7/26/2005 - Regular
July 26, 2005
857
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
July 26, 2005
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of July, 2005.
IN RE:
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order at 3:05 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 Monsignor Joseph Lehman, Our Lady of
Nazareth Catholic Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
858
July 26, 2005
IN RE:
PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Resolution of appreciation to Louise R. Eakin. Real Estate
Valuation Department. followinQ twenty-four years of service.
R-072605-1
Chairman Altizer presented the resolution to Ms. Eakin. William Driver,
Director of Real Estate Valuation, was also present.
Supervisor Flora moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS:
None
RESOLUTION 072605-1 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY UPON THE
RETIREMENT OF LOUISE R. EAKIN, REAL ESTATE VALUATION,
AFTER TWENTY-FOUR YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Louise R. Eakin was first employed by Roanoke County on February
1, 1981, as an Account Clerk and also served as a Real Estate Clerk in the Real Estate
Valuation Office; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Eakin retired as a Customer Service Representative on July 1,
2005, after twenty-four years and four months of service; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Eakin was an outstanding and extremely dependable employee
who provided dedicated customer service and was able to provide information and
answers to many questions relating to splits, transfers, land use and building permits;
and
WHEREAS, Ms. Eakin served as the liaison for the Real Estate Valuation Office
with the Commissioner of Revenue and the Treasurer and her knowledge of the many
procedures and processes was an important asset; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Eakin was a member of the Virginia Association of Assessing
Officers; and.
WHEREAS, Ms. Eakin, through her employment with Roanoke County, has been
instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens because of her ability to
provide excellent customer service and coordinate work between the Real Estate
July 26, 2005
859
Valuation Office and other County departments concerning any aspect of real estate
valuation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of
the citizens of Roanoke County to LOUISE R. EAKIN for more than twenty-four 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 Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
2. Resolution of appreciation to Marsha L. Beverley. Real Estate
Valuation Department. followinQ seven years of service.
R-072605-2
Chairman Altizer presented the resolution to Ms. Beverley. William Driver,
Director of Real Estate Valuation, was also present.
Supervisor Wray moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS:
None
RESOLUTION 072605-2 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY UPON THE
RETIREMENT OF MARSHA L. BEVERLEY, REAL ESTATE
VALUATION, AFTER SEVEN YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Marsha L. Beverley was first employed by Roanoke County on July
13, 1998, as a Customer Service Representative in the Real Estate Valuation Office;
and
WHEREAS, Ms. Beverley retired as the Land Use Compliance Coordinator on
July 1, 2005, after seven years of service; and
860
July 26, 2005
WHEREAS, Ms. Beverley served for several years as the Secretary to the Board
of Equalization; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Beverley assisted in the development of the first Land Use
Brochure, redesigned the land use forms, and updated the Open Space Agreement;
and
WHEREAS, Ms. Beverley was a member of the Virginia Association of Assessing
Officers and served on the Association's Land Use Committee; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Beverley attended several appraisal classes and due to her
efforts, the position of Land Use Coordinator has been improved and expanded; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Beverley, through her employment with Roanoke County, has
been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens because of her ability to
provide excellent customer service and coordinate work between the Real Estate
Valuation Office and other County departments concerning land use issues.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of
the citizens of Roanoke County to MARSHA L. BEVERLEY for seven 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 Wray to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE:
NEW BUSINESS
1. ReQuest to appropriate an amount !:!Q. to $117.000 additional
fundinQ for the construction of ª new school warehouse. (Diane
D. Hyatt. Chief Financial Officer)
A-072605-3
Ms. Hyatt advised that the Board has previously agreed to replace the
school warehouse that was located on the site where the new public safety building is
being constructed. She stated that $500,000 has been included in the public safety
building budget for the construction of the warehouse. At a joint meeting with the
July 26, 2005
861
School Board that was held in January 2005, the Board was advised that the cost of the
warehouse could be up to $800,000 and at that time, the School Board and the County
Board agreed to split the costs in excess of $500,000. Ms. Hyatt reported that the
schools have received construction bids for the warehouse and the total budget for the
warehouse, including a 3% contingency, is $734,000. At their meeting on July 13, the
School Board approved the award of the construction contract to Avis Construction and
appropriated their half of the excess costs. At this time, staff is requesting an
appropriation of $117,000 from the Minor County Capital Fund for the County's share of
the excess costs.
Supervisor Wray inquired if the 3% contingency is sufficient for this
project. Ms. Hyatt responded that it should be sufficient. Supervisor Flora stated that
approximately seven or eight years ago, the County Board of Supervisors established
3% as the highest acceptable level for a contingency in a County project. He advised
that this project is fairly straightforward and close to a design build project.
Supervisor Wray moved to approve staff recommendation (approve the
school warehouse project total budget of $734,000 and appropriate an additional
$117,000 from the Minor County Capital to the school warehouse). The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
862
July 26, 2005
2. ReQuest to accept and appropriate additional state revenues in
the amount of $75.000 to the Sheriff's Office for fiscal year 2004-
2005 budQet. (Brent Robertson. Director of ManaQement and
BudQet)
A-072605-4
Mr. Robertson reported that during fiscal year (FY) 2004-2005, as in
previous years, the inmate population at the Roanoke County jail has remained above
capacity. The average daily inmate population increased from 259 to 268 through FY
2005, an increase of 3.5% over the prior fiscal year. He stated that due to the increased
inmate population, the Sheriff is projecting expenditures related to inmate care to
exceed original budget allocations by $75,000 for FY 2004-2005. For comparative
purposes, the year-end adjustment approved by the Board for FY 2003-2004 was
$98,000, which is a decrease from $147,000 in 2002-2003 and $217,000 in 2001-2002.
Mr. Robertson reported that budget adjustments are being made each year to catch up
the state reimbursement monies and indicated that this was projected to within $75,000
in the current year. He indicated that Roanoke County is reimbursed by the state for
salaries, mileage, office expenses, and for housing state prisoners. The reimbursement
for state responsible inmates varies between a rate of $6 and $8 per day. In addition,
the City of Salem reimburses the County for housing its prisoners on a per diem basis.
The state reimbursement for commonwealth responsible prisoners is subject to state
July 26, 2005
863
prisoner population, general assembly appropriations, and political factors, variables
difficult to consider in revenue projections.
Mr. Robertson advised that based on the revenue estimates versus the
projected revenues anticipated to be collected from the state for the Sheriff's
Department for FY 2004-2005, revenues in excess of budget for these categories
should total approximately $300,000. In addition, reimbursement revenue by the City of
Salem for city-responsible prisoners in the jail exceeded budget projections by
$130,000. He stated that staff recommends an appropriation adjustment to recognize
an additional $75,000 of revenue for FY 2004-2005 for personnel and operations
reimbursement and increasing the FY 2004-2005 care and confinement budget within
the Sheriffs department by $75,000 to cover increased operational costs of the jail
caused by increased inmate population, staffing requirements, and capital
reimbursements.
Supervisor Church moved to approve staff recommendation. He further
noted that it is somewhat misleading to state that there is no fiscal impact because
these are state funds and this impacts everyone. Mr. Robertson clarified that there is
no fiscal impact to Roanoke County but to the State of Virginia.
Supervisor Wray inquired if the per diem rate is projected to increase. Mr.
Chambliss advised that there are no plans for the state to increase this share. He
indicated that the state modifies the amount of reimbursement to the localities through
the State Compensation Board budget from the Department of Corrections for expenses
864
July 26, 2005
such as the Sheriff's salary or adjustments to office operating expenses. He stated that
the per diem amount has remained static for several years. With respect to Roanoke
County's operating costs for the existing or new proposed regional jails, these numbers
do not have a direct correlation because funding for positions is based on the number of
rated beds and the amount of available state funding.
Supervisor Church's motion to approve staff recommendation (approval of
an appropriation adjustment to recognize an additional $75,000 of revenue for FY 2004-
2005 for personnel and operations reimbursement and increasing the FY 2004-2005
care and confinement budget within the Sheriff's department by $75,000) carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the first readings and set the second
readings and public hearings for August 23, 2005. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
None
1. First readinQ of an ordinance to rezone .156 acres from R-3.
Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District. to C-1. Office
July 26, 2005
865
IN RE:
District. for the construction of ª parkinQ area in coniunction with
an office located at 5604 Starkey Road. Cave SprinQ MaQisterial
District. upon the petition of Caveness Properties. LLC.
2. First readinQ of an ordinance to obtain ª special use permit to
operate ª convenience store on approximately 1.9 acres located
at 6044 Peters Creek Road. Hollins MaQisterial District. upon the
petition of Vision Builders. LLC.
3. First readinQ of an ordinance to rezone approximately 9.95 acres
from R-1. SinQle Family Residential District. to PRD. Planned
Residential District with conditions. to construct 60 townhomes at
ª density not to exceed 6.1 units per acre located at the corner of
Newland Road and Peters Creek Road. Hollins MaQisterial
District. upon the petition of R. Fralin Development Corporation.
FIRST READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1. First readinQ of an ordinance amendinQ Section 2-2 "Industrial
Development Authority" of the Roanoke County Code to chanQe
the name of said Authority to the Economic Development
Authority. (DouQ Chittum. Director of Economic Development:
Paul M. Mahoney. County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney advised that a work session was held in June 2005 to review
policies and procedures for economic development. He indicated that one of the
866
July 26, 2005
suggestions made at that time was to change the name of the Industrial Development
Authority (IDA) to the Economic Development Authority (EDA) to more accurately reflect
the mission, goals, and purpose of the Authority. Mr. Mahoney advised that the Board
of Supervisors created the IDA by ordinance, which is included as part of the County
Code; therefore, the name change requires an amendment to the County Code. He
noted that this is the first reading of the ordinance and the second reading will be at the
August 9 meeting.
Supervisor Wray inquired if changing the name will change any of the
state laws or regulations. Mr. Mahoney responded in the negative and advised that the
IDA will still have the same powers and authority it currently holds and he advised that
State Code authorizes this type of name change, subject to approval by the local
governing body.
Supervisor Flora moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading for August 9, 2005. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
1:. Social Services Advisory Board (Appointed Qy District)
Supervisor Church nominated Dorothy Barr, Catawba Magisterial District,
to serve an additional four-year term that will expire on August 1, 2009. He requested
that confirmation of this appointment be placed on the consent agenda.
July 26, 2005
867
Supervisor Wray nominated Natalie Norris, Cave Spring Magisterial
District, to serve an additional four-year term that will expire on August 1, 2009. He
requested that confirmation of this appointment be placed on the consent agenda.
IN RE:
CONSENT AGENDA
R-072605-5; R-072605-5.b
Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the consent resolution. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS:
None
RESOLUTION 072605-5 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 July 26,
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 5, inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes - July 12, 2005
2. Ratification and confirmation of appointments to the Community Policy and
Management Team (CPMT) and the Social Services Advisory Board
3. Resolution of appreciation following the retirement of William Bowling,
Sheriff's Office, following 23 years of service.
4. Request from schools to appropriate funds in the amount of $10,000 from
Bedford County Schools for joint funding of the R. E. Cook Alternative School
5. Request to authorize an amendment to the contract with the City of Roanoke
and the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission
2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required
by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item
pursuant to this resolution.
868
July 26, 2005
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
RESOLUTION 072605-5.b EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY UPON THE
RETIREMENT OF WILLIAM S. BOWLING, SHERIFF'S OFFICE,
FOLLOWING TWENTY-THREE YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, William S. Bowling was first employed by Roanoke County in the
Sheriff's Office as a Deputy Sheriff on June 16, 1982, and attained the rank of Deputy
Sheriff-Sergeant; and
WHEREAS, Sergeant Bowling, while serving in the military reserves, was called
up to active duty and deployed to Iraq during the Gulf Conflict and to Bosnia; and
WHEREAS, Sergeant Bowling retired from Roanoke County on July 1, 2005,
following twenty-three years of service; and
WHEREAS, Sergeant Bowling, through his employment with Roanoke County,
has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens through his work as
a Deputy Sheriff and his military service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of
the citizens of Roanoke County to WILLIAM S. BOWLING following twenty-three 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 McNamara moved to receive and file the following reports.
Supervisor Wray requested that Item N-12 be removed for discussion. Supervisor
McNamara withdrew the motion to allow for discussion of Item N-12.
Supervisor Wray referenced Item N-12, report of claims activity for the
self-insurance program, claim number 4/5-119. He noted that the incident involved a
July 26, 2005
869
car from the Community Development Department which crossed an intersection and
struck another vehicle. He stated that the report shows the claim is still open and that
there is a reserve of $2,026.74 and a payment has been made in the amount of
$4,062.26. He requested an explanation of this item. Bob Jernigan, Risk Manager,
advised that a payment has been made, which was likely to cover the cost of the vehicle
damage, and the reserve is set aside to cover outstanding payments which would be for
medical payments due to injury. Mr. Hodge noted that the fund reflects claims for the
entire year and that having so few claims speaks well for the many steps that have been
taken to lower costs. He noted the administration of the program, as well as training
programs and feedback, which have contributed to a reduction in the number and
amount of settlement claims.
Supervisor Church remarked that we strive to have low loss ratios; but we
also recognize that this can go out the window in one ten minute unfortunate situation.
He stated that this does, however, speak well for the program.
Supervisor Wray moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board ContinQency
870
July 26, 2005
4. Future Capital Projects
5. Preliminary unaudited results of operations for the year ended
June 30. 2005
6. Accounts Paid = June 2005
7. Statement of Treasurer's accountability per investment and
portfolio policy as of June 30. 2005
8. Public Safety Center BuildinQ Project BudQet Report
9. Public Safety Center BuildinQ Project ChanQe Order Report
10.Jail Study Costs Report
11. Report from the VirQinia Department of Transportation (VDOT) of
chanQes to the secondary road system in June 2005
12. Report of claims activity for the self-insurance proQram for the
period ended June 30. 2005
13. Proclamation siQned Qy the Chairman
WORK SESSION
1. Work session to discuss the 800 MHz radio system. (John M.
Chambliss. Assistant County Administrator)
The work session was held from 3:51 until 4:40 p.m. Staff present
included the following: John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Elaine
Carver, Director of Information Technology; Elton Ghee, Assistant Director of
Information Technology; and Bill Hunter, Technology Services Manager.
IN RE:
July 26, 2005
871
Mr. Chambliss reported that there are three key elements to be addressed
with respect to the radio system upgrades: (1) Federal Communication Commission
(FCC) mandatory re-banding; (2) move to the new public safety building; and (3) digital
migration.
Re-bandinq: It was noted that of the 23 radio channels used by the
County, five will require new frequencies during the re-banding process. The County
will go through a voluntary negotiation with the FCC to secure the new frequencies
during the next 18 months. He advised that Nextel has agreed to pay for much of the
change that will be required in realigning the frequencies for public safety radio
systems. Each of the County's approximately 2,500 radios will need to be touched up
to three times during this process, and staff is developing a strategy to minimize any
disruption to the system.
Move to new public safety buildinq: Consideration is being given to
converting the microwave system from a star to a loop pattern. During the relocation to
the new building, backup equipment will be installed to smooth the transition and avoid
a degradation of the signal. In addition, several frequencies may need to be pulled
down during the transition from one building to the other. The radio system relocation
will begin in fall 2006 and the system will be fully operational by winter 2007.
Diqital miqration: It is being recommended that the analog radios be
upgraded to digital for the following reasons: (1) the analog models are obsolete and it
is difficult to find replacement parts; (2) digital technology provides improved audio
872
July 26, 2005
quality and greater interoperability between localities; (3) existing analog technology is
vulnerable to monitoring by unauthorized users.
There was general discussion regarding the potential impact of the
proposed changes on surrounding jurisdictions which use the radio system.
PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Proclamation of celebration in recoQnition of the 15th anniversary
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the 20th
anniversary of the VirQinians with Disabilities Act (VDA).
Chairman Altizer presented the proclamation to Mr. Terry Winborne,
Chairman of the Blue Ridge Independent Living Center Board of Directors.
IN RE:
IN RE:
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. ReQuest to adopt ª resolution amendinQ and restatinQ the Articles
of Incorporation for the Western VirQinia Water Authority. (Paul
Mahoney. County Attorney)
R-072605-6
Mr. Mahoney advised that this is a public hearing on the proposal to adopt
a resolution that would amend and restate the Articles of Incorporation for the Western
Virginia Water Authority (WVWA). The proposed amendment would change the date
when the term of the directors would commence. He stated that in January 2004, the
Board of Supervisors adopted the resolution, in conjunction with Roanoke City Council,
to create the Authority and this resolution was taken to the State Corporation
July 26, 2005
873
Commission for issuance of the Articles of Incorporation in March 2004. The Articles of
Incorporation stated that the term of the directors commenced in March 2004. Mr.
Mahoney advised that as the Authority became operational, they realized that this
posed difficulty for the orderly transition of Board members and also presented the
possibility of Board members having their term end during the budget process. The
Authority adopted a resolution requesting that City Council and the Board of
Supervisors consider amending the Articles of Incorporation to change the
commencement date from March to July 1; in essence, this is what the amendment will
accomplish. Mr. Mahoney stated that during the initial process, many of the terms of
the initial Board members are staggered and the goal is to attain a Board with staggered
four-year terms. This amendment would provide for the new terms of directors to
commence on July 1. State Code requires that if the Articles of Incorporation are
amended, both City Council and the Board of Supervisors must adopt appropriate
resolutions following a public hearing. Mr. Mahoney reported that Roanoke City Council
adopted a similar resolution at their meeting on July 18.
There were no citizens present to speak on this item.
Supervisor Altizer noted that on page 1, paragraph 3, the resolution states
"... be it resolved by the Council of the City of Roanoke". Mr. Mahoney advised that this
was a typographical error and should be corrected.
874
July 26, 2005
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the resolution with an amendment
on page 1, paragraph 3, changing "Council of the City of Roanoke" to "Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County". The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS:
None
RESOLUTION 072605-6 AMENDING AND RESTATING THE ARTICLES
OF INCORPORATION FOR THE WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER
AUTHORITY (THE "AUTHORITY")
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia ( the
"County") and the City Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia (the "City") have jointly
determined that it is in the best interests of the Authority to amend and restate the
Authority's Articles of Incorporation pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Virginia
Water and Waste Authorities Act, Chapter 51, Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended (the "Act"), and desire to do so by the adoption of concurrent resolutions; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held in accordance with the requirements
of §15.2-51 04 of the Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, as follows:
1. The Articles of Incorporation of the Authority are hereby amended and
restated as follows:
AMENDED AND RESTATED
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
OF THE
WESTERN VIRGINIA WATER AUTHORITY
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County and the Council of the City of
Roanoke have by concurrent resolution adopted the following Articles of Incorporation
of the Western Virginia Water Authority, pursuant to the Virginia Water and Waste
Authorities Act (Chapter 51, Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended)
("Act").
ARTICLE I
The name of the Authority shall be the Western Virginia Water Authority and the
address of its principal office is 600 South Jefferson Street, Suite 200, Roanoke,
Virginia 24011.
July 26, 2005
875
ARTICLE II
The names of the incorporating political subdivisions are the County of Roanoke,
Virginia and the City of Roanoke, Virginia. The County of Roanoke and the City of
Roanoke, as the incorporating political subdivisions, hereby acknowledge, covenant,
and agree that these Articles of Incorporation shall not be further amended or changed
without the express agreement of each of the governing bodies of each of the
incorporating political subdivisions. None of the following actions shall be taken or
permitted to occur by the Board of the Authority without the affirmative vote of a majority
of the members from each incorporating political subdivision of the Board of the
Authority:
(1) The inclusion of additional political subdivisions on the Authority;
(2) Additional agreement with other political subdivisions, entities, or persons,
for the bulk sale of surplus water or the acceptance and treatment of waste water.
(3) The recommendation to the governing bodies for the appointment of the
seventh member of the Board of the Authority.
ARTICLE III
The Board of the Authority shall consist of seven members. The names,
addresses, and terms of office of the initial members of the Board of the Western
Virginia Water Authority ("Authority") are as follows:
1. Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator - 3 year term
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
P. O. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018
2. Michael W. Altizer, Board of Supervisors - 2 year term
3108 Valley Stream Drive
Roanoke, VA 24014
3. H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix, Citizen - 4 year term
3314 Kenwick Trail, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
4. Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager - 3 year term
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
City Manager's Office
215 Church Avenue, Room 364
Roanoke, VA 24011
876
July 26, 2005
5.
M. Rupert Cutler, City Council -2 year term
8 North Jefferson Street, #503
Roanoke, VA 24016
6.
Robert C. Lawson, Jr., Citizen - 4 year term
Suntrust Bank, Suntrust Plaza
10 Franklin Road, SE, 9th Floor
Roanoke, VA 24001
P. O. Box 2867
Roanoke, VA 24001
7.
George W. Logan, Citizen - 4 year term
2217 Crystal Spring Ave., SW, Suite 200
Roanoke, VA 24014
P. O. Box 1190
Salem, VA 24153
Mr. Logan resigned from the Board effective May 19, 2005 and the following
director has been appointed to fulfill the unexpired portion of his term:
John B. Williamson, III
Roanoke Gas Company
519 Kimball Ave, N. E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
The terms of office of each of the initial members shall begin on the date of
issuance of a certificate of incorporation or charter for the Authority by the State
Corporation Commission. The governing body of each participating political subdivision
shall appoint the number of members, who may be members of the governing body, set
forth opposite its name below:
County of Roanoke - three
City of Roanoke - three
A seventh member shall be appointed jointly by the City of Roanoke and County
of Roanoke. The six members of the Authority Board shall recommend to the City and
the County the appointment of the seventh member. The City and the County shall
ratify and confirm the appointment of the seventh member. If the City and the County
fail to act or are unable to act within 60 days of the receipt of this recommendation, then
the appointment of the seventh member shall be made by the judges of the Circuit
Court for the 23rd Judicial Circuit.
July 26, 2005
877
Initially, the governing body of the County of Roanoke shall appoint one member
for a four-year term, one member for a three-year term, and one member for a two-year
term. Initially, the governing body of the City of Roanoke shall appoint one member for
a four-year term, one member for a three-year term, and one member for a two-year
term.
After the initial terms, each member shall be appointed for a four-year term or
until a successor is appointed and qualified, which four-year term shall begin on July 1
of the year in which the previous, initial term expires. The governing body of each
political subdivision shall be empowered to remove at any time, without cause, any
member appointed by it and appoint a successor member to fill the unexpired portion of
the removed member's term.
Each member shall be reimbursed by the Authority for the amount of actual
expenses incurred in the performance of Authority duties.
ARTICLE IV
The purposes for which the Authority is to be formed are to exercise all the
powers granted to the Authority to acquire, finance, construct, operate, manage and
maintain a water, waste water, sewage disposal and storm water control system and
related facilities pursuant to the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act, Chapter 51,
Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended ("Act"). The Authority shall have all
of the rights, powers, and duties of an authority under the Act.
It is not practicable to set forth herein information regarding preliminary estimates
of capital costs, proposals for specific projects to be undertaken, or initial rates for the
proposed projects.
ARTICLE V
The Authority shall serve the County of Roanoke, the City of Roanoke, and to the
extent permitted by the Act and by the terms of these Articles and the Western Virginia
Water Authority Operating Agreement, such other public or private entities as the
Authority may determine upon the terms and conditions established pursuant to such
contracts.
ARTICLE VI
The Authority shall cause an annual audit of its books and records to be made by
the State Auditor of Public Accounts or by an independent certified public accountant at
the end of each fiscal year and a certified copy thereof to be filed promptly with the
governing body of each of the political subdivisions.
2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution with an amendment
on page 1, paragraph 3, changing "Council of the City of Roanoke" to "Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County", and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
878
July 26, 2005
IN RE:
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Continued until AUQust 23 at the reQuest of the petitioner.
Second readinQ of an ordinance to rezone .98 acres from C1.
Office District. to C2. General Commercial District. and to obtain ª
special use permit on 2.22 acres for the operation of ª fast food
restaurant and drive-thru located at the intersections of
- - - -
Brambleton Avenue. Colonial Avenue. and Merriman Road. Cave
SprinQ MaQisterial District. upon the petition of Seaside HeiQhts.
LLC (BojanQles). (Janet Scheid. Chief Planner)
Chairman Altizer advised that this item had been continued until August
23, 2005, at the request of the petitioner.
2. Second readinQ of an ordinance amendinQ Appendix A. Zoninq
Ordinance of the Roanoke County Code and Chapter 5. Animals
and Fowl pertaininQ to multiple dOQ permits. (Janet Scheid. Chief
Planner)
0-072605-7
Mr. Mahoney stated that this proposed ordinance is an outgrowth of
several work sessions held by the Board in the spring 2005. He noted that there are
four key changes incorporated in the proposed ordinance: (1) The title is being
changed from private kennel to multiple dog permit. A multiple dog permit would be
subject to the issuance of a special use permit (SUP) and would raise the number from
July 26, 2005
879
three dogs to four dogs. (2) Private kennels are already permitted by right in the AG3,
AG1, AR and AV districts. The current County Code and the amendment will continue
the focus to provide for a SUP in the R1 zoning district. Mr. Mahoney noted that the
amendment attempts to correct a loophole in the R2 zoning district which had previously
allowed private kennels by right. The proposed change will require a SUP and Mr.
Mahoney noted that the R2 district is a more intense residential district and there are
not many R2 zoning districts in the County; most of the residential zoning districts are
R 1 . He advised that the change was made because this approach appeared to be
inconsistent with the Board's approach in other areas. (3) Under the use and design
standards for multiple dog permits, the ordinance had previously provided for a
minimum one acre lot requirement which has been deleted. (4) There is a change to
Chapter 5 in the County Code, which is the animal control section, to increase the
number of dogs allowed from two to three. That ordinance would then have to be
changed to address some definitions; and in addition, some grandfathering provisions
which are no longer operative were removed. Mr. Mahoney stated that in summary, the
proposed ordinance would increase the number of dogs allowed, change the
terminology to a multiple dog permit, delete the one acre minimum lot requirement, and
mesh the provisions of the animal control ordinance with the zoning ordinance so that
all the pieces work together.
Supervisor McNamara noted that Alternative 1 In the staff
recommendation does not refer to the one acre lot size. He inquired if this change has
880
July 26, 2005
been incorporated. Mr. Mahoney stated that staff wanted to provide the Board with
some of the historical information prepared at the work sessions in the spring. He
indicated that the proposal to delete the one acre minimum lot requirement is an
outgrowth of comments made by the Board members at the last work session and
would not be reflected in the historical memoranda.
Supervisor Wray inquired if an individual lives in a subdivision and has a
0.25 acre lot and the one acre minimum lot size requirement is deleted, could this
individual apply for a multiple dog permit if they come within the 25' setback
requirement. Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative and advised that there are
some subdivisions in the County zoned R1 that have lot sizes at least one acre or
larger. If the Board approves the amendment, individuals with smaller lot sizes could
apply for a SUP for a multiple dog permit.
Supervisor Church inquired if the Board would have the authority to
approve or reject these applications. Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative.
Supervisor Church noted that it was his recollection that at least three
Board members were in agreement with the elimination of the one acre lot size
requirement. He questioned why this was not included in the ordinance. Mr. Mahoney
advised that on page 4 of the draft ordinance in the section titled Use and Design
Standards, Section 30-82-4, the minimum lot size requirement has been deleted.
Supervisor Altizer inquired if an individual in an R1 zoning district that
already has three dogs and owns a home with a lot size of 2.5 acres can apply for a
July 26, 2005
881
SUP to obtain a fourth dog. Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative. Supervisor
Altizer further noted that this also corrects the situation in the R2 zoning district where
you can currently have an unlimited number of dogs.
The following citizens spoke on this item:
Linda Sweet, 6720 Heath Circle, stated that she has four teacup
Chihuahuas and lives in a subdivision. She advised that her dogs each weigh three or
four pounds, and that she has fencing around her yard. She stated that her dogs are
never outside by themselves, they are house dogs and all of them have had their shots;
the two older dogs are licensed. She advised that they take very good care of the dogs
and she does not want to have to give any of them up. She stated that unless one of
their neighbors got mad at them, no one would ever know they have four dogs. She
asked that she not be asked to get rid of any of her dogs.
Joe Gray, 5738 Sierra Drive, stated that he has two Chihuahuas, one
Walker Hound, and a Beagle. He stated that his dogs are well cared for and are not
outside unless he is at home. The two small dogs are litter trained and he has a fenced
back yard. He stated that he does not want to have to choose between his dogs and he
brought four dogs with him when he moved to Roanoke County seven years ago. He
stated that he would like to be able to come to the Board to obtain a SUP for his dogs.
He also noted that the Board could possibly take into consideration the size of the dogs
and whether they remain indoors when reviewing requests for special use permits.
882
July 26, 2005
Mr. Georqe Thompson, 3037 Pebble Drive, stated that he has four dogs,
one Pomeranian and three Beagles, which he has had for eight years. He stated that
all of a sudden, the County is issuing citations for this. He indicated that he has inquired
if there had been complaints but no one at the County can provide any clarification or
answers regarding this issue. He questioned when he will be provided with information
regarding what is required.
Supervisor Altizer advised that currently in the R1 zoning district, citizens
are allowed to have two dogs. The amendment being considered would increase the
limit to three dogs.
In response to an inquiry from Mr. Thompson regarding the effective date
of the ordinance, Mr. Mahoney advised that the ordinance becomes effective after
adoption; for zoning amendments, there is a 30-day period during which a citizen can
appeal the proposed amendment. With respect to Mr. Thompson's situation, Mr.
Mahoney stated that assuming he is in an R1 district; he would need to apply for a SUP
and this process could go forward in parallel with the 30-day period.
Supervisor Church stated that each family who spoke stated what he has
felt is going on across the valley. When these issues normally come to the Board, it is
the result of a dispute between neighbors where multiple dogs have been reported. He
indicated that this is an emotional situation for the pet owners and it is not an easy issue
for the Board to decide. He advised that sometimes individuals move here from other
areas and are not aware of the limitation on the number of dogs.
July 26, 2005
883
Supervisor Flora referenced Section 30-82-4 A (1) in the ordinance which
states "... multiple dog permit should be permitted only when accessory to a single
family dwelling". He inquired if this refers to a single family detached dwelling or if it
would also apply to a single family attached dwelling. Mr. Mahoney stated that he can
not recall the definition but he thinks it would apply to either. Supervisor Flora remarked
that townhouses are attached single family dwellings. Mr. Mahoney advised that a
townhouse would be in an R2 district and if the change is approved, the owner could
apply for a SUP.
Supervisor Flora referenced Section 30-82-4 A (2) which states "...
exterior runs, pens and other confined areas designed to house four (4) or more
animals". He noted that it states that it must be at least 25' from any property line and
inquired if this means that if an individual owns a townhouse and wants to get a SUP,
they would not be able to let the dog outside because there is no way to come within 25'
of the property line. He indicated that the property line on townhouses is the walls and
they extend out 10' to the rear of the house. Mr. Mahoney stated that he could not
imagine a real world situation where there would be sufficient space to satisfy that
criteria. Supervisor Flora further inquired if an outside run, pen, or other confined area
is required. He stated that the ordinance states that perimeter fencing is not considered
a confined area; therefore you can not let your dog out into a fenced back yard. He
stated that if you have four or more animals and you are going to let your dog outside, it
must be in a confined area that is 25' away from the property line. Supervisor Flora
884
July 26, 2005
stated that he knows what the ordinance is attempting to accomplish, but this will be
similar to when the ordinance limited citizens to two dogs but they were obtaining three
or more. He stated that this would be impossible to enforce. Mr. Mahoney stated that
part of the problem was when the ordinance was being drafted, it was based on the
assumption that we were dealing with a single family detached structure in a typical R1
zoning district. He stated that with the R2 district, perhaps the type of situation that
Supervisor Flora was describing was not contemplated.
Supervisor Flora posed a hypothetical assumption of a situation which is
in the R1 zoning district with a 75' wide lot with a setback in the rear of the property of
50'; he stated that this means they have a 25' x 25' area that they can place a confined
area in the center of their lot. He stated that he understands what is trying to be
accomplished, but this will create conflicts in certain situations. He indicated that this
may be an additional method of curtailing applications for special use permits. Mr.
Mahoney advised that the practical difficulty would be for citizens on average lot sizes to
meet or satisfy the setback requirements. Supervisor Flora stated that this is why the
one acre minimum lot size was likely in place because it is the only way to have a
decent size run area for the animals. He advised that if this process is opened up to
multiple dogs, the Board may be creating a situation where citizens are unable to
comply with the requirements.
Supervisor McNamara advised that he received a call today from a
member of the press who noted that a number of citations have recently been issued.
July 26, 2005
885
He stated that he does not think this was a contrived or planned activity on the part of
enforcement. He indicated that he feels that what occurred was that there was an
article in the paper which prompted individuals to report neighbors with multiple dogs.
He stated that until the article was in the paper, most citizens had no idea there was a
limit to the number of dogs allowed in the County. He stated that the increase in
enforcement is a direct result of the newspaper article which supports his initial premise
which is that, in effect, government is creating a tool to allow savvy neighbors to get at
other neighbors. He stated that the County does need to have some limits, and there
have been conversations regarding possible differences between large and small dogs.
He stated that the County needs to loosen the restrictions and the one acre minimum lot
size can either stay or go; the process still requires approval for multiple dogs. He
stated that it should be an extraordinary situation for the Board to approve four dogs on
a small lot size. He indicated that he would support loosening up to four dogs and allow
a 30 day registration period which would grandfather any residents who already have
four dogs; and upon the death of one of the four dogs, there is no opportunity to return
to four dogs and it would remain at three.
Supervisor Wray advised that he still has a problem with the one acre lot
size. He questioned why the Board would want to subject themselves to the continual
opportunity for individuals to come to the Board from every subdivision with small lots
requesting a SUP. He recommended leaving the one acre minimum requirement in
place and increasing the limit to three dogs in an R1 setting. He questioned how many
886
July 26, 2005
kennel permit applications the Board has had in the past two years. Mr. Mahoney
stated that he does not know how many permit applications the Board has received in
the past two years. Supervisor Wray stated that there were four; two of which were
approved. He stated that opening up the lot size raises other issues. Mr. Mahoney
advised that staff may have misunderstood the direction from the Board at the last work
session. He indicated that he thought there was a consensus from the Board to delete
the one acre minimum requirement. He stated that it is the prerogative of the Board to
determine how to proceed with respect to the one acre minimum lot size requirement.
Supervisor Wray stated that he had received a report regarding the
number of animal control incidents since 2000. He advised that there have been 14,668
incidents reported; of this number, there were 11,197 dog-related incidents which are
approximately 76% of the total calls. He indicated that if we are increasing the potential
number of dogs, this increases the potential for additional calls and complaints. If the
Board entertains the increase in the number of dogs, he stated that the County would
need to add an additional animal control officer to handle the potential increase in dog-
related incidents. He voiced support for retaining the one acre minimum lot size
requirement and adding an additional animal control officer. He further stated that the
Board needs to protect the interests of both the citizens who own pets and those who
do not.
Supervisor Altizer questioned how many solicitation permits have been
issued since the ordinance was amended. Diane Childers, Clerk to the Board, advised
July 26, 2005
887
that the County recently received the first request for a street solicitation permit and the
application is currently being reviewed. Supervisor Altizer stated that amendment of
that ordinance garnered similar debate among the Board members because it raised
fears that the County would be inundated with requests for solicitation permits. He
stated that he feels that the dogs are already present in Roanoke County and he does
not believe that people will rush out to secure new dogs. In reference to the number of
animal control incidents report, he indicated that 10% of the 14,668 calls were in the
past year. There was a reduction of 1,500 calls between 2004 and 2005; there was a
slight increase from 2003 to 2004. He stated that the number of calls is down 50% for
this calendar year; however, the perception is if you increase to three dogs, they will all
be big dogs. Supervisor Altizer indicated that the average pet owner loves their animals
and will take care of them, and the majority of what the County will be dealing with is
already present. He stated that the ordinance would allow citizens to petition for an
SUP to obtain a fourth dog, and this mayor may not be difficult depending upon the
circumstances. He stated that although there have only been four requests for an SUP
in recent years, he noted that there are three families present tonight that should have
come under that category. He stated that four petitions in the last few years is not an
accurate number and noted that the term "kennel" likely caused many citizens to have
concerns relating to the permit process. He indicated that most citizens have respect
for their neighbors and will try to do the right thing in maintaining and caring for their
dogs. He voiced support for increasing the limit on the number of dogs to three.
888
July 26, 2005
Supervisor Church also noted that there are three families present who did
not apply for the kennel permit and stated that people either do not know about the
requirement for the SUP or they choose not to apply. He stated that the County will not
create a storm with this change and he is open to discussion regarding Supervisor
Wray's comments and voiced support for an additional animal control officer. He further
agreed with Supervisor Wray regarding the scenario with respect to a one acre
minimum but disagreed with the comments relating to not subjecting the Board to
people petitioning for an SUP. He stated that the Board is here to hear from the people.
He encouraged the Board to work together and indicated that the Board could keep the
one acre minimum and utilize the suggestion of Supervisor McNamara to grandfather in
the families who report their dogs within the next 60 days. He noted, with respect to
Supervisor Flora's earlier comments regarding townhouses, that it is not the Board's
intention to allow three or four dogs in an 800 square foot dwelling.
Supervisor Wray referenced the animal control incident report and
Supervisor Altizer's comments indicating that the call level was down 50% for the
current year. He clarified that the figures for the current year reflect the fact that the
year is not yet over, and the County has already received 1,500 calls related to dogs.
He stated that with this fact being considered, it would place us in line with previous
years. He advised that in 2000, there were 2,460 calls and noted the following call
volume for the subsequent years: 2001 had 2,339 calls; 2002 had 2,554 calls; 2003
had 2,744 calls; and 2004 had 3,071 calls. He stated that as of July 2005, there have
July 26, 2005
889
been 1,500 calls. He noted that this would place the County on track for approximately
3,000 calls for 2005. Supervisor Altizer stated that perhaps he misunderstood the
report and inquired whether the report was through July 1 or December 31, 2005.
There was not a clear consensus regarding the dates which were covered in the report,
and Supervisor Altizer advised that his remarks were based on the assumption that the
report was through December 31, 2005. Supervisor Wray noted that calls are not down
50% and that the call volume remains consistent with prior years. Mr. Hodge stated that
if the report is based on a fiscal year, then we are only half way through the fiscal year.
He further noted that there was an officer who was out for much of the year and this
factor may have contributed to a variance in the numbers. Supervisor Altizer stated that
the report states that it is for the year ending December 31 and he assumed that the
figures reflected data for this time period in each of the years listed. He stated that if the
data only reflects one-half of the year, he stands corrected.
Supervisor McNamara advised that the addition of staff should be handled
as part of the budget process except in extreme circumstances, and he further indicated
that he would like for the Police Department to determine the best use of additional
officers. He noted that Roanoke City currently has a limit of four dogs and noted that
their average lot size is probably smaller than the average residential lot size in the
County.
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the ordinance with an
amendment to retain the one acre minimum lot size and allow a 60-day period to
890
July 26, 2005
register four dogs, if they are currently owned; upon the death of one of the four dogs,
the homeowner would be allowed to maintain three dogs from that point forward.
Supervisor Altizer noted the amendment to retain the one acre minimum
lot size and stated that there are some citizens present at the meeting who have
advised that they currently own four dogs and they have lots that are less than one
acre. He requested clarification if one of the four dogs die, they will be allowed to retain
three dogs unless they have a minimum lot size of one acre. Supervisor McNamara
stated that this is accurate and if a homeowner has at least a one acre lot, they can
subsequently apply for a SUP; but at the present time, anyone who owns four dogs can
register them, keep the four dogs until one dog dies, at which point they revert back to
three dogs. Supervisor McNamara stated that if a citizen has a lot size larger than one
acre lot, they can apply for a SUP which would allow you to maintain four or more dogs
forever. Supervisor Altizer inquired if the homeowner loses two dogs, can they go back
up to three. Supervisor McNamara responded in the affirmative and stated that three
dogs would be the limit in Roanoke County in the R1 zoning district.
Mr. Mahoney directed the Board to page 5 of the ordinance, Item C, which
was struck through in the draft ordinance. He stated that to fulfill the intent of
Supervisor McNamara's motion, the Board could elect to retain Item C; change the date
of October 14, 1997, to today's date; and change the number to four. The rest of the
language under Items C1, C2, and C3 accomplishes the stated objective. Mr. Mahoney
further recommended the deletion of Item A.1 on Page 4.
July 26, 2005
891
Supervisor Wray stated that he thinks the proposed change will increase
the number of calls, and the County should not wait until time for the budget process to
add an animal control officer. He indicated that if the Board chooses to act on a matter
that will potentially increase the number of dogs in Roanoke County, then they should
assign an additional officer to provide Chief Lavinder the necessary staff that he will
need. He advised that he would be more supportive of the motion if it includes a
provision for an additional animal control officer.
Supervisor Church voiced support for the motion on the table and advised
that the Board would be remiss if they turn their backs on the enforcement officers by
not giving them the necessary tools to do their jobs. He suggested that Supervisor
McNamara offer an amendment to the motion.
Supervisor Flora stated that Supervisor McNamara's compromise IS
reasonable. He indicated that he does not know that changing the ordinance will
generate any more calls and advised that the existing level of 3,000 calls is adequate to
justify looking at adding an additional animal control officer. He noted that this call
volume places 1,000 calls per year on each animal control officer, which is a
tremendous burden. He stated that the current number of calls justifies adding an
additional animal control officer, and that the ordinance is only as good as the
enforcement. He indicated that he would prefer to refer this issue to the County
Administrator and request that he report back to the Board regarding the standard for
animal control officers so that when the decision regarding personnel is made, it is
892
July 26, 2005
supported by factual data and not emotions. He requested that the County
Administrator obtain data from the Police Department regarding animal control officer
staffing levels.
Supervisor Altizer stated that he would support Supervisor Flora's
comments regarding gathering information to assess the need for an additional animal
control officer.
Supervisor McNamara amended the motion as follows: approve the
ordinance with an amendment to retain the one acre minimum lot size; allow a 60-day
period to register four dogs, if they are currently owned; upon the death of one of the
four dogs, the homeowner would be allowed to maintain three dogs from that point
forward; and direct the County Administrator to report back to the Board within 60 days
to see if the number of incident calls regarding dogs increases.
Supervisor Altizer stated that the Board has demonstrated a give and take
in attempting to address the needs of all County citizens.
In response to a request from Supervisor Wray, Supervisor McNamara re-
stated the amended motion.
Supervisor McNamara's amended motion to adopt the ordinance carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
July 26, 2005
893
ORDINANCE 072605-7 AMENDING APPENDIX A. ZONING
ORDINANCE OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE AND CHAPTER 5.
ANIMALS AND FOWL PERTAINING TO MULTIPLE DOG PERMITS
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County has requested certain
amendments to the County Code pertaining to multiple dog permits; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 28, 2005, and
the second reading and public hearing were held July 26, 2005; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on July 5, 2005; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the following sections of the County Zoning Ordinance be amended
to read and provide as follows:
SEC. 30-29. USE TYPES; GENERALLY.
Sec. 30-29-2. Residential Use Types.
* * * *
Konnol, private: Multiole doa oermit: The keeping, breeding, raising, showing or
training of three (3) four (4) or more dogs over four (4) months of age for personal
enjoyment of the owner or occupants of the property, and for which commercial gain is
not the primary objective.
* * * *
SEC. 30-32. AG-3 AGRICUL TURAURURAL PRESERVE DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-32-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable requirements
contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more
stringent standards are listed in Article IV, Use and Design Standards, for those specific
uses.
* * * *
2. Residential Uses
****
Kennel, Priv3te Multiole Doa Permit *
* * * *
894
July 26, 2005
SEC. 30-33. AG-1 AGRICUL TURAURURAL LOW DENSITY DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-33-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable requirements
contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more
stringent standards are listed in Article IV, Use and Design Standards, for those specific
uses.
* * * *
2. Residential Uses
* * * *
Kennel, Private Multiole Doa Permit *
* * * *
SEC. 30-34. AR AGRICUL TURAURESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-34-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable requirements
contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more
stringent standards are listed in Article IV, Use and Design Standards, for those specific
uses.
* * * *
1 . Residential Uses
* * * *
Kennel, Priv3te Multiole DOG Permit *
* * * *
§. 30-36. AV AGRICUL TURALNILLAGE CENTER DISTRICT.
§. 30-36-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable requirements
contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more
stringent standards are listed in Article IV, Use and Design Standards, for those specific
uses.
* * * *
2. Residential Uses
* * * *
July 26, 2005
895
Kennels, Prh/3te Multiole DOG Permit *
* * * *
§. 30-41. R-1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
§. 30-41-2. Permitted Uses.
* * * *
(B) The following uses are allowed only by Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 30-
19. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards are listed in
Article IV, Use and Design Standards, for those specific uses.
* * * *
2. ResidenüalUses
* * * *
Kennel, Priv3te Multiole Doa Permit *
* * * *
SEC. 30-42. R-2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-42-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable requirements
contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more
stringent standards are listed in Article IV, Use and Design Standards, for those specific
uses.
2. Residential Uses
* * * *
Kennel, Pri'l3te
* * * *
(B) The following uses are allowed only by Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 30-
19. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards are listed in
Article IV, Use and Design Standards, for those specific uses.
1 . Residential Uses
Home Beauty/Barber Salon *
Multiole Doa Permit *
Townhouse *
896
July 26, 2005
Sec. 30-82-4. Kennel, Private. Multiole Doa Permit.
(A) General standards:
1. Minimum lot size: One (1) acre.
2. A priv3to kennel multiole doa oermit shall be permitted only when accessory to a
single family dwelling.
3. Exterior runs, pens and other confined areas designed to house four (4) or more
animals shall be set back at least twenty-five (25) feet from any property line. For the
purposes of this section, perimeter fencing of a yard shall not be considered a confined
area.
SEC. 30-91. OFF STREET PARKING, STACKING AND LOADING.
Sec. 30-91-9. Minimum Parking Required.
* * * *
Use Type Parking Required
Kennel, Private Multiole DOG Permit No Requirement
2. That the following sections of Chapter 5. Animals and Fowl be amended to
read and provide as follows:
Article II. Dogs, Cats and Other Animals
Sec. 5-21. Definitions.
For the purposes of this article, the following words and phrases shall have the
meanings ascribed to them by this section, unless otherwise indicated to the contrary:
* * * *
Kennel: An enclosure or structure used to house, shelter, restrain, exercise, board,
breed, handle or otherwise keep or care for more than two (2) three (3) dogs four (4)
months of age or older, from which they cannot escape. The enclosure or structure shall
not mean a dwelling or a fence used to demarcate a property line. For purposes of this
Chapter and the license tax, the term "kennel" shall also include "multiple dog permit."
* * * *
Sec. 5-24. Limitation on number kept per dwelling unit.
(a) The harboring or keeping of more than tvJO (2) three (3) dogs over four (4) months
of age per dwelling shall be unlawful, unless a private kennollioen~e multiole doa oermit
July 26, 2005
897
has been issued pursuant to this article. The harboring or keeping of more than six (6)
cats over four (4) months of age, of which no more than two (2) may be fertile, per
dwelling shall be unlawful. The requirements of this section shall not apply to any
dwelling which is part of an active agricultural operation or usage as defined by the
zoning ordinance for the county.
(b) As of July 1, 1991, any owner of more than the number of oate permitted under
subsection (3) shall be entitled to continue to h3rbor or keep such C3tS, provided they
comply ~Nith the follo~Ning requirements:
(1) I.... lioense for e30h cat in a dwelling is obtained 3S required by Division 2,
"License" of /\rtiole II of this ch3pter within thirty (30) d3YS of the effcc-tive d3te of this
subsection; 3nd
(2) A lioense sh311 be obtained and kept in foroe f-or e3ch C3t olaimed under this
subsection f-or eaoh cubsequent year that the C3t sh311 rem3in 3live. /\ny bre3k in
m3int3ining a v31id lioense for any C3t sh311 extinguish any right of suoh owner to obim
the benefit of this subsection.
(c) As of Oc-tober 11, 1997, any owner of more than the number of dogs permitted
under subsection (3) sh311 be entitled to oontinue to h3rbor or keep up to three (3) dogs,
provided they oomply ~l:ith the following requirements:
(1) ,^, lioense for e30h dog in a d~Nelling is obt3ined 3S required by division 2,
"Lioense" of 3rtiole II of this ch3ptor by Janu3ry 31, 1998; and
(2) /\ license Sh311 be obt3ined 3nd kept in force for eaoh dog cbimed under thic
subsection for e~'ery subsequent year th3t the dog shall rem3in 3live. Any break in
maintaining 3 valid lioence f-or 3ny dog sh311 extinguish 3ny right of cuoh owner to olaim
the benefit of this subsection.
(3) Upon the death or other disposition of 3ny dog in exoess of the number permitted
under subseotion (3), the owner sh311 be required to be in compliance '/lith the
applic3ble limit3tion.
(b) As of July 26, 2005, allow a 60-day period to register four dogs if the dogs are
owned currently and upon the death of one of the four dogs, the homeowner would be
allowed to maintain three dogs from that point forward.
3. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
adoption.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance with the amendment
to retain the one acre minimum lot size and to allow a 60-day period to register four
dogs if the dogs are owned currently and upon the death of one of the four dogs; the
homeowner would be allowed to maintain three dogs from that point forward; and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
898
July 26, 2005
3. Second readina of an ordinance to obtain ª special use permit to
expand ª reliaious assemblv facility on 15.24 acres located at
6011 Merriman Road. Cave SDrina Maaisterial District. upon the
petition of Church of the Holv Spirit. (Janet Scheid. Chief
Planner)
0-072605-8
David Holladay, Senior Planner, reported that this is a request for an SUP
to expand a religious assembly facility at 6011 Merriman Road. The Church of the Holy
Spirit originally requested a special use permit from the Board in 1994 to construct their
current facility. He stated that plans were approved and the construction of the facility
commenced in 1995 and 1996; since then, several smaller additions have been made
which did not require a SUP. Mr. Holladay advised that the church is now planning to
expand the sanctuary and parking and the proposed expansion exceeds the standards;
therefore, an SUP is required. He indicated that they currently have a 650 seat
sanctuary and are projecting a possible maximum of 1,200 seats with the expansion.
The addition to the facility will be on the south side and total 25,500 square feet on the
upper floor, and 15,000 square feet on the lower floor. He noted that there was one
issue separate from this process relating to erosion leaving the site and flowing down to
Crystal Creek Drive; however this issue was discussed at the Planning Commission
meeting and has since been addressed by the church and County staff. He noted that
the pipe which was to take water to the stormwater management pond was clogged and
898
July 26, 2005
3. Second readinQ of an ordinance to obtain ª special use permit to
expand ª reliQious assembly facility on 15.24 acres located at
6011 Merriman Road. Cave SprinQ MaQisterial District. upon the
petition of Church of the Holy Spirit. (Janet Scheid. Chief
Planner)
0-072605-8
David Holladay, Senior Planner, reported that this is a request for an SUP
to expand a religious assembly facility at 6011 Merriman Road. The Church of the Holy
Spirit originally requested a special use permit from the Board in 1994 to construct their
current facility. He stated that plans were approved and the construction of the facility
commenced in 1995 and 1996; since then, several smaller additions have been made
which did not require a SUP. Mr. Holladay advised that the church is now planning to
expand the sanctuary and parking and the proposed expansion exceeds the standards;
therefore, an SUP is required. He indicated that they currently have a 650 seat
sanctuary and are projecting a possible maximum of 1,200 seats with the expansion.
The addition to the facility will be on the south side and total 25,500 square feet on the
upper floor, and 15,000 square feet on the lower floor. He noted that there was one
issue separate from this process relating to erosion leaving the site and flowing down to
Crystal Creek Drive; however this issue was discussed at the Planning Commission
meeting and has since been addressed by the church and County staff. He noted that
the pipe which was to take water to the stormwater management pond was clogged and
July 26, 2005
899
the church is in the process of cleaning this out. Mr. Holladay stated that the Planning
Commission heard this item on July 5 and unanimously approved it with three
conditions. Two of the conditions were carried over from the original SUP: (1)
Merriman Road will be the only access to the site; and (2) a total of 22 parking spaces
shown in the original concept plan along Barbara Circle will not be constructed, resulting
in a larger buffer yard on that side. He advised that the third condition is amending the
site plan.
Supervisor Wray referenced Item #5 on the existing special use conditions
which states "any outdoor activity area, swimming pool, or ball field or court which
adjoins a residential use type shall be landscaped with one row of small evergreen
trees..." and inquired if there was no longer a need for this condition. Mr. Holladay
advised that the zoning ordinance use and design standards for a religious assembly
address the screening requirements for any outdoor activity areas.
Supervisor Wray inquired if a stopped up pipe was the cause of the
stormwater runoff and drainage problems. Mr. Holladay stated that Mark Bowles,
County Construction Inspector, inspected the property and also spoke with Mr. Dillon at
the church who advised that the pipe was stopped up. Mr. Holladay advised that
according to Mr. Bowles, the church was taking steps to correct this matter.
Ed Natt advised that he is present as a member of the congregation and
not as counsel representing the church. He stated that the issue on Crystal Creek is an
area of the property which is not used frequently by the church and is not clearly visible.
900
July 26, 2005
Mr. Natt stated that Mr. Bowles discovered some issues and Jim Dillon, a member of
the congregation, noted silt problems and has installed a silt fence. Since that time, it
has been discovered that there were two outfall pipes near the playground area and one
of these pipes was blocked. Mr. Natt stated that Mr. Dillon has advised that someone is
scheduled to clean out the pipe tomorrow (July 27) and the church is willing to work with
County staff to solve the problem. He further noted that the site plan is not definitive
and the facility may be reoriented to take advantage of the views from the site. He
requested that the church be granted permission to make this change if it is deemed
desirable.
Supervisor Wray moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS:
None
ORDINANCE 072605-8 AMENDING AND GRANTING A SPECIAL USE
PERMIT TO THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY SPIRIT TO EXPAND A
RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY FACILITY ON 15.24 ACRES LOCATED AT
6011 MERRIMAN ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 87.17-6-11.2) CAVE SPRING
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Church of the Holy Spirit was granted a special use permit on
March 22, 1994 by Ordinance #32294-8; and
WHEREAS, the Church of the Holy Spirit has filed a petition for a special use
permit to expand a religious assembly facility on 15.24 acres located at 6011 Merriman
Road (Tax Map No. 87.17-6-11.2) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the existing special use permit will be amended by deleting certain
conditions and imposing a new condition; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
July 5, 2005; and
July 26, 2005
901
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on June 26, 2005; the second reading and public hearing on this
matter was held on July 26, 2005.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to the
Church of the Holy Spirit to expand a religious assembly facility on 15.24 acres located
at 6011 Merriman Road in the Cave Spring Magisterial District is substantially in accord
with the adopted 2000 Community Plan, as amended, pursuant to the provisions of
Section 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and said special use
permit is hereby approved with the following conditions:
(1) Owner/developer is to prepare the site in full accord with the Virginia
Department of Forestry and Roanoke County guidelines regarding the protection
of existing trees. This tree protection plan will be established during the site plan
review and put into effect prior to the beginning of preliminary grading.
(2) Merriman Road will be the only access to the site.
(3) Applicant shall be required to connect to public water and sewer service.
(4) A total of 22 parking spaces, shown on (the 2-1/94) concept plan nearest
rear yard border of 5959 Barbara Circle, will not be constructed, resulting in a
minimum 40 foot buffer.
(5) Any outdoor activity area, swimming pool, or ball field or court which
adjoins a residential use type shall be landscaped with one row of small
evergreen trees in accordance with Section 30 92 along the property line
adjoining the residential use type. Where night time lighting of such areas is
proposed large evergreen trees shall be required.
(3) The parking plan and the development plan shall be in substantial
conformity with the Site Plan prepared by Balzer and Associates, Inc. under the
date of April 18, 2005.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Wray to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
902
July 26, 2005
4. Second readinQ of an ordinance authorizinQ the vacation of four
existinQ 15 foot drainaQe easements within the proposed
development of Cherokee Hills. Section ~ Catawba MaQisterial
District. (Arnold Covey. Director of Community Development)
0-072605-9
Mr. Covey advised that this ordinance was initially presented to the Board
on July 12 and indicated that there have been no changes since that time. Staff is
recommending that the Board move forward with the adoption of the ordinance.
There were no citizens present to speak on this item and there was no
discussion.
Supervisor Church moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS:
None
ORDINANCE 072605-9 TO VACATE A 15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT
DEDICATED ACROSS LOT 11, BLOCK 5, AND A 15' DRAINAGE
EASEMENT SHOWN EXTENDING FROM ARROWHEAD DRIVE, BOTH
ON PLAT OF SECTION 2, CHEROKEE HILLS, PLAT BOOK 9, PAGE
131, AND TO VACATE TWO 15' DRAINAGE EASEMENTS SHOWN ON
PLAT OF SECTION 1 OF CHEROKEE HILLS, PLAT BOOK 9, PAGE 59,
LOCATED IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, by "Map of Section No.2 of Cherokee Hills" dated 12 March 1979,
and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in
Plat Book 9, page 131, a 15' drainage easement was dedicated on Lot 11, Block 5, the
subject easement being designated on said plat as "15' D.E.," and a 15' drainage
easement was shown extending from Arrowhead Drive, the subject easement being
designated on said plat as "15' drainage easement"; and
July 26, 2005
903
WHEREAS, by "Map of Section No.1 of Cherokee Hills" dated 8 May 1974, and
recorded in the above-mentioned Clerk's Office in Plat Book 9, page 59, two 15'
drainage easements were shown and located on the remaining property of Cherokee
Hills Associates, the subject easements being designated on said plat as "CL Hollow is
CL 15' D.E."; and
WHEREAS, the subject easements are further shown on "Map Showing Vacation
of Drainage Easements for Townside Construction Co., Inc. situate on 31.499 acre tract
being a portion of 84.603 acres (PB 28, page 37) and Lot 11, Block 5, Section 2,
Cherokee Hills (PB9, page 131) and Section 1, Cherokee Hills (PB9, PG59) Adjoining
Cherokee Hills and Glenvar Heights" and designated as "15' D.E. To Be Vacated"; and
WHEREAS, the Petitioner, Townside Construction Co., Inc., is the current owner
of the above-mentioned 31.499 acre tract of real estate, said real estate being a portion
of Tax Map #54.04-5-1; and
WHEREAS, Townside Construction Co., Inc. has generated subdivision plans for
Section 4 of Cherokee Hills that will encompass the subject 15' drainage easements
and the subject drainage easements are no longer required and Petitioner has
requested that said easements be vacated pursuant to § 15.2-2272 of the Code of
Virginia (1950, as amended); and
WHEREAS, this vacation will not involve any cost to the County and the affected
County departments have raised no objection; and,
WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by § 15.2-2204 of the 1950 Code
of Virginia, as amended, and the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 12,
2005, and the public hearing and second reading of this ordinance was held on July 26,
2005.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, as follows:
1. That drainage easements being designated and shown as "15' D.E. To Be
Vacated" on Exhibit A attached hereto, said easements having been shown and
dedicated on "Map of Section No. 2 of Cherokee Hills" dated 12 March 1979, and
recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County in Plat Book 9,
page 131, be, and hereby are, vacated pursuant to § 15.2-2272 of the 1950 Code of
Virginia, as amended; and
2. That drainage easements being designated and shown as "15' D.E. To Be
Vacated" on Exhibit A attached hereto, said easements having been shown on "Map of
Section No. 1 of Cherokee Hills" dated 8 May 1974, and recorded in the above-
mentioned Clerk's Office in Plat Book 9, page 59, be, and hereby are, vacated pursuant
to § 15.2-2272 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and
3. That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited
to publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the Petitioner.
4. That the County Administrator, or an Assistant County Administrator, is
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be
904
July 26, 2005
necessary to accomplish the provisions of this ordinance, all of which shall be on form
approved by the County Attorney.
5. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption,
and a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the above-mentioned Clerk's
Office in accordance with § 15.2-2272 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Church, Wray, Flora, Altizer
NAYS: None
IN RE:
CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
James Garris, 3108 Honeywood Lane, stated that the Board will soon be
evaluating guidelines regarding adult use ordinances and he feels that the focus is too
narrow. He noted situations in neighboring localities, such as stores in the regional mall
in Roanoke City, where children can view items that he stated were totally objectionable
and out of character with our value system. He referenced restaurants, other
businesses, and billboards which present objectionable situations or material. He
requested that the Board look at a wider set of activities than what is currently being
considered.
IN RE:
REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Church: (1) He stated that he feels the Supreme Court has
overstepped its boundaries with respect to eminent domain. He stated for the record
that he will not consider any condemnation of a citizen's property unless public safety or
a local emergency would leave no other alternative. He encouraged the Board to also
endorse this position.
July 26, 2005
905
Supervisor Wray: (1) He inquired about the status of a VDOT public
hearing regarding the bridge replacement on Boones Chapel Road. Mr. Covey advised
that a citizen in the area requested a public hearing, but a date has not yet been
scheduled by VDOT. Mr. Covey will notify the Board when the meeting is scheduled by
VDOT. (2) He inquired about the status of scheduling a meeting with a citizen
concerning another bridge. Mr. Covey reported that this meeting has not yet been
scheduled, but staff will do so. (3) He requested that Anthony Ford, Traffic Engineer,
evaluate citizen concerns regarding the speed limit on the following roads: Route 677
(Willow Branch); Route 614 (Boones Chapel Road); and Route 613 (Merriman Road).
He further requested that staff investigate the possibility of installing agricultural signs in
the area to advise that tractors may be on the road. (4) He requested an update on
Buck Mountain Road. Mr. Covey advised that a public information meeting was held,
but VDOT has not yet provided details regarding the comments they received at that
meeting. (5) He requested that staff have someone from VDOT contact Mr. Akers on
Sorrell Lane concerning the pavement on his street. (6) He requested an update
concerning the screening plan being implemented at Sims Automotive; the
improvements were to be completed within 60 days following June 14. Mr. Hodge
reported that the materials for the project had to be ordered and Sims Automotive had
stated that this would take several weeks; therefore, the construction will occur toward
the end of the 60-day period. (7) He inquired if the Shelton residence on Colonial Drive
in Green Valley is occupied. Mr. Covey advised that he did not know if the home was
906
July 26, 2005
occupied, but stated that the building official will conduct another inspection and is
scheduled to provide an update to the Planning Commission now that the improvements
are complete. He noted that the Planning Commission wanted to keep the extension in
place to ensure that other issues do not arise. (8) He advised that Tuesday, August 2,
is National Night Out. He stated that if neighborhoods need a police officer to attend an
event on this evening, they should contact Chief Lavinder's office. (9) He commended
Bill Richardson for his work in preparing the zoning violations report and stated that it is
very helpful. (10) He advised that he and Chairman Altizer attended the ribbon cutting
for the Habitat for Humanity House in Crescent Heights this weekend and noted that
this was a first for Roanoke County.
Supervisor Flora: He requested that staff contact the families who spoke
at the meeting regarding the kennel permit and notify them that they still need to take
action with respect to the summons' they have received.
Supervisor Altizer: (1) He commended the Board for making the right
decision with respect to the Habitat for Humanity house and thanked Supervisor
McNamara for bringing forward the request. He also thanked Arnold Covey and staff in
the Community Development Department who contributed services for this project. (2)
He advised that if a resolution cannot be reached with respect to the pond in Falling
Creek that needs to be cleaned out, staff is to schedule a meeting with him and the
builders.
July 26, 2005
907
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Submitted by:
Approved by:
Kk/~,$, aIr!JJ/J)
Diane S. Childers, CMC
Clerk to the Board
Michael W. Altizer
Chairman
908
July 26, 2005
This paQe intentionally left blank