1/25/2005 - Regular
January 25, 2005
81
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
January 25, 2005
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day atthe
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of January, 2005.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call was
taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairman Michael W. Altizer, Vice-Chairman Michael A.
Wray, Supervisors Joseph B. “Butch” Church, Richard C.
Flora, Joseph McNamara
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County
Administrator; Dan O’Donnell, Assistant County
Administrator; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board; Teresa
Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by Reverend James Terry, Penn Forest
Christian Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
January 25, 2005
82
Supervisor Church requested that Items P and X, work sessions, be held
in the Board meeting room. There was a consensus of the Board to approve the
change. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that the work
sessions would be recorded on audio in accordance with normal procedures.
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
Supervisor Church moved to approve the first readings and set the second
readings and public hearings for February 22, 2005. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
1. First reading of an ordinance to rezone .68 acres from I-1C,
Industrial District with Conditions, to C-2C, General Commercial
District with Conditions, for the construction of a retail store
located at the northeast corner of Peters Creek Road and Cove
Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon the petition of Mid-
Atlantic Realty, Inc.
2. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to
construct a multi-purpose facility for Ebenezer Baptist Church
located at 7049 Thirlane Road, Catawba Magisterial District, upon
the petition of Jerome Donald Henschel, P.C. Architecture.
January 25, 2005
83
3. First reading of an ordinance to obtain a special use permit to
construct a 199 ft. broadcast tower and ancillary facilities located
at 3233 Catawba Valley Drive, Catawba Magisterial District, upon
the petition of Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless.
IN RE: FIRST READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1 First reading of an ordinance authorizing the donation and
conveyance of easements to the Western Virginia Water Authority
to provide for the extension of sewer service in connection with
the Crystal Creek sanitary sewer extension project, Cave Spring
Magisterial District. (Pete Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation &
Tourism)
Mr. Haislip advised that this is a routine ordinance which authorizes the
conveyance of the easement to the Western Virginia Water Authority (WVWA). He
noted that the easement will run through the edge of Starkey Park and staff is working
with the WVWA to minimize impacts to the adjacent ball fields.
There was no discussion on this item.
Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading for February 8, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
January 25, 2005
84
2.First reading of an ordinance to vacate, quit-claim, and release a
portion of an existing 15 foot and 100 foot drainage easement on
property owned by F&W Community Development Corporation,
Hollins Magisterial District. (Joe Obenshain, Senior Assistant
County Attorney)
Mr. Obenshain stated that this is the first of two ordinances to be approved
by the Board and he noted that the Department of Community Development has been
working with F&W Community Development Corporation to sell property that they own
in the Hollins District. He stated that the purchasers have requested the vacation of two
easements and in exchange, they will convey other easements to the County to replace
these. Mr. Obenshain advised that this action was dedicated by deed and requires two
readings and the adoption of an ordinance. The item to be heard in the evening session
was dedicated by plat and requires a public hearing.
There was no discussion on this item.
Supervisor Flora moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading for February 8, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
R-012505-1; R-012505-1.a
January 25, 2005
85
Supervisor Wray requested that Item J-1, Approval of Minutes – January
11, 2005 be removed from the consent agenda.
Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the consent resolution with Item 1
removed. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
Supervisor Wray moved to approve item 1, minutes as corrected. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 012505-1 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN
ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA
FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J- CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for January
25, 2005, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 4, inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes – January 11, 2005
2. Resolution of appreciation upon the retirement of Stephen P. Huff, Sheriff’s
Office, following twenty-eight years of service
3. Request from schools to appropriate dual enrollment revenues in the amount
of $19,627.05
4. Request from schools to appropriate mentor teacher grant funds from the
Department of Education in the amount of $13,797.36
2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required
by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item
pursuant to this resolution.
January 25, 2005
86
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the consent resolution with item 1
removed, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
On motion of Supervisor Wray to approve item 1, minutes as corrected,
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 012505-1.a EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY UPON THE
RETIREMENT OF STEPHEN P. HUFF, SHERIFF’S OFFICE, AFTER
TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Stephen P. Huff was first employed by Roanoke County in the
Sheriff’s Office on November 16, 1976 as a Corrections Officer; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Huff also served as a Deputy Sheriff - Sergeant, and
coordinated the opening of the Roanoke County/Salem Jail in 1980, as a Deputy Sheriff
- Corrections Captain, before retiring as Deputy Sheriff – Lieutenant of Court Services
and
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Huff retired from Roanoke County on January 1, 2005,
after twenty-eight years and two months of service; and
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Huff , through his employment with Roanoke County, has
been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of
STEPHEN P. HUFF
the citizens of Roanoke County to for twenty-eight years of
capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy and
productive retirement.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
January 25, 2005
87
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Major Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance
3. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance
4. Board Contingency Fund
5. Future Capital Projects
6. Accounts Paid –December 2004
7. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for
the month ended December 31, 2004
8. Report of claims activity for the self-insurance program for the
period ended December 31, 2004
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 3:17 p.m., Supervisor Altizer moved to go into closed meeting followed
by the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (3) discussion
or consideration of the acquisition of real property for public purposes; Section 2.2-3711
A (30) discussion of a legal contract, more specifically, a performance agreement
between Roanoke County and Hollins Hospitality, LLC. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
January 25, 2005
88
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
The closed meeting was held from 3:20 p.m. until 3:50 p.m.
IN RE: WORK SESSION
1. Work session to discuss fiscal year 2005-2006 budget
development. (Brent Robertson, Director of Management and
Budget)
a. Budget calendar for fiscal year 2005-2006
b. Review of projected increases in County expenditures for
fiscal year 2005-2006
Discussion of proposed changes in the real estate and
c.
Business and Professional Occupancy License (BPOL) tax
rates
The work session was held from 4:00 p.m. until 4:35 p.m. Staff present
included:Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget; Diane Hyatt, Chief
Financial Officer; and Nancy Horn, Commissioner of the Revenue
Mr. Robertson reviewed the 2005-2006 budget calendar and advised that
departmental budget presentations to the County Administrator will be held during the
month of February. Staff is recommending that the public hearing on tax rates be held
on March 8 with the adoption of the tax rates on March 22. Funding requests from
agencies will be held on March 22 and 29. Adoption of the County budget is scheduled
January 25, 2005
89
for May 24. Mr. Robertson advised that revenue projections will be available for the
Board’s review at the March 8 meeting.
With respect to tax rates, Mr. Robertson reported that these are set for the
calendar year and any change in the rates would affect the current year. The following
analysis of proposed changes in the tax rates was presented: (1) Real Estate: based
on the 2005 assessment data, a one cent (1¢) reduction in the real estate tax rate would
equate to a total fiscal impact of $610,000. (2) BPOL: exempting the first $100,000
gross receipts for all businesses with gross receipts greater than $100,000 results in a
projected revenue loss of $450,480. If the County were to exempt the first $50,000
gross receipts for all businesses with gross receipts greater than $100,000, it would
result in a projected revenue loss of $225,240. If gross receipts are below $100,000,
businesses only pay a $50 filing fee. In addition, Mr. Robertson noted that the
projections exclude statutory assessments (non-filers) which, if included, could increase
the figures by as much as 15%.
Supervisor McNamara voiced concerns regarding the way the BPOL tax is
applied, and he recommended exempting the first $100,000 gross receipts for all
businesses and having a $50 filing fee for all businesses. He indicated that this would
be a fairer application of the fee.
Mr. Robertson further advised that legislation is pending which proposes
eliminating the BPOL tax entirely, which would result in a $5 million impact to the
County budget. In addition, there is other legislation pending that would cap the
January 25, 2005
90
maximum rate at which any category can be taxed, which is twenty cents (20¢). This
would result in a fiscal impact just under $1 million. If the $50 filing fee were eliminated,
this would result in a loss of $109,000.
With respect to changes in the personal property tax relief act (PPTRA),
Ms. Hyatt advised that it should not impact the budget for 2005-2006; the $950 million
state-wide cap will result in the same percentage of tax collections to Roanoke County
in the initial year. In future years when the cap remains the same, the County will be
collecting the same amount of tax but a higher percentage will be coming from the
citizens and a smaller percentage from the state. Ms. Hyatt advised that the same
amount will be accrued.
Supervisor McNamara requested that staff prepare an analysis outlining
the amount of BPOL tax that would be paid in each year and the total taxes paid over a
three-year period under the following two hypothetical scenarios, assuming that at the
end of the third year the business closes: (1) A new business has annual revenues in
the first three years of operation totaling $190,000 – first year, $140,000 – second year,
and $90,000 – third year, with a projected revenue estimate of $200,000 when the
business first opens. (2) A second new business has annual revenues in the first three
years of operation totaling $90,000 – first year, $140,000 – second year, and $190,000 -
third year, with a projected revenue estimate of $90,000 when the business first opens.
Ms. Horn advised that when a business closes, they are eligible for a
prorated refund on their BPOL taxes.
January 25, 2005
91
2. Work session with the Capital Improvements Program (CIP)
Review Committee to review results of the evaluation process
The work session was held from 4:35 p.m. until 5:24 p.m. Staff present
included: Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget; Chad Sweeney,
Budget Administrator; and Cathy Weaver, Budget Analyst. The following members of
the CIP Review Committee were also present: Pam Berberich, Jason Perdue, Michael
Roop, Rodney McNeil, and Jack Griffith.
Mr. Robertson provided an overview of the CIP Review Committee
objectives and goals. He advised that the committee interviewed departments
regarding project submissions and conducted site visits. Projects were scored based
on 12 objective criterion deemed important to the community. Mr. Robertson advised
that the highest ranked projects are as follows: (1) regional jail facility (2) new garage at
Kessler Mill Road (3) upgrade of 800 MHz radio system; (4) VDOT revenue sharing; (5)
EMS data reporting system; (6) new South County library; (7) Garst Mill Park
improvements; and (8) replacement of HP/3000.
Mr. Robertson presented the following committee comments and
recommendations: (1) Dedicated funding for capital projects should be increased. (2)
There is concern over whether the funding of school projects for two years to one year
of County funding is a good idea. The committee voiced concerns about making sure
that the most pressing needs of the County in total be addressed in any given year. (3)
January 25, 2005
92
With respect to debt financing, long-term borrowing increases the cost of projects and
the Board should give serious consideration to the need for a general obligation bond
issue. (4) Capital maintenance needs should be addressed and funded. (5) The CIP
should be developed in conjunction with comprehensive, strategic, and other long-range
plans. (6) Encourage and support land banking for future capital project needs. (7)
Recommend developing and updating master plans for Fire and Rescue, Parks,
Recreation and Tourism, and Libraries.
The following members of the CIP Review Committee spoke regarding
this item:
Jason Perdue: He highlighted the need for a new County garage and
stated that this could result in a cost-savings to the County by not having to outsource
vehicle repairs. He also stated that public safety projects have been the issue of the
hour and they merit discussion; however at some point, the County needs to create a
balance in what is funded. He indicated that quality of life issues such as parks and
recreation and libraries should not be ignored, and he encouraged the Board to
examine the projects with a focus on balance in all four areas. He also emphasized that
the Board needs to identify a funding stream for capital projects and possibly consider a
bond issue.
Jack Griffith: He noted that the EMS data reporting system is a funding
request of less than $150,000 and this project would assure that the County will
continue to collect $300,000 in annual service fees. He advised that funding this project
January 25, 2005
93
would eliminate substantial paperwork requirements and it should be implemented. He
also noted the need for improvements at Garst Mill Park and stated that this is the
busiest park per acre in the County and it is in a flood plain. He advised that the Parks
& Recreation Department has attempted to locate funding for creek bank improvements
and repairs; however, it is not present at the federal and state level. A repair project
needs to be started immediately and a study needs to be conducted regarding the creek
bed. He also stated that the opportunity to have revenue funding directed annually into
the CIP is something the committee unanimously endorses.
Pam Berberich: She advised that she did not rank the jail or the public
safety building projects. With respect to the public safety building, she advised that she
did not rank this project because it had already been determined to be funded. She
further advised that she did not rank the jail project because she felt that it was not a
question of whether the jail would be funded but rather where the jail would be located.
She further stated that she does not feel the committee should be a rubber stamp for
something that is already a done deal.
Rodney McNeil: He stated that the CIP is currently a one-year budgetary
item; however, it should be a five-year projection of future needs and how to fund them.
To do this, the Board must decide which items they want to focus on and how to fund
them. Projects on the CIP should have identified funding and then the CIP becomes a
planning document for future years. If a CIP plans projects five years in advance, it will
eliminate citizen complaints that projects are being forced on them at the last minute.
January 25, 2005
94
Mr. Robertson read comments submitted by Sheryl Ricci and Craig Sharp,
committee members who were unable to attend the meeting.
IN RE: RECESS
Chairman Altizer declared the meeting in recess from 5:25 p.m. until 6:07
p.m.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS (CONTINUED)
3. Work session with Dr. Mike Chandler to discuss the County’s
Comprehensive (Community) Plan.
The work session was held from 6:07 p.m. until 6:43 p.m. Staff present
included: Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; and Janet Scheid, Chief
Planner. Planning Commission staff present included the following: Martha Hooker,
Chair; Rodney McNeil; and Steve Azar.
Dr. Chandler noted that it has been approximately two years since the
County committed to updating the comprehensive plan. Between 25-30 community
meetings have been held, in addition to a series of work sessions with Planning
Commission, staff, and the Board of Supervisors. A citizens’ planning academy was
initiated to familiarize citizens with the comprehensive plan and its role in the
community. He advised that the Board held a series of work sessions focusing on the
comprehensive plan and what it purports to do. The Board also completed a mapping
exercise which was a visioning process for future growth in Roanoke County. In
reviewing the maps, the Board projected 20 years into the future and designated
January 25, 2005
95
specific land uses. Dr. Chandler noted a common core vision among the Board
members and based on this, a draft community plan was prepared. The Planning
Commission held their public hearing and unanimously recommended the draft
community plan to the Board for approval.
Dr. Chandler stated that as Mr. Mahoney had advised, the responsibility of
the Board this evening involves several steps: (1) The Board is required to hold a public
hearing relative to the adoption of the community plan and they must act on the
Planning Commission’s recommendation within 90 days. The Board can do the
following: (1) adopt the community plan as recommended or any part thereof; (2)
amend and then adopt the plan; or (3) disapprove the plan. If the decision is made to
not act favorably on the recommended plan, the Board must return the plan to the
Planning Commission and provide with it a written statement indicating the reasons for
the rejection of the plan. The Planning Commission then has 60 days to reconsider the
plan and re-submit any changes to the Board of Supervisors.
With respect to growth management, Dr. Chandler reported that the goal
is to guide future growth and development to areas where land uses, facilities and
infrastructure exist and are planned; promote compact and contiguous development and
infill development; focus County infrastructure funding on these current and designated
future development areas; and protect and enhance the following resources: historic,
cultural, agricultural, forestry, water, recreational and scenic. To further this goal, the
County land use map should delineate three areas of potential growth: (1) the primary
January 25, 2005
96
growth areas of the County that are currently served by public water and sewer and
where the majority of new growth should be encouraged; (2) the future growth areas
directly adjacent to the primary growth area that should accommodate outward growth
over a five-year period of time and where the extension of public water and sewer can
relatively efficiently be accomplished; and (3) the rural areas where growth should be
discouraged and public water and sewer services should not be extended.
Dr. Chandler further advised that the CIP is one of the prime means by
which comprehensive plans are implemented at the local level. It is a financial planning
tool which examines community needs five years ahead. It allows a community to
identify what is needed and a revenue stream that can be utilized in scheduling when an
improvement should come online. The community plan and designated growth areas
will provide a guide for the necessary support systems to meet future needs. Dr.
Chandler indicated that this can also be done under the guise of provisional or proffered
zoning. He noted that the CIP linkage to the comprehensive plan is vital, and the Board
must review the existing zoning ordinance to ensure it moves the County in the direction
reflected in the future land use mapping exercise.
Martha Hooker, Chair of the Planning Commission, advised that a great
deal of time has been involved in developing the revision and it has been forwarded
unanimously to the Board. She encouraged acceptance of the plan.
Mr. Hodge requested information on how other localities that have worked
with a separate authority (such as the Western Virginia Water Authority) have
January 25, 2005
97
addressed these in their comprehensive plan. He recommended that this issue be
studied further so that the County can maintain involvement and control over some of
these processes. Dr. Chandler advised that Hanover and Augusta Counties have public
service authorities and he stated that an ongoing dialogue between the two governing
bodies (the locality and the authority) must be maintained. He further stated that some
communities have clearly communicated future growth philosophies to the authority for
their direction in making decisions.
Mr. Hodge requested further clarification with respect to the regional
nature of many of the County’s projects and the impact on the CIP. Dr. Chandler
advised that when looking at designated growth areas and infill, many of the appropriate
areas for development will be near adjoining localities and represents a collaborative
opportunity with these jurisdictions. He stated that a capital improvement investment
policy could reflect both County and City tax dollars for future regional projects. He
advised that some CIP’s are also beginning to build in a line item for capital
maintenance of facilities.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
R-012505-2
At 7:07 p.m., Supervisor Altizer moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
January 25, 2005
98
RESOLUTION 012505-2 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS
HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each members
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies, and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
N RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE
I
1First reading of an ordinance to vacate a portion of a 15-foot
.
drainage easement on plat entitled “Subdivision of The Orchards,
Section 2, Applewood”, Plat Book 9, Page 112, and further shown
as “existing 15’ drainage easement” in Plat Book 13, Page 59,
Hollins Magisterial District. (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Joseph B. Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney, advised that this
easement was originally donated by plat and therefore it requires a public hearing. He
stated that notice of the public hearing was published on January 11 and 18. This is a
15’ drainage easement on the same property originally platted when the property was
January 25, 2005
99
subdivided over 25 years ago. The purchasers will provide alternative drainage
easements suitable to the engineers in the Community Development Department.
There was no discussion and there were no citizens present to speak on
this item.
Supervisor Flora moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading for February 8, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Withdrawn at the request of the petitioner. Second reading of an
ordinance to obtain a special use permit to construct a private
stable on 2.876 acres located at 861 Texas Hollow Road, Catawba
Magisterial District, upon the petition of Billy D. Montgomery and
Catherine R. Montgomery.
Chairman Altizer advised that this item has been withdrawn at the request
of the petitioner.
2. Continued until February 22, 2005 at the request of the petitioner.
Second reading of an ordinance to rezone .98 acres from C1
Office District to C2 General Commercial District, and to obtain a
special use permit on 2.22 acres for the operation of a fast food
restaurant and drive-thru located at the intersections of
January 25, 2005
100
Brambleton Avenue, Colonial Avenue and Merriman Road, Cave
Spring Magisterial District, upon the petition of Seaside Heights,
LLC. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner)
Chairman Altizer advised that this item has been continued until February
22, 2005 at the request of the petitioner.
3. Continued until March 22, 2005 at the request of the Planning
Commission. Second reading of an ordinance to obtain a special
use permit to construct a 199 ft. broadcast tower located at 432
Bandy Drive near Windy Gap Mountain, Vinton Magisterial
District, upon the petition of Nextel Partners, Inc. (Janet Scheid,
Chief Planner)
Chairman Altizer advised that this item has been continued until March 22,
2005 at the request of the Planning Commission.
4. Second reading of an ordinance to rezone 17.034 acres from R4C,
High Density Residential District with Conditions, to R4C, High
Density Residential District with Amended Conditions, for the
development of single family housing located at Plantation Road
at the intersection of Hershberger Road, Hollins Magisterial
District, upon the petition of M&M Developers, LLC. (Janet
Scheid, Chief Planner)
O-012505-3
January 25, 2005
101
Ms. Scheid advised that this is a rezoning request to amend the conditions
on 17.034 acres. The property is currently zoned R-4C, High Density Multi-Family
Residential with conditions, and is designated as core in the 1998 Roanoke County
Community plan. Ms. Scheid stated that the petitioner is requesting that the conditions
be amended from the current proffered site plan, which allows 232 units in a multi-family
complex consisting of 13 buildings, to a zero lot line development consisting of 65 single
th
family homes. This is also the site of a 19 century cemetery and the site to be
developed surrounds the cemetery. There are approximately 70 graves in the
cemetery, some of which are marked and others which are not. The petitioner’s
engineer has delineated an area that is believed to extend beyond any of the unmarked
graves, and the development will be well outside the area where any of the unmarked
graves might be located. The concept plan shows the layout of the property with the
main access road from Hollins Road extending through adjoining properties which are
already zoned C-2. There will not be any residential development on the C-2 property;
however in the future, there may be some commercial development.
Ms. Scheid reported that the Planning Commission heard this request on
January 4 and forwarded it to the Board of Supervisors with a favorable
recommendation with the following conditions: (1) The developer proffers substantial
compliance with the Charleston Estates Master Plan dated November 23, 2004; (2) A
greenspace easement (along Tinker Creek) shall be dedicated as shown on the
January 25, 2005
102
Charleston Estates Plan dated November 23, 2004; (3) A 15’ access easement shall be
dedicated to allow access from the new public road to the existing cemetery.
Supervisor Wray requested clarification regarding the access road to the
cemetery and whether the families will still have access to the cemetery. Ms. Scheid
responded that the third proffer states that a 15’ access easement will be dedicated to
allow access from the new public road to the existing cemetery. She further advised
that this will likely provide a better access to the cemetery than what currently exists.
There were no citizens present to speak on this item.
Sean Moore, Balzer & Associates, requested that the Board authorize an
amendment of the proffered conditions. He stated that the existing conditions allow for
the construction of 232 units in a multi-family complex. The proposed conditions will
restrict the site to 65 single-family homes. In addition to meeting all the County and
VDOT development standards, the developer is also proffering substantial compliance
with the master plan which limits the number of homes to 65. A greenspace easement
is also being granted along Tinker Creek for future inclusion into the County’s Greenway
plans and a new access easement is being dedicated for access to the cemetery. Mr.
Moore advised that the homes will be approximately 1,500 to 3,000 square feet, each
will have a two-car detached garage, and the homes will be similar to the style just
presented. The price range for the homes will be approximately $200,000 – $350,000.
Mr. Moore stated that the developer intends to include such amenities as sidewalks,
pedestrian scale street lighting, and street trees with the development. He indicated
January 25, 2005
103
that the project is consistent with the comprehensive plan and will be developed in
accordance with all applicable regulations, and it provides a good buffer and transition
of density between the commercial areas of Hollins and Plantation Roads and the
adjacent residential properties.
Supervisor Flora noted that the original access was off Plantation Road
and it is now off Hollins Road. Mr. Moore advised that this access allowed for an easier
grade and an opportunity for the developer to work with VDOT on the future Hollins
Road project to coordinate access points.
Supervisor Flora requested clarification on the location of the proposed
stormwater detention pond. Mr. Moore showed the location of two stormwater detention
ponds on the map.
Supervisor Wray inquired if the old access road will be closed. Mr. Moore
responded that the access originally planned for the site will not be used. The existing
access that runs beside Tinker Creek is an access road to an existing home and will
remain open but will not be part of this development.
Supervisor Altizer inquired if the proposed entrance is across from the
driving range. Mr. Moore responded in the affirmative.
Kristen Peckman, 8131 Webster Drive, questioned the width of the
greenway easement and how a stormwater detention pond can be located on the
property along Plantation Road. Mr. Moore advised that the greenway easement is a
variable width easement that goes from the property line over to the private road and
January 25, 2005
104
will allow for future inclusion into the Roanoke County Greenway system. With respect
to stormwater management, he indicated that the detention pond will be constructed
during the grading of the property.
Supervisor Flora noted that this proposed project is substantially better
than previous proposals for this property which were high density projects. He indicated
that it will have significantly less impact on Mountain View Elementary School and the
proposed access from Hollins Road is beneficial. He further noted that the greenway
runs between Tinkerbell Lane and the creek.
Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
5. Second reading of an ordinance to amend Section 30-74-4 (A) of
the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance upon the petition of the
Roanoke County Planning Commission to change the reference
date for the Flood Insurance Study for Roanoke County by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (George W. Simpson,
Assistant Director of Community Development)
O-012505-4
Mr. Simpson reported that there has been no change in this item since the
first reading of this ordinance.
January 25, 2005
105
Supervisor Wray recommended that following adoption of the changes,
that letters be sent to citizens whose property is now in the flood plain so that they will
know they qualify for flood insurance. He further requested that notifications also be
sent to any citizens who will be moved out of the flood plain.
Mr. Simpson reported that 14 homes will be moved out of the flood plain
and as a result, they will be allowed to drop their flood insurance if they choose to do so.
Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
ORDINANCE 012505-4 AMENDING SECTION 30-74-4. DELINEATION
OF AREAS TO CORRESPOND WITH THE CURRENT FLOOD
INSURANCE RATE MAPS PROVIDED BY FEMA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That Section 30-74-4. Delineation of areas be amended to read and
provide as follows:
Sec. 30-74-4. Delineation of Areas.
(A) The various floodplain areas shall include areas subject to inundation by waters
of the 100-year flood. The primary basis for the delineation of these areas shall
be the Flood Insurance Study for Roanoke County prepared by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, dated February 4, 2005, as amended. These
areas are more specifically defined as follows:
1. The Floodway is delineated for purposes of this section using the criteria
that a certain area within the floodplain must be capable of carrying the
waters of the 100-year flood without increasing the water surface elevation
of that flood more than one foot at any point. These Floodways are
specifically defined in Table 4 of the above referenced Flood Insurance
Study and shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map accompanying that
study.
January 25, 2005
106
2. The Flood-Fringe shall be that area of the 100-year floodplain not included
in the Floodway. The basis for the outermost boundary of the Flood-Fringe
shall be the 100-year flood elevations contained in the flood profiles of the
above referenced Flood Insurance Study and as shown on the Flood
Insurance Rate Map accompanying the study.
3. The Approximated Floodplain shall be those floodplain areas shown on
the flood insurance rate map for which no detailed flood profiles or
elevations are provided, and all other floodplain areas where the drainage
area is greater than one hundred (100) acres. Where the specific 100-year
flood elevation cannot be determined for this area using other sources of
data such the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Floodplain Information
Reports, U.S. Geological Survey Flood Prone Quadrangles, etc., then the
applicant for the proposed use, development and/or activity shall
determine this elevation in accordance with hydrologic and hydraulic
engineering techniques. Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses shall be
undertaken only by professional engineers or others of demonstrated
qualifications, who shall certify that the technical methods used correctly
reflect currently accepted technical concepts. Calculations for the design
flood shall be related to existing land use and potential development under
existing zoning. Studies, analyses, computations, etc., shall be submitted
in sufficient detail to allow a thorough review by the director of community
development.
2. That this ordinance shall be in effect from and after its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
1. Public hearing to consider the recommendation of the Planning
Commission to adopt the Roanoke County Community Plan dated
November 2, 2004. (Janet Scheid, Chief Planner; Martha Hooker,
Chair – Roanoke County Planning Commission)
Dr. Mike Chandler stated that the future is something that we create and
this requires us to make choices that should begin with a clear vision of what we want.
January 25, 2005
107
The process by which a community plans for its tomorrow is the same series of steps
organizations follow daily when contemplating their organization’s future. Forward-
looking organizations attempt to shape the future to reflect the goals and desires of the
organization. He noted that a central responsibility facing governing bodies is deciding
how to plan for the future. The Code of Virginia requires that counties adopt a
community plan and he stated that Roanoke County has chosen to meet this
requirement and has benefited from having a comprehensive plan. Tonight a revised
community plan will be considered, as required every five years. The Planning
Commission reviews and recommends proposed changes to the governing body. He
stated that the County Planning Commission initiated this process approximately two
years ago and has expended considerable energy reviewing and revising the
community plan. He advised that the plan is a general guide, not an ordinance, and
does not qualify as a binding constraint upon the County. It articulates a clear vision of
how Roanoke County intends to change and develop over time. The revised
community plan features goals, objectives, and strategies linked to the future land use
map, which reflects proposed land uses and their locations for the time period 2005 –
2025. Because land use planning and the land use map do not regulate on ground land
uses, this requires that each county prepare and adopt a subdivision ordinance and
zoning ordinance. It is important to realize that the narrative in the comprehensive plan
and the land use map will not come to fruition without a well-written zoning and
January 25, 2005
108
subdivision ordinance, design guidelines, and a well thought out and financially accurate
CIP.
Dr. Chandler noted that he worked with the Board in a series of work
sessions in developing the comprehensive plan revisions. During this time, the Board
participated in an exercise to develop future land use maps for the year 2025. The
Board crafted a vision of what they would like to see 20 years in the future and when the
individual maps were compared, much commonality was noted. This represented a
significant step in the continued development of the comprehensive plan for Roanoke
County. The Planning Commission has reviewed and included their analysis of the
comprehensive plan and it has unanimously recommended a revised comprehensive
plan to the Board. If the Board chooses to adopt the comprehensive plan this evening,
this will be the first in a series of steps critical to the successful implementation of the
plan. To make the goals, objectives, strategies and vision happen, it is critical that the
Board, Planning Commission, and citizens look at the existing zoning ordinance,
subdivision regulations, and the CIP, and make adjustments in order for the items in the
comprehensive plan to be realized. The Board will have to align ordinances with the
comprehensive plan to make possible the reality of the proposed plan and land use
pattern. He stated that the comprehensive plan is the means by which we guide the
change management process commensurate with the community’s goals.
Ms. Scheid introduced Martha Hooker, Chair of the Planning Commission.
Ms. Scheid advised that Chapter 15.2 of the Code requires that the Planning
January 25, 2005
109
Commission review the community plan every five years and determine if it should be
amended. The plan must be reviewed at least every five years; however, it can be
reviewed and amended more frequently if desired. The 1998 community plan was
revised in 2000. In accordance with that requirement, the Planning Commission has
recommended revisions to five sections of the 1998 community plan: economic
development, stormwater management, growth management, transportation, and public
utilities. Ms. Scheid advised that the plan puts down on paper the goals that the
community holds for itself and the pace at which it desires to develop; however,
although an important instrument of public policy, the community plan cannot by itself
effectuate change. Other tools such as the zoning ordinance, zoning maps and CIP are
used to implement the plan. The community plan provides guidance. In contrast, the
zoning ordinance is legally binding.
Ms. Hooker advised that the Code of Virginia states that the local Planning
Commission shall prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan for the physical
development of the territory within its jurisdiction. One of the primary job responsibilities
of the Planning Commission is to design, develop and recommend a comprehensive
plan to the governing body. She indicated that the process of revising the 1998
community plan began two years ago when the Planning Commission identified this
project on its work plan for 2003 and determined that the five sections mentioned above
needed to be addressed. She stated that early in the planning process, the
Commission discussed strategies to involve the public and the Board of Supervisors in
January 25, 2005
110
this important process. In April 2003, the Commission decided to conduct a Citizen’s
Planning Academy with Dr. Mike Chandler as the instructor and facilitator. Dr. Chandler
is a well-known planning consultant and a former member of the Blacksburg Planning
Commission and Town Council. All Roanoke County Planning Commissioners and
Board members were invited to attend the Academy. Approximately 40 citizens
attended the four-session course throughout June and July and learned about the
fundamentals of planning and zoning.
Ms. Hooker reported that in November 2003, members of the Board of
Supervisors, at their annual retreat, announced their priorities for the community plan
revisions. These included: ridgetop protection, steep slope protection, decreasing rural
densities, controlling the extension of water and sewer lines and reducing stormwater
run-off. These priorities guided staff, Planning Commission and citizens in drafting the
revised community plan. In December 2003, the Planning Commission and Board held
a joint work session and discussed these priorities and how best to incorporate them
into the revised plan. The first four priorities – ridgetop protection, steep slope
protection, decreasing rural densities and controlling public utility extensions - are
included in the growth management section of the revised plan. The issue of stormwater
run-off is discussed in detail in the stormwater management section of the revised plan.
She indicated that in early 2004, the Smart Growth Task Force was formed. This group
included citizens interested in Smart Growth issues, realtors, homebuilders, Planning
Commission members and staff from Community Development, Utilities and the School
January 25, 2005
111
Administration. This group developed and presented position papers on its respective
viewpoints.
Ms. Hooker advised that in the spring of 2004, staff held six citizen input
meetings. At these public meetings, staff presented draft plans for each section and
draft land use maps. Planning Commission and staff received valuable input from those
who attended these meetings and the draft was revised accordingly. In June, the
Planning Commission held the first of many meetings with Dr. Chandler on the draft
plan. He suggested additional analyses and mapping that was needed to refine land
use changes. In July, the Commission held the first public hearing on the community
plan and throughout the summer and fall of 2004 the Commission continued to meet
with the Board and Dr. Chandler to understand the linkages between the community
plan, the zoning ordinance and the CIP. She further advised that on October 13, 2004
the Commission held its second open house on the community plan and on November
2, 2004 the Roanoke County Planning Commission, by resolution, recommended the
adoption of the community plan and forwarded the plan to members of the Board of
Supervisors for their review and adoption.
Ms. Scheid summarized the following proposed revisions to the
community plan: (1) Economic Development: This revised chapter re-emphasizes the
mission of the Economic Development department which is “To attract and retain to the
County quality jobs and investment that diversify the economy, broaden the tax base,
and provide long-term employment opportunities for area residents.” The department
January 25, 2005
112
will do this by strengthening existing business retention efforts, by identifying
commercial and industrial sites and adding them to our product inventory, by identifying
public-private partnerships that enhance economic development in the County and by
recognizing the inherent conflicts between commercial/industrial development and
nearby residential development and regulating the appearance of new commercial and
industrial development. (2) Stormwater Management: This chapter focuses on
objectives to minimize the impact of drainage on private property, to alleviate existing
stormwater problems, to manage stormwater discharge, to protect water quality and to
research potential stormwater management financing methods. (3) Growth
Management and Capital Facilities Planning: The Planning Commission has
recommended adding this chapter to the 1998 plan to emphasize the desire to direct
development into designated areas that have or will have the capacity to accommodate
future growth. The intent of this goal is to facilitate efficient public service delivery in
those areas while preserving rural resources in the outlying areas of Roanoke County.
The chapter outlines primary and future growth areas and addresses those areas of the
County where growth should not be encouraged. (4) Transportation: This chapter
states that comprehensive and forward-looking solutions are needed to address
growing populations and increasing numbers of commuters and vehicle miles traveled.
The stated goals of this chapter are to consider present and future transportation
implications when making land use decisions; to make efficient use of Roanoke
County’s taxpayer money allocated for transportation projects; to guide the use of
January 25, 2005
113
Roanoke County’s transportation infrastructure system to control air pollution, traffic and
livability problems; to play an influential role in shaping and implementing regional
transportation decisions; to provide progressive and forward looking solutions and
technology to users of Roanoke County’s transportation network; and to expand and
emphasize citizen participation and comments during the early stages of transportation
planning. (5) Public Utilities: This chapter discusses public water and sewer issues and
briefly describes the responsibilities of the new Western Virginia Water Authority.
Ms. Hooker stated that the Planning Commission recognizes that the
adoption of a community plan should not be viewed as a final act or an act of closure.
In contrast, the decision to adopt a community plan should be viewed as the beginning
– an initial step – in the planning implementation process. If the plan is going to make a
difference then the zoning ordinance changes necessary to put the plan into action must
be written, reviewed and approved. Each one of these zoning ordinance revisions must
be studied, researched and publicly discussed prior to being voted on by the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Work sessions, public hearings and
community meetings must be held. Once adopted, these zoning ordinance
amendments, in concert with the CIP, will implement the guidelines and policies
established in the community plan. Ms. Hooker, as Chairman of the Planning
Commission, requested that the Board approve and adopt the revisions forwarded by
the Planning Commission.
January 25, 2005
114
David Holladay, Zoning Administrator, advised that the future land use
map is an important component of the community plan which serves as a reference for
all citizens on the most desirable locations for future land use activities. He presented
an overview of the following land use designations: conservation, rural preserve, rural
village, village center, neighborhood conservation, development, transition, core, and
principal industrial. He stated that these are a guide for future growth and development;
however, they are not as finite as the zoning ordinances. The proposed changes
approved by the Planning Commission include the following: (1) Along Slate Hill, some
of the areas that were rezoned for this development were designated development in
the future land use map. With the existing zoning underlying and the subsequent
zoning change approved last year, the development designation was changed to a
combination of core, commercial, and transition along the hillside. (2) Along Starkey
Road in the vicinity of Delta Dental the designation was changed from neighborhood
conservation to transition, with transition being more highway oriented with commercial
frontage. (3) Further down Starkey Road in the vicinity of Arthur Street across from
Woods Crossing, the designation was changed to transition. (4) The area behind
McVitty Office Park where McVitty Road loops back behind Route 419, there was an
area designated neighborhood conservation which has been changed to transition
based on the recommendations of the Economic Development Department and the
Planning Commission. (5) A minor adjustment has been made in the area around the
Keagy Village proposed development. When the development was approved, a large
January 25, 2005
115
buffer area was designated to remain undisturbed. The transition designation, which is
currently on the corner, has been extended to cover the entire development area;
however, the boundary line between the two land use designations has been drawn on
the boundary line in the approved concept plan.
Supervisor Wray inquired how citizens will be advised if there is a change
in their land use designation and he referenced a situation where property is being split
between two land use designations. Mr. Holladay advised that most of the changes are
along property lines, and inquired if there was a particular location in question.
Supervisor Wray noted that there was one situation on Route 221 that is split between
development and rural village. He questioned how many situations arise where people
are not aware that their land use designation has been changed. Mr. Holladay advised
that the County is not required by law to notify citizens of changes in land use
designation; this is done through the public hearing process. Ms. Scheid advised that
she and staff met with the property owner in question last week to explain the change.
The change is along property lines and the property owner owns two separate pieces of
property.
Supervisor Wray requested that property owners be notified of any
changes in their land use designation.
Supervisor Flora stated that the land use map is a guide; however,
rezonings should be consistent with the future land use map and it is not inconceivable
that the land use map can be amended when there is a rezoning. He stated that he can
January 25, 2005
116
see where there may be some concern but with respect to the future land use map, this
is not nearly as critical as the zoning map. He requested that as many individuals as
possible be notified of the changes.
Ms. Scheid also advised that once the plan is adopted, staff will examine
future rezoning requests to determine if they are compatible with the current community
plan and land use plan. If they are not consistent, staff will suggest a land use
amendment be approved with the rezoning. This could lead to more frequent
amendments to the land use map.
Supervisor Church stated that the Board recognizes that the plan is a
guide, but he requested clarification with respect to the buffer zone and stormwater
management at Keagy Village. Mr. Holladay responded that there is no change to the
rezoning plan approved by the Board. He advised that the Keagy Village property is
designated transition and a portion was designated as neighborhood conservation. The
line was shifted to the west to allow the transition to lay under the development area
and the neighborhood conservation to lay over the buffer yard. He stated that this will
clearly delineate the buffer yard.
Supervisor McNamara requested that staff explain the difference in the
community plan and the zoning maps and how it affects future changes. Ms. Scheid
advised that the community plan is a general guide. It is not legally binding; however it
is a critical element in planning for the future of Roanoke County. It lays out in general
terms what future land use designations are in general areas of Roanoke County. The
January 25, 2005
117
zoning ordinance is very specific by parcel and each parcel has a zoning designation
attached to it. It contains a specific set of permitted uses for each type of zoning.
Property owners can petition the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for a
change in this designation. The zoning ordinance is law.
Supervisor McNamara inquired if there has been any suggestion by staff
or the Planning Commission that the comprehensive plan now results in widespread
rezonings. Ms. Scheid responded in the negative, and stated that it does not in any way
change zonings in Roanoke County.
Supervisor Flora noted that there is more to the community plan than the
information the Board received in the agenda packet. He inquired if there would be
discussion regarding the other sections of the community plan. Ms. Scheid advised that
this is a revision to the 1998 community plan and only the five sections presented are
being changed or added. No changes are being recommended to the remainder of the
community plan.
Supervisor Flora commended Anthony Ford, Traffic Engineer, on his work
in the transportation section. He questioned why adequate public facilities was included
in the transportation section rather than in the growth management section. Supervisor
Wray inquired if the inclusion of adequate public facilities is legal. Mr. Mahoney advised
that under Virginia law, counties, cities and towns must ask the Virginia General
Assembly for authority to meet the needs of the citizens. Many localities have been
January 25, 2005
118
requesting authority for the appropriate tools to address citizen needs that arise out of
pressures for growth and development; however, the authority has not been granted.
Supervisor Wray requested an explanation regarding the use of private
roads in developments. Mr. Ford stated that private roads are permitted in planned
residential developments (PRDs), cluster developments, and there has been discussion
regarding the development of private road standards for rural areas in the County. Mr.
Ford advised that the County is currently in discussions with VDOT about the
permissibility of private roads, and VDOT is considering not allowing any further private
roads. This could result in major impacts for the County’s community plan. Supervisor
Wray inquired if this will affect funding from VDOT. Mr. Ford advised that it could affect
funds for the rural addition road program. If private roads are permitted, the County will
lose the ability to participate in the rural addition road program. The County would not
lose funding, but it could not be allocated to the rural addition road program.
Supervisor Flora noted that private roads are not put into the state system
and are maintained by the developer, and he questioned why this would have any effect
on VDOT. Mr. Ford responded that staff has been asking themselves the same
question. Supervisor Flora further inquired if this was a Commonwealth Transportation
Board (CTB) issue. Mr. Mahoney stated that it appears as though it is a regulatory
initiative and staff is working through the document. This information was sent to staff
about one month ago and by July 1, 2005, certain changes must be made to the local
subdivision ordinance. Mr. Mahoney advised that he questions some of the legislative
January 25, 2005
119
authority to promulgate this administrative regulation change. He stated that the
General Assembly has directed how certain designations are to be placed on
subdivision plats with respect to private roads.
Supervisor Flora stated that we are talking about a regulation that affects
money we might receive for roads but has nothing to do with private roads, and VDOT
wonders why they are the state agency that people love to hate. He stated that
someone is missing something.
Supervisor Altizer requested that Ms. Scheid clarify how the process goes
forward for zoning changes once the plan is adopted. Ms. Scheid stated that once the
Board adopts the new community plan revisions and land use map, the next step is to
implement the plan. The plan itself sets forth policy but it does not make changes to
attain the changes. The zoning ordinance and the CIP are the instruments for this
change. She indicated that there is a list of 16 items presented to the Board which need
to be researched. Following this, ordinances must be drafted and community meetings,
work sessions, and public hearings will be held to adopt those ordinances that will then
implement the community plan.
Supervisor Altizer referenced Page 6 of the growth management section
which addresses decreasing residential density in rural areas. He questioned if this
proposed change could create a higher assessment, thereby resulting in higher taxes
on the property. Ms. Scheid responded that she would not envision this would raise
property values. Billy Driver, Director of Real Estate Valuation, advised that in this
January 25, 2005
120
situation, the County would examine the highest and best use of the property.
Transition areas would be more in line to change values from residential to commercial
and he advised that instead of a lot value, it would be based more on a square foot
value. He indicated that values would be based more on zoning rather than density.
Supervisor Wray noted that in the growth management section, there is
language which encourages land protection and conservation in rural areas through
adequate funding of the Western Virginia Land Trust. He questioned if Ms. Scheid was
a member of this Board. Ms. Scheid responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Wray
stated that the County needs to be careful which groups are designated for funding.
Dr. Chandler stated that with respect to the decrease in density in rural
areas, the initial part of growth management section suggests that in areas where
agricultural activity will be the dominant land use, a proviso guiding this would be no
introduction of water and sewer services to those areas. This would be a factor that
would also go into the land assessment. He stated that if you are going from a potential
of 15 houses on a parcel of 60 acres to 5 houses, this would be a factor that would also
contribute to the valuation. He noted that it is more likely that the valuation will remain
the same or go down, rather than up.
The following citizens spoke on this item:
Kristen Peckman, 8131 Webster Drive, spoke regarding a specific parcel
of land which is designated as industrial and is one of the sites proposed for the
regional jail. She stated that several years ago there was a request by Dragon
January 25, 2005
121
Chemical to extend their operation across Walrond Drive into this area, and it was
denied because it was adjacent to residential development. At that time residents were
promised that there would be no development on the hillside. In a separate issue, Ms.
Peckman stated that the area along I-81 designated as transition where Loch Haven
Lake is located should be designated as conservation or rural preserve.
Joe Grissom, 4531 Bonsack Road, voiced concerns that there is no
protection for citizens based on prior zoning designations.
Annie Krochalis, 9428 Patterson Drive, Chair of the Roanoke River Group
for the Sierra Club, stated that the lack of an urban service area designation weakens
the provision for adequate infrastructure. She noted that the new regional jail is not in
the CIP or any of the documents forwarded from the Planning Commission. She also
voiced concerns about the Higginbotham site which is in the Floodplain Overlay District.
She expressed the need for cross-reporting and follow-up procedures with the
Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Conservation and Recreation, and
other agencies.
Jim Woltz, Sugar Camp Creek, spoke regarding rural property
designations. He stated that he believes in land conservation but he feels it should be
voluntary on the landowners’ part and not the result of overlays. He requested that
Roanoke County budget to purchase these easements because it is unfair to take these
rights away from landowners by way of ordinances. He noted that the next step in the
process is the drafting of the subdivision ordinances and there is a need for better
January 25, 2005
122
definitions, such as what constitutes a “lot” , “ridgetop”, “subdivision”, “cluster housing”,
etc. He stated that great care should be taken regarding slopes and the wording of
these in ordinances. He questioned why the rights of landowners should be different
based on the topography or elevation of their property. He volunteered his services in
drafting the ordinances.
Bob Seymour, 7552 Boxwood Drive, stated that a vision should be large
sweeps rather than specific boundary lines. He stated that it seems more like a
manipulated plan to make certain interests work better than others. The comprehensive
plan gets used as best fits the situation: sometimes it is pointed out as a guide to be
followed; other times citizens are told it is nothing more than a guide. He contrasted the
Roanoke County community plan, at over 300 pages, with the 20 pages for the United
States Constitution and noted that the community plan does not even have the power of
law. He stated that he would like to see the community plan become something simple
because right now it is very confusing.
Bob Flynn, 1205 Garcia Drive, advised that he is representing the
Roanoke Regional Homebuilders Association (RRHA). He stated that since 2003, the
RRHA has been involved with the development of the community plan. He noted that
for the four-year period ended in 2003, Roanoke County’s population grew at an
average rate of one-half of 1% per year; Bedford and Franklin Counties grew at an
average of .95% per year, which is almost double the rate of Roanoke County. He
stated that Roanoke County is part of one of the four largest metropolitan areas in
January 25, 2005
123
Virginia; however when our growth rate is compared with that in areas such as
Richmond and Virginia Beach, it is apparent that Roanoke County is not a fast growing
area. He advised that residential growth leads to commercial development and attracts
a work force that will attract new businesses and industries. He noted that the RRHA
has a membership of 480 firms representing more than 18,000 employees. The
construction of single-family homes is approximately 400–500 units per year in
Roanoke, and this represents an estimated economic impact of $50 million and 1,250
jobs. Mr. Flynn advised that one of the County’s highest priorities should be managing
the growth spurred by market demand while protecting the property rights of citizens.
He indicated that some of the issues that must be considered include: (1) The
requirement of a Section 15.2-2232 review for by-right development and refusing to
extend utility lines or allow pump stations or community wells without this review should
not be utilized for land already zoned for this use. (2) He urged the County to identify
and fund water and sewer extensions, thereby reducing the number of Section 15.2-
2232 reviews. (3) He requested consideration to differentiating between land adjacent
to public water and sewer versus land that is further away from public water and sewer.
(4) Adequate public facilities and impact fees are not legal means of managing growth
in Virginia. He advised that growth precedes infrastructure, not the opposite. You will
never see roads built to nowhere or classrooms for students that do not exist. He urged
the Board to remove this language from the plan. (5) With respect to decreasing
densities in rural areas, this would contribute to suburban sprawl as well as to
January 25, 2005
124
potentially decreasing land values. (6) Minimum lot sizes should not be any greater
than they are currently, and an effective cluster ordinance is one way to deal with
densities in rural areas.
Pam Berberich, 6679 Mallard Lake Court, advised that she supports the
adoption of the Community plan; however, she stated that the citizens in the citizens’
planning academy were not contacted to be part of the update to the Community plan.
She stated that citizens’ had to fight to be included in the process and their views were
ultimately heard because of their insistence that they be included in the process. She
stated that staff should willingly involve citizen input in the future.
Helen Sublette, 5577 Valley Drive, stated that she feels the Community
plan, as written, looks like a developer’s bonanza. She stated that development is
grossly encouraged in the plan and Roanoke County is actively marketing industrial and
commercial development to increase the tax base. To achieve this end, the Planning
Commission is encouraging growth near existing water and sewer lines which means
development in or near existing residential neighborhoods. She also voiced concerns
regarding increased traffic, noise pollution, flooding due to upstream development, and
the lack of stormwater management policies.
Supervisor Church inquired if the CIP is part of the community plan; and if
so, how can the County justify accepting the CIP with a regional jail project that was not
included in the prior community plan. Mr. Mahoney responded that the CIP is not part
of the community plan. He noted that when he responded to Annie Krochalis in his
January 25, 2005
125
email to her, he laid out three different ways in which the jail could satisfy the
requirements of either being in the community plan or being consistent with a Section
15.2-2232 review. The issue with respect to the CIP was one of the issues that the
County attempted to address with the Board in work session earlier this afternoon. Mr.
Mahoney advised that the CIP was not a process that was integrated into the
community plan. He stated that the decision regarding whether or not to include the
CIP as part of the community plan is a decision that rests with the Board. Historically,
the CIP has been treated as a budget/finance or planning document.
Supervisor Church stated that he was speaking of the jail in particular, not
the entire CIP. He referenced Bob Seymour’s comments and stated that the citizens
have a perception of hidden agendas and not getting full disclosure. He stated that
perception is reality when it comes to the taxpaying citizens. He indicated that if the
County is using the taxpayers’ money to build projects that will be in places that infringe
on others, the least we can do is include the citizens in every step of the process.
Supervisor Flora noted that Ms. Peckman had a valid point and noted that
industrial development adjacent to residential property may not be appropriate. He
asked that staff examine this issue. He indicated that dealing with growth management
versus property rights is a fine line to walk, and he urged the Board not to take action on
this matter at tonight’s meeting and to hold work sessions to further discuss the
changes.
January 25, 2005
126
Supervisor McNamara concurred that there is nothing time critical about
adopting the community plan tonight. He recommended that action be delayed until
February 22.
Supervisor Wray inquired if there were any representatives from the
WVWA present at the meeting. He asked Mr. Hodge, as a member of the WVWA
Board, if the WVWA has any future water or sewer extension plans. Mr. Hodge
responded that these requests must come through the governing body, either Roanoke
County or Roanoke City. At this point, the WVWA has been dealing with conversion of
computer systems. It was the intent when the WVWA was created that decisions
regarding the extension of water and sewer lines would come to the Board of
Supervisors. He noted that Dr. Chandler recommended that the Board of Supervisors
meet periodically with the WVWA to incorporate this type of development in the
community plan. He stated that the County’s community plan should drive this
development and the WVWA should respond accordingly.
Supervisor Wray stated that he would anticipate that the WVWA would
have a plan of where they want to see future water and sewer extensions, and that this
is something Roanoke County should incorporate as we move forward. Mr. Hodge
advised that when the Utility Department was part of Roanoke County, there was a CIP
for that department which has remained in place.
Supervisor Wray requested a definition of ridgeline protection. Ms. Scheid
responded that the community plan does not attempt to define ridgeline protection;
January 25, 2005
127
these definitions will come from the ordinances that will come out of the community
plan. Supervisor Wray advised that these are decisions that should be made by the
Board.
Supervisor Altizer advised that he is in agreement that the questions
raised by the Board members should be answered through a series of work sessions
before the community plan is adopted.
Supervisor McNamara moved to table action until February 22 and
schedule a work session for February 8, 2005. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Church: (1) He questioned if Mr. Covey had addressed the
need for a guardrail at the entrance to Glenvar High School. Mr. Covey advised that he
has contacted the Department of Highways regarding this matter. (2) He noted that the
Board is receiving inquiries about changes in billing cycles for the Western Virginia
Water Authority (WVWA). He asked that the citizens bear with us through this change.
(3) He commended the Fire & Rescue personnel for their efforts and response time
regarding an accident that occurred in his district.
Supervisor Wray: (1) He commended staff and citizens who attended the
Mennel Mill community meeting. It stated it was a positive and informative meeting, and
January 25, 2005
128
requested that Mr. Hodge schedule another meeting as additional plans become
available. (2) He noted that there is a meeting on Thursday, January 27 at 7:30 p.m.
with the Clearbrook Civic League regarding the Clearbrook Overlay. He requested that
staff from the Planning Department attend the meeting. (3) He noted that he has
received phone calls regarding reassessments and complimented Billy Driver for his
handling of these calls. (4) He stated that he appreciates the citizens' input and it is
healthy when the Board can communicate with citizens.
Supervisor Flora: (1) He advised that last night, the Board of Supervisors
and School Board finalized plans to provide for funding for both County and School
projects. He commended both Boards for their foresight in providing for future capital
needs. (2) He stated that following the joint meeting with the School Board, the Board
of Supervisors met with citizens at Glen Cove Elementary School regarding the public
safety building. He noted that some of the concerns voiced centered on traffic and
stormwater management.
Supervisor McNamara: (1) He stated that the process of contributing
annual revenues for the CIP is a huge accomplishment. (2) He requested an update on
the status of the installation of handicapped equipment for the playground at Garst Mill
Park.
Supervisor Altizer: (1) He stated that if a funding stream for the CIP had
been in place years ago, the Board would not be in the position of having to try to
determine how to fund many of the current projects. He indicated that hopefully this
January 25, 2005
129
action will allow for future school and County projects to be funded in a timely and cost
effective manner. (2) He advised that WVWA has changed their monthly billing process
and he provided an overview of the new procedure.
IN RE: WORK SESSION
1. Work session with representatives of Hayes, Seay, Mattern &
Mattern to discuss the feasibility studies to be performed for the
proposed regional jail sites. (Elmer C. Hodge, County
Administrator; John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County
Administrator)
The work session was held from 10:10 p.m. until 11:28 p.m. Staff present
included: Elmer Hodge, County Administrator; John Chambliss, Assistant County
Administrator; and Gerald Holt, Sheriff. Staff present from Hayes, Seay, Mattern &
Mattern (HSM&M) included: Bill Porter, Warren Wertz, Dan Bolt, Marty Crow, Scott
Hodge, John Chaney, and Steve Chapin.
Mr. Hodge advised that staff has moved forward with securing the option
on the Higginbotham property, the plan to submit the application to the state by March
1, and to further evaluate the existing jail site by April 1. He advised that
representatives of HSM&M were present to provide information on the Higginbotham
site, as well as to get information from the Board regarding the scope of work for the
existing site.
January 25, 2005
130
Mr. Porter advised that HSM&M will develop the Higginbotham site for the
March 1 deadline for submission to the state, as well as to investigate the existing jail
site and surrounding properties to include expansion on the existing site, evaluation of
parking needs, City of Salem requirements, and future expansion needs for the
courthouse. The work will be complete by April 1 and, if necessary, the site can be
changed with the Department of Corrections (DOC) as long as the March 1 date is met
initially.
Mr. Scott Hodge provided an overview of the Higginbotham site and
advised that the proposed facility, including future expansion areas and stormwater
detention, will be outside of the 100 year flood plain. In addition, the facility will not
impact the cemetery located on the property. He stated that available traffic data
indicates approximately 660 vehicle trips per day on West River Road. Geotechnical
preliminary reports show rock 7-12 feet down. It was noted that soil conditions are
excellent for this type of facility and the site fits the facility well. Also as part of the
study, environmental aspects such as endangered species, wetlands, hazardous
materials, and cultural resources (archeological and architectural) will be examined.
Supervisor Church inquired when the drawing for the concept plan was
begun. Mr. Scott Hodge advised two days ago. Supervisor Church stated that the
March 1 deadline is questionable at best and this may be flexible. He noted that this
drawing was prepared in a couple of days, and yet basic information can not be
provided to the Board in a couple of weeks. Mr. Scott Hodge indicated that the
January 25, 2005
131
preliminary work on the Higginbotham site was begun earlier, and that the process of
actually preparing the drawing was what only required two days.
Mr. Bolt presented a concept floor plan for the facility layout. He indicated
that the facility is designed to maximize safety and efficiency. He noted that there are
no windows in the facility where cells are located. He further advised that the state
requires a certain square footage based on the number of inmates.
Mr. Porter stated that one of the most significant requirements is the
absence of windows, which allows the pods to be pushed up against each other thereby
reducing the number of exterior walls and making it more efficient to heat and cool, as
well as making it easier for staff to move about the facility. The day rooms are one level
and the cells are stacked two levels high. It was noted that the cells open out into the
dayroom. Mr. Bolt stated that the proposed design is rated for 480 beds, and he
indicated that much of the inmate visitation will be conducted by video.
In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Wray, Mr. Bolt advised that the
closest facility which is similar in design to the proposed facility is located in Tennessee
and staff has visited that site. He indicated that the proposed design of the facility has
been driven by input from the staff.
In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Church, Mr. Porter advised that
cost projections for the Higginbotham site will be available at the February 8 meeting;
cost data for the existing jail site will be available April 1. Supervisor Church advised
that representatives from the Department of Corrections (DOC) have been to the
January 25, 2005
132
County and he stated that there is some flexibility on the March 1 deadline. Mr. Bolt
indicated that Ron Elliott and Brooks Ballard, DOC, have both seen the concept floor
plan of the proposed facility and like the design due to the safety features offered by the
staged containment.
Supervisor Wray inquired about additional costs that might be added to
the overall project estimate such as environmental studies, purchase of additional land
for turning lanes, bridge replacement, engineering costs, traffic light, cost of transporting
back and forth, cost of additional employees and vehicles needed to do that, etc. Mr.
Scott Hodge responded that the installation of a traffic signal will depend on whether the
warrants for a signal are met. He stated that it is not anticipated that these will be met
but a signal study will be conducted once the facility is fully operational. With respect to
the right turn lane, the existing secondary route and everything between those two is
right-of-way so there would not be any additional private property purchase cost. He
also noted that there is no posted weight limit on the bridge so it should not require an
upgrade unless other deficiencies exist.
Supervisor Church questioned who would conduct the bridge evaluation.
Mr. Scott Hodge advised that HSM&M will check with VDOT regarding this matter.
Supervisor Altizer inquired if the bridge had to be replaced, would this be the
responsibility of VDOT. Mr. Scott Hodge responded that in all likelihood it would be;
however if the County did something that required the structure to be widened, then the
County would bear this cost. He advised that these are issues that will be addressed.
January 25, 2005
133
Supervisor Church inquired how close the facility will be to the 100 year
floodplain. Mr. Scott Hodge responded that it is approximately one-third (1/3) of the
length of a football field outside of the floodplain. Also, the site will be raised
approximately 8’ and the land will slope down towards the river.
Supervisor Wray inquired if the road or the easement through the Cooper
property crosses the floodplain. Mr. Scott Hodge advised that the existing road does
not cross the floodplain. It is possible that the proposed road might cross the floodplain
and it would require raising to keep out of the 100 year floodplain. Mr. Porter further
advised that the portion of the access road should be raised up for additional floodplain
safety, as well as for line of sight down West River Road.
Supervisor Wray inquired if anyone is aware of the history of flooding in
this area. Mr. Porter advised that individuals who live in the area have stated that they
have not seen the water come over the bridge. Mr. Scott Hodge indicated that Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) data states that the flood stays below the
bridge. Supervisor Wray inquired about the possibility of another flood such as the one
which occurred in 1985 and in such an event, how would the property be accessed. Mr.
Scott Hodge stated that during a flood of that magnitude, you would not have access.
The only access would be via rail or helicopter. Mr. Porter noted that the facility will be
equipped with emergency generators and is designed to be self-sufficient for a short
period of time.
January 25, 2005
134
Supervisor Church noted that the existing jail in Salem is on a 1.72 acre
site and questioned the need for a 30 acre site. He stated that at least one of the
localities may be withdrawing from the partnership, and this reduces the needed
capacity by 100 beds. He further advised that the existing jail could be expanded to
hold up to 550 beds. Supervisor Church inquired about the feasibility of expanding the
existing jail site. Mr. Porter advised that due to changes in Salem’s building code, the
existing jail would have to be demolished and the facility re-built from the ground up in
order to meet the code. In response to an inquiry from Supervisor Church, Mr. Porter
stated that this information was available in the 2003 report. Mr. Porter further advised
that if the building is built up vertically, life safety issues must be considered. In
addition, light must be brought in from outside and this prohibits stacking cells on top of
each other, resulting in a less efficient use of space. He also noted that parking is an
issue with the existing jail site.
In response to Supervisor Church’s inquiry regarding whether the
acquisition of additional properties in downtown Salem has been explored, Mr. Porter
advised that HSM&M is awaiting direction from the Board regarding this matter.
Supervisor Wray questioned whether cost projections for the downtown
Salem site expansion will be available in two weeks. Mr. Porter advised that these
would be available by April 1. He indicated that preliminary work has been done on the
downtown site and there are some issues that need to be investigated. There is a
culvert that starts above the site and penetrates underneath the existing parking lot. It
January 25, 2005
135
carries an undetermined amount of water but not enough for the 100 year flood.
HSM&M will need to determine how much it will cost to enclose the 100 year flood
because FEMA will not allow buildings on top of an underground stream.
Supervisor Altizer inquired if the facility were to be built up vertically, would
this impact the number of staff required. Mr. Porter advised that it would and that they
have tried to deal with the optimum floor plate. He stated that there are 28 beds per
pod on the single level plan and the existing facility would hold 24 beds per pod.
In response to Supervisor Church’s inquiry regarding whether the Salem
Filtration Plant site has been explored, Mr. Porter advised that HSM&M has not been
asked to explore this as a potential site. With respect to the Salem Filtration Plant site,
Supervisor Church noted that all utilities are in place, the site is level, it is comprised of
25 acres if the two parcels on either side are purchased, and it is close to the interstate.
Mr. Porter noted that there are plans to widen West Main Street and I-81, which would
have minor impacts on this site. Supervisor Church stated that the feasibility of this site
needs to be examined.
Mr. Porter indicated that HSM&M must work to meet the requirements of
the March 1 submission deadline to the DOC. Supervisor Church advised that Morgan
Griffith, Majority Leader, feels confident that he can obtain a 60 day extension for the
County. He stated that there is more than enough time to take care of this. Mr. Porter
recommended that the Board submit the application with the Higginbotham site and
then go forward with studies on the other sites.
January 25, 2005
136
Supervisor Altizer indicated that the Board should move forward with the
March 1 deadline and stated that he has no objectiion to looking at the Salem Filtration
Plant site. He questioned if Supervisor Church is stating that he likes this site.
Supervisor Church responded that he has no preference at all; he just wants a site that
will work for the taxpayers and make them feel like they are involved in the process.
Supervisor Altizer advised that he is open-minded to the evaluation of the
current jail site, but he does not think that he could ever vote for this site. He noted that
the Board took steps at the joint meeting with the School Board last night to leave a
legacy for the future that would provide for the County’s capital funding needs for many
years to come. He stated that he does not feel the County can build on the current jail
site and noted the existence of parking problems. He stated that the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court system is in a very cramped facility and the need for an
expansion of this area will have to be examined in the future. He further advised that he
spoke with Judges Swanson and Doherty and they have advised that there is the
possibility of another court system in Roanoke County. In addition, the Circuit Court
system may require expansion in five to ten years. He questioned if the current facility
can be built on, is it better to do this for the jail or for future court expansion. He stated
that he feels that if something has to be expanded on this site, it should be left for the
courthouse. Supervisor Altizer stated that it is up to the Board to be visionary in making
decisions based on the long-term good of the County. He indicated that maybe the
Higginbotham site is not what some people want, but it is incumbent upon the Board to
January 25, 2005
137
protect the citizens’ tax dollars by implementing a plan that gives adequate space to
expand the jail at less cost in ten years. He questioned if the current jail is expanded,
what will be done with the courts in the future. He stated that the Board needs to look at
viable sites but knowing that future court needs and parking problems exist, it is not a
good decision to build on the current jail site. It would be a band-aid fix and citizens
would pay more money in the long run.
Mr. Porter advised that the renovation or expansion of an existing jail
facility is one of the more costly projects due to the need to maintain a secure perimeter
throughout the construction process. He stated that there are security and safety issues
that must be addressed during the construction phase.
Supervisor Flora advised that he does not have a problem looking at
another site, but he does not want to get beat up by another set of neighbors and have
it go nowhere. He stated if it turns out to be the best site, he would go with it; however,
he noted that the filtration plant site is surrounded by neighborhoods. He indicated if it
is the Board’s wish to examine this site, he was fine with it.
Supervisor McNamara advised that he thought that the purpose of the
work session was to give HSM&M direction on the evaluation of the Salem site. He
stated that it now appears that the Board is back to an evaluation process. He noted
that he has not seen anything wrong with the Higginbotham site or anything that would
show a lower cost for a site in Salem versus the Higginbotham site. He questioned the
need to have HSM&M evaluate the filtration plant site. He indicated that this is what
138
January 25, 2005
County staff is for and he does not want to spend more money. He noted there are
many more people that live around the filtration plant than the Higginbotham site. The
only concern with the Higginbotham site is the cost of the land and he stated that
numbers are being represented incorrectly. He stated that if the Board looks at the
long-term needs and if the Salem Filtration Plant site is suitable, this would necessitate
meeting with citizens in that area and this would be a multi-month process. He stated
that he does not see anything wrong with the options already before the Board and
stated that the Board needs to make a decision and move forward.
Supervisor Church advised that he was removing the Salem Filtration
Plant site from the table for consideration.
It was the consensus of the Board to proceed with the evaluation of the
Higginbotham site and the existing jail site as recommended at the January 11 meeting.
IN RE:
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 11 :28 p.m.
Submitted by:
Approved by:
v\ 0 0 (II 'ILl II. _.
/J)JfJJJJJ \J. ~
Diane S. Childers
Clerk to the Board
~P.~
Michael W. Altizer
Chairman