1/27/2009 - RegularJanuary 27, 2009 37
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
January 27, 2009
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 January 2009.
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 Joseph P.
McNamara, Supervisors Joseph B. "Butch" Church,
Charlotte A. Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT: Supervisor Richard C. Flora
STAFF PRESENT: John M. Chambliss, Jr., County Administrator; Paul M.
Mahoney, County Attorney; Dan O'Donnell, Assistant County
Administrator; Brenda J. Holton, Deputy Clerk to the Board;
Teresa Hamilton Hall, Public Information Officer
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by Pastor Keith Beasley, Good Shepherd
Lutheran Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Supervisor Church advised that he had spoken with Mr. Mahoney in
reference to the work session scheduled for this meeting to consider how the public is to
3$ January 27, 2009
be notified concerning petitions for special use permits or rezonings. He stated that a
public meeting was held recently in his area and he had received significant input from
citizens on this subject. He stated that since Mr. Mahoney had requested information
from the Community Development department for the work session, he wanted to move
forward with the work session today with the understanding that the issue could be
revisited before any decisions were made.
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
1. Briefing ~ Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Executive Director
Tim Steller
Mr. O'Donnell advised that he was appointed by the Board to serve on the
Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare (BRBH) Board of Directors and that he had been
elected as its chairman. He reported that Keith Beasley, who was also appointed by the
Board of Supervisors to the BRBH, was present at the meeting. He advised that he had
requested that the BRBH staff ensure that the community is informed of the services
they provide. He introduced Mr. Steller, Executive Director, who was present to make
the briefing.
Mr. Steller thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak. He advised
that BRBH is a community service board under Virginia law, which requires
municipalities and counties to establish such a board to perform the mandates required
to provide services for those citizens in their area who are mentally ill, alcohol and
substances abusers or have intellectual disabilities. He advised that the County, in
January 27, 2009 39
collaboration with the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, and the Counties of Botetourt and
Craig, established BRBH several years ago. He advised that the Board of Supervisors
appoints members to serve on the Board of Directors and recently appointed Reverend
Keith Beasley to replace Rita Gtiniecki. He also reported that Linda Manns was
appointed by the Board of Supervisors to serve as a member at large from Roanoke
County. He advised that the sole purpose of BRBH is to work with people with a severe
illness or disability, who would have been relegated to a life in an institution in years
past; however, by virtue of modern medications, techniques and therapy, those people
can now successfully live within the community.
Mr. Steller advised that last year they assisted 1,279 residents of Roanoke
County with a mental illness, 477 residents with a substance use disorder and 237
persons with an intellectual disability, which is the current term for mental retardation.
He advised that 831 individuals from the County were seen by Emergency Services,
which covers the preliminary assessments and evaluations before further services are
provided. He advised that they provide a variety of local community based treatments
and support services and work with local schools on prevention programs to try to
alleviate the need for these issues in younger citizens. He advised that the financial
allocation by the County is $175,000 and they were able to leverage these funds so that
every dollar contributed by the County resulted in $36.04 of services for a total value of
more than $6,306,000 in actual services to the residents of Roanoke County.
4,~ January 27, 2009
Mr. Steller advised that, in a few weeks, they will move the regional crisis
stabilization program and residential treatment program for substance abuse to new
quarters at the Blue Ridge Recovery Center, located at 3003 Hollins Road in the City of
Roanoke, with the new building financed by municipal bonding. He advised that the
capacity for each of these major programs will be 20 beds each, which will be an
increase from the current 16 beds. He advised that other accomplishments for the
County include the following: (1) services in the schools for special education students
funded under the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA), which has grown to include
elementary center-based programs, (2) school-based programs in five elementary
schools, (3) therapists working in two middle schools and (4) a request to adopt a
program in 2009 that would be appropriate for high schools. He is also pleased to
report that a new service was established in reaction to the needs of the CSA, which will
employ Intensive Case Management services to support and maintain youth
transitioning back home from a residential facility and to prevent those at risk of such
placement from having to leave their community. He advised that he was proud of the
work they are doing and expressed his appreciation to the Board for their support.
Chairman Altizer thanked Mr. Steller for the briefing and BRBH for the
services they provide to the community. He congratulated him on moving into their new
facility.
January 27, 2009 41
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution to amend and modi the authorization for the
abandonment of right-of-way shown as a ortion of Brentwood
Court on Plat of Section No. 3 of Kingston Court, in Plat Book 11"
page 39, and the acceptance of the extension of Brenfinrood Court
into the State Secondary System, Windsor Hills Magisterial
District. Joe Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorne
R-012709-1
Mr. Obenshain advised that he was working with the Virginia Department
of Transportation (VDOT) and the Community Development department to bring the
County procedures into sync with the new VDOT procedures. He reported that VDOT
has specific procedures for determining the length of new streets in subdivisions. He
stated that when County staff previously requested that Brentwood Court be accepted
into the State system, the length of the street was very carefully measured from a stub
street when the subdivision was first created and the distance was 0.07 of a mile. He
stated that VDOT measured the distance from a node of point in the intersection of two
streets and their distance was 0.08 of a mile. He advised that VDOT has requested that
the County's resolution incorporate their form AM-4.3 to be consistent with standard
procedures for road extensions. He stated that once the resolution is adopted and
forwarded to VDOT, the County should receive notification from the Transportation
Commissioner that the property, which was part of the original cul-de-sac of Brentwood
42 January 27, 2009
Court, is surplus for any future road use and may be vacated and returned to the
adjoining owners at some point in the future.
There was no discussion.
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the resolution. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer,
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
RESOLUTION 012709-1 TO AMEND AND MODIFY THE
AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF RIGHT-OF-WAY
SHOWN AS A PORTION OF BRENTWOOD COURT ON PLAT OF
SECTION NO. 3 OF KINGSTON COURT, IN PLAT BOOK 11, PAGE 39,
OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE,
AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE EXTENSION OF BRENTWOOD
COURT INTO THE STATE SECONDARY SYSTEM, SAID RIGHT-OF-
WAY LOCATED IN THE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2008, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
adopted resolution # 090908-3 abandoning the portion of Brentwood Court, VA
Secondary Route 1983, as previously dedicated to public use in Plat Book 11, page 39,
the acceptance of the entire length of Brentwood Court from Chippenham Drive as
shown in Plat Book 27, page 156, and requesting permission from the Commonwealth
Transportation Commissioner for the vacation or "quit" of those portions of the original
cul-de-sac of Brentwood Court which no longer serve public convenience as to warrant
their maintenance at public expense; and
WHEREAS, questions have risen as to the exact distance measurement for the
total distance of the street identified as Brentwood Court, State Route Number 1983,
from the center line of its intersection with Chippenham Drive and the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) has requested that this Board's resolution
incorporate the information to be submitted on VDOT Form AM-4.3 for acceptance of
this street into the state secondary road system; and
WHEREAS, all other provisions of the Resolution # 090908-3 shall remain in full
force and effect.
January 27, 2009 43
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1) That pursuant to § 33.1-155 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, this Board
hereby abandons from the secondary system of state highways so much of
Brentwood Court, State Route Number 1983, as denoted in the attached VDOT
Form AM-4.3.
2) That pursuant to § 33.1-299 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, this Board
hereby requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add this street,
Brentwood Court, State Route Number 1983, as described on the attached VDOT
form AM 4.3 to the secondary systems of highways.
3) That upon the County's receipt of notification from the Commonwealth
Transportation Commissioner as required by Section 33.1-154, Code of Virginia,
(1950 as amended) that any remaining public right of way is no longer deemed
necessary for public use, such property may be deemed vacated and may be
returned to adjoining landowners by subsequent action of this Board.
4) That this resolution shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption.
5) That a certified copy of this resolution shall be forwarded to the Salem Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT).
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA
1. The etp ition of Foxhall Properties, LLC to rezone 12.237 acres
from I-1' Low Intensi Industrial District, to I-2CS, High Intensi
Industrial District with Conditions and S ecial Use Permit, for the
purpose of operating an asphalt Ip ant and construction yard
located at 4127 West Main Street, Salem, Catawba Magisterial
District
44 .January 27, 2009
Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading and public hearing for February 24, 2009. The vote on the motion resulted in
the following tie vote with Supervisor Flora being absent:
AYES: Supervisors McNamara, Altizer,
NAYS: Supervisors Moore, Church
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
Chairman Altizer asked Mr. Mahoney to brief the Board on the process to
be followed when there is a tie vote and one member is absent.
Mr. Mahoney reported that when there is a tie vote and a Supervisor is
absent, the agenda item would be carried to the next Board meeting, which in this
instance would be on February 10, 2009. He stated that the tie vote does not
automatically defeat the motion; however, it would defeat the motion if the Board
member had to abstain due to a conflict of interest. He advised that the Board's action
does not affect the advertised public hearing scheduled by the Planning Commission for
its meeting on February 3, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. at the Roanoke County Administration
Building. He advised that if the Board approves the first reading at its meeting on
February 10th, the date and time of the Board's public hearing would be determined at
that time; however, he observed that there may not be sufficient time to schedule a
public hearing at the Board's February 24, 2009, meeting due to statutory requirements
for advertising the public hearing once a week for two consecutive weeks, with six days
between the first and second publication. He also stated that if the Board does not
January 27, 2009 45
approve the request at the meeting on February 10th, this action would create additional
problems because a petitioner is entitled by State Code to have the application heard
before the governing body.
Chairman Altizer advised that he wanted to be sure that citizens
understand that the non-action being taken on this item does not affect the Planning
Commission's public hearing that will be held at their meeting on February 3, 2009. He
advised that this item will be placed on the Board's agenda for their meeting on
February 10, 2009.
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. First reading of an ordinance amending Ordinance 091107-8
approving the West Roanoke River Flood Mitigation Project'
Phase II and authorizing the acquisition of additional real estate,
and providing for an emergency, Catawba Magisterial District.
Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development)
0-012709-2
Mr. Tarek Moneir advised that in September 2007, the Board adopted an
ordinance accepting a flood mitigation grant from the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) and authorized acquisition of real estate for these purposes. He
reported that one of the properties, owned by Lois Spigle, consisted of four parcels,
instead of two, as previously authorized and that there was a clerical error when the
ordinance was first presented for Board approval. He advised that it is necessary at this
46
January 27, 2009
time for the Board to amend this ordinance to authorize the acquisition of the additional
two parcels. He stated that the State has approved the grant; Ms. Spigle has already
vacated the property and is anxiously waiting for the closing of this transaction. He
reported that this ordinance has no additional cost associated with it. He advised that
staff recommends the Board approve the first reading of this ordinance and authorize
the waiver of the second reading to expedite the closing of the property.
Supervisor Church expressed appreciation to Mr. Moneir for his efforts in
this matter. He advised that this program has been very important to the affected areas
and properties and it is a proactive effort on behalf of the County.
There was no discussion.
Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading, waive the second
reading upon afour-fifths (4/5th) vote of the Board and adopt the ordinance as an
emergency measure. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer,
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
ORDINANCE 012709-2 AMENDING ORDINANCE 091107-8
APPROVING THE WEST ROANOKE RIVER FLOOD MITIGATION
PROJECT, PHASE II, AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF
ADDITIONAL REAL ESTATE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EMERGENCY
WHEREAS, on September 11, 2007 the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County adopted Ordinance 091107-8 accepting a flood mitigation grant from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to purchase flood-prone homes
along the Roanoke River in west Roanoke County; and
1
1
January 27, 2009 47
WHEREAS, this ordinance also authorized the acquisition of real estate for these
purposes; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the West Roanoke River Flood Mitigation Grant (the
Grant) is to reduce the number of structures located in the flood plain and subject to
repetitive flooding damages; and
WHEREAS, staff had identified three properties for acquisition, based upon the
severity of flooding and flooding depths; and
WHEREAS, the real estate to be acquired is located within the Roanoke River
flood plain and this area has been identified in the Federal Emergency Management
Agency Repetitive Loss List of Properties for acquisition based on severity of flooding;
and
WHEREAS, one of these properties consisted of four parcels instead of the two
parcels identified in this ordinance, and it is necessary to amend this ordinance to
authorize the acquisition of these additional parcels; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter authorizes the waiver
of the second reading of an ordinance in an emergency upon a 4/5ths vote of the Board
of Supervisors. Time is of the essence in closing of the acquisition of this real estate;
therefore, the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 27, 2009, and the
second reading was dispensed with due to the emergency.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the acquisition of real estate, referenced by tax map number, from
the following property owner, their successors or assigns, is hereby authorized:
Tax Map No. Property Address Owner
64.04-2-30 4697 West River Road Lois Spigle
64.04-2-31 4697 West River Road Lois Spigle
64.04-2-29 4697 West River Road Lois Spigle
64.04-2-32 4697 West River Road Lois Spigle
2. The consideration for each real estate acquisition shall not exceed a value
to be determined by an independent fair market value appraisal; and
3. That the consideration for each real estate acquisition shall be paid from
the West Roanoke River Flood Mitigation Project, Phase II, Grant funds and County's
match, not to exceed and subject to the amount of funds available; and
4. That in order to accomplish the provisions of the Grant and ordinance, the
Board previously adopted on December 18, 2001, by reference the "County of Roanoke
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program - Acquisition Policy," which established the
procedures and requirements by which acquisition of all real estate shall be
accomplished. The Board may amend this policy from time to time by resolution; and
5. That time being of the essence, an emergency exists, the second reading
of this ordinance has been dispensed with in accordance with the provisions of the
Roanoke County Charter.
4,$ January 27, 2009
6. That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrator, is
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be
necessary to accomplish these acquisitions, all of which shall be on form approved by
the County Attorney's office.
On motion of Supervisor Church to approve the first reading, waive the second
reading upon afour-fifths vote of the Board, and adopt the ordinance as an emergency
measure, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Second reading of an ordinance to accept the conveyance of two
ap rcels of unimproved real estate for the extension of Chestnut
Mountain Circle, Rte 1034, and authorize the addition thereof to
the State Secondary System of Highways, Vinton Magisterial
District. Paul Mahoney, Coun Attorney).
0-012709-3
Mr. Mahoney advised there have been no changes since the first reading
of the ordinance and requested that the Board approve the ordinance.
There was no discussion.
Supervisor Altizer moved to adopt the ordinance. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer,
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
January 27, 2009 4,9
ORDINANCE 012709-3 TO ACCEPT THE CONVEYANCE OF TWO
PARCELS OF UNIMPROVED REAL ESTATE FOR THE EXTENSION
OF CHESTNUT MOUNTAIN CIRCLE, ROUTE 1034, TO THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS AND TO AUTHORIZE THE ADDITION THEREOF
TO THE STATE SECONDARY SYSTEM OF HIGHWAYS
WHEREAS, as part of the extension of Chestnut Mountain Circle, State Route
1034, as part of a Roanoke County's Rural Addition project funded in partnership with
the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), two adjacent land owners desired to
donate portions of their property in fee simple to Roanoke for right-of-way purposes to
permit the construction of a cul-de-sac at the terminus of Chestnut Mountain Circle; and
WHEREAS, Jeffrey W. Thomas and Rhonda L. Thomas and Patricia Rush
Williamson have freely and voluntarily entered into deeds to the Board of Supervisors of
the County of Roanoke, Virginia to thus allow the Board of Supervisors to obtain
ownership of the each property for purposes road construction upon approval of this
ordinance and recordation of a deed; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests to the County of Roanoke be
accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of this ordinance was held on January 13,
2009, and the second reading and public hearing was held on January 27, 2009.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the acquisition from Patricia Rush Williamson of approximately
0.0155 acres of real estate for purposes of location and construction of extensions and
improvements of Chestnut Mountain Circle, Route 1034, as shown on a plat entitled
"Plat showing right-of-way being conveyed to Board of Supervisors, Roanoke County by
PATRICIA RUSH WILLIAMSON Roanoke County Tax Map Parcel #61.04-02-78.00
situated along CHESTNUT MOUNTAIN CIRCLE, Vinton Magisterial District, Roanoke
County, Virginia" dated July 9, 2008, (Exhibit "A") is hereby authorized and approved.
2. That the acquisition from Jeffrey W. Thomas and Rhonda L. Thomas of
approximately 0.0155 acres of real estate for purposes of location and construction of
extensions and improvements of Chestnut Mountain Circle, Route 1034, as shown on a
plat entitled "Plat showing right-of-way being conveyed to Board of Supervisors,
Roanoke County by JEFFREY W. THOMAS & RHONDA L. THOMAS Roanoke County
Tax Map Parcel #61.04-02-80.00 situated along CHESTNUT MOUNTAIN CIRCLE,
Vinton Magisterial District, Roanoke County, Virginia" dated July 9, 2008, (Exhibit "B") is
hereby authorized and approved.
3. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator are
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of
Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this
real estate, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney.
rJ~ January 27, 2009
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
Chairman Altizer advised that there were no appointments to be made at
this time by the members of the Board.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
R-012709-4
Supervisor McNamara moved to adopt the consent resolution. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer,
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
RESOLUTION 012709-4 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:
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for January
27, 2008 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. Request from the Police Department to accept and appropriate a
Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Health Grant in the amount of
$1,000 for the Bike Smart Virginia Bicycle Helmet/Rodeo
2. Request from the schools to accept and appropriate funds in the amount of
$64,200 for fiscal year 2008-2009 for services rendered to Medicaid eligible
students
January 27, 2009 51
3. Request from the schools to accept and appropriate funds in the amount of
$30,000 for incentive from the Commonwealth of Virginia for Nationally Board
Certified Teachers
4. Confirmation of Board member appointments to committees, commissions,
and boards for 2009
That the Cterk 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.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the consent resolution, and carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor McNamara moved to receive and file the following reports, with
Item 5 removed for discussion. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer,
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Accounts Paid -December 2008
5. Statement of expenditures and estimated and actual revenues for
the month ended December 31.2008
52
January 27, 2009
Supervisor Altizer requested that Ms. Owens, Director of Finance, include
information from the previous year with this report for future agendas. Ms. Owens
advised that she would be glad to provide the information as requested.
Supervisor Altizer moved to receive and file Item 5. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer,
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
6. Report of claims activity for the self-insurance proctram for the
ep riod ended December 31' 2008
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 3:32 p.m., Supervisor Altizer moved to go into closed meeting, following
the work sessions, pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A (7) consultation
with legal counsel and briefing by staff regarding a specific legal matter, namely, the
Integrity Windows performance agreement. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer,
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
January 27, 2009 53
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session on the Route 221 Area Plan. Phili Thompson,
De u Director of Planning; David Holladay, Planning
Administrator; Nicole Gilkeson, Planner I~
The work session was held from 3:44 p.m. to 4:40 p.m. County staff
present included Mr. Thompson, Mr. Holladay, Ms. Gilkeson, Lindsay Blankenship,
Planner II, and Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development.
Mr. Holladay gave a PowerPoint presentation of the Route 221 Area Plan,
which identifies implementation strategies dealing with community identity, natural
resources, public services, transportation facilities and development pressures to be
implemented over the next 15 years. He advised that the Planning Commission
recommended approval of Scenario 4, which included a modified future land use
Scenario 2 and modified utility phasing plan Scenario 2. He advised that staff will
request that the Board adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan incorporating
the Route 221 Area Ptan after the public hearing at the evening session.
2. Work session to discuss naming the new Multi-Generational
Recreation Center. Pete Haislip, Director, Parks, Recreation and
Tourism
The work session was held from 4:45 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. County staff
present included Mr. Haislip, Marcus Ordonez, Assistant Director of Recreation and the
following members of the Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission: Fred
54
January 27, 2009
Corbett, Cave Spring District; Jerry Williams, At-Large Member from the Windsor Hills
District; Paul Bailey, Windsor Hills District; and Roger Falls, Vinton District.
It was the consensus of the Board that "Green Ridge" and "Splash Valley
at Green Ridge" could be used for marketing purposes and that Mr. Haislip would bring
final recommendations for approval at the next Board meeting. Although there was
discussion about the name "Green Ridge" being followed by Recreation Center, Family
Center, Community Center or Fitness and Aquatics Center, the Supervisors reached no
consensus on the official name.
3. Work session to consider the adoption of a Policy for
Neighborhood Informational Meetings for Rezoning and/or
Special Use Permit Applications. Paul Mahoney, Coun
Attorne
The work session was held from 5:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Board as follows: (1)
that adoption of a policy is not necessary and (2) that any notice distributed on County
letterhead of a neighborhood meeting should include a disclaimer stating that the
meeting is sponsored by the petitioner and is not endorsed by the County.
4. Scheduling of additional Board meetings
After a previously scheduled work session, there was discussion
concerning the need to schedule additional Board meetings. Mr. Mahoney advised that
he was concerned that significant notice had already been given that a public hearing
January 27, 2009 55
on the Adams Construction Company rezoning request was going to be held at the
February 24, 2009, meeting. He advised that the tie vote, which carried the first reading
of the ordinance to the February 10, 2009, meeting, may not give staff sufficient time to
provide the public with notice of a public hearing on February 24tH
Chairman Altizer advised that, if necessary, the Board could hold an
1
evening session at the March 10, 2009, meeting to accommodate a public hearing for
the Adams Constructions rezoning request. He also suggested that an additional
evening meeting in March would be necessary for budget funding requests.
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
The closed meeting was held from 5:47 p.m. to 6:02 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
R-012709-5
At 7:00 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 Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer,
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
rJ6 January 27, 2009
RESOLUTION 012709-5 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING
WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies, and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Public hearing to receive comments on an administrative appeal
requested ~ Brian Perkins from the Zoning Administrator's
interpretation of proffered zonin conditions from a rezoning
dated July 28, 1987, regarding truck repairs and storage, 6190
Twine Hollow Road. Catawba Magisterial District. Joe
Obenshain, Senior Assistant Coun Attorne
A-012709-6
January 27, 2009 57
Mr. Obenshain advised that he would make a few comments concerning
the procedure for this public hearing before giving Mr. Perkins and his attorney, Lance
Hale, the opportunity to speak. Mr. Obenshain advised that this item concerns the
appeal of the Zoning Administrator's ruling to the terms of proffered conditions adopted
by the Board of Supervisors in a 1987 rezoning application. He stated that, according to
the County's zoning ordinance, when an interpretation is appealed, the matter has to
come before the Board of Supervisors. He advised that the Board is acting in a judicial
capacity to rule upon the merits of the objection to the ruling. He advised that the
petitioner is present; Mr. Hale will speak first; John Murphy, Zoning Administrator, will
speak next; and Mr. Hale will have the opportunity to make concluding remarks. He
advised that if there are citizens requesting to speak they could speak at the Board's
discretion.
Mr. Hale advised that he was speaking on behalf of the petitioner, Brian
Perkins, and that B. Perkins, Inc. is a tenant on the property located on Twine Hollow
Road. He stated that the property is deeded to Mr. Bandurski, who has given him his
consent and approval to move forward. He reported that Mr. Perkins had received a
copy of the violation report prepared by Mr. Richardson and he understood that each of
the Board members received a copy. He advised that the issue centers around a 1987
determination, when this property was zoned for commercial or industrial use, and on a
provision that was attached as a proffer. He stated that the language on the proffered
condition is "this parcel shall only be used for truck repairs and storage." He advised
rJB January 27, 2009
that, looking at the conditions for the property as it is zoned, it seems to fit within a High
Intensity Industrial District; the permitted use would fit within several categories that
would include truck repair and storage; and it even complies with more stringent site
development regulations that are attached to it as permitted uses under Section 30.62-
2. He advised that the only real question is whether the interpretation of this proffered
condition somehow limits Mr. Perkins' usage of the property. He advised that there has
been truck storage and repairs on the property and that particular usage has not been
alleviated. He advised that the question is how you determine the meaning of the words
"and storage" of the proffer.
Mr. Hale advised that they disagree with the interpretation of the Zoning
Administrator, which seems to limit "and storage" to only "and storage of truck repairs or
truck issues." He stated that there was no indication of the language on the proffer that
determines that it refers back to the truck and it was simply truck repairs and storage in
a broader sense. Mr. Hale advised that they maintain that storage of the truck parts and
truck issues, in a broader sense, includes automobiles because that would also fit the
definition of truck repairs and would be included in the permissible activity there. He
stated that in looking at trucks, tires are certainly parts of trucks, such as cars, and are
certainly able to be stored there; however, the belief that tires can certainly be stored
there does not become an infamous use as far as zoning issues. He stated that they
were references in the material provided and that Mr. Perkins had indicated that he was
trying to do away with the truck tires and there was some confusion or misinformation
January 27, 2009 rJ9
received. He reported that, on the site at this moment, there is a machine capable of
taking the tires and reducing them down to some type of shred of a larger size between
6 to 12 inches, which would either become part of the landfill or stored in piles and
would no longer have the character of tires. He stated that there is some concern about
the information that Mr. Ferguson received as to whether the machine was actually
used on the site. He advised that Mr. Perkins was told that he could not use the
machine on site. He displayed a picture and described the operation of the mobile
machine. He advised that there was another machine on the site to deal with the tires
and he displayed a picture of that second machine. He advised that using both of these
machines could resolve the issue of having the tires on the site. He advised that the
problem seems to be the issuance of a permit to run the machine and that Mr. Perkins
was advised by Mr. Richardson that he could not operate the shredder and was told that
he could not move the tires that were already there since there was a zoning violation.
Mr. Hale advised that, at that point, Mr. Perkins contested the zoning ordinance violation
because he felt the tires are truck parts and not storage or an accumulation of non-
usable tires. He advised that there was a liquidation of Mr. Perkins' truck repair center,
which resulted in these tires being accumulated and stacked for the purpose of dealing
with storage and the ultimate dissolution of the tires. He stated there had been some
problems with timing in trying to get the machines operational. He would argue that the
language that limited this zoning does not limit storage to truck parts only, but would
also include the tires that are part of trucks and that their storage is an appropriate use
60 January 27, 2009
of the property and is well within the County's zoning ordinance on a temporary basis as
dissolution of these tires is done. He reported that dissolution of the tires would not be
something that could be done overnight and would take some time to do; however, it
would not be an impermissible zoning issue. He advised that, due to the reasons he
stated, the appeal was noted and it is not a violation of the storage.
Supervisor Church inquired as to what will happen to the accumulation of
tires. Mr. Hale displayed another picture showing the type of shreds of the tires that
would be generated by the machine. Supervisor Church asked about the approximate
time-frame when the accumulation of tires occurred. Mr. Hale advised that it occurred
from approximately April through June 2008. Supervisor Church inquired as to where
the tires came from. Mr. Hale advised that it was his understanding that they came from
liquidation of Mr. Perkins' closed truck operations. He stated that Mr. Perkins is trying to
start a new business generating crumb rubber from recycled tires and he was liquidating
his truck repair and storage businesses at other location. He was looking at this
location, where he would ultimately assemble a potential crumb rubber manufacturing
unit. He advised that, although the plans have been drawn up, they were not brought
to fruition and this is not the use at this time.
Mr. Hale advised that he wanted to address Supervisor Church's
questions of what could ultimately be done with the accumulation of tires and whether
they could be sold for use as crumb rubber. Mr. Hale advised that the picture he gave
the Board showed shreds of rubber and not crumb rubber. Mr. Hale advised that Mr
January 27, 2009 61
Perkins has located a buyer for rubber shreds from Florida and was negotiating with
them to sell these rubber shreds for approximately $70 per ton and was also negotiating
the issue of transportation and delivery. He advised that Mr. Perkins will be unable to
move forward with the buyer unless he can run the tires through the mobile shredder to
generate the type of shreds necessary. He advised that if they are reduced to shreds,
they can be removed from the property and sold.
Supervisor McNamara advised that he was interested in what Mr. Perkins
planned to do with the tires and his question had been answered.
Mr. Murphy advised that this situation has been ongoing since January
2008 when his office received multiple complaints from neighbors on Twine Hollow
Road. He notified the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and joint
observations of the site with DEQ personnel, including aerial photos, occurred over the
next six weeks. He displayed a series of photographs from September 2008. He
advised that they were concerned that the tire accumulation continued to grow. He
reported that staff communicated with the property owner, DEQ contacted him and sent
warning letters and subsequently there was a meeting with Mr. Perkins at the request of
County staff, which included DEQ representatives and staff from the fire marshal's
office. He reported that, at that time, Mr. Perkins indicated that he was in the process of
securing the property and indicated a series of things that would take place; however,
none of these things came to fruition. Mr. Murphy advised that DEQ became quite
concerned because the process is on an escalating-type scale; they have to do certain
62 January 27, 2009
things to bring it to the next level; and the ideal situation from past experiences would
be entering into a consent agreement with the individual operating the tire facility, the
property owners and DEQ. He advised that part of that agreement would be to post a
bond to ensure that the site will be brought into compliance; however, in order to do that
through state issues, they also need local zoning approval. The petitioner indicated to
DEQ that he would take steps to come into compliance with local zoning and then
communicated to the County that he was still working through the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and DEQ, which make the process a moving target. The
County staff escalated the level of enforcement and sent a notice of violation, which is
the subject of this appeal. He advised that the July 28, 1987, rezoning, which was
approved by the Board of Supervisors, has the specific proffer "this parcel shall only be
used for truck repairs and storage." He advised that in 1987 there was a different
zoning ordinance in place than today's zoning ordinance and in 1987 there was a
separate use type for used tire storage, which required a special use exception that was
never applied for, nor granted. He stated that the special use exception is today called
a special use permit. He stated that in 1992, a new zoning ordinance was adopted with
new regulations and the definition of major automobile repair service outlined exactly
what can be done on that type of property. He advised that, for clarification purposes,
the storage component deals with the vehicles brought to the site prior to being repaired
and after being repaired. He stated that the original applicant for this rezoning was a
construction business and they wanted to have a place to repair the dump trucks and
January 27, 2009 63
bulldozers. He stated that, taking into consideration the minutes from the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors' meetings, the application filed at that time and
the intent of the truck repair and storage component, he felt that it was not storage of
any type of product and it was storage of the vehicles that were going to be repaired
and post-repair. He advised that DEQ is estimating anywhere in the neighborhood of
4,000 to 5,000 tires on the property and state regulations assert that anytime more than
100 tires are stored on a property, you must have a state permit. He advised that the
consensus is that if no zoning permit has been issued by the County, it is the opinion of
the Zoning Administrator that the operation of the storage of tires on this property does
not mesh with the proffered conditions from 1987; therefore, it is a zoning violation.
Supervisor Altizer inquired if a business license was issued. Mr. Murphy
advises that there was not. Supervisor Altizer advised that, since a business was
operating without a license, there is no way to determine the full extent of what he
intended to do on the property. Supervisor Altizer stated that in 1987 there was a
separate special use that spoke directly to tires and he felt that this indicated that tires
would be segregated from automobile parts. Supervisor Altizer advised that currently
the zoning ordinance segregates tires out as a special use permit. He asked Mr.
Obenshain if a special use permit would have followed the land all the way through any
change of going from manufacturing to industrial. Mr. Obenshain advised that this was
correct and he thinks that it is significant that the current owner of the property, from
whom Mr. Perkins is leasing, purchased and entered into the deed to his property just a
64 January 27, 2009
few months after the 1987 Board action; therefore, he would have knowledge of the
condition that was placed on the property at that time.
Supervisor Church asked Mr. Murphy why the County and the State
agencies are concerned about the tires. Mr. Murphy advised that they are a hazard for
a number of reasons and unfortunately, a number of years ago, the County had a large
tire fire and they want to make sure that does not occur again. He also advised that,
during the spring and summer, the tires are mosquito havens. He stated that the
County has worked diligently to clear up quite a few tire dumps in the County through
the use of state DEQ removal funds, transportation funds and has even commissioned
the use of inmate labor through the Sheriff's Office to abate these locations. He advised
that this is one of the most significant tire accumulations since the large tire fire.
Supervisor Church advised that the tire fire was in 2002.
Supervisor Altizer advised that Mr. Hale made reference to a tire being
part of a car; therefore it is part of a truck. He requested an explanation since the
zoning ordinance has a separate listing for special uses, such as tire storage, and a
special use permit is required for tire storage.
Mr. Hale advised that he did not think that Mr. Perkins started off with the
intention of storing tires and this happened as he liquidated businesses and the tires
piled up. He advised that Mr. Perkins was not in the business of storing tires and he is
trying to get rid of them and proposes a plan that would remove them by running the
tires through machines to make shred to be hauled away.
January 27, 2009 65
Supervisor Altizer asked if he would agree that the tires were segregated
in the zoning ordinance by exception and really not considered parts. Mr. Hale would
agree that there was segregation, but he would not go so far as to say that they are no
longer a truck or car part. He advised that they would still maintain that characteristic.
Mr. Hale advised that he would like to address the issue of fire and would
note that the particular location is in close proximity to a fire hydrant and the fire marshal
has been out there. He advised that Mr. Perkins just handed him a permit that set forth
inspection of February 2009 dealing specifically with the fire issues of tires and from his
quick review of it, it looks like they will be in compliance.
Mr. Perkins advised that everyone has asked where the tires came from.
He advised that he has been in the used parts business for 15 years and bought trucks
and cars whenever the price of scrap parts of steel were up, and since he cannot take
cars or junk trucks to the automobile recycler with the tires on, he removed the tires. He
stated that these tires will not retain water so there is no mosquito issue. He stated that
the fire marshal's issue is that every 5,000 square foot tire pile has to be within 500 feet
of a hydrant to be in compliance and, if the tire pile is over 5,000 square feet, the pile
has to be reduced in size to maintain 5,000 square feet or less and the piles have to be
40 feet apart. He stated that whenever they had a meeting with DEQ and the County,
Mr. Richardson was there and advised him not to make an effort to resolve the problem
since he was already in violation. Mr. Perkins advised that he was trying to solve the
problem, that he has approximately $400,000 in two pieces of equipment to solve the
66 January 27, 2009
problem and Mr. Richardson will not let him. He stated that he is trying to solve the
problem and asked the Board to let him shred the tires into a product that he can sell
and generate money and proceed with the crumb rubber.
Supervisor Altizer inquired if Mr. Perkins had purchased a business
license for the facility. Mr. Perkins advised that his truck service had a business license
and he closed it a year ago. Supervisor Altizer commented that Mr. Perkins has not
operated a business on the property. Mr. Perkins advised that his intentions this year
are to take care of the tire problem and move forward with the crumb rubber business;
however, Mr. Richardson told him that he could not do anything. He stated that, in
these economic times, he thought that generation of cash flow would be a good thing
Supervisor Moore advised that on September 5, 2008, Mr. Hill wrote a
letter on behalf of Mr. Perkins expressing that he planned to develop a green industry
and had an interest in being environmentally friendly. She inquired how someone who
encourages these business practices would let the property get in this condition.
Mr. Perkins advised that you can clearly see that they have a huge
amount of scrap tires. He stated that in trying to find out what can be done with scrap
rubber, he found the crumb rubber operation and has visited several facilities. He
advised that the shredding process is 100 percent environmentally friendly with no dust,
chemicals or fire and turns it back into raw rubber. He advised that in order to do that, it
costs a great deal of money and he is working on financing now. He did not intend for
the tire pile to be there and is prepared to take care of the problem; however, Mr
January 27, 2009 67
Richardson is telling him that he cannot run the tires through the shredder to reduce the
pile size by at least 80 percent, which would cut down the size tremendously.
Supervisor Moore advised that obviously this has been going on for some
time and she was wondering why he would not come to the proper people and ask
permission or request a permit in order to get rid of the tires.
Mr. Perkins advised that he had the tires stored in trailers. He purchased a
shredder, unloaded the tires from trailers and was getting ready to run them through the
primary shredder and, at that point, they would be in compliance with the County, DEQ,
and the fire code and be a salable product. He did not know he had to have a permit
since the zoning ordinance indicated storage. He stated that he has been in the wreck
and repair business for 15 years and the tires are not salable without tread and they
were a scrap product. He advised that a tire mounted on a wheel is not illegal, has no
environmental hazard and is no different than tires on a car; however, when you take
tires off the wheel and they are outside, it turns into an environmental issue. He stated
that DEQ told him to cut the tires off the wheel and he cut them off with a hydraulic slice
and stacked them down so they would not retain water. He advised that if he could
have a half day, he could be in 100 percent compliance with fire regulations but Mr.
Richardson said he could not move one tire.
Supervisor Church advised that the tire fire in 2002 was very prolific; it
required all of the available fire equipment in the County and some from the State to
fight the fire; and the fire threatened lives and homes. He advised that the reason he is
68 January 27, 2009
referring to that fire at this time is because, with those tires in Southwest County, not
even a fire hydrant within 5 feet could have put out that fire. He advised that there is a
dangerous potential of fire with the tires now.
Mr. Perkins advised that he was making every attempt to clean up the
tires and six months ago he was told not to move anything as he was in violation. He
would like to clean up the site.
Mr. Hale advised that he would like to offer a solution. He advised that he
and Mr. Perkins share the concerns about the danger of fires and Mr. Perkins trying to
spread the tires out in such a way as to be in different locations and have space
between them to make them compliant and safe. He advised it would seem that using
the equipment on site to actually reduce the tires to some sort of shred would be a good
way to bring this issue into compliance, take care of the matter and reduce the
perceived fire hazard. He advised that Mr. Perkins is showing his frustration of
receiving conflicting directions and his inability to try and move forward in a cohesive,
coherent manner. He referred to Supervisor Altizer's reference to segregation of the
tires; advised that these were truck and car parts that have accumulated; and that Mr.
Perkins had a plan to resolve the issue in a safe, simple and green manner.
Mr. Obenshain advised that he wanted to comment on the impression that
Mr. Perkins received a permit from the County fire marshal, which is not true. He
provided the Board with a letter from Gary Huffman, Fire Marshal, issued to Mr. Perkins
on January 14, 2009, informing him of the numerous violations of the state fire code,
January 27, 2009 69
and he stated that the date of February 14, 2009, is the date that Mr. Huffman intends to
go back to the property to see whether or not these violations have been resolved. Mr.
Obenshain advised that Mr. Perkins has been aware since the meeting in April 2008
that he was in violation of the state fire code, that this is not something new that he has
just learned and that he is not incompliance and there is a list of violations at issue. He
advised that they are not here to try those fire related issues today, nor are they here to
try the problems with DEQ. He advised that Mr. Perkins is aware of a letter from DEQ
in April 2008 of things he has to do to get a permit and he has not done them. He
advised that Mr. Perkins has had plenty of time and advice regarding what he can do
and he has not followed through on the advice of County staff and other agencies to
have the type of business that he wants.
Supervisor Church advised that he would like for Mr. Murphy to
chronologically set up the time line for the accumulation of tires. He inquired if the
County contacted Mr. Perkins when he had 100 tires on the site and asked how the
5,000 tires accumulated.
Mr. Murphy advised that, upon the first inspection in January 2008, there
were approximately 1,500 to 2,000 tires. He requested additional information, asked for
aerial photographs and set up a meeting with DEQ and Mr. Perkins. He advised that
Mr. Perkins is the tenant so they notified the owner, who is out of the state. He reported
that at the first meeting, there was discussion about potentially rezoning the property to
amend that condition to bring it into compliance and the County offered zoning
70 January 27, 2009
applications and consultations; however, that never came to fruition. He advised that
additional inspections by the County and DEQ showed an increase in the number of
tires and DEQ sent an original warning letter. He advised that the tires continued to
grow worse so DEQ, the County and the fire marshal stepped up their enforcement. He
reported that DEQ sent an actual notice of violation in August 2008. He stated that
there was continuous contact through emails, meetings and letters with the property
owner and Mr. Perkins, and the County remained concerned about the number of
growing tires. He advised that DEQ has not released its violations notice, the fire
marshal's investigation continues and staff maintains that the property is in violation of
proffer.
Supervisor Church inquired how the 5,000 tires could be removed from
the area depending upon the action taken tonight.
Mr. Murphy advised that removal of the tires would have to be coordinated
with the DEQ. He advised that the obvious and best solution would be for the property
owner and Mr. Perkins to remove them immediately. He advised that he has an issue
with setting up a processing activity on the site that is a different use than the proffer
allows and the County has to be careful about granting approval when there are fire
code and state issues. He stated that the tires were trucked in and DEQ has advised
that there are recycling facilities, the closest one in Appomattox, VA, that are licensed to
legally and properly depose of these tires. He advised that it would be the County's
hope and recommendation that the tires be removed from the site.
January 27, 2009 71
Supervisor Church advised that he did not believe that the Board has the
authority tonight to change a use in this particular operation. He does not think this is
the issue before the Board.
Mr. Obenshain advised that the issue before the Board tonight is whether
u
the Zoning Administrator's opinion is correct or not. He stated that he does not think
any facts presented tonight suggest that the interpretation by Mr. Murphy as the Zoning
Administrator on that proffer is incorrect. He advised that the Board's role is that of
judges to consider this type of appeal and whether or not the opinion is correct. He
advised that the avenue for rezoning is still open and the Board's action would not
preclude this; however, County staff advised Mr. Perkins concerning rezoning and he
chose not to proceed.
Supervisor Church advised that he understood that this Board could not
change a rezoning or alter anything that pertains to what has been going on tonight. He
stated that the Board has one issue to address tonight and that is whether to uphold the
opinion of the Zoning Administrator.
Chairman Altizer opened and closed the public hearing. There were no
citizens present to speak.
Supervisor McNamara advised that counsel for the petitioner said that he
did not want to be in the business of accumulating tires; however, he did a pretty good
business accumulating tires. He advised that the proffered condition states that the
property shall be used for truck repair and storage and he did not see how any rational
72 January 27, 2009
person could perceive a connection between truck repairs and storage of 5,000 tires
outside in trailers. He advised that the petitioner, who has been in the business for 15
years, should have known there are ways to dispose of tires as opposed to throwing
them in the back of a trailer after liquidating a business. He advised that it is a fire
hazard and is clearly in violation of the proffers that were agreed upon. He advised that
if the petitioner wishes to have a business recycling tires, there are special use
procedures to be followed.
Supervisor Altizer advised that he was in the auto repair business for 25
years and is aware of how tires accumulate and the process for getting rid of them. He
does believe that the Zoning Administrator's interpretation is correct and does not
believe you can explain away the facts, even under an argument of automobile parts,
when the zoning ordinance explicitly says that tires require a special use permit. He is
very disturbed that this pile of tires continued to grow over time and to allow the
shredding of tires on the property does nothing but allow a condition to occur further.
He also remembers the fire in Southwest County and a tire recycling business in
Franklin County that could not get rid of their tires and kept tires in a storage building
until one night it burned. He stated that the language in the zoning ordinance regarding
what you have to do to keep tires by special use permit is clear and concise. He
advised that he intends to support the Zoning Administrator, that his ruling is correct and
adequate time has been given to reconcile the problem.
January 27, 2009 73
Supervisor Moore advised that laws and proffers are made for the
betterment of the community and this is an obvious fire hazard. She feels that the
petitioner has had ample opportunities to come to the County to ask what can be done
about the situation. She advised that she supports upholding the Zoning Administrator's
decision.
Supervisor Church asked Mr. Murphy if one of the potential solutions
offered to the petitioner was an offer to come before this Board for a rezoning. Mr.
Murphy advised that this offer was made on two different occasions.
Supervisor Church advised that he did not see any recourse but to ask for
a motion to uphold the opinion of the Zoning Administrator and deny this appeal. He
advised that there is still the recourse to come back for a rezoning. He advised that the
Board must do what they feel is best for the citizens; the guidelines are explicit; and he
does not feel they would be doing justice if they took another course.
Supervisor Church moved to uphold the opinion of the Zoning
Administrator and deny the appeal. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer,
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
74 January 27, 2009
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS
1. Public hearing and request to adopt a resolution amending the
Roanoke Coun Comprehensive Plan to include the Route 221
Area Plan. Phili Thompson, De u Director of Plannin
R-012709-7
Mr. Thompson advised that the Board held a work session on this item
earlier today. He advised that they have been working on the Route 221 Area Plan
since March 2008. He advised that the study boundaries are from Cotton Hill Road to
the base of Bent Mountain; the southern boundary is the Blue Ridge Parkway and a
similar distance off Route 221 is the northern boundary. He advised that one of the
reasons to undertake the study was due to development taking place in the Route 221
area, which includes the widening of Route 221, the School Board purchase of the
Poage farm property and future utilities down Route 221. He advised that the plan
inventories existing conditions of the area, such as environmental resources, cultural
resources, land use, zoning, new developments, community facilities (schools, libraries,
fire and rescue stations, police and parks) and infrastructure (utility lines and
transportation facilities) in the Route 221 study area. He stated that Planning mailed
1,482 surveys and 448, or 30 percent, were returned. He advised that they held
community meetings in April and September and the plan represents the results of the
citizen surveys, as well as individual stakeholder interviews of property and business
owners in the study area. He advised that the surveys and stakeholder interview
January 27, 2009 75
results, along with citizen input at community meetings, shaped the development of
goals and recommendations for the plan. He advised that there were three guiding
principles for the study, which included (1) preserving the natural character of the Back
Creek area; (2) implementing transportation improvements to support current and future
development needs; and (3) enhancing public services and utilities and controlling
expansion of public utilities.
Mr. Thompson advised that staff presented three alternative future land
use scenarios for consideration. He advised that Scenario 1 had very little change;
Scenario 2 had more development and added conservation areas; Scenario 3 had more
development potential, as well as permitting certain subdivisions as neighborhood
conservation. He advised that they developed utility phasing plans in five year
increments for each of the land use scenarios and development implementation
strategies grouped by different characteristics, such as community identity, natural
resources, public services, transportation facilities and development pressures.
Mr. Thompson stated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing
on the draft plan on September 2, 2008, and four citizens spoke. He reported that the
Back Creek Civic League sent a letter detailing their concerns, which deal with limiting
the amount of development, preservation of different areas, water at Carriage Hills and
needed safety and transportation improvements, which include the widening of Route
221. He advised that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of
the plan, which is a modified version of Scenario 2, designed as Scenario 4.
76 January 27, 2009
Mr. Thompson advised that he wanted to address the concern of
Supervisor McNamara about the utility extension to include the Carriage Hills and
Forest Edge Subdivisions. He advised that they tried to address this concern by the
language in the document on page 17 without designating a year. He read the
statement from the plan as follows: "When water and service is extended to the Poage
Farm, studies should be undertaken to evaluate future extension of water to Carriage
Hills and Forest Edge. Future planning studies coordinated with WVWA should be
undertaken with the understanding that if a water supply emergency arises, quick action
will be necessary to ensure potable water services for these residents." Mr. Thompson
advised that, as part of the implementation strategies, it is designated to monitor the
plan to able to address the issue. He advised that they did not want to put a specific
five or ten year time line on this issue because there may be a need to develop plans
sooner.
Supervisor McNamara advised that, as he mentioned in the work session,
he thought staff did a nice job with development of the plan and he approves of
Scenario 4, which puts more of the area in conservation than previously designated. He
advised that the comments he received from citizens at the meetings were very positive
and he inquired of Chairman Altizer if it was time to adopt the plan.
Chairman Altizer opened and closed the public hearing. There were no
citizens present to speak on the item.
January 27, 2009 77
Mr. Mahoney directed the Board's attention to the draft resolution which
indicated that the Board would adopt the Route 221 plan, including a modified land use
Scenario 2 and a modified Utility Phasing Plan Scenario 2. He advised that from the
discussion at the work session, he understood that the Planning staff was now
designating the modified Scenario 2 as Scenario 4. He inquired if the language in the
resolution in paragraph 1 should be changed to designate modified future land use
Scenario 2, referred to in the plan as Scenario 4, and the modified Utility Phasing Plan
Scenario 2, referred to in the plan as Scenario 4.
Mr. Thompson agreed that the resolution would be clarified by the
insertion described by Mr. Mahoney in paragraph 1 of the resolution. Chairman Altizer
agreed that the wording should be changed in order to clarify the intent of the motion.
Mr. Mahoney requested that this language be added to the resolution
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the Route 221 Area Plan,
Scenario 4, with the accompanying Scenario 4 Utility Phasing Plan. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer,
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
RESOLUTION 012709-7 APPROVING AND ADOPTING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, INCORPORATING THE ROUTE 221 AREA PLAN
WHEREAS, on December 2, 2008, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan incorporating the Route 221
7$ January 27, 2009
Area Plan, after advertisement and notice as required by Section 15.2-2204 of the Code
of Virginia, and on December 15, 2008, adopted a resolution recommending that the
Board of Supervisors review and adopt a revised Comprehensive Plan for Roanoke
County; and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2009, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing
on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan incorporating the Route 221 Area Plan,
after advertisement and notice as required by Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia;
and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County, Virginia, has a long and successful history of
community planning that has emphasized citizen involvement and participation; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-2223 of the Code of Virginia requires that the Planning
Commission of every jurisdiction shall prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan
for the physical development of their jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-2229 of the Code of Virginia provides for amendments
to the comprehensive plan by the Planning Commission if so directed by the Board of
Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for Roanoke County entitled "Route 221 Area
Plan," and said plan has been prepared in accordance with Sections 15.2-2223, 2224,
and 2229 of the Code of Virginia; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended by the adoption of the
Route 221 Area Plan, including a modified future land use scenario #2, referred to in the
plan as scenario #4, and the modified utility phasing plan scenario #2, referred to in the
plan as scenario #4, and incorporating this study into the Plan.
2. That this Resolution is effective from and after January 27, 2009.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution and approve the
Route 221 Area Plan, Scenario 4, with the accompanying Scenario 4 Utility Phasing
Plan, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
L
January 27, 2009 79
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Church: (1) He thanked Mr. and Mrs. Williams, who live in
i
Cherokee Hills, for reminding him about an issue pertaining to construction equipment,
materials and storage. He advised that the Community Development department has
assured him that staff will review the situation and address the issue quickly. He
advised that he and County staff will be back in touch with Mr. and Mrs. Williams. (2)
He advised that there is an issue on Garth Drive concerning trash collection and
receptacles. He advised that the Board made a ruling recently pertaining to the removal
of trash receptacles within a specific period of time. He advised that he has requested
that Ms. Green, Director of General Services, bring the group together to determine
what can be done to resolve the issues. (3) He advised that, due to the Board action at
this meeting and the potential action by the Planning Commission regarding the
rezoning for an asphalt plant, citizens in his area should keep aware of the dates and
times of future meetings. He advised that citizens should stay in touch with him or
County administration to receive information pertaining to the next course of action.
Supervisor McNamara: He advised that he and Supervisor Moore
attended the Good Samaritan Hospice grand opening and he welcomed them to the
County. He advised that their facilities are greatly improved by the recent move, and he
thanked them for the service they provide the community.
80 January 27, 2009
Supervisor Altizer: (1) He advised that the Board will hold three meetings
in March due to the need for an extra meeting to receive funding requests from other
agencies. Mr. Chambliss advised that staff plans to schedule an evening meeting on
March 17tH, as well as an evening session for the regularly scheduled March 10tH
meeting. (2) He advised that he wanted to make it clear that the Planning Commission
public hearing scheduled for February 3, 2009, regarding the asphalt plant, will be held.
Mr. Mahoney stated that this was correct. (2) He advised that a section of the wall
outside the Board meeting room has been disturbed and requested that Mr. Chambliss
ask Ms. Green to get it repaired as quickly as possible.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 8:12 p.m.
Submitted by:
Brenda J. H ton, CMC
Deputy Clerk to the Board
Approved by:
~ r%~
Michael W. Altizer
Chairman