HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/28/2010 - RegularSeptember 28, 2010 355
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of September 2010. Audio and video
recordings of this meeting will be held on file for a minimum of five (5) years in the office
of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Church called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Vice Chairman Eddie
"Ed" Elswick, Supervisors Michael W. Altizer, Richard C.
Flora, Charlotte A. Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; Daniel R.
O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Paul M.
Mahoney, County Attorney; Teresa Hamilton Hall, Director of
Public Information; Deborah C. Jacks, Deputy Clerk to the
Board
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by Dr. Bryan E. Smith of the First Baptist Church
of Roanoke. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Supervisor Altizer requested the addition of a new business item for the
Board to consider adding to Roanoke County's legislative priorities.
356 September 28, 2010
B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator requested the addition of
two closed sessions, pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711(A)(5) discussion
concerning a prospective business or industry or the expansion of an existing business
or industry where no previous announcement has been made of the business' or
industry's interest in locating or expanding its facilities in the County and Section 2.2-
3711(A)(29) Discussion of the terms or scope of a public contract involving the
expenditure of public funds where discussion in open session would adversely effect the
bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the county, namely an agreement with
Botetourt County concerning Jack Smith Industrial Park.
There were no objections.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Proclamation declaring the month of October 2010 as Fire
Prevention Month in the County of Roanoke (Richard E. Burch,
Jr., Chief of Fire and Rescue; Gary Huffman, Fire Marshal)
Chief Burch and Fire Marshal Huffman were in attendance to receive the
proclamation. In addition, the following fire prevention crew members as well at Spot,
Patches and Pumper were in attendance for recognition as the unsung heroes of the
fire department: Colin Gee, Todd Maxey, Charles Wilson, Jeremy Shelor, Kurk Kipley,
Woody Henderson, Chris Smith, John Sweeney, Brian Simmons and Scott Jones.
Brian Clingenpeel was in training and could not be in attendance for today's meeting.
2. Recognition of the Virginia Association of Counties (VACO) 2010
Achievement Award for the Green Ridge Recreation Center (Jill
B. Loope, Assistant Director of Economic Development)
Dean A. Lynch, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, Virginia Association
of Counties presented the Innovative County Program Award -Best in Class -
Economic Development to Chairman Church and noted that this was the sixth time that
Roanoke County has received a VACO award since the inception of the Program in
2003.
Supervisor Flora noted that Mr. Lynch's daughter is a newly graduated
police officer for Roanoke County.
3. Recognition of Roanoke County Fleet Service Center receiving
LEED Certification (Anne Marie Green, Director of General
Services)
Anne Marie Green advised that on July 27, 2010, the Roanoke County
Fleet Service Center became the first County facility to achieve LEED (Leadership in
September 28, 2010 357
Energy and Environmental Design) certification. Ms. Green presented the framed
certificates to David Anderson and Jim Vonick, who were the project managers for the
Fleet Service Center.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Ratify and approve the execution of an option agreement on 5755
Crystal Creek Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District, and
appropriation of $6,000 (Paul Mahoney, County Attorney)
A-092810-1
Mr. Mahoney explained staff had identified property which is situated
across the street from the new South County Library site and beside Starkey Park. The
option agreement and appropriation will allow for due diligence which should take
approximately six weeks to two months.
Chairman Church asked if the site was directly across from the library site
and if there are other properties. Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative.
Supervisor Moore moved to approve the request. The motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
1. Resolution approving and adopting the recommendation of the
Roanoke County Bonding Committee to advertise and hold a
public hearing on October 12, 2010, in anticipation of declaring
the developer of Quail Ridge Subdivision, Section 8, to be in
default, and to authorize officials of Roanoke County to exercise
its rights under the Developer's Erosion and Sediment Control
Agreement and the accompanying bond (Tarek Moneir, Deputy
Director of Development Services)
A-092810-2
Mr. Moneir advised that on September 1, 2010, Community Development
had received a copy of a Cancellation Notice effective October 20, 2010, from Erie
Insurance regarding the Quail Ridge Subdivision. At that time, staff notified the
developer that all of the physical improvements had not been completed and requested
a rescission of the cancellation notice or a substitutable surety by September 30, 2010.
The Bonding Committee has declared that the developer is in default. There was no
discussion.
358 September 28, 2010
Supervisor Moore moved to approve the request and schedule a public
hearing on October 12, 2010. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
3. Additional legislative priority (Supervisor Michael W. Altizer)
Supervisor Altizer noted as he spoke with of parents, many in this room,
grandparents, and other and says "K-2", "Cloud", "Spice", "Magic Gold" and to the
average parent and grandparent such as himself, it did not mean a whole lot until he
read a small article in the Roanoke Times about a month ago. He explained it is about a
totally legitimate drug that is being sold over the counter of convenience stores, gas
stations and smoke shops across the Commonwealth of Virginia and a lot of other
localities. He noted these drugs are synthetic cannabis, which is completely legal. It is
being sold as incense, sprayed with these chemicals that, absent only the THC
chemical that is in marijuana, make it legal. Eleven states so far have made these
drugs unlawful and Supervisor Altizer stated he thinks it is incumbent upon Roanoke
County not to wait until things reach an epidemic stage to talk our area legislators to get
laws and bans enacted, hopefully, at this legislative session coming up that will outlaw
these designer drugs. Supervisor Altizer explained an eight or ten year old can walk into
a gas station and buy it. He advised that he would not go through all the materials he
has, but noted there are many articles. Supervisor Altizer quoted a Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA) official stating, "I "am receiving calls wanting us to know that it is
being sold in stores, that their kids are getting it and smoking it and they are getting
high. Parents need to be aware of it and what to look for, even buy a package just to
see what it is." In 2010, the American Association of Poison Control Center reported
1259 cases spread among 48 states and DC. In 2009, there were only fourteen (14)
such cases. The chemical is stronger than marijuana, but it is legal. DEA estimates put
it at somewhere between 100 and 800 times more potent than marijuana. Mr. Altizer
addressed the Board by stating that he is asking the Board and Chairman for their
support in adding to Roanoke County's legislative agenda, to ask area legislators to
either come up with a law or back a law that is going to make this substance illegal.
Supervisor Altizer further indicated that it is just hard to believe that there are people out
there that will take and engineer these recreational drugs and know how to bend the
system with certain chemicals that makes our communities not what the Board would
want them to be. Supervisor Altizer asked Chairman Church, if it is the wish of the
Board to move forward with this, that he would also like to ask the Board as part of its
resolution, to include a letter from our Board Chairman asking all of our adjoining
localities to support Roanoke County and adopt their own resolutions to their area
legislators, as Roanoke County needs to make this something of importance. He
reiterated there are many things to do with budgets that come out of Richmond;
September 28, 2010 359
however, this is our young people. It is close to home in Virginia. In Blacksburg, two
nineteen year old men smoking "Bayou Buster" were taken to the hospital with vomiting,
accelerated heart beats and in the case of one man, violent seizures. Marijuana doesn't
even give you seizures, according to these experts. Supervisor Altizer stated he feels
this is volatile and is going to affect our young and creep into our high schools.
Additionally, he stated he feels Roanoke County needs to take whatever actions are
necessary to make it illegal in Roanoke County at the point in time the State also makes
it illegal. Supervisor Altizer asked that the Board move forward to protect our children
and our community.
Supervisor Flora stated that he knows he is way out of the loop when it
comes to drugs, but he has never heard of this, which is part of the point. Supervisor
Flora stated he does not have any problem adding this; however he would like to have
the same information, so that he can get educated on what Supervisor Altizer is talking
about. Supervisor Flora stated that he does not mind adopting ordinances as long as
he is educated and knowledgeable about exactly what the impact is going to be.
Chairman Church indicated that his comment was going to be the same,
as he does not doubt for one moment the gentleman from Vinton's information; it is
frightening to say the least that this can be happening. Chairman Church stated he
feels the Board can be and will be proactive. He further requested that Mr. Mahoney get
all the necessary information together so that the Board can formulate it into the right
format. Chairman Church then stated if this designer drug is what it is purported to be,
and he feels certain that it is, the Board should take the lead and ask for other localities
to assist.
Supervisor Moore stated that she was in agreement, stating that any time
the Board can take action to stop the spread of drug use it should be done.
Supervisor Elswick stated he had read that same article in the newspaper
and really appreciated Mr. Altizer bringing it to the attention of the Board. Supervisor
Elswick advised he feels this action is a very good approach and the Board should do
its best to stop the availability of it.
It was the consensus of the Board that additional information be provided
to the Board members and that it be added to Roanoke County's legislative program for
the 2011 session of the Virginia General Assembly
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES -CONSENT AGENDA
1. The petition of Laura Bryant to obtain a Special Use Permit in a R-
1, Low Density Residential, District to acquire a multiple dog
permit for five (5) dogs on 1.005 acre, located at 4607 Fort Lewis
Church Road, Catawba Magisterial District
360
September 28, 2010
Chairman Church moved to approve the first reading and schedule the
second reading and public hearing for October 26, 2010. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Amendment to Section 30-23-2, Nonconforming Uses of
Buildings, Structures or Land, of the Roanoke County Zoning
Ordinance to modify provisions relating to the expansion of an
existing nonconforming residential structure in commercial or
industrial districts (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of
Planning)
There was no discussion. Supervisor Flora moved to approve the first
reading and schedule the public hearing and second reading for October 12, 2010. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
Brent Robertson has been appointed as the Roanoke County
representative on the Advisory Board for the Regional Center for Animal Control and
protection. Confirmation of this appointment was placed on the Consent Agenda.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 092810-3 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM I- 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 September
28, 2010, designated as Item I 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 -September 14, 2010
September 28, 2010 361
2. Request to accept and appropriate funds in the amount of $80,000 to the
Roanoke County Public Schools
3. Request to accept and appropriate funds in the amount of $197,400 for five
Division of Motor Vehicle Grants
4. Request to accept and appropriate funds in the amount of $990 from Pro-Tec
Fire Services Limited for radio reimbursement
5. Confirmation of appointment to the Advisory Committee for the Regional
Center for Animal Control and Protection (RCACP)
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The following two citizens spoke concerning the proposed changes to the
Volunteer Incentive Program suggested qualification changes.
Mr. Emerson Schoonover of 4309 Waters Lane in Salem, Virginia stated
he was with the Masons Cove volunteer fire department. He stated the Volunteer
Incentive Program Board of Trustees is coming to meet with the Board over the
eligibility requirements set in 2006. Mr. Schoonover stated that Mason's Cove volunteer
fire department has a member, Barry Yates, that does not qualify, although he is one
hundred percent (100%) vested in the old program. He explained the Virginia
Department of Fire Programs required a firefighter one to recertify every five years until
the year 1992. He stated those firefighters that certified in 1993 or later required no
recertification. He added Mr. Yates joined the department in 1985, was a certified
firefighter one in 1986, become an EMT in 1989 and kept up his certification to date.
However, Mr. Yates did not recertify as firefighter one in 1991. Mr. Yates has continued
his training as required by Roanoke County and has over sixty certifications on record to
date. Mr. Schoonover outlined that by pulling the records for the last ten years, Mr.
Yates has over 500 hours training and advanced over 860 calls. Mr. Yates worked the
Green Ridge fire and is one of the spokespersons for the Roanoke County video. Mr.
Yates accepted the Red Cross Award for heroes for being in command for the
Appalachian Trail Rescue and has served as Assistant Chief since 2004. Mr.
Schoonover advised that many Roanoke County volunteers were grandfathered into the
system and run right along the system just like everybody else. Mr. Yates's overall
certification, his original certification, 25 years of training and dedication to the citizens
of Roanoke County should qualify him for the program. Mr. Schoonover advised he has
provided the Board with a pamphlet that shows Mr. Yates' record and training to date.
Chairman Church thanked Mr. Schoonover for coming and advised that
the Board was in receipt of the information provided. Additionally, Chairman Church
362 September 28, 2010
advised that there would be work session later which Mr. Schoonover is welcome to
stay and attend.
Tom Philpott of 1811 Charlestown Square in Vinton, Virginia indicated that
he is the Rescue Chief for the Vinton first aid crew. Mr. Philpott stated that he is
speaking regarding the proposed changes to the Volunteer Incentive Program (VIP),
which Roanoke County has provided for the volunteer fire and rescue personnel. He
stated he understands the concern of the Board to update this and the committee that
was appointed had a very difficult job. Mr. Philpott stated that he is of the opinion the
proposal to change the qualifications appears not to be taking all departments or
conditions into consideration. He stated it is like a professor that Chairman Church and
he had at one time that said, "You have to pick all of the meat off the bone to get to
everything you need to know." He stated an example would be requiring members in
one squad to run four calls per year to qualify for the ten percent (10%) and then having
another squad having to run 118 calls per year to qualify. Mr. Philpott stated this seems
to be a problem. He then advised no member of the Vinton first aid crew is doing the
work they do for the incentive money. He explained citizens have been volunteering
since 1939 and will continue whether there is an incentive program or not. He outlined
most of the volunteer fire companies, which Mr. Philpott reiterated he is not trying to
divide between fire and rescue but stated there is a difference, as they are not required
to sleep in-house. These volunteers run from home, do their job and go back home and
go to bed. Our rescue volunteers are required to stay in-station in order to meet atwo-
minute response time that is dictated by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). It is
volunteers' opinion that is the least they can do. Additionally, rescue calls are probably
eight to one on fire. During calendar year 2009, the volunteers were dispatched 1184
calls to the Vinton first aid crew during volunteer hours, which is 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
The volunteers answered 802 of these calls; most of the remaining 382 were covered
by career staff, due to one of the following reasons: either the basic life support or the
volunteer truck was already on a call or it was dispatched to advance life support which
requires a paramedic and that meant the career truck took it. During that year, only 12
calls were turned over to other agencies during volunteer hours. Mr. Philpott stated that
his squad, last year, accumulated 15,000 in-station hours, that is equivalent to 375
employees working forty hours a week. He advised that under the proposed ten
percent (10%) minimum requirement set forth in the new VIP program only four
members of the squad would qualify. Mr. Philpott advised they are not asking for any
special consideration, but to develop a fair method of awarding these incentives.
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
September 28, 2010 363
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Accounts Paid -August, 2010
5. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances for the month ended August 31, 2010
6. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues for the
month ended August 31, 2010
7. Treasurer's Statement of Accountability per Investment and
Portfolio Policy as of August 31, 2010
8. Proclamation signed by the Chairman
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 4:00 p.m., Chairman Church moved to go into closed meeting following
the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711(A)(1), personnel,
namely discussion concerning appointments to the community Development Authority,
The Economic Development Authority, the Grievance Plan and Roanoke Valley-
Alleghany Regional Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Committee and
Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711(A)(5) Discussion concerning a prospective business
or industry or the expansion of an existing business or industry where no previous
announcement has been made of the business' or industry's interest in locating or
expanding its facilities in the County and Section 2.2-3711(A)(29) Discussion of the
terms or scope of a public contract involving the expenditure of public funds where
discussion in open session would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating
strategy of the county, namely an agreement with Botetourt County concerning Jack
Smith Industrial Park.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
364 September 28, 2010
At 4:01 p.m., Chairman Church recessed to the 4t" floor for work sessions
followed by closed meeting.
The closed meeting was held from 6:30 p.m. until 6:53 p.m.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS (TRAINING ROOM - 4T" FLOOR)
1. Work session to review recommended change to Fire and Rescue
Department Volunteer Incentive Program (VIP) (Volunteer Chief
Woody Henderson, Chairman of the VIP Board of Trustees)
The work session was held from 4:17 p.m. until 5:07 p.m.
In attendance for this work session were Chief Woody Henderson,
Volunteer Chief Colin Gee, Volunteer Chief Laura Alexander; Rebecca Owens and Don
Karnes, all members of the VIP Board of Trustees and from the Roanoke County Fire
and Rescue Department: Jennifer Sexton, Chief Richard E. Burch, Jr. and Division
Chief Steve Simon
Chief Henderson reviewed a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is
on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Altizer asked when the Board would be asked to evaluate the
program, and could it change the results once it has been assessed with Chief
Henderson responding the sheets are to be in by the 15t" of January 2011 with the
payout in April 2011. Chief Henderson stated this would give the Trustees time to
review. He advised the VIP Board of Trustees looks to make sure any adjustments that
need to be made are made. Additionally, Chief Henderson noted small stations will
have a problem achieving the calls versus the larger stations. The program was
reviewed extensively and ultimately went back to the original point sheet with the
addition of the ten percent (10%) with the idea that the program would be reviewed
again after all of the point sheets were submitted. This program will not go into effect
into 2012.
Supervisor Altizer asked what would be said to the person who has 99 or
95 points out of 100. Chief Henderson responded that the VIP Board may need to
review it and the total number of calls as a ceiling may have to put on the calls. Chief
Henderson reiterated by no means do the Trustees want to knock anyone out of
receiving their yearly benefit, if they have answered a substantial amount of calls. Chief
Henderson indicated if there are 1600 calls a year and all that was mustered was three
calls a year, what justification is used for giving that individual a check for $500.00 and
the individual who has run 99 calls not receiving anything.
Mr. Altizer stated that he agreed with that statement.
Chief Henderson explained it needed to be looked at from a starting point
and understands that before the changes were made, an individual could receive this
September 28, 2010 365
benefit without ever being on a fire truck or being in an ambulance. The program was
originally designed as an incentive to encourage volunteers to answer calls. Chief
Henderson stated he feels if anyone is doing this for $500, they are in the program for
the wrong reason. The program is to help the citizens of Roanoke County.
Mr. Altizer asked if using the total call volume, stated he did not know what
the call split was between advance life support (ALS) and basic life support (BLS) is, but
stated he feels that if total calls are being used, including the ALS, there is nothing in
the program that says anyone has to be certified up to the point of advanced life
support. So, if a number is being used that is combined with ALS, he is of the opinion
there are certain times that life support would go out on ALS, due to the two person
minimum, but there may be more calls that they do not go out on. He explained if the
paid staff is already on a call and there is no-one left in the station, and all you have is
ALS, then those individuals do not have the opportunity to go out. Mr. Altizer stated he
guessed what he was asking is using the total amount of calls the right number to be
basing the percentage off of or should it be a percentage of the calls taking into
consideration the difference between ALS and BLS.
Chief Henderson responded by stating to answer that the best way he
could would be to advise there was a policy a year ago that if an individual had a duty
night, the individual would receive one point for four hours, if the individual received a
call, the point was lost. So, the rules were changed so if a person is at the station on a
duty night, one point would be received and another point would be received if the
individual went on a call, regardless whether it is ALS or BLS. A BLS unit can run an
ALS call, until another unit gets there or transport to a hospital if necessary. The
program was changed to make it fair for all. If the individual is available for a call, points
will be given. Under a technical rescue, all the individuals who respond will receive
credit because it is a call for the particular station. Chief Henderson indicated that the
program would work the same with EMS.
Supervisor Altizer inquired under the existing plan could you either count
so many hours for duty night or for calls, whichever benefited the individual the most?
Chief Henderson stated if an individual is in the four-hour block and a call
came in during the four-hour time frame, the individual would choose which points to
use.
Supervisor Altizer asked how many points the individual would receive for
the call, with Chief Henderson answering one, but under the old plan, an individual
would lose the point for actually being in-station. This was changed because there must
be individuals to cover any additional calls. This program encourages individuals to
come to the station to cover the next set of calls. Chief Henderson indicated that the
program was looked at to determine what the two most important aspects of this
program; training and answering call. The program was looked at to obtain more
emphasis on having individuals being available for calls.
Supervisor Altizer stated that in response to the citizen comments from the
3:00 p.m. meeting, and the complaints or concerns with the higher volume of calls that a
366 September 28, 2010
comment was made that very few would have received a benefit under this point
system. He inquired how the problem escalated and would that take effective after the
first year when the VIP would know what the number truly is?
Chief Henderson explained that the program would probably need to be
relooked at. Based on the numbers in the higher volume area, there are several
volunteers that go away to college during the winter, but they run a tremendous amount
of calls when home for the summer. The program may have to be relooked at and a
cap placed on the number of calls. Chief Henderson reiterated again that no one
wanted to exclude anyone from the program, however people were getting their
incentive and not running calls, participating or helping out their communities.
Chairman Church thanked all of the volunteers on behalf of the entire
Board of Supervisors. Chairman Church then inquired how can the VIP Board help a
person like Mr. Barry Yates? He stated that he was holding countless documents and
Mr. Yates has been there every time the bell has rung. Chairman Church reiterated
how can we make sure that no more Barry Yates or someone similar can fall through
the cracks when they are a dedicated committed person? Chairman Church stated if
this is happening, then The Board of Supervisors needs to take a look to making sure
that individuals who are giving hundreds and hundreds of hours are not lost, which is
counterproductive to the program. The VIP Program is there to encourage, benefit,
applaud and award those who are ready and always there.
Chief Henderson stated he was speaking for himself as well as on behalf
of Chief Gee since this gentleman is a firefighter. He stated that Mr. Yates is very, very
deserving; he deserves his incentive and he thinks Chief Gee will say the same thing.
In explanation, Chief Henderson advised the only thing that the Trustees had to go on
was in the pamphlet under Item I, Section 4, "Firefighters/Rescuers must be certified at
minimum level within 18 months of acceptance into organization." This means a
Firefighter must have Firefighter I within 18 months of acceptance into an organization;
and Rescuers must have EMT-B within 18 months of acceptance into an organization.
Prior to 18 months, a volunteer may earn their 80 points and incentive if they are
actively working toward becoming certified. Additionally, a volunteer must remain
certified at the minimum level to be eligible for the VIP program. This was a carryover
from the old program. The Trustees basically had no choice. Chief Henderson stated
he personally thinks he is very deserving, but you have to go by the rules and
regulations and we had to say no.
Chairman Church stated he did not know Mr. Yates, personally and is
going strictly by his paperwork and if this situation can occur, he would suggest that the
Board of Supervisors should take some steps to prevent the "Barry Yates" for example
from falling through the cracks.
Chief Henderson stated that this had been addressed this and an offer
was made to not only Mr. Yates but several others out there to assist them by allowing
them to enroll in firefighter 1 class, with no response. Chief Henderson stated the rules
are there for a reason, if this deleted, it will be necessary to go back and pick up drivers
September 28, 2010 367
that only want to drive an ambulance, which not why this program was created. It was
created for professionalism in the Roanoke County Fire, professionalism in the Roanoke
County EMS and to encourage individuals to get their EMT's, EMTI's, Firefighter 1's and
Firefighter 2's. Chief Henderson stated that he was of the opinion that because Mr.
Yates did not meet that criteria, regardless of how much certification he had, he fell
through the cracks when he made that transfer. Additionally, Chief Henderson noted if
the rule is changed for one, it will have to be changed for everyone.
Chairman Church stated that he is not trying to "reinvent the wheel", but
he stated he was not trying to say something about a marginal individual, i.e. only four
or five calls. Chairman Church stated he is talking about "the Barry Yates", whoever
they may be. He stated he felt it would behoove the Board of Supervisors to take a
look, not just for one person, but in his opinion, Roanoke County should be the
organization that does what is right and proper and if that means changing some things,
how can you go wrong with changing to make things better?
Chief Henderson stated the problem goes back as far as 1992. Since
then, everyone on the fire side that is certified is in the program, and there is an
academy to certify them to follow within those guidelines of 18 months. Once certified,
no-one will have to go back, just the continuation of education. On the EMS side,
certification is done every four years. EMS must recertify, firefighters do not as long as
training is continued. Even a break in service will not change certification. Chief
Henderson stated that with the rules in place, there was no choice. He stated that he
understands it is difficult to accept and would like to see everyone receive the incentive.
Chief Henderson stated that he had advised Chief Schoonover when it came up for
discussion that his next appeal was to the Board of Supervisors because it had been
taken as far as they could with the current guidelines in place
Chairman Church stated that he wanted to make it clear for those present,
he is not trying to make any exceptions, however, for those who have given us their
heart and soul, would suggest that the Board of Supervisors take a look at whether it be
one, five or fifteen. This is not a guy who shows up once every ten days. Chairman
Church reiterated that any rule sometimes needed to be looked at and sometimes, it
does not have to fit all situations.
Supervisor Moore advised that she felt a great deal of effort had been put
into the program which she had read and reread several times and the program
includes the criteria, calls and duty points. Additionally, in reference to Mr. Yates, she is
in agreement with Supervisor Altizer if you ran 99 calls, there are other things that can
be looked at. She stated that she knew that the forms would be critiqued before
submission to try and figure out a way to make sure that the points can be increased.
Additionally, she noted sometimes a hard look must be given to each individual person
and what they have done and what they have accomplished. Supervisor Moore stated
it seemed to her in knowing what little she knows about Mr. Yates, that this is something
that fell through the cracks when it came to getting his certification and apparently he
did not realize that this was a requirement until it was too late and now it is way too
368 September 28, 2010
complicated to obtain it. Supervisor Moore stated she would like to see a way to take a
better look at this to alleviate it from happening again.
Supervisor Altizer advised he felt everyone worked very hard on this issue
and on trying to come up with a fair plan, regardless of whether it is first aid or putting
out a fire. He stated that he feels the Board wants to make sure that when something
like this is done, the Board wants to ensure it is a level playing field. He indicated that
he did have a problem with what Chief Henderson was saying versus the written
information because they do not "mesh", i.e. in the pamphlet it states you "MUST"
answer ten percent of the calls. The word "must" tells me and maybe tells other folks
that there is no room for other considerations.
Supervisor Elswick asked if another avenue could be found for a person to
be recognized, obviously, the criteria is defined for VIP. If an individual does not meet
the criteria, then they don't meet the criteria. Supervisor Elswick stated that a great deal
of time had been taken for the development of that criteria, so it cannot be ignored.
However, maybe in addition there could be another way to recognize people who put in
tons of time and answer every call or a large percentage of the calls that come in.
Maybe, once a year based on recommendation of the Chiefs, there are some people
who did not meet this criteria, but because of exceptional performance and commitment
in other ways are also deserving of recognition; a separate vehicle to reward those
kinds of people could be accomplished
Chief Henderson stated he felt that once the program is reviewed in 2012,
it would provide the Trustees with a better idea of what is going on. The stats that are
currently being used are from 2009 because 2010 is not yet available. Chief Henderson
advised that he feels a reevaluation will need to be done, which will be the only way to
get a good reading on it and with regard to the "must" wording which was put in there to
encourage people to answer the calls, i.e. there are people within an organization that
are running 300 calls on the same duty night as someone else who only ran twelve.
Chief Henderson explained that he feels that is where the ten percent came from,
however, if you go back and break it down per month, even if you ran 1200 calls, it is
really not that many calls, you have to answer 125 calls per year, or twelve a month.
Chief Henderson stated this should not be a problem with the busy stations in the
County, however, if there is a small department, it would almost be impossible. The
"must" thing is no more than an encouragement to get people to run calls. Chief
Henderson stated he can only speak for his department, and has already put it into
effect in his department and there are guys that are scrambling. He stated he had done
a list last night and if the year ended today, there are about twelve individuals that would
not make it.
Supervisor Flora asked if the total calls listed were the total calls
dispatched from that station or the total calls where a piece of equipment left the
station? Chief Henderson responded that it is the total calls that were dispatched to that
station from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Supervisor Flora then asked if there is a station that
is not going out on calls then its stands to reason they are not likely to reach their
September 28, 2010 369
points. Supervisor Flora then stated going back to the ten percent, if a little math is
done and there are 1,000 calls that means you are running a hundred and if you have
30 members that is 3,000 points, that means if every piece of equipment that leaves
that station has a minimum of three people on it and all of the participation is equally
divided among all thirty people, you cannot have 30 or 40 percent of the people running
most of the calls, because that knocks out everyone else. Supervisor Flora stated it
seems like the math, although idealistic is not practical. He further stated that he feels
some probabilities need to be calculated on that and see if it really stands up to the test;
it might be high.
Chief Henderson stated when you look at our station for 2009 the number
was 210, that means everyone has to run 20 calls, it doesn't mean that every person
has to come in on every call, but has to pick up 30 calls during that year. Chief
Henderson stated he thought there might be some misconceptions. If there is a station
that has 43 calls, 4.3 calls would need to be run for the whole year, but this same little
company actually ran anywhere from 40 to 50 percent of their calls, so if you run over,
you still count it.
Supervisor Flora stated he understands that every call does not have to
be run, just ten percent (10%) percent. He added, however, it depends on how many
members you have. For example, if you are only running 40 calls a year and you have
30 members, you cannot get that many people into the station. Chief Henderson replied
that is correct, but that station is running 43 calls and probably does not have but about
ten members.
Supervisor Moore stated that based on the chart in the agenda package
that breaks down the calls per station, Cave Spring has 412 fire calls, which is 41 calls
that they have to go on. The rescue calls would probably be a better strategic number
to use, 112 calls; you could get ten calls on the week-end, if a person came in.
Chief Henderson replied that according to the other sheet in the package,
if everyone responded to the Cave Spring fire calls, every one of their members would
have met ten percent. On Cave Spring rescue, it is a little different, because Chief
Alexander has some college students that run a tremendous amount of calls and they
are gone from August to May or June.
Chief Alexander stated that some of that analysis was used when looking
back at call volumes for 2009, 2008 and 2007. She stated that when looking at VIP
points that were submitted and looking at ten percent of those and in 2009, 37 good
standing, VIP members were submitted, and under the ten percent equation, 25 of
those 37 would be disqualified. Additionally, so far for 2010, out of Cave Spring rescue,
18 out of the active 45 members would receive the incentive and everyone else would
be disqualified. She advised that 14 people right now are on academic leave for
college, however, they run over their holidays and summers, but they are not going to
achieve the ten percent because of high call volume. Furthermore, Chief Alexander
noted that high school students are required to leave at 11:00 p.m. at night, that
changes when you are running five out of the twelve hours on any given shift and even
370 September 28, 2010
though they are good volunteers for what they can commit to, they probably will not
reach ten percent.
Chairman Church suggested that the Board agree to review from the
perspective that if it means to help an individual like Mr. Yates or anyone else similar,
he felt it was necessary. He further indicated that he felt you could not take someone
that has been working for you seven or eight years, doing the job and they are going
overboard and that person happens to fall through the cracks and goes by the wayside
and maybe a younger person in service happens to be in there for a while, can only do
half the job. Chairman Church reiterated his point by stating if you have a person with
dedication that needs to be considered as in this situation, it needs to be corrected.
Chairman Church stated in his opinion the Board is here to help or attempt to help these
situations positively, encourage participation and keep growing positively as has been
happening ever since all of this Board has been serving. He further stated that he feels
the Board should take another look at a couple of criteria, along with the ten percent
and not recreate the entire program, but try and find how we can help those people
most deserving.
Supervisor Altizer stated that the Board needs to look after the best way of
spending money and try to correct it so that the people that do not deserve do not get it.
Supervisor Altizer advised that it is his feeling that the Trustees have done a great job
and thinks the problem is in the numbers. Supervisor Altizer reiterated that he wanted
to make sure that the people that ordinarily dedicate the time and show up consistently
are being rewarded and that a monster is not being created that will push them out the
door. He stated the Board wants to make sure that the correct number is obtained.
Supervisor Flora stated that he wanted to add that he does not disagree
with the ten percent. He advised that he was in Hollins for five years before he left town
and volunteers are there to run calls. He explained that they are not there to collect
points and they are not there to get $500 when they pass go; they want to run calls.
Supervisor Flora expressed his concern is you might be getting them into the station,
but once you get them into the station and they are unable to run a call, eventually they
are going to sit at home when they are not running their duty hours; it is a two-edged
sword. Supervisor Flora stated he thinks the incentive should be there, the Board sits
here and wants to make everybody happy, we want to wear the white hat and we want
to make sure that everyone leaves with a smile on their face, but the fact is that this is
an incentive program, and it is not intended to help 100 percent of everybody. He
further advised it is intended to help those who are doing the job and doing it well,
exceptionally well.
Mr. Goodman stated that since he started this and has not been involved
in the conversation, he will sit down and work with the VIP Trustees and try to see what
can be done, working together with the Chief and the Volunteer Chiefs, Captains, etc. to
address the concerns of the Board and the other concerns and still be objective for the
program. Mr. Goodman stated that he believes by working together and by becoming a
little more involved all of the issues can be worked out.
September 28, 2010 371
2. Work session on ridgeline protection and Blue Ridge Parkway
protection (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
The work session was held from 5:14 p.m. until 6:01 p.m.
Paul Mahoney and David Holladay were in attendance for this work
session. Mr. Mahoney outlined that Mr. Elswick had requested a work session to
consider some of the initiatives that the County has taken with respect to ridgeline
protection and protecting some of the view sheds around the Blue Ridge Parkway. Mr.
Mahoney advised that with the assistance of Mr. Holiday, the relooked at some of the
work that was done going back to 1995 with some of the citizens committees that the
Board had appointed to assist in the "visioning" process as part of the review and
update of the County's comprehensive plan. Mr. Mahoney stated that with David's help,
the second paragraph in the Board report talked about what this citizen's committee did
and some of the conclusions that the citizens group came up with, really focusing on
ridgeline protection and also protecting some of the view sheds of the Blue Ridge
Parkway. Additionally, Mr. Mahoney reminded the Board, back in 2003, 2004, 2005
during which time several of the current members were on the Board and the Board
held a series of annual retreats where the focus was on some of the long range goals
that needed to be addressed with the County staff and the idea of the retreat was to get
away from specific or detailed issues that were dealt with every bi-monthly meeting, and
to take a long range view. During those retreats, the Board looked at those
recommendations from the citizens committees as part of that visioning statement and
the Board discussed and debated a variety of initiatives dealing with reducing zoning
densities, limited steep slope development, looking at cluster ordinances and some
development guidelines for ridgeline development. At that time, the Board was also
concerned about some clear-cutting issues where folks would come in and just chop
down all the trees for a couple of hundred acres of land and also stormwater
management. Mr. Mahoney stated that as a result, the Board did undertake a series of
steps to implement some of those citizen recommendations arising out of that visioning
process that began in the mid and late 1990's and the Board did include in the
comprehensive plan references to many of those initiatives and incorporated through
several ordinance amendments different approaches to try to address those issues. Mr.
Mahoney explained that it was his recollection that the Board struggled with ridgeline
protection in the sense that as a topic, it is like "motherhood and apple pie", everybody
likes ridgeline protection. He explained that it is only when the Board got into the details
of looking at different properties and making decisions to tell landowners, yes or no you
can or cannot build your home on the top of that ridge that the Board struggled with
some of the constitutional concerns about taking private property for public purposes,
some of the 5t" amendment takings issues, how you can tell property owners that they
cannot make a legitimate use of their property and some difficulty really looking at some
372 September 28, 2010
specific provisions to restrict that kind of development. Mr. Mahoney then advised at
that point in time, the Board wanted to and did amend the comprehensive plan, to speak
to ridgeline protection, indicating in the comprehensive plan that instead of putting out a
blanket ordinance, the Board wanted to look at various development proposals on a
case by case basis as people sought rezoning for development and then the Board
would have an opportunity to look at on a case by case basis what would be done or
what could be done with a very specific part of the property. Mr. Mahoney stated that
he felt that this has worked to some extent as Mr. Holiday has shown to me, when the
Board was looking at some of the zoning activities with respect to Explore Park and
there was an analysis done by staff of critical view sheds and some of the conditions,
some of the proffers, and some of the regulations that were part of that Explore Park
ordinance addressed some of those critical view shed issues. He advised that he also
thought this worked when the work was done with Vinton in the industrial park next to
Montgomery Village and with Cardinal Glass. Mr. Mahoney also advised that the Board
worked on a case by case basis with making sure that additional screening and
buffering was installed in that development to shield or buffer the industrial development
from the Parkway and that critical view shed. Mr. Mahoney also stated that he was of
the opinion that when Radford came in to do the Mason's Crest development, there was
an identification of a piece of land which was within a critical view shed of the Blue
Ridge Parkway. As a result, Radford's made a donation of that piece of land to the
Parkway to the federal government, which was in the critical view shed. Mr. Mahoney
stated that it is his opinion the Board has attempted to enforce or apply some of those
view shed protection and ridgeline protection concepts in its analysis of various case by
case developments. Next, Mr. Mahoney advised with respect to steep slope
development, the Board adopted an ordinance to try to address steep slope
development. Additionally, Mr. Mahoney stated he thinks the Board is not looking at a
flat out ban on any kind of development on a ridgeline, but rather have an applicant
provide a geotechnical engineering investigation, submit design criteria and
engineering reports that would once again be tailored for that specific development.
Furthermore, he stated the Board adopted an ordinance that is included in the Erosion
and Sediment Control chapter and that ordinance addresses a variety of those different
elements of what a developer would have to do when he or she wants to come in and
put a development on a steep slope. Mr. Mahoney stated that he had provided copies
of the State enabling legislation, Section 15.2 2295.1 that provides specific authority for
localities to regulate a mountain ridge construction. Additionally, Mr. Mahoney detailed
that staff had looked at what several other localities have done in the Commonwealth
with respect to this topic. Mr. Mahoney stated that part of what he hoped would come
out of this work session would be some indication from the Board as to the direction the
Board wants the staff to go with respect to this topic. Mr. Mahoney explained that if
there is some clear direction and some marching orders that the Board wants us to
take, it is his recommendation to perhaps schedule a future work session and invite the
Planning Commission to join you. The Planning Commission has been doing some
September 28, 2010 373
work in this area and Mr. Mahoney stated he feels a constructive meeting could be done
with the Planning Commission and provide some ideas and guidance to both the staff
and to the Commission with respect to some of the Board's goals in this area. He
further added that David Holladay has done a tremendous amount of research work to
assist him with this endeavor.
Supervisor Elswick advised that he wanted to explain why he requested
the work session. He advised that there were a couple of reasons, first, a citizen sent
him the report which is the vision statement that came from a survey that was by a 200
citizen panel who provided a very extensive effort by citizens as to what they thought
the Valley should look like in 2010, and based on that he was curious as to what has
been done? How much has been incorporated? How has the County responded to
what citizens asked for? Second, the President of the Common Sense commented to
him that this was the kind of thing that Common Sense was founded for and one of the
main purposes of the Common Sense organization was to solicit citizen comments and
to conduct a survey of all County citizens as to what they think the County ought to be
doing, what is expected of the Board's position, what are the negatives, what are the
recommendations from citizens as to how well the County is doing its job in responding
to their needs. Additionally, Supervisor Elswick noted that he has been participating in
the Blue Ridge Parkway celebrations recently and to him the Parkway is very important
as well as Explore Park, which in his opinion ought to stay the way it is. He stated that
he thinks the County should severely limit development along the Parkway and even
though on a case by case basis we might have been trying to do the right thing, it you
look at some of the developments, like Cotton hill, that are close to the Parkway, it does
not appear that everything has been done to protect the view from the Parkway.
Supervisor Elswick then quoted from the vision statement, "the mountains provide an
element of beauty and relief that attracts tourist, sport enthusiasts, residents, and
businesses." "the location of rural countryside, the Blue Ridge Parkway and
Appalachian Trail without borders are sources of local pride and stewardship." Mr.
Elswick commented that the word stewardship is important to him because he will not
be around twenty years from now and the people who will be around in the future need
to be able to look at our mountains and our Parkways, Explore Park and enjoy these
areas in the same way that we do and protect them to the maximum extent possible.
Quoting again, he stated "Critical components of the County's high quality of life of the
adopted environmentally sound road policies that have been integrated with the
preservation of natural, scientific and historic resources." "County residents value and
act as stewards of the regions beautiful mountains, forests, rivers and streams, fresh air
and abundant wildlife." Supervisor Elswick stated that in this county, we are lucky to
have streams that are the highest classification in the State; there are only 33 streams
in the State that are called Class Three and have native trout in them. Next, Supervisor
Elswick quoted from the State regulations, "The State will define our mountains being
2,000 feet or more as protected mountain ridges", that is the State definition that you
handed out and that "determinations by the governing body of heights and elevations
374 September 28, 2010
under this section shall be conclusive." Supervisor Elswick then pointed out, Roanoke
County has the authority and with citizens desiring our mountains to be protected, he
just wants to make sure that Roanoke County does everything that it can to respond to
the desires of the citizens. Supervisor Elswick stated that it is his opinion that
discussion and an additional work session is important; including input from citizens and
other organizations which are important and should be listened to.
Supervisor Altizer stated he thinks there are three supervisors who were
on the Board when this issue was first addressed and an attempt was made to
accomplish what was needed by "not brushing with a broad brush." He stated an
attempt was made to try to identify where changes could be made to the best benefit of
all. Supervisor Altizer commented that he thinks he has had the most projects in his
district that is bound by the Parkway in the last four or five years. The rezoning of
Explore Park and the protection work with Gary Johnson and Phil Francis and bringing
them into the process to determine what the development would look like and where
they wanted things and where they did not wants things in the view shed. This was
accomplished. Supervisor Altizer indicated the same process was done with Cardinal
Glass, i.e. extra buffering, colors, etc. Supervisor Altizer stated that at the time the
Board thought Roanoke County could do the best amount of good in preserving these
areas by taking everything on a case by case basis. Additionally, he advised at the top
of Toddsbury Circle, which is probably 2500 feet of elevation, a very beautiful home has
been built on the top of that mountain; built by the guidelines established back in 2006.
Additionally, Supervisor Altizer stated he understands the gentleman from Bent
Mountain and what people perceive and what actually happens, however, one thing that
needs to be kept in mind is the valleys and mountains belong to everyone here in this
valley to share. He stated they also belong to individuals and when you get into
property rights and what people are allowed to do with their properties, the Board has in
the past tried to balance the price of keeping and protecting people's property rights
with trying to keep the steep slopes and put in things that make sense on a case by
case basis. Supervisor Altizer then questioned Mr. Holladay were there were any
projects that have really been controversial because of the definitions of what we
required.
David Holladay responded to Supervisor Altizer by stating there were
none that he could think of and the only project that comes to mind that is a feather in
everyone's cap is the protection of the Bonsack side of Reed Mountain, which came
about as sort of acitizen-driven initiative and the mountain was saved with some
guidance from the Board of Supervisors. Additionally in 1995 when they denied a
request for a tower on top of the mountain, no electricity was ever put up there and the
Board made the statement at the time that this was a fairly significant, however, the
Board would like to do something and assist if possible, but again it was a case by case,
individual basis. Mr. Holladay stated in the mid to late 2000's there were two significant
properties that went into conservation easements and were ultimately donated to the
County as a mountain park and now there is a trail that can be hiked from the Bonsack
September 28, 2010 375
side along the top and there is an easement to go on another private part of that
property, but it is a wonderful achievement of mountain-side protection that took a
completely different outlook. Mr. Holiday then stated in answer to Supervisor Altizer's
question, he did not know of any particular development projects that have caused the
Board to come back and revisit these things.
Supervisor Altizer stated that he thinks that the Board put things in
perspective and did a great job. He stated he feels the Board has done the right things,
no doubt based on the dialog that has previously taken place when anything comes up
in the view shed that the Parkway believes is going to be a hindrance to the view that
they have. He stated he believes they are going to come to the County and discuss this
just as they have in the past. Supervisor Altizer stated that from his standpoint, he is in
the same place he was in 2005; there is a way to do things without painting with wide
brush. Additionally, he stated that he feels the things that have already put into effect
work and thinks people's property rights are being protected and anything else could be
construed as an unfair taking of their land. Supervisor Altizer summed up his thoughts
by stating he feels the County is trying to do the prudent thing and respect property
rights at the same time.
Supervisor Moore stated both sides of the issue should be looked at. For
example, Clearbrook Mountain is a prime example. The mountain was completely
mauled and stripped and is located on a main thoroughfare; everyone that comes into
Roanoke and to Greensboro can see what was done. She explained that this was
private property and there was not a thing that the County could do. Supervisor Moore
reiterated that every location cannot be fixed. She further stated that Roanoke County
needs to be sensitive to the Parkway and take it on a case by case basis. Supervisor
Moore stated she cannot think of any other way that it could be approached.
Supervisor Flora stated he happens to be a very strong property rights
person, as he grew up in a rural environment in Roanoke County and enjoys an even
more rural environment across the mountain. He stated that it is his opinion;
developments have been overregulated in Roanoke County. He indicated he knows it
was all for the good and with an honorable purpose. However, the government has the
power to do these types of things; regulate and control development, but when
government goes beyond that reasonable control and begins to take away the rights of
the property owners to the point that they have lost most of their beneficial rights to that
property, government has gone too far. Supervisor Flora indicated that his concern was
that this is an issue that can very easily be stepped across and could be an incredible
slippery slope for Roanoke County. He further stated that he thinks Roanoke County
has done an admirable job, almost every development that has come forward since
most of the Board has been here, has been looked at and view sheds protected
because the property owners volunteered to do it; they were encouraged and then they
themselves took the initiative to make it happen. Supervisor Flora stated he thinks the
process right now is working and is receiving good results; the view sheds of the
Parkway have been protected, regulations have been created that does not allow
376 September 28, 2010
development on an incredibly steep slope and if they do, they have to jump through a lot
of hoops. Supervisor Flora stated that it was his opinion that the process was not
broken.
Supervisor Elswick commented that he feels the same way with regard to
property rights; he detests them. He further explained that a citizen is told that they
have to have 200 feet of road-front property before a house can be built, that is more
onerous than saying you cannot put a tall structure on top of a ridgeline that exceeds
125 feet. Supervisor Elswick that that it is his opinion that the County has probably
regulated too much. He further stated that he hates eminent domain and he hates
government imposition on people's property rights, but on the other hand, there are a lot
of other people who live in the valley and like to look at mountains and it is not a big
imposition on anybody's property rights. He further indicated that it doesn't affect
whether they can build a house, whether they can ride their horse on a trail, whether
they can have walking trails and allow their neighbors to come and walk through their
woods. He commented by saying simply that you cannot have a tall structure over 100
feet, 125 feet on any ridgeline is not really impacting property rights to any large extent.
Further he explained the State specifically says that counties have the authority to
determine the heights of structures on protected mountain ridges, which ours are.
Supervisor Elswick indicated that he thought the Board should forget the fact that it may
have gone too far with some of the regulations in terms of usurping people's property
rights. He stated if the Board decided to limit the height of structures on ridgelines, it
really would not impact anybody's property rights to the large extent and it would
respond greatly to the people who did this study.
Chairman Church stated his position is the County is dangerously treading
into some legal rapid water by approaching anything of this importance in an extremely
quick manner. He further commented that the Board has to be deliberate, methodical
and totally encompassing in all aspects because we are looking at Roanoke County. He
explained that Roanoke County has a lot of ridge tops and a lot of mountains in the
area, which he feels is most beautiful part of our valley. Chairman Church indicated that
he totally understands, but feels the need for deliberations and assurance than any
direct action that is taken does not create the flip site of the legal. Additionally, he noted
there is one side to incur the wrath of property owners; it is another side to have staff,
our Board and our legal department in a spider web. He stated he sees both sides, but
feels if it is to be looked at, if it is to be reevaluated, caution is necessary and nothing
can be overlooked. He explained that this is not an easy process and cannot happen
overnight. Chairman Church explained that his point is that this is a huge
encompassing area and thinks the Board needs to drive slow and make sure it is really
going in the right direction.
Supervisor Elswick stated that he thinks because of the survey and
because citizens are asking for ridge top protection he wants to make sure that request
is responded to, no matter how it is done. He stated he feels based on the legal
requirements as defined as what we can and cannot do and the actions of other
September 28, 2010 377
localities that the Board needs to ask ourselves if we going to respond to these people,
are we going to enact an ordinance, or are we not? He stated that in his mind, it is very
simple. Supervisor Elswick stated another work session can be held to talk about it, but
it is our decision to make. He asked, "Do we address the issue of the height of
structures on our ridge tops or do we not." He stated that he proposes that the Board
have an additional work session to discuss.
Supervisor Altizer made the comment that no vote can be taken in work
session, but the Board can come to consensus. He further stated that he thinks the
Board has responded in the past and he sees no reason to go to ridge top protection as
it was looked at in 2003, 2004, and 2005. He commented that it was the Board's
decision at that time, to go with a slow pace, do it one by one as things come before the
Board. Supervisor Altizer stated that he is still in favor of that as the system is not
broken. He further commented it is his opinion that if it is the consensus of the Board,
then have a work session with the planning commission, however, if the Board is not
planning to move forward, he thinks there is no sense in wasting the time of the
planning commission. Supervisor Altizer then questioned Mr. Mahoney regarding his
interpretation of what the State codes allow with regard to localities and cell towers that
are 150 feet tall.
Mr. Mahoney indicated that Mr. Altizer's interpretation was correct, but at
the same time, the existing County's ordinance in all of our zoning districts has a height
limitation; there are some exceptions to those height limits, cell towers obviously being
one and there are also methods by which through special use permit, height limits for
certain kinds of uses and activities can go above whatever the uniform general height
limit is. Mr. Mahoney explained that each district has different height limits. He
indicated the statute that was provided to the Board has some pretty broad, carve-out
exceptions, and it is his opinion that it will depend on how detailed and how specific you
want to be as to whether or not this enabling legislation would apply to certain kinds of
uses.
Supervisor Flora stated as he mentally surveys the higher elevations
around the valley, they are pretty much residential or agricultural. He advised that he
does not think the County has any industrial or commercial districts that fit into that
higher elevation category. Additionally, he added that if that is the case, then if anyone
wants to do anything that goes above 45 or 50 feet, they are going to have to come to
the County for either a conditional use permit, special exception permit or something.
Supervisor Elswick then asked "so it is already taken care of?" with
Supervisor Flora responding that it seems to him that the County has already done what
Supervisor Elswick is requesting, with Supervisor Elswick responded that it appears to
be.
Chairman Church stated that the Board has known what Supervisor Flora
was saying, however, it was his opinion that the matter regarding the regulations be
referred to legal counsel. He stated that he had given his opinion in a very careful way
because there is always a potential possibility sometime in the future.
378 September 28, 2010
Supervisor Elswick then asked if anything else can be done for the
Parkway and areas near that and is there anything Roanoke County can do in terms of
defining additional protection for areas viewed from the Parkway?
Mr. Mahoney responded by stating the comprehensive plans have
identified most if not all of the critical view sheds. He further stated that again, on a
case by case basis, these issues can be addressed. Mr. Mahoney advised there were
a couple of areas that might present difficultly. He detailed where the Parkway is in
close proximity to Rt. 220 and in the eastern part of the County where it is in close
proximity Rt. 460, these are different situations. He explained most of the areas are
probably surrounded by AG3 and there are some areas clearly in Mr. Altizer's district,
residential. Mr. Mahoney indicated that by identifying the view sheds approaching on a
case by case basis, they can be addressed by the big new developments. However, he
cautioned if a homeowner owns an existing piece of land right on the Parkway and
wants to paint it pink polkadot purple, the County cannot stop that.
Mr. Holladay explained the view sheds that were identified were done
during the mid to late 90's through the windshield, driving and walking surveys of what
can be see in your immediate view, certain areas along the Roanoke County stretch of
the Parkway, but what is currently in place is the ability of doing some digital elevation
modeling where a potential structure can be looked at from a certain height and certain
location and see what it is going to look like in all different areas along the Parkway.
This is what the Parks Service has the capability of now and the County has this
capability to do those kinds of things as well. Mr. Holliday stated in regard to the cell
tower companies, staff requires them to do that same thing. Mr. Holladay notes that this
process does not take into consideration every tree, but it does take into consideration
slopes, etc. This procedure was used with Explore Park. Mr. Holladay advised that it is
his opinion that this procedure provides staff with a better way to look at impacts of
development.
Supervisor Moore indicated that Mr. Holladay has a good point; however,
she still feels that because a lot of land is private property, the County will be unable to
do anything because of the County's inability to have control. She then pointed out that
everything that could be done, such as speaking with the developers and adding
proffers, as needed, to protect these view sheds.
Supervisor Elswick commented that he is really sensitive, because being
from eastern Kentucky and he can no longer show his children the mountains he
roamed as a child. He indicated that he thinks 50 years from now, on our case by case
basis, allowing developments like Cotton Hill will result in the same situation in Roanoke
County. Additionally, he is of the opinion that in the case of Rt. 220 and Rt. 460, there is
going to be development, but thinks Roanoke County ought to do its best to protect
those areas.
Supervisor Flora commented that short of buying the land, he feels the
Board is working with the best possible alternative.
Chairman Church stated that the Board is at a point where these things
September 28, 2010 379
need to done in the proper way and arrive at consensus. He further added that
recognition needs to be made for what Roanoke County has and to handle it on a case
by case basis when it comes to that.
Supervisor Elswick asked if any of the Board members objected to a work
session with the planning committee to get others input or should it be shelved?
Chairman Church indicated that he never had a problem with meeting
anyone.
Supervisor Flora inquired whether any of the comprehensive plans were
being worked on or was staff working on the small overlay areas?
Mr. Holladay indicated that one of the things that the planning commission
wants to do is evaluate those vision statements because they are really the first section
of our comprehensive plan, other than legislative, when this comprehensive plan takes
place, the next section is those vision statements from 1995. These are overarching
goals to all of the other goals and objectives and they have directed a lot of the work
that has been done over the past ten years.
Supervisor Flora inquired whether or not staff was going to take that
section or that chapter and send it, or would they be reviewed chapter by chapter or are
they going to try to do the whole bundle and bring uptodate?
Mr. Holladay advised that staff would just be looking at vision statements.
Supervisor Flora indicated that perhaps when this is done and before it
goes through the public hearing process, maybe the Board can sit down with the
planning commission.
Mr. Holladay indicated with these area plans, staff is taking small and big
chunks of the County and amending the comprehensive plan based on a more focused
view of that particular area, but if you take the Glenvar area, for example, it is a large
chunk of Western Roanoke County. That area will be put together in different stages.
Supervisor Flora commented that when the work is completed and before
the public hearing process might be the time to discuss encouraging conservation areas
along the Parkway as they relate to our comprehensive plan.
3. Work session to review financial and budget information for the
County of Roanoke (Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance; Brent
Robertson, Director of Management and Budget
This work session was held from 6:02 p.m. until 6:20 p.m.
Staff in attendance for the work sessions were Pete Haislip, Brent
Robertson, Paul Mahoney, Diane Hyatt, Dan O'Donnell, Rebecca Owens, Richard
Burch, Kevin Hutchins, Holly Salvatore, Jimmy Lyons, Doug Chittum, Joe Sgroi, Anita
Hassell, Ray Lavinder, Marcus Ordonez, Diane Rosapepe, Billy Driver, Joey Stump,
Laurie Gearhart, B. Clayton Goodman, III, Jennifer Sexton, Teresa Hamilton Hall and
Deborah Jacks. Cody Lowe from the Roanoke Times was also present.
380 September 28, 2010
Rebecca Owens provided the Board with a PowerPoint presentation, a
copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. Due to
time constraints, it was the consensus of the Board to postpone the remainder of the
work session to the Board Meeting to be held on October 12, 2010.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 7:00 p.m. Chairman Church called the meeting back into open session.
RESOLUTION 092810-4 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 exempt 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 Chairman Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1. The petition of Bobby B. Twine to rezone 6.54 acres from AR,
Agricultural/Residential, District to AV, Agricultural/Village
Center, District and to obtain a special use permit for the purpose
of operating a construction yard, located at the intersection of
Twine Hollow Road and Meacham Road, Catawba Magisterial
District (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning)
September 28, 2010 381
Mr. Thompson outlined that the original rezoning request was for 5.892
acres and at a community meeting in July and public hearing meeting in August there
were citizen concerns regarding the traffic on Meacham Road. The request was
changed to the current 6.54 acres and a public hearing was held on September 7, 2010
with no citizen disputes and was approved by a vote of four to zero with three
conditions.
Supervisor Elswick inquired whether there was some type of bonding
required in order to make sure the conditions were met. Mr. Thompson explained that
there will be conditions on the site plan that will need to be met before a certificate of
occupancy is issued. Mr. Thompson further explained the original issue was with traffic,
but has been worked out as a result of citizen concerns. Supervisor Elswick then asked
if they would be diesel fuel storage with Mr. Thompson responding that there would be
no storage tanks, just storage of equipment.
Chairman Church asked Mr. Thompson to define exactly what the problem
was originally. Mr. Thompson explained that the original rezoning request was from A4
to 12 and the problem was not with the construction yard, but because of the zoning
requirements the public access would have been off Meacham road and citizens were
concerned with the traffic flow. Mr. Thompson indicated that with the change, the
access is now off Twine Hollow Road which has no traffic issues.
Chairman Church than asked Mr. Thompson to define a construction yard
with Mr. Thompson stating the proposed use is a construction yard for the storage of
paving equipment incidental to Mr. Twine's paving business. Chairman Church then
asked if Mr. Twine was proposing any outside storage, with Mr. Thompson responding
no.
Chairman Church Altizer indicated that the proffered conditions have
changed from 8-5 to 7-7, which is more in line with the operations, which Mr. Thompson
responded was correct.
Chairman Church asked Mr. Twine if he was committed to the three
proffered conditions with Mr. Twine responding affirmatively. Chairman Church then
asked if Mr. Twine handles snow removal, with Mr. Twine responding affirmatively.
Supervisor Elswick asked if the only items that would be stored would be
four trucks, with Mr. Twine responding there would be four trucks and trailers and a
couple of backhoes.
ORDINANCE 092810-5 REZONING 6.54 ACRES FROM AR,
AGRICULTURAL/RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO AV,
AGRICULTURAL/ VILLAGE CENTER DISTRICT, AND TO
OBTAIN A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF
OPERATING A CONSTRUCTION YARD LOCATED AT THE
INTERSECTION OF TWINE HOLLOW ROAD AND MEACHAM
ROAD, CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (TAX MAP NO.
63.04-3-56), UPON THE APPLICATION OF BOBBY TWINE
382 September 28, 2010
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 27, 2010, and the
second reading and public hearing were held September 28, 2010; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on August 3, 2010, and September 7, 2010; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
I aw.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing
approximately 6.54 acres, as described herein, and located at the intersection of Twine
Hollow Road and Meacham Road (Tax Map Number 63.04-3-56) in the Catawba
Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of AR,
Agricultural/Residential District, to the zoning classification of AV, Agricultural/Village
Center District.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Bobby Twine.
3. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Bobby
Twine for the purpose of operating a construction yard located at the above mentioned
location in the Catawba Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted
2005 Community Plan, as amended, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2232 of
the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and that it shall have a minimum adverse
impact on the surrounding neighborhood or community, and said special use permit is
hereby approved with the following conditions:
(1) The site shall be developed in general conformance with the concept
plan prepared by Abbott Engineering and Surveying, dated September 1, 2010, and
shall include a Type "A" Buffer.
(2) The hours of operation shall be from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except for emergency service operations such as snow removal.
(3) There shall be no outside storage of materials or equipment.
(4) That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
Being 6.54 acres of real estate located at the intersection of Twine
Hollow Road and Meacham Road and further described as Tax Map
No. 63.04-3-56.
(5) 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 Chairman Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
September 28, 2010 383
NAYS: None
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Moore thanked Nancy Hans and Arlene Murphy for helping to
bring to the prevention council "Rachel's Challenge". Supervisor Moore advised that
Rachel Scott was the first teenager that was shot during the Columbine shooting and
her challenge was discovered six weeks before her death. This challenge started a
chain-reaction all over the world of kindness. Her father and her brother have continued
that challenge and they came to the Roanoke Valley last week. It was an incredible
event and the message was of forgiveness and kindness and to spread it along.
Supervisor Moore just wanted to recognize her and thanked Nancy and Arlene for
bringing it.
Supervisor Flora advised that he had already spoken with Mr. Goodman
about the situation on Springer Road and it is an issue with the economy, foreclosures,
that are dealt with unfortunately too often. The grass needs moving and there is an
unattended swimming pool. Supervisor Flora stated that it is his understanding that the
Health Department is taking care of the swimming pool and Mr. Goodman has advised
that the grass, for the second time, is on the list to be mowed. The second issue is with
Clearwater Drive and Summerdean. Supervisor Flora indicated that he had received
two emails early this morning from residents of this area, which have been responded
to. Supervisor Flora explained that some work was done, either by the water authority
and/or the gas company and after that work was done, the roads were not repaired
appropriately. Mr. Flora indicated that the residents were advised by VDOT that this
road would be paved, once the work was complete. He stated that he telephoned
VDOT today and as you can image, he did not get to talk to anyone, but got to talk to a
machine, several times. Supervisor Flora stated he had left a message with Dan
Collins, but asked that Mr. Goodman would follow-up with the water authority, the gas
company and VDOT to see if something cannot be done before cold weather.
Supervisor Flora also wanted to "ditto" Ms. Moore's comments concerning "Rachel's
Challenge". Supervisor Flora explained that if the description of what one young lady
could be like, she was the epitome of kindness and friendship.
Supervisor Elswick wanted to make sure that everyone was aware that a
decision would be made on the Bent Mountain school facility. Supervisor Elswick stated
that the School Board indicated it could be turned over to the community, but obviously
the Board of Supervisors will need to be involved. Discussion will be held on this at a
later date.
384 September 28, 2010
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Church adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m.
S miffed by: Approved by:
De orah C. Ja s Josep B. "Butch" Church
Deputy Clerk to the Board Chairman
J
1