spring district already has four and this will make five. He agrees with many of the
comments that Ms. Hawks made. He has been around here too long and was part of
the process when we were putting in the car dealerships and the Walmart and the
overlay district was part of that and the design guidelines were part of that. He hates to
admit it, but in some respect, the County's attempt to accomplish I think what Ms.
Hawks is talking about, has not come to fruition. We had hoped that the overlay district
and the design guidelines would help jumpstart the development in that part of the
Clearbrook community and part of that initiative also included extending water and
sewer lines along Buck Mountain underneath the parkway. We had to get congressional
approval for that, to extend water and sewer to that part of Clearbrook, and it just hasn't
developed as we had hoped. With respect to this specific application, traffic is a problem
and for the life of me, he cannot imagine how the applicant will be successful. He thinks
it's going to be very challenging to get in and out, but at the same time, he does not
know if it's government's role to save somebody from their own financial decisions. If
May 23, 2023
194
you're successful, but fear that you will not be successful because it's so hard to get in
and out. Part of the headache for this site is VDOT, and I'm not blaming VDOT, please,
don't misinterpret me, but VDOT has certain regulations with respect to road cuts that
you can have on Rt. 220. So, this property has a substantial amount of frontage, but
VDOT does not allow the company to have another road cut directly onto Rt. 220, and
that has been true for Willow Tree. Before Willow Tree, it was a gun shop. They've all
had the same challenges with respect to road access. I think that's going to be a
problem, and that when VDOT goes through with its 2024 plans, it will make that
intersection even more challenging. But having said all that, I really don't see a basis to
deny the application. There was no further discussion.
ORDINANCE 052323-6 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO
BOING US HOLDCO, INC. TO OPERATE A CAR WASH ON
APPROXIMATELY 1.97 ACRES OF LAND ZONED C-2 (HIGH
INTENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) AND CVOD
(CLEARBROOK VILLAGE OVERLAY DISTRICT), LOCATED AT
3434 BUCK MOUNTAIN ROAD AND 5147 FRANKLIN ROAD
(TAX MAP NO: 088.03-02-01.00-0000), IN THE CAVE SPRING
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Boing US Holdco, Inc. has filed a petition for a special use permit to
operate a car wash on approximately 1.97 acres of land zoned C-2 (High Intensity
Commercial) District and CVOD (Clearbrook Village Overlay District), located at 3434
Buck Mountain Road and 5147 Franklin Road (Tax Map No: 088.03-02-01.00-0000), in
the Cave Spring Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 25, 2023, and
the second reading and public hearing were held on May 23, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on May 2, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission recommends approval of
the petition to obtain a special use permit, with two conditions.
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 meets the requirements of
Section 30-19-1 of the Roanoke County Code and that the proposed special use
conforms with the standards set forth in article IV, use and design standards of the
Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance.
2. The Board further finds that the proposed special use is in conformance
with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan, and will have a minimum adverse
impact on the surrounding neighborhood and community.
3. The special use permit is hereby approved, with the following
conditions:
May 23, 2023
195
a. The car wash shall be developed in substantial conformance
with the concept site plan and conceptual landscaping plan for
Take 5 Car Wash prepared by Pennoni Associates, Inc. dated
March 3, 2023, subject to any changes required during the
comprehensive site plan review process.
b. The car wash shall be constructed in substantial conformance
with the architectural renderings titled Take 5 Car Wash
Roanoke VA prepared by COR3 Design, LLC, subject to any
changes required during the building plan review process.
4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final
passage.
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to approve the ordinance, seconded by
Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, North, Radford
NAYS: Supervisors Peters, Hooker
3. The petition of Martie Murphy to obtain a special use permit to
operate a car wash on approximately 5.995 acres of land zoned C-
2 (High Intensity Commercial District), and C-2C (High Intensity
Commercial District with conditions) located at 3939 Valley
Gateway Boulevard, Vinton Magisterial District (Philip Thompson,
Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the request for special use permit.
Supervisor North commented this property was excavated by a prior owner or the
current owner and they abandoned the property with their plans for what we believe was
a grocery store. Mr. Thompson responded in the affirmative stating it was a Lidl grocery
store. Supervisor North noted there was a lot of granite rock issues there. You can see
the rocks still piled up. Has there been any concern about the applicant involving the
rock? Mr. Thompson advised it has been mentioned to the applicant, but has not heard
of any concerns. Supervisor North then asked if any market analysis was done by the
petitioner that was shared with staff during the application process? Mr. Thompson
responded in the negative. Supervisor North then asked if there have been any other
interested parties with respect to this property. Mr. Thompson responded in the
negative.
Chairman Hooker opened and closed the public hearing with no citizens to
speak on this agenda item.
Supervisor Peters commented he has heard from a lot of people. Along
that Rt. 460 corridor and thinks so has Supervisor North. His first response was is this
the highest and best use for this property; on top of that it is right on Rt. 460. In his
May 23, 2023
196
opinion, it would be a prime piece of land for retail shops or restaurants that everyone in
the Bonsack area is wanting more of. He struggled with this one.
Supervisor Radford wanted to give a counterpoint to what Supervisor
Peters is saying. He heard and appreciated all the emails. We operate in the free
enterprise and it's not up to us to say how many restaurants, car washes, hotels, motels
that we can build in there. The people might want have all those restaurants, where are
they? Why aren't they there now? Why is it taking them so long? We tore down of Ruby
Tuesdays in Cave Springs to put in a car wash. So, there's a clear good example. That
argument does not work. So, I side on the free enterprise and like Mr. Mahoney said, if
the applicant wants to take the risk, let them take the risk and push that project. If
they're successful, that's great. He also hears highest and best use, but they check all
the boxes to be able to put a car wash there. He just wanted to give you a counterpoint
to hear.
Supervisor Peters noted Chick-Fil-A just came in not that long ago. The
Lewis Scale Center just came in. The Kroger complex itself is not really that old. And
you look at, you got Applebee's. I mean that corridor has development purposes. Have I
potential is you've got the other homes that are on right on 460 just past the little scale
clinic that we put in. It's a main thoroughfare through there. That is one of our last
corridors to develop. And in my opinion, and I think that we need to be very strategic on
what we put down there. You're right, they could put a car wash down there, but what if
it's not successful? Then we have three car washes within a mile of each other. We
have the Blue Hills, this one and then the one that's already in the complex, literally right
beside this one. So, I guess that's my concern is that I'm hearing from the citizens and
I'm hearing what they're saying and that that's the reason for my comment.
Supervisor North noted that both gentlemen have good points; no five (5)
districts are the same. He cannot support this site for a car wash.
There was no further discussion.
ORDINANCE 052323-7 DENYING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO
MARTIE MURPHY TO OPERATE A CAR WASH ON
APPROXIMATELY 5.995 ACRES OF LAND ZONED C-2 (HIGH
INTENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) AND C-2C (HIGH
INTENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS),
LOCATED AT 3939 VALLEY GATEWAY BOULEVARD (TAX
MAP NO: 050.01-01-05.06-0000), IN THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Martie Murphy has filed a petition for a special use permit to operate
a car wash on approximately 5.995 acres of land which is split zoned C-2 (High Intensity
Commercial) District and C-2C (High Intensity Commercial) District with existing
May 23, 2023
197
conditions, located at 3939 Valley Gateway Boulevard (Tax Map No: 050.01-01-05.06-
0000), in the Vinton Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the said property contains the following two (2) conditions imposed
upon the parcel by Ordinance #072506-8 adopted on July 25, 2006:
(1) Before a certificate of occupancy can be issued for any building
constructed along the southern border of the property, a row of
staggered evergreen trees will be installed along said southern
border at or near the top of the slope above the existing storm
water detention facility. Trees will be spaced 12’ on center and will
extend from one end of the building or buildings along that border
to the other end. It is estimated that this would result in the planting
of no more than 45 trees.
(2) Screening shall be provided for HVAC rooftop units on the building
or buildings located along the southern border of the property in
order to shield those units from the view of residents situated
directly behind the Integrity Windows facility. Screening shall be in
the form of covers or parapet walls, and shall be a neutral color.
WHEREAS, the petitioner has not requested amendment or removal of the two
(2) conditions imposed upon the parcel by Ordinance #072506-8 adopted on July 25,
2006; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 25, 2023, and
the second reading and public hearing were held on May 23, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on May 2, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission recommends approval of
the petition to obtain a special use permit, with two conditions; and
WHEREAS, during the public hearing on May 23, 2023 the Board considered the
Planning Commission’s recommendation, considered the recommendation of County
staff, and thoroughly deliberated the petition; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
5. 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.
6. The Board further finds that the proposed special use will result in
substantial detriment to the community.
7. The special use permit is hereby denied.
May 23, 2023
198
On motion of Supervisor Peters to deny the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, North, Hooker
NAYS: Supervisors Mahoney, Radford
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 052323-8 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM H- 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 May 23,
2023, designated as Item H - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 13 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes – February 28, 2023
2. Ordinance accepting and appropriating funds in the amount of $51,000 for
fiscal year 2024 for shuttle service to the National Park Service's McAfee
Knob Trailhead Parking Lot, Catawba Magisterial District (Second Reading)
3. Ordinance accepting and appropriating $187,242 in Virginia Department of
Transportation Open Container Funding for the West Roanoke River
Greenway Phase 1 (VDOT UPC No. 97171) Project, Catawba Magisterial
District (Second Reading)
4. The petition of Larry and Rhonda Conner to obtain a special use permit to
operate a short-term rental on approximately 1.32 acres of land zoned R-1,
Low Density Residential District, located at 5859 Bent Mountain Road,
Windsor Hill Magisterial District (First Reading and request for Second
Reading and Public Hearing)
5. The petition of Parker Design Group, Inc. to obtain a special use permit for
religious assembly on approximately 2.91 acres of land zoned C-2, High
Intensity Commercial District, located on Oakland Boulevard between 233
Hershberger Road and 4843 Oakland Boulevard, Hollins Magisterial District
(First Reading and request for Second Reading and Public Hearing)
6. Resolution approving the first Amendment to the County Administrator’s
Employment Agreement
7. Resolution approving the first Amendment to the County Attorney’s
Employment Agreement
May 23, 2023
199
8. Confirmation of appointment to the Community Policy & Management Team
(CPMT); Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization (TPO);
Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission; Roanoke Valley-Alleghany
Regional Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Committee;
Virginia Western Community College Board; Western Virginia Water Authority
9. Resolution accepting a donation of a recycling trailer from Cox
Communications for additional capacity at Fallowater Lane
10. Resolution requesting the U.S. Department of Transportation fund a Charging
and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant to install Electric Vehicle
Chargers in Roanoke
11. Request to approve fiscal agent agreement for the Regional Center for
Animal Care and Protection (RCACP
12. Request to approve a fiscal agent agreement with the Roanoke Valley
Resource Authority
13. Request to approve a fiscal agent agreement with the Western Virginia
Regional Jail Authority
On motion of Supervisor North to approve the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Radford and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 052323-8.a ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $51,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024
FOR SHUTTLE SERVICE TO THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE’S
MCAFEE KNOB TRAILHEAD PARKING LOT IN THE CATAWBA
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the National Park Service’s McAfee Knob Overlook is one of the
most highly visited locations along the Appalachian National Scenic Trail; and
WHEREAS, the proposed shuttle service was studied by the National Park
Service as the baseline service scenario in the February 2021 Appalachian National
Scenic Trail, Triple Crown Area Transit Feasibility Study; and
WHEREAS, the proposed shuttle service is included as part of Recommendation
1.Z. in the Roanoke Valley Transit Vision Plan, which was approved by the Roanoke
Valley Transportation Planning Organization on September 22, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the proposed shuttle service to the National Park Service’s McAfee
Knob Trailhead Parking Lot meets the goals of the Department of Rail and Public
Transportation (DRPT) Demonstration Project Assistance grant by offering a creative
approach in determining a new travel market for public transportation, as well as by
improving the utilization and productivity of an existing public transportation service with
a connection to the Smart Way bus route at the I-81 Exit 140 Park and Ride; and
May 23, 2023
200
WHEREAS, Roanoke County received $40,800 in Demonstration Project
Assistance grant funding through DRPT for fiscal year 2024, which provides eighty (80)
percent of net operating costs to operate the McAfee Knob Trailhead Shuttle; and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County agrees to provide $10,200 for fiscal year 2024,
which totals twenty (20) percent of net operating costs to match the DRPT operating
funding; 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 May 9, 2023, and the
second reading was held on May 23, 2023.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the sum of $51,000 is accepted and appropriated for the purpose of
the McAfee Knob Trailhead Shuttle program.
2. That this ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to approve the ordinance, seconded by
Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 052323-8.b ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
$187,242 IN VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OPEN CONTAINER FUNDING FOR THE WEST ROANOKE
RIVER GREENWAY PHASE 1 (VDOT UPC 97171) PROJECT,
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Roanoke County desires to construct segments of the Roanoke
River Greenway between Montgomery County and Franklin County to complete the
backbone of the Roanoke Valley greenway system; and
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, on October 25, 2022, the Board of Supervisors approved the re-
allocation of $4,524,105 in previously appropriated SMART SCALE funding and the re-
allocation of $4,352,469 in previously appropriated Surface Transportation Block Grant
Program funding to the West Roanoke River Greenway Phase 1 project grant account;
WHEREAS, in September 2022, the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) allocated $187,242 in Open Container funds to this project to satisfy a funding
deficit prior to project phasing; and
May 23, 2023
201
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 May 9, 2023, and the
second reading of this ordinance was held on May 23, 2023.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia
as follows:
1. That the sum of $187,242 in Open Container funds is hereby accepted
from the Virginia Department of Transportation and appropriated to the
West Roanoke River Greenway Phase 1 project grant account; and
2. That Roanoke County hereby agrees to continue fulfilling the project
administration agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation to
provide the necessary oversight to ensure the project is developed in
accordance with all state and federal requirements for design, right of way
acquisition and construction of a federally funded transportation project; and
3. That the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby grants authority for
the County Administrator, Deputy County Administrator or Assistant County
Administrator to execute project agreements.
4. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to approve the ordinance, seconded by
Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker
NAYS: None
A-052323-8.c
A-052323-8.d
RESOLUTION 052323-8.e APPROVING THE FIRST
AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR’S
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors and Richard L. Caywood entered into an
employment agreement on December 14, 2021; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Board and Mr. Caywood to amend the
agreement dated December 14, 2021, in order to compensate Mr. Caywood in an
amount commensurate with the salaries of County Administrators in comparable
localities throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, as follows:
May 23, 2023
202
1. The proposed First Amendment to the County Administrator’s
Employment Agreement, dated May 23, 2023, which is hereby attached to
this Resolution, is approved; the Chairman is authorized to execute the
agreement on behalf of the Board.
2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 052323-8.f APPROVING THE FIRST
AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors and Peter S. Lubeck entered into an
employment agreement on January 14, 2020, and subsequently entered into a second,
revised agreement on June 8, 2021, which replaced the prior agreement; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Board and Mr. Lubeck to amend the agreement
dated June 8, 2021 in order to compensate Mr. Lubeck in an amount commensurate
with the salaries of County Attorneys in comparable localities throughout the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, as follows:
1. The proposed First Amendment to the County Attorney’s Employment
Agreement, dated May 23, 2023, which is hereby attached to this
Resolution, is approved; the Chairman is authorized to execute the
agreement on behalf of the Board.
2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker
NAYS: None
A-052323-8.g
RESOLUTION 052323-8.h ACCEPTING THE DONATION OF A
RECYCLING TRAILER FROM COX COMMUNICATIONS FOR
ADDITIONAL CAPACITY AT FALLOWATER LANE
May 23, 2023
203
WHEREAS, in 2005, Roanoke County initiated a mobile drop-off recycling
program which has grown since its inception to include trailers at the Brambleton
Center, Cox Communications, William Byrd Middle School and Glenvar Middle School;
and
WHEREAS, the expanded recycling program was due in part to the provision of a
drop-off location and donation of trailers to the County by Cox Communications as a
part of their Cox Conserves environmental program—Cox Communications has
corporately invested over one hundred million dollars in sustainability and conservation
projects, to include initiatives related to emissions, water conservation and landfill
impacts; and
WHEREAS, Cox Communications continues their partnership and investment in
recycling by providing use of their property on Fallowater Lane as a drop-off location for
all County citizens, where the County currently has three trailers; and
WHEREAS, Cox Communications would like to donate another trailer to handle
the heavy flow of traffic at this site. The price of the new trailer is $21,220 and matches
the specification requirements of the County; and
WHEREAS, Solid Waste employees will continue to be responsible for hauling
the recyclable materials to the processor and maintenance of the trailer and site.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, as follows:
1. The Board hereby accepts the donation of the recycling trailer.
2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 052323-8.i REQUESTING THAT THE U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FUND A CHARGING
AND FUELING INFRASTRUCTURE DISCRETIONARY GRANT
TO INSTALL ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING
INFRASTRUCTURE AT EXPLORE PARK, VINTON
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors is committed to
advocating for and improving transportation infrastructure in both the County and in
the region; and
WHEREAS, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funded the Charging and Fueling
Infrastructure (CFI) Discretionary Grant Opportunity to strategically deploy charging and
alternative fueling infrastructure to accelerate an electrified and alternative fuel
May 23, 2023
204
transportation system that is convenient, affordable, reliable, equitable, accessible and
safe; and
WHEREAS, locating electric vehicle charging stations at Explore Park meets the
requirements of the CFI Community Program; and
WHEREAS, installing electric vehicle charging stations at Explore Park will
provide a needed charging station along the Blue Ridge Parkway and in the rural area
of Roanoke County that will also be beneficial for visitors to Explore Park.
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 fund a CFI Discretionary Grant through the Community
Program to locate electric vehicle charging stations at Explore Park.
2. That the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby commits to
provide a twenty percent (20%) matching contribution for a CFI Discretionary Grant, up
to and not to exceed $200,000.
3. That the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors hereby grants authority for
the County Administrator, Deputy County Administrator of Assistant County
Administrator to execute project agreements for an approved CFI Discretionary Grant.
On motion of Supervisor Mahoney to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker
NAYS: None
A-052323-8.j
A-052323-8.k
A-052323-8.l
IN RE: CITIZENS’ COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Greg Sasnof of 806 Huff Road, Pilot, Virginia stated, “I'm proud to serve the citizens of
Roanoke County as both fire captain and the president of Local 31 94 Roanoke County
Professional firefighters and paramedics. On behalf of the professional firefighters that
serve our citizens and travelers through Roanoke County, we thank you for the time you
have spent over the years meeting with your constituents and our members about our
shared concerns and helping us find solutions. In those years we've developed good
relationships and these relationships didn't happen overnight.
We had a lot to work through initially, but in the end, I believe it is evident that our union
is dedicated to its members in making our county a better place for our citizens and the
May 23, 2023
205
employees as are the Board of Supervisors and our county administration. The step
plan that you approved earlier shows how much Roanoke County values our public
safety employees and ensures that Roanoke County will continue to deliver superior
services to our citizens and remain the employer of choice for public safety
professionals in our region. Thank you all. Appreciate every one of you.”
Charles Wertilik of 2317 Bloomfield Avenue in the Summerfield
subdivision stated, I'm here because of Glo Fiber. “I've become very, very sick of
paying the high cost and putting up with the bad service of Cox Communications. But
we were pretty much stuck with them and I didn't feel like going to one of the satellite
dish possibilities. So, when Glo Fiber came in, and although May they made a big mess
of the subdivision, I'm glad that they did come in because they have afforded a much
more cost-effective and reasonably priced situation for internet and TV. And so here I
am being happy that this is happening. I have signed up with them and I've got the
internet part of it. So yesterday a gentleman from Glo Fiber came to the house. He was
soliciting business. He wasn't aware that I had the set up already. So I asked him about
the TV part of it. I said, I'm hoping that this will be coming through soon. I understand
that it's in process. And he said, no, it's not going to happen. The Board of Supervisors
have stonewalled. So, I'm here to ask you folks today, is this true? And if so, why?
Supervisor Peters advised we have a franchise agreement with Cox, for ten years that
will run until the 2020’s, which makes television exclusive. Supervisor Radford added
Glo Fiber is more competitive with the internet versus Cox. They'll give you the
streaming. You can stream TV through Glo fiber and their rate is a lot lower than Cox in
terms of the cable, the broadband. I mean, Glo Fiber is going to a competitor for
broadband, not cable TV. Mr. Wertilik responded, “so we’re stuck with Cox until 2029.”
Supervisor Radford stated for cable TV, but not for internet.
Supervisor Peters stated he knows we normally do our comments at the
end, but he would like to comment now, because the guys and ladies in the room that
are here with now, and we probably won’t see them here at 7:00 p.m., but he wants to
recognize our fire and EMS. This is EMS week from the State of Virginia where we
recognize our EMS providers. Last week we recognized our law enforcement. He just
wanted to let them know how much we appreciate them.
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Radford 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, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker
NAYS: None
1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report
2. Outstanding Debt Report
May 23, 2023
206
3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of April
30, 2023
4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of April 30, 2023
5. Accounts Paid – April 30, 2022
rd
Chairman Hooker recessed to the 3 floor for work session at 4:45 p.m.
IN RE: WORK SESSION
1. Work session to discuss the employee engagement study results
(Richard L. Caywood, County Administrator; Judy England-
Joseph, Consultant, Institute for Public Sector Employee
Engagement)
Mr. Caywood provided an overview and turned the meeting over to Judy
England-Joseph who provided a PowerPoint presentation.
Supervisor North commented pay and benefits is the most important.
The work session was held from 4:54 p.m. until 5:47 p.m.
Chairman Hooker opened the meeting at 7:01 p.m.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. The petition of Terio and Lisa Comerose to remove the existing
proffered conditions on approximately 14.713 acres of land zoned
AVCS (Agricultural/Village Center District with conditions and
special use permit) and AR (Agricultural/Residential District)
located at 9651 Bent Mountain Road, 9744 Tinsley Lane, and 9786
Tinsley Lane, Windsor Hills Magisterial District (Philip Thompson,
Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the request for the special use permit.
Andrew Stover, representing Mr. and Ms. Comerose provided brief
overview.
Chairman Hooker opened and closed the public hearing with no citizens
speaking on this agenda item.
There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 052323-9 REMOVING THE EXISTING PROFFERED
CONDITION ON APPROXIMATELY 14.713 ACRES OF LAND
ZONED AVCS (AGRICULTURAL/VILLAGE CENTER DISTRICT
May 23, 2023
207
WITH CONDITIONS AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT) AND AR
(AGRICULTURAL/RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT), LOCATED AT 9651
BENT MOUNTAIN ROAD, 9744 TINSLEY LANE, AND 9786
TINSLEY LANE, LOCATED IN THE WINDSOR HILLS
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (TAX MAP NOS: 103.00-02-21.00-
0000, 103.00-02-21.01-0000, AND 103.00-02-23.00-0000)
WHEREAS, Terio and Lisa Comerose have filed a petition to remove a proffered
condition on approximately 14.713 acres (three separate parcels) located at 9651 Bent
Mountain Road, 9744 Tinsley Lane, and 9786 Tinsley Lane in the Windsor Hills
Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the said property contains the following one (1) condition imposed
upon the parcel by Ordinance #121311-12 adopted on December 13, 2011:
(3) The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site
plan prepared by Pierson Engineering and Surveying, dated
November 28, 2011, and the architectural renderings prepared by
Interactive Design Group dated July 18, 2011.
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 25, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on May 2, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission recommends approval of
the rezoning as requested to remove the one (1) proffered condition currently existing
on the property; and
WHEREAS, the second reading and public hearing were held on May 23, 2023.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
8. The Board finds that the proposed rezoning request is consistent with the
purpose and intent of the County’s adopted comprehensive plan, is good zoning
practice, and will not result in substantial detriment to the community.
9. Accordingly, the Board approves the rezoning request; the following
condition imposed by Ordinance #121311-12 adopted on December 13, 2011 is hereby
removed as follows:
(1) The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the site
plan prepared by Pierson Engineering and Surveying, dated
November 28, 2011, and the architectural renderings prepared by
Interactive Design Group dated July 18, 2011.
10. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final
passage.
On motion of Supervisor Radford to approve the ordinance, seconded by
Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
May 23, 2023
208
AYES: Supervisors Peters, Mahoney, North, Radford, Hooker
NAYS: None
2. The petition of Hugo Jimenez to 1) rezone approximately 1.24
acres of land from C-1 (Low Intensity Commercial District) to I-1
(Low Intensity Industrial District), and to 2) obtain a special use
permit to operate a construction yard located at 5681 Starkey
Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Director
of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the request for the rezoning.
Petitioner Hugo Jimenez was in attendance and outlined his request to
rezone and a special use permit.
Chairman Hooker opened and closed the public hearing with the following
citizens to speak on this agenda item:
Steve Cronemeyer of 5615 Rockbridge Court, Chantilly Place thanked the
Board for the opportunity to speak in opposition to this request. He stated, “As you can
probably already tell I'm a slow talker, but I'll try to keep with the three minutes as best I
can. Thank you. I oppose this request for two reasons. First, it's negative impact on the
quality of life for those of us residing at this particular end of Starkey Road. Second, this
rezoning request does not comply with Roanoke County's comprehensive plan or with
the requirements for zoning as an I1 low intensity industrial zone. Please allow me to
elaborate on these two points if I could. First to neighborhood impact. The impact on our
neighborhood is really a tale of almost two different and completely different Starkey
roads. The other end of Starkey near 419 is a busy corridor and heavily developed with
a mix of commercial and industrial properties. In fact, this end of Starkey is where the
applicant currently has his business. On the other end, our end of Starkey Road from
Crescent Boulevard to Buck Mountain Road is two-lane, quiet and primarily residential.
It's as if we're talking about two completely different Starkey Roads. A landscaping
operation with 11 trailers, seven pickup trucks, three dump trucks and excavators’ tors
will bring unwanted traffic, noise and dust. And is wholly out of character with our end of
Starkey Road. And as was mentioned, the applicant already operates at the other end
of Starkey Road, but this will bring more traffic to our end of the Starkey Road. And
these vehicles and the equipment entering Starkey Road right at the mouth of the new
roundabout that's under construction during the morning and the afternoon. Commuting
hours when the workers are coming to and from this site will create an accident hazard
and totally undermine the traffic flow and benefits of the new roundabout that's being
built. And those living across the street from this parcel as I do, will see our quality of life
and property values decline by introducing industrial zoning to a quiet residential
neighborhood. Turning to the zoning issues. First, the comprehensive plan indicates
future land use designation at a parcel is core with appropriate land use types including
May 23, 2023
209
retail, personal services, offices and institutional uses. This request as described earlier,
falls in the category of a limited industrial use. According to the comprehensive plan,
limited industrial uses are only allowed in core areas that have been designated as
economic opportunity areas. This parcel is not located in a designated economic
opportunity area, and the fact that this requirement dates to 1998 doesn't change the
fact that it's still a requirement of the comprehensive plan. For this reason alone, this
request should be denied. Second, the verbiage for section 30-61 for low intensity
industrial districts notes that these areas are primarily designated based on the
suitability of the land in terms of slope and freedom from flooding. As the flood plain
map clearly has shown, the vast majority of this parcel is in a flood way or a flood plain.
So, from a flooding perspective, the parcel does not qualify to be rezoned to I1. In
summary I ask that you deny this application due to its nonconformance with both the
county's comprehensive plan and the requirements for I1 zoning, it's violation of
Roanoke County stormwater regulations and how it will totally change the character of
our neighborhood. Thank you for the opportunity. Consider my comments.”
Kathy Vanness of 5615 Rockbridge Court stated, “My husband and I
recently moved there and we attended the public hearing earlier in the month. I'd also
just like for the record to state my opposition to the proposal. Steve has covered a lot of
the things we've talked about in our household and with our neighbors there as we've
gotten to know the area. But I just wanted to point out a couple of other things from my
perspective, the water issue within the floodplain. In the hearing last time, we were
informed that there would not be any stockpiling of materials, which could be in danger
of being run off during a flood situation. And it wasn't clear how that would be monitored.
We know that landscaping companies, that's just part of their trade and I can't imagine
that there would not be a time when a trailer would be filled with a mulch or there might
not be materials on that site, even temporarily. So, I just wondered how that would be
monitored by the county to ensure that that would not endanger the watershed there in
the event of a flood. Given this fragile state of all of our waters, why would the county
purposely endorse a known risk if we could avoid something like that? And how would
that be monitored? During the hearing, I learned that the applicant operated a similar
construction yard. The one person who spoke in support of that application was the
owner of that property, who would certainly have a personal benefit from the rezoning
taking place. I just wondered, given the concern of the current permanent residence
who live in that area, how the business opportunity of one person, who's not a resident
of the county, could outweigh the concerns of the many, many people who have
expressed a concern in that area, who make their homes there, who own property there
and are concerned about their property values? I just wanted the board of supervisors
to consider who their allegiance is to? Residents, current residents of the county, or a
business owner who's already operating in the county, already paying taxes presumably
on his business, but the many real estate taxpayers in the area that would outweigh the
one business who presumably would continue to operate at his current site if he's not
issued this rezoning request. I appreciate your time tonight. Thank you very much.”
May 23, 2023
210
Fred Corbett of 5511 Stearnes Avenue stated, “He lives a couple of blocks
away from the proposed rezoning location. I sent all the supervisors at a letter or email,
excuse me, an email. Did y'all, everybody get a chance to read that? Okay, if you read
all my points there, another thing I wanted to bring up too was that it was mentioned
earlier that the planning commission approved this on a vote. But the vote was two to
one, so it's not really unanimous. It was unanimous, but I guess it was two to one, but
some of the commissioners weren't there at the primary commission. Just wanted to
point that out. I just do have some strong feelings about this. I did send you all some
pictures of the conceptual maps as well, and I pointed some things out there about what
other companies have done in the area to shield their property and things like that.
Having lived in that community for many years and my grandparents had that property
over there for years. I bought a lot from them and built my house back in 1989. But I
have another house. I've been back there since 1976, so I've been in the neighborhood
for a long, long time, my whole life, basically... adult life. But I just hate to see anything
like this changed. Our community is a very close-knit community. Most of the citizens
have been there for years and years. We were very conscientious about what we do,
pay our tax and all that. We'd just like for you to consider denying this request because
we want to keep our neighborhood like it's been for eons. Thank you, folks, for the time.”
Michele Meinhart of 1486 Hollybrook Road in Salem, which is Roanoke
County, stated, “I have a house in Roanoke County. I'm very vested in our community. I
am hoping to sell this property to my landscaper, who's been providing landscaping
services in Roanoke County for quite a few years. He's done a great job of maintaining
the property. It looks great now and it has for the entire time that I've owned it. He had
to ask for rezoning to the industrial, because to operate a landscaping business. He
wasn't allowed to park his trucks with the current commercial. But I'm sure you know
that whole area around that building is commercial, except for across the street is a
residential home, but then commercial all to the sides. I think he's done a great job for
our community and I hope he's able to just continue operating his business. Thank you.”
Linda Kolnok of 5644 Rockbridge Court stated, “and I'm president of the
Chantilly Place Homeowner Association. Our little street is made up of 17 condos and
our street is directly across from Friendship Rehab on Starkey Road. I am here to
represent the people that live on this quiet street. I would like everyone that lives on
Rock Bridge Court to raise their hand to show that we do not support this rezoning from
commercial to industrial district, so that a special use permit to operate a construction
yard can be obtained. The main concern is letting a construction landscape company
move in across the small bridge from the much-needed roundabout that the government
is putting in at Starkey and Buck Mountain Road to relieve the traffic congestion. This
business is going to cause traffic problems when dump trucks, pickup trucks with
trailers, and pickups with equipment try to turn left onto their property after they have
come through the roundabout from Buck Mountain.
This property is sitting in a flood plain and its realty flat number three of section 30-74
Flood Plain Overlay District of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance states,
May 23, 2023
211
"stockpiling of materials in the flood way is prohibited." Who is going to regulate this?
Do you think that he is not going to store mulch, gravel, and Excedrin if he gets a good
deal? We have a lot of small to large vehicle traffic noise, and traffic backs up to our
street several times a day. We don't need more large vehicle traffic to cause problems
on Starkey Road. Also, our concerns are pollution, equipment leaks especially into
nearby creek, noise, dust and being in an eyesore. This is a residential area from our
street up to Starkey and we would like to see most of it stay that way south of us. We
are asking you to vote no on this rezoning. Thank you.”
“Lew McClung of 1486 Hollybrook Road in Salem stated, “There have
been some comments about the flood way and flood plain. I own McClung Lumber. The
structure there was recently burned to the ground, but we operated in a flood plain for
many years. In fact, my first day of bringing the computer online was the flood of '85.
Not a good day. And we got flooded. We had about three feet of water. There is no
better business in the world than one that can get off the property quickly. My dad's car
got off the property by going down the creek next to the building. So, when it floods, you
don't want to be on it. The fact of stockpiling material and all those things... I think the
neighbors will be vigilant enough to monitor that type of activity. So, I don't think that
that's a reason for concern. The whole point of the roundabout that's going in is to
reduce traffic. The only problem I've seen with roundabouts is people not knowing how
to negotiate them. And that is, it says yield, not stop. You put your signal on when
exiting so that people know whether they can enter it. It's a pretty easy process. The
stop signs alone that they've put in for the process have helped the traffic. Traffic backs
up on Starkey Road heavily. That would be a problem for anybody, anytime. I tried to
get out of that property, I was just waiting for someone to be off their phone long enough
to let me through. But now the roundabout will take care of that stack. I do feel that this
business is not going to be an impact. In fact, if you drove it and looked now, there's a
light buffer of trees currently in the area where he's proposing to improve that buffer. As
you come down the property, you see the house and then you see... It's a very little bit
of driveway. If you're paying attention to what's in front of you, which is also a rarity, at
times, then by the time you can look back on the property, you've got to be doing that.
Or the buffer that's there already is quite adequate. I think the increased buffer, and... I
do feel that he added all those extra vehicles and things so that vigilant neighbors
wouldn't say, "oh, you only showed three trailers before and now you've got four." I think
he loaded the property with what he could put there, so that he could hit the max. This
business is not going to have a negative impact on the neighborhood and I hope you'll
pass it. Thank you.”
Tommy Smith of 5627 Rockbridge Court stated, “. My wife and I live right
around the corner from the proposed site that's in question.
First of all, thank you for your service to the county. Thank you for allowing just regular
citizens like us to express what we think about things. Great country to live in. I wanted
you to know that my wife and I are strongly opposed to this proposed construction. I'm
going to try to give you five reasons unless the clock runs out on me. I wrote it down so I
May 23, 2023
212
won't ramble, okay? First of all, locating a construction yard at the proposed address will
affect the property values and the way of life for the folks that live there. In Chantilly
Place, I'm selfish because that's where I live. But right across from that is Crescent
Heights, one of the oldest communities in South County, and they're going to be
affected by this and have already been affected by some of the changes that have
taken place. Other neighborhoods not too far away that may not even know what's
going on are going to be affected by the next thing I want to talk about, which is the flow
of the traffic. I'm sorry, but this construction will increase the flow of heavy equipment on
our end of Starkey Road. We can't do a thing about what's going on on the other end
because it's already there. But we can stand up and object to have an hour end of
Starkey Road end up just like the other end of Starkey Road and have our community
affected. We are thrilled with the roundabout that's going in there. It's been needed.
We're looking forward to it. But negotiating a roundabout, most of us do know how to
negotiate a roundabout. But it's going to be difficult to negotiate a roundabout with 10
dump trucks going through it at peak traffic times. Like in the morning, people going to
work, school, or coming home in the evening and the workmen coming in at the same
time. So, it is going to create a problem. The problem with the extra traffic is also going
to create a safety hazard. I'm a selfish man. I've got six grandchildren that drive through
there. And they come to see their grandmother to eat chicken. And I hate the thought
that they're going to dodge 10 dump trucks to get there. I'm serious about that. We all
worry about our family when they're on the road. I do think that it is going to be a safety
hazard having all of that extra traffic in that area. Also concerned that changing this
zoning, making this zoning request take place, is going to make it a lot harder to ever
say no to the next person that comes along, regardless of which area they might be in.
Our neighborhoods can't just keep on eroding from businesses that are moving into
them. I think everything else that I have written down here has already been said, and
I'm not going to bore you for hearing it over and over. But I just want you to know that
we strongly object to this construction there. And this has nothing to do with Mr.
Jimenez and his integrity or his honesty. He's promised that he'll keep this place clean
and going. I know he'll do everything in his power to do it, but the very nature of that
business is going to be very, very difficult to do that. Thank you very much for your
time.”
Supervisor Mahoney commented, “Listening to the citizens and reading
their emails, I hear three major objections to the application. The first one is traffic, and I
think there will be some negative traffic impacts. At the same time, Mr. Jimenez is
operating his existing business half mile up the road on Starkey. Now that's different
there, as Mr. Cronemeyer indicated, it's Starkey, there is four lanes wide and this area is
two lanes wide. I think we all know, or at least if you live in that area, and I've lived here
May 23, 2023
213
30, 38 years, and I probably go through that intersection four or five times a week. That
part of Starkey and Buck Mountain is the shortcut. It's the cut through. A lot of the trucks
from the fuel terminal don't go out on 419. They go down Starkey, go down Buck
Mountain, to get on 220 heading south. I know when my wife and I go to Walmart, we
don't go down 419 and 220. We go down Starkey and Buck Mountain. There is a
tremendous amount of traffic there and I would really hope that the roundabout solves a
lot of that problem. The second objection is flooding. If you look at the flood maps,
almost all the property's in flood plain or flood way. I think what makes a difference
though, as was mentioned earlier, it's not as though the applicant is building a new
building, which would be a problem and maybe potentially a violation, depending where
you put it in the flood way regulations. Most of the activity is going to be vehicles. I think
as Mr. McClung indicated, you can move vehicles when it starts to flood. While I
understand the flooding problem, I think that can be minimized and alleviated. The one
problem clearly would be if you don't get the vehicles out of the way in time, then you
run the risk of gasoline, diesel, oil, fuel, getting into that little creek, that little tributary
that feeds Back Creek. The third big objection is the incompatibility of this use with the
neighborhood. That, I think, is the real problem area. You have industrial use versus
residential uses. As I look at that, it's almost as though Starkey is the dividing line
between the different uses. On the west side of Starkey you have more commercial and
industrial uses. On the east side on Starkey and then heading up Buck Mountain, you
have more residential uses. Although I was not on the Board at the time, the county I
think opened the door for more commercial and industrial uses when it rezoned the
property for the Friendship Manor Rehab Facility. I think it also opened the door,
probably correctly, when we rezoned the property for Virginia Varsity, that's back around
the corner. I think that adds to the compatibility mix of this area. I would hope that the
Starkey Road could act as a dividing line between commercial and industrial and
residential. But I understand the concern of the citizens that once you open up that
door, then it opens up the door to other uses kind of bleeding over that line. What
tripped me up was when you look at what we have to make findings on before we can
support this, we have to make a finding that this use "will not result in substantial
detriment to the community." I think this application touches all the bases except that
one base. So, in my perspective, I see and hear the potential detriment to the
community. For that reason, Madam Chairman, I would make a motion to deny this
application because I think it will result in a substantial detriment to the community.
Supervisor North stated, in his opinion, the site's very intense. It's very
small for what I see, and I've rode by it Sunday and slowly looked at it. Traffic's
congested so I'd give that a negative. To buffer this plan, is a positive. Looks like there's
some good buffer there and I'll have to tell you this, the floodplain, if this was me, I
wouldn't build a chicken coop in a floodplain period. But to each his own. If that's the
way you want to invest your money, that's your business. Traffic is the same amount of
traffic that exists today because the petitioner has a facility already on that road. That's
May 23, 2023
214
a positive. There's no storage that's going to be there, that's a positive because some
people were concerned about that. So, for that reason, he plans on supporting this
because at the end of the day, it doesn't have a thing to do with your evaluation of your
property. And if you don't believe me, you can ask anyone on our staff, including the
assessor's office, and they'll tell you the same thing. So, I think this is going to be okay
in the long run and everything's going to be good.
Supervisor Radford commented he thinks this is a great plan to reuse this
property. It has been vacant for a long time. It's not an eyesore. I remember removing
those proffered conditions, so it would give the owner the ability to release it and reuse
it. I think it's being treated unfairly, being called industrial. So, it trips over because of
the parking by the vehicles overnight. He has some commercial property and people
park their vehicles, which are not supposed to. He does not think this will affect the real
estate value. All you have to do is look at your assessment that you just received
several months ago. We have a housing problem, a shortage, and our values in
Roanoke County are going up right now. He thinks that roundabout, from my time
building those, that roundabout is really going to help that congestion at that point. He
agrees with Mr. North, even though Mr. Jimenez is already at one end of Starkey, he
still travels in both directions. So, if he's going to move down to this point, he's still going
to travel in two directions. So, I don't see where the traffic is going to increase. And Mr.
Mahoney, you're right. When you go from the west side of Starkey, you can see the
influence of commercial and industrial and thinks that is the dividing line.
Supervisor Mahoney moved to deny the request, which was seconded by
Supervisor Hooker and was not carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker
NAYS: Supervisors Peters, North, Radford
Supervisor Radford moved to approve with the outside storage of
materials on site prohibited. The motion was seconded by Supervisor North and was
passed.
ORDINANCE 052323-10 1) REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.24
ACRES OF LAND FROM C-1 (LOW INTENSITY COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT) TO I-1C (LOW INTENSITY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
WITH A CONDITION) AND 2) GRANTING A SPECIAL USE
PERMIT TO OPERATE A CONSTRUCTION YARD LOCATED AT
5681 STARKEY ROAD, IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT (TAX MAP NO: 087.18-01-40.00-0000)
WHEREAS, Hugo Jimenez is requesting to rezone approximately 1.24 acres
from C-1 (Low Intensity Commercial) District to I-1C (Low Intensity Industrial) District
with one condition on approximately 1.24 acres of land located at 5681 Starkey Road,
May 23, 2023
215
identified as Roanoke County Tax Map No: 087.18-01-40.00-0000 (hereinafter referred
to as the “subject property”); and
WHEREAS, Hugo Jimenez is also requesting a special use permit to operate a
construction yard on the subject property; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 25, 2023, and
the second reading and public hearing were held on May 23, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on May 2, 2023; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the petition as
requested, with one condition associated with the requested special use permit; 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 Hugo Jimenez to rezone the subject property from C-1
(Low Intensity Commercial District) to I-1C (Low Intensity Industrial District
with one condition) is approved, with the following proffered condition:
a. The Property owner hereby proffers that the property shall only be
developed and used for the following purposes: general office,
medical office, business or trade schools, communication services,
garden center, personal improvement services, and veterinary
hospital/clinic. In addition to the uses listed above, the property
owner proffers that a construction yard may be allowed on the
property with an approved special use permit.
2. The Board finds that the proposed rezoning request is consistent with the
purpose and intent of the County’s adopted comprehensive plan, is good
zoning practice, and will not result in substantial detriment to the
community.
3. The petition of Hugo Jimenez to obtain a special use permit on the subject
property to operate a construction yard is approved, with the following
condition:
a. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the
concept plan titled “Conceptual Landscape Plan” prepared by
Fiddlehead Landscape & Garden Design, dated March 20, 2023.
b. The outside storage of materials on site shall be prohibited.
4. The Board further finds that the proposed special use permit meets the
requirements of Section 30-19-1 of the Roanoke County Code, that the
proposed special use conforms with the standards set forth in article IV
(use and design standards) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, is
in conformance with the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan, and will
May 23, 2023
216
have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood and
community.
5. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final
passage.
On motion of Supervisor Radford to approve the ordinance, seconded by
Supervisor North and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Peters, North, Radford
NAYS: Supervisors Mahoney, Hooker
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor North stated on May 16th, he participated in speaking to the
Commonwealth Transportation Board, VDOT and Secretary of Transportation, at a
meeting for the region that we're in here in the Salem district, the Salem Civic Center
concerning specifically SMART SCALE projects and Interstate 81. The first seven
speakers that spoke, six of the seven speakers addressed I81 concerns. And secondly,
he has been talking to some citizens about booking events at the library and wish the
library director was here to hear this. He participated in a conference call recently
concerning the Hollins Library and discussions on future plans and made mention on
there about, "Well, don't you have a reservation system that citizens can go online and
see openings for booking a meeting room, even paying for the meeting room in
advance, whatever." I didn't really get a clear answer and so it's come up again that if I
want to book the meeting room at Hollins for an event, I can't do so greater than 90
days and I don't know why that is and neither did the citizen that asked me. He does
not understand why I thought we could get citizens to use an online registration system,
but was told it's not working very well. Lots of ambiguity there. So, here's what he would
like. He would like a clear, succinct memo outlined to each one of our Board members
as to number one, how an online reservation system to book a meeting room operates
within our library system if we have one that is an online system. And two, the question
answered why we can't book meetings greater than 90 days out because there's some
people that like to have meetings every quarter or every six months and they can't do it.
We need to be a little more fluid and have good reasons that exist for us not being able
to do this if we have this system. Maybe we don't have the system. Maybe staff
recommends we don't have it, but it's about as clear as mud and he needs some clarity
on it because he keeps getting this question asked of people in the Hollins District.
Lastly, some information that was shared today in Richmond at the Commonwealth
Transportation Board. While there was much and especially concerning SMART SCALE
review and improvements going forward, Roanoke ridership in 2023 versus 2019 for
Amtrak is up 57%, 27,444 riders thus far January through March, compared to 17,509 in
2019. That is a great success story. So, coming out of Covid, leaving it behind and the
inception of many of these routes, it is absolutely a great success story and we can't do
May 23, 2023
217
anything but justify extending this one day probably beyond Christiansburg all the way
to Bristol. So, it's a great, great story. The only problem I have with the Amtrak situation
has been brought to light by several folks in the Vinton District who take the train, the
parking down there is horrible, absolutely mind-boggling how people will continue to ride
in. In fact, I'm almost of a mindset to drive to Lynchburg where the parking's free and
less hassle because I can probably get home about 30 minutes sooner at the end of the
day rather than having to drive back from Roanoke. We need to speak to our colleagues
over in the city and find out how can we make this more user-friendly because it is an
absolute debacle. We had people go there, when I took the train, they went with us.
They got fined almost $140 because they claimed they didn't pay for their two days,
which was something like, I don't know, $6-$7 a night. Mine went through, okay, I paid
for the first night. The second night, I never got charged for, when I thought I was, so I
paid $7. They did a $140... they got a ticket. They got a ticket, a virtual ticket for $140.
They had to call up and debate it with the city or whoever’s managing the parking down
there. The parking down there is like a cluster, this one manages that, this one
manages this, this one that. I'm going to tell you what, if people don't get dropped off
and have to park down there, you don't know whether you're paying the right fare or not
and it's 6 o'clock in the morning, downloading a software package is absolutely, it's
challenging, it's 6:00 in the morning, for some people that aren't even awake. And it took
two to get it downloaded for some instances. So, we went from paying for it to now
having to download a software package. And you get no heads up on this from Amtrak
because there's no communication between them and the station locations, i.e., the city.
Supervisor Radford wished his wife a happy anniversary, 42 years today.
He will be home soon.
Supervisor Peters commented, he's not here with us tonight, but
appreciates Sam Wall, his article he had in the newspaper a couple days ago about the
challenges that we've got with our neighboring jurisdiction. He thinks he wrote a very
good article and think’s there's more to come there. Yesterday, we had the great
pleasure of opening the renovated Mount Pleasant Library. Long time coming, he was
glad to see it finally get across the finish line and it was a beautiful job by all involved.
They did a great job. He reiterated just want to reiterate what I said earlier. I know the
guys aren't here now, but this is EMS week. So, if you're out and about and you see
some of the career medics and volunteer medics and EMTs, let them know you
appreciate them
May 23, 2023
218
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Hooker adjourned the meeting at 8:21 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
________________________ ___________________________________
Deborah C. Jacks Martha B. Hooker
Chief Deputy Clerk to the Board Chairman