Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/12/2010 - RegularOctober 12, 2010 385 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday and the first regularly scheduled meeting of the month of October 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 STAFF PRESENT: B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; Daniel R. O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Diane D. Hyatt, 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 Pastor David Skole of Christ 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 Chairman Church requested the addition of a second resolution relating to the "spice" Legislation that was included with the agenda information to be added as the second new business item. There were no objections. IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Recognition of the Green Ridge Recreation Center for receiving LEED Gold Certification (Daniel R. O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator) 386 October 12, 2010 Daniel R. O'Donnell and Pete Hasilip presented the framed certificate to the Board of Supervisors. Also in attendance was Jillian Rizzy from Moseley Architects. Ms. Rizzy outlined the features that made the Green Ridge Recreation Center a LEED Gold Building. Pete Haislip explained to the Supervisors that there were no other Gold LEED facilities in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Mr. Haislip exhibited to the Board the glass plaque that would hang at Green Ridge Recreation Center. 2. Recognition of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Department and Staff for winning six statewide awards at the 2010 Virginia Recreation and Parks Society Annual Conference (Marcus Ordonez, Assistant Director -Recreation; Pete Haislip, Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism) Marcus Ordonez and Pete Haislip outlined the six awards that were presented. The following staff members were in attendance to receive this recognition: Mandi Smith, Program Manager; Scott Ramsburg, Marketing Manager; Chris Runyon, former marketing intern; Kari Deck, Therapeutic Recreation Program Supervisor; Matt Henke, Green Ridge Recreation Center Manager and David Weir, Special Services Manager. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution adopting a Legislative Program for the 2011 Session of the Virginia General Assembly and petitioning the General Assembly to favorably consider the topics and issues addressed herein (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) Mr. Mahoney gave a brief overview of each of the nine issues addressed on the Legislative Program for 2011. There was no discussion. RESOLUTION 101210-1 ADOPTING A LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR THE 2011 SESSION OF THE VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND PETITIONING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO FAVORABLY CONSIDER THE TOPICS AND ISSUES ADDRESSED HEREIN WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has identified major legislative issues of Statewide concern to be considered by the 2011 session of the Virginia General Assembly; and WHEREAS, the Board adopts this resolution as its Legislative Program for the 2011 session of the Virginia General Assembly. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke October 12, 2010 387 County, Virginia, that the following legislative initiatives are submitted for its legislative program for the 2011 session of the Virginia General Assembly for its favorable consideration and adoption. 1. Comprehensive Services Act - It has been suggested that the Commonwealth of Virginia will impose a cap or limit on its share of the cost for this program. There would be no cap or limit on the costs paid by localities. Many initiatives under this program are State-mandated. A cap or limit on the Commonwealth's share would shift these cost burdens to localities. Roanoke County opposes this suggestion, and requests your support in opposing this approach to balancing the Commonwealth's budget. 2. VRS - In 2010 the General Assembly adopted legislation authorizing Virginia Retirement System transitional benefits. This legislation did not address the fact that school divisions participating and not participating in this program are in the same pool for allocating costs. In other words all school divisions will pay for the few school divisions that decide to participate in this program. Local governments participating in VRS each pay their own rate based upon their own experience and usage. Roanoke County requests your support in correcting this legislation so that only those school divisions participating in the program are assessed their costs. 3. Synthetic cannabinoid, synthetic marijuana or "spice" is sold in shiny foil packages and marketed as herbal incense. When smoked it produces a high similar to marijuana. Approximately 11 states have adopted laws making synthetic cannabinoids illegal. In Virginia spice is legal and unregulated. Roanoke County requests the General Assembly to adopt legislation declaring spice and synthetic cannabinoids to be controlled substances under Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia. 4. In 2010 the General Assembly adopted House Bill 1010 which became Chapter 877 of the 2010 Acts of Assembly. This legislation could be interpreted to reverse the Commonwealth's position that Internet gambling is illegal and to allow Internet gambling. Roanoke County requests the General Assembly to amend this legislation, correct this erroneous interpretation that Internet gambling is now legal in Virginia, and declare Internet gambling to be illegal. 5. The General Assembly should fully fund its unfunded liabilities in the Virginia Retirement System and restore VRS to an actuarially sound status. 6. The Governor's Commission on Economic Development and Job Creation recommended that the Machinery & Tools Tax be repealed, and that the BPOL tax be changed from a gross receipts tax to a net income ("relative profitability") model. It was recommended that the Department of Taxation assess the fiscal impact of such a recommendation. 388 October 12, 2010 It is not fiscally prudent to proceed with these recommendations without a viable fiscal impact statement, and without offering local replacement revenues. The potential loss of local tax revenue from these recommendations exceeds $8 million for Roanoke County. Roanoke County opposes these recommendations, and requests the General Assembly to reject them. 7. Transportation Funding. The Board requests the General Assembly provide funding for the widening of I-81, construction of I-73, and improvements to U.S. Routes 11 /460 and 220. 8. Roanoke County requests the General Assembly to reject proposed legislation that would usurp local zoning power and authority, such as imposing retroactive restrictions on proffered conditions in support of conditional zoning, the location and signage permissible for privatized liquor stores, or transferring the review and approval of alternative energy sources to the State Corporation Commission. 9. Local Government State Funding and Mandates - As the General Assembly produces an annual budget, it is requested that if the General Assembly is required to further reduce local government funding that it also investigate the need to reduce or eliminate state mandates in relationship to the budgetary cuts. That the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors is directed to send an attested copy of this resolution to Governor McDonnell, Senator John S. Edwards, Senator Ralph Smith, Delegate H. Morgan Griffith, Delegate Onzlee Ware, Delegate William Cleaveland; Stephanie Moon, Roanoke City Clerk; Members of the Roanoke City Council; Kevin S. Boggess, Clerk for Salem City Council; Members of the Salem City Council; Clerk for the Town of Vinton; Members of the Vinton Town Council and the Roanoke Valley- Alleghany Regional Commission, and the Virginia Association of Counties. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church NAYS: None Supervisor Elswick commented that he comes from part of the Country that used to be place you could be proud of but you cannot anymore because drugs are so prevalent there. Young people are dying every week, shooting each other, shooting their grandparents, all because of drugs. Anything that Roanoke County can do to keep any kind of drug off the market that young people might be attracted to; feel it should be done. Supervisor Elswick thanked Supervisor Altizer for bringing this issue to the Board and thanked Supervisor Flora for the great idea to bring to the attention of VACo. 2. Resolution adopting a Legislative Request for the 2011 session of the Virginia General Assembly to declare "spice" and synthetic cannabinoids illegal in the Commonwealth of Virginia October 12, 2010 389 Mr. Mahoney explained the resolution and offered it was the intent of this resolution to take action to protect the health and welfare of our citizens and to ask other localities to adopt similar resolutions requesting action by the General Assembly in an effort to be proactive in protecting our community. Police Chief Ray Lavinder then provided samples of what the synthetic cannabinoid looks like under various packaging and detailed where the samples were purchased throughout Roanoke County. Supervisor Altizer commented it appears that profit and greed have taken over people's lives. He stated that he appreciated the work in moving forward and taking quick action on an issue that he considers to be public safety. He further stated that he hoped other locations would join in with Roanoke County to create a "tsunami" to Richmond that will enable these substances to be banned as soon as the Governor receives and signs the necessary legislation. Supervisor Flora indicated that he appreciated Supervisor Altizer bringing this issue to the attention of the Board, as he had not heard about it until the last meeting. He stated that subsequently he had done research and expressed his opinion that when mixing synthetic chemicals without quality control, disaster can happen. Supervisor Flora suggested that in addition to the area localities, the resolution be provided to Virginia Association of Counties' (VACo) resolution committee, which would be meeting with full membership in less than a month and should hopefully get quick results and onto VACo's legislative agenda. Chairman Church and Supervisor Moore both expressed their gratitude to Supervisor Altizer for bringing this important issue to the Board. RESOLUTION 101210-2 ADOPTING A LEGISLATIVE REQUEST FOR THE 2011 SESSION OF THE VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO DECLARE "SPICE" AND SYNTHETIC CANNABINOIDS ILLEGAL IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has identified major legislative issues of Statewide concern to be considered by the 2011 session of the Virginia General Assembly; and WHEREAS, the Board adopts this resolution requesting action by the 2011 session of the Virginia General Assembly. WHEREAS, eleven other states have adopted legislation making synthetic cannabinoids illegal; and WHEREAS, Delaware health officials have issued warnings about the use of "spice" following numerous recent drug related hospitalizations; and WHEREAS, the symptoms of "spice" use include tachycardia (elevated heart rate), elevated blood pressure, anxiety, numbness and tingling, vomiting, hallucinations, tremors and seizures; and 390 October 12, 2010 WHEREAS, there have been reports of similar hospitalizations in the Roanoke and New River region. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the General Assembly for the Commonwealth of Virginia adopt legislation declaring "spice" and synthetic cannabinoids to be illegal and to be a controlled substance under Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia. 2. That this Board requests the City Councils of the City of Roanoke and the City of Salem, the Boards of Supervisors of Botetourt County and Montgomery County, and the Town Councils of the Town of Vinton, Town of Blacksburg, and the Town of Christiansburg to join it in adopting similar resolutions requesting action by the General Assembly on this matter. 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: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance approving a lease with the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice Services (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services) Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading and scheduled the second reading for October 26, 2010. There was no discussion. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church NAYS: None IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING 1. Resolution approving and adopting the recommendation of the Roanoke County Bonding Committee to declare the developer of Quail Ridge Subdivision, Section 8, is 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 Erosion and Sediment Control Bond (Tarek Moneir, Deputy Director of Development Services) October 12, 2010 391 Mr. Moneir advised the Board that on June 20, 2006, W2 Enterprises LLC submitted plans, signed a Land Subdivider's Agreement with the County, was granted approval to subdivide a certain parcel of land and to record a plat of a subdivision to be known as Quail Ridge. An irrevocable standby letter of credit was established for this development. An Erosion and Sediment Control Agreement dated July 27, 2006, was executed, and the Developer submitted a bond form (surety) signed by Erie Insurance for $10,000 for the development to proceed. Mr. Moneir explained some improvements have taken place, but the subdivision remains incomplete with several outstanding erosion and sediment control measures to be corrected. The activities have ceased for several months. On September 1, 2010, a Cancellation Notice effective October 20, 2010, was received from Erie Insurance. A letter was mailed to W2 Enterprises notifying Mr. Jay L. Williams that the physical improvements for the development had not been completed and requested a rescission of the cancellation notice or a substitutable surety by September 30, 2010. Mr. Moneir advised no response has been received. Accordingly, the Bonding Committee has reviewed the development and has declared the Developer to be in default based on the fact of the anticipatory default shown by the Erie Insurance Company action against the Developer. Mr. Moneir then advised the Board and that property has been sold and the new owner is to provide a new bond, the paperwork has been done and asked that the Board proceed with the default so that the original bond can be called if a new bond is not received from the new property owner. Chairman Church then inquired if this was a legal dilemma with Mr. Mahoney responding that this does not put Roanoke County into a problem. Mr. Mahoney stated it was his recommendation to move forward as this will allow staff the necessary flexibility. Supervisor Elswick inquired if Roanoke County could ask the issuer of the original bond to pay the $10,000 and then have the new property owner obtain a bond. Mr. Mahoney responded by stating that is an option, however, it would be difficult on the developer on any further endeavors. Mr. Jay Williams of 6309 Midsummer Lane in Roanoke stated that he was the managing partner of W2 Enterprizes and that W2 Enterprizes no longer has any ownership to this property as it was sold approximately one year ago. Mr. Williams indicated that the current owner was to take over the bond as part of closing. He explained that he found out about this situation in July of this year and has been working diligently to get this matter corrected. The insurance company will not allow him to renew the bond, as they no longer own the property. Mr. Williams asked for another week to make sure that the new bond is place and to get W2 Enterprizes released. Supervisor Flora, Supervisor Moore and Chairman Church all agreed that they understood Mr. Williams' situation; however, felt it was necessary to move forward due to the time constraints. 392 October 12, 2010 RESOLUTION 101210-3 APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY BONDING COMMITTEE TO SET OCTOBER 12, 2010, AS A PUBLIC HEARING 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 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BOND WHEREAS, W2 Enterprises, LLC, a Virginia limited liability corporation (hereafter "W2 Enterprises"), as developers of Section 8 of Quail Ridge Subdivision (hereafter "Quail Ridge S/D") in the Cave Spring Magisterial District of Roanoke County, on or about July 27, 2006, entered into an Erosion and Sediment Control Agreement (hereafter "E & S Agreement") with the County of Roanoke and provided an Erosion and Sediment Control Bond secured by Erie Insurance Company (hereafter "Erie Insurance"), to insure the construction and maintenance of certain erosion and sediment control facilities in connection with the development of Quail Ridge S/D; and WHEREAS, W2 Enterprises has failed to substantially comply with its legal responsibilities under the aforesaid E & S Agreement and a balance of $10,000.00 remains on deposit with Erie Insurance to secure the completion of the requirement under this agreement; and WHEREAS, the remaining tasks to be performed to comply with W2 Enterprises, LLC's Agreement include, but may not be limited to, the correction of erosion and sediment control; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Department of Community Development has received a formal cancellation notice from Erie Insurance of its intention to cancel the existing erosion and sediment control bond for "NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM" as of October 20, 2010, and has mailed a letter to W2 Enterprises, dated September 15, 2010, requiring a response by September 30, 2010, and documentation of steps to complete their responsibilities or to renew or replace the said bond, but no response has been received from W2 Enterprises or Erie Insurance as of this date; and WHEREAS, the Bonding Committee for Roanoke County meeting on September 20, 2010, at the Roanoke County Administration Building considered the documentation as to the status of this subdivision project and the failure of contacts with W2 Enterprises to secure compliance and renewal of the subject bond and voted to recommend that the developer be declared in default and that the County take all necessary actions to collect the outstanding bonded proceeds; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Board of Supervisors on October 12, 2010, to consider the recommendation of the Bonding Committee and to accept testimony and proposals from W2 Enterprises and Erie Insurance. October 12, 2010 393 NOW THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That W2 Enterprises LLC is legally bound into the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia, in accordance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Agreement, dated July 27, 2006, for the construction and maintenance of certain control measures in accordance with the plans for Quail Ridge Subdivision, Section 8, dated July 27, 2006, and all subsequent revisions thereof as approved by the County of Roanoke. 2. That W2 Enterprises LLC has failed to substantially complete the erosion and sediment control facilities and measures as required by the aforesaid Agreement and that the anticipated cost for completion of said facilities and measures equals or exceeds the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00). 3. That Erie Insurance Company has provided the County of Roanoke and W2 Enterprises with a notice of its intention to cancel the existing erosion and sediment control bond effective October 22, 2010, for non-payment of the annual premium for this bond by W2 Enterprises LLC. 4. That authorized representatives of Roanoke County have attempted without success to obtain a response or agreement from W2 Enterprises LLC for the completion of its legal obligations to the County and the public under the aforesaid Agreement and for the renewal or adequate replacement of the erosion and sediment control bond for this project. 5. That the Bonding Committee for Roanoke County has recommended that W2 Enterprises LLC be declared in default under the terms of its Erosion and Sediment Control Agreement, dated July 27, 2006, and that Roanoke County exercise its legal rights and responsibilities to obtain the remaining bonded indebtedness being held for the County's benefit. 6. That W2 Enterprises LLC is hereby determined and declared to be in default for its failure to substantially and adequately complete the requirements imposed upon it by the aforesaid Erosion and Sediment Control Agreement. 7. That Erie Insurance Company has executed and entered into Erosion and Sediment Control Bond No. Q91 7770137 V, executed July 27, 2006, as surety for W2 Enterprises LLC for Quail Ridge, Section 8, Project Number 00-SB-- 00076, on which the remaining balance is Ten Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($10,000.00). 8. That the officials and staff of Roanoke County are hereby authorized, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, to draw upon the aforesaid Erosion and Sediment Control Bond, dated July 27, 2006, Bond No. Q91 7770137 V, for all funds secured thereby for the County of Roanoke as beneficiary and to take all actions, legal or otherwise, to enforce the legal rights and responsibilities of the Board of Supervisors in connection with the development of Quail Ridge Subdivision, Section 8, by W2 Enterprises LLC. 9. That the County Administrator, the Director of the Department of Community 394 October 12, 2010 Development, his staff and agents, and the Office of the County Attorney, are hereby authorized to take such action, including the initiation and pursuit of such legal proceedings, as may be necessary to fully assert and defend the rights and obligations of Roanoke County in this regard. 10. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church NAYS: None IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND 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 (John Murphy, Zoning Administrator) There were no changes from the first reading. Supervisor Flora thanked staff for moving forward with this ordinance so quickly. There was no further discussion. ORDINANCE 101210-4 AMENDING SECTION 30-23-2, NON- CONFORMING 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 WHEREAS, Section 30-14 of the Roanoke County Code and Section 15.2-2286 of the Code of Virginia provides that whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice requires, an amendment to the zoning regulations or district maps may be initiated by resolution of the governing body; and WHEREAS, the Board requests this amendment in order to address concerns with respect to the expansion of an existing residential structure located in a commercial or industrial zoning district, and to initiate by resolution the procedures to amend these sections of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on October 5, 2010; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 28, 2010, and the second reading was held on October 12, 2010. October 12, 2010 395 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Section 30-23 be amended to read and provide as follows: SEC. 30-23. -NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES; GENERALLY. (A) Within the zoning districts established by this ordinance, or by future amendments which may later be adopted, or by legitimate and legal actions taken by the board of supervisors or any other governmental agency, there exist, or may exist lots, parcels, structures, uses of land and structures, and characteristics of site design and/or use, which were lawful before this ordinance was adopted or amended, but which would be prohibited under the terms of this ordinance, or future amendment. Such structures, uses, and characteristics, or any combination thereof, are considered nonconformities, and are hereby declared by the board to be inconsistent with the character of the districts in which they occur. (B) Nonconformities are permitted to remain until removed, discontinued, or changed to conform to the provisions of this ordinance. It is the intent of this ordinance that the continuance of nonconformities should not be indefinite, and that the nonconforming uses, structures, or characteristics should gradually be removed. (C) Nothing shall be construed to grant conforming status to uses or structures that existed as legal nonconforming uses prior to the adoption of this section or amendment thereto, unless such uses and structures now conform to all applicable provisions of this ordinance. Sec. 30-23-1. -Nonconformities; Establishment of Vested Rights. (A) Nothing in this ordinance shall be deemed to require a change in the plans, construction or designated use of any building on which actual construction was lawfully begun prior to the effective date of this ordinance, or amendments thereto, and upon which actual building construction was carried out diligently. Actual construction is hereby defined to include the placing of construction materials in permanent position and fastened in a permanent manner. Where excavation or demolition or removal of an existing building has begun in preparation for rebuilding, such activities shall be deemed actual construction provided the work has been carried out diligently. Sec. 30-23-2. -Nonconforming Uses of Buildings, Structures or Land. (A) Where, at the effective date of this ordinance, or amendment thereto, lawful use exists of buildings, structures or land, individually or in combination, which use is no longer permissible under the terms of this ordinance as enacted or amended, such use may be continued provided: 1. The use is not discontinued for more than two (2) years, or; 396 October 12, 2010 2. The use is not converted or replaced, in whole or in part, by a use permitted in the district regulations, or; 3. The buildings or structures containing the nonconforming use are maintained in their then structural condition. (B) No nonconforming use shall be enlarged, intensified or increased, nor intensified to occupy a larger structure or building than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or subsequent amendment of this ordinance, with the exception that an existing, nonconforming, single-family residential structure and use in a commercial or industrial zoning district shall be allowed a 50 percent increase (either one time or cumulative) in the square footage of the use or structure in existence at the time of the adoption of this ordinance. (C) No nonconforming use shall be moved in whole or in part to any portion of the lot or parcel unoccupied by such use at the time of the adoption or subsequent amendment of this ordinance. (D) No building or structure not conforming to the requirements of this ordinance shall be erected in connection with the nonconforming use of land. (E) Where nonconforming use status applies to a building or structure, removal of the building or structure shall eliminate the nonconforming status of the building or structure or land. (F) Any legally established use which existed prior to the adoption of this ordinance, or any subsequent amendments, shall not be considered a nonconforming use where a special use permit is now required for establishment of such use. The use shall be allowed to continue operation, as well as reconstruct or structurally alter the building or structure without the necessity of obtaining a special use permit. However, approval of a special use permit shall be required, in accordance with Section 30-19, when either of the conditions below are present, in the opinion of the zoning administrator. a. There is a ten (10) percent or greater net increase in the square footage of the use or structure proposed for expansion or enlargement; or b. The expansion or enlargement will substantially alter the site design and layout as it relates to circulation, parking or other site characteristics so as to adversely affect surrounding properties. c. This section shall not apply to broadcasting towers and associated antenna allowed by right as set forth in section 30-87-2(B). (G) A manufactured home park legally established prior to June 1, 1986 that is not designated with the R-MH overlay district shall be allowed to continue operation in conformance with the provisions contained in section 30-82-9(L) provided the use as a park has not been discontinued for a period of more than two (2) years. (H) Notwithstanding (A) through (G) above, a nonconforming manufactured home existing on an individual lot of record that has served as an active dwelling October 12, 2010 397 for at least six (6) months may be replaced with another manufactured home provided: (1) The replacement home is installed on the lot within two (2) years of the removal of the home to be replaced, and; (2) The replacement home is installed in approximately the same location on the lot, and is installed to comply with the district setback regulations for principal structures, and; (3) The installation of the replacement home complies with the use and design standards for manufactured homes contained in section 30-82- 5(6). (I) If anon-conforming residential or commercial building or structure is damaged or destroyed by a natural disaster or other act of God, such building or structure may be repaired, rebuilt or replaced to eliminate or reduce the non- conforming features to the extent possible without the need to obtain a variance. If such building or structure cannot be repaired, rebuilt or replaced except to restore it to its original non-conforming condition, then the owner shall have the right to do so. The owner shall apply for a building permit and any work done to repair, rebuild or replace such building or structure shall be in compliance with the Uniform Statewide Building Code and the County's floodplain regulations. Unless such building or structure is repaired or rebuilt within two years of the date of the natural disaster or other act of God, such building or structure shall only be repaired, rebuilt or replaced in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance. If the non-conforming building is in an area under federal disaster declaration and it has been damaged or destroyed as of a direct result of conditions that gave rise to the declaration, then the owner shall have an additional two years to repair, rebuild or replace the building or structure. Sec. 30-23-3. -Nonconforming Buildings and Structures. (A) Where a lawful building or structure exists at the time of passage or amendment of this ordinance, which could not be built under the terms of this ordinance by reason of restrictions on area, bulk, lot coverage, height, yards, or other characteristics of the building or structure, or its location on a lot, such building or structure may be continued so long as it remains otherwise lawful provided: 1. No building or structure shall be enlarged in any way which increases or extends its nonconformity. 2. Any building or structure which is moved for any reason or for any distance, shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the district in which it is located after it is moved. Sec. 30-23-4. -Nonconforming Site Designs. 398 October 12, 2010 (A) If a zoning permit is requested for any type of modification to an existing structure or site, no legal non-conforming site design planned, approved and constructed prior to the adoption of this ordinance shall be required to comply in full with the provisions of this ordinance. Only those site improvements directly related to or affected by the modified use, structure or activity shall be required to comply in full with the provisions of this ordinance. Sec. 30-23-5. -Nonconforming Lots of Record. (A) A lot of record that is nonconforming due to lack of adequate frontage, width, depth, or area may be developed, provided the development proposed on the lot is in accordance with the applicable use and design standards contained in the district regulations. (B) Any lot of record that is nonconforming because it has no public street frontage may be developed, or an existing structure on the lot may be expanded, provided the county reviews and grants a special use permit for the proposed development, expansion, and use in accord with the standards and procedures contained in Section 30-19 of this ordinance. This provision shall not apply to the use and development of such parcels for any agricultural and forestry use type, or for single family or two family dwellings. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church NAYS: None IN RE: APPOINTMENTS Supervisor Flora was appointed as the voting delegate to the Virginia Association of Counties conference to be held November 7-9, 2010. Confirmation of this appointment was placed on the consent agenda. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA RESOLUTION 101210-5 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J- CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: October 12, 2010 399 That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for October 12, 2010, designated as Item J -Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 5 inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of Minutes -September 28, 2010 2. Confirmation of designation of voting delegate to the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) conference to be held November 7-9, 2010 3. Request for approval of revised Bylaws for the Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT) 4. Appointment of Parent Advocates to the Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT) 5. Request to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of $12,588 to the Clerk of Circuit Court from the Commonwealth of Virginia 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: REPORTS Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church NAYS: None 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board Contingency 4. Proclamations signed by the Chairman IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Altizer thanked the Board for their quick action in bringing forward the legislative agenda and separate "spice" resolution and thanked everyone for supporting such a big cause for our citizens. Supervisor Elswick stated he thinks Roanoke County needs to continue to move forward on a survey of citizens. He stated that he had spoken with Mr. Goodman 400 October 12, 2010 and Richard Evans of Commonsense about this issue and Mr. Goodman had advised him that assistance from Virginia Tech can be arranged to do a real good survey of citizens, by itemizing what our current services are, how people have responded to those services, what citizens like and dislike about them and rank these services in terms of where citizens would like their taxpayer dollars to go. He further commented this can be accomplished either through a mailing or through civic league meetings or other meetings where citizens commonly attend. Supervisor Church advised that he and requested Mr. Goodman give a briefing with regard to leaf collection. Mr. Goodman advised that staff has been looking at changes to the special leaf collection pickup that is normally held for asix-week period in the fall. He advised leaf collection is in addition to the every other week bulk and brush collection and of course the weekly, regular automated collection. Mr. Goodman explained in years past, temporary workers have been hired to assist in the process and in more recent years overtime has been paid to employees in order to make the collection work. Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services has proposed as a result of budget cuts and of frozen positions in the department, to eliminate the six-week special collection pickup to be replaced by leaf collection to be considered as part of the normal bulk and brush collection. No services will be eliminated, staff would only be modifying. In conclusion, staff wanted to make the Board aware that this was being done in order to save money, reduce wear and tear on equipment and reduce diesel costs, etc. Mr. Goodman indicated staff does not believe that this change will create a hardship for any of the citizens, but is another example of staff working together trying to identify how Roanoke County can save money and still provide a high level of service, even if somewhat modified to our citizens. He advised if the Board does not have any problems with this change, staff will move forward with the normal education by utilizing our website and other avenues to inform citizens of the modified leaf collection. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING At 4:27 p.m., Supervisor Church moved to go into closed meeting following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia as follows: (1) Section 2.2.3711(A)(1), Personnel, namely discussion concerning appointments to the Community Development Authority (CDA); Economic Development Authority (EDA); the Grievance Panel and Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Committee; (2) Section 2.2-3711(A)(19), Discussion of plans to protect public safety and of reports or plans related to the security of any governmental facility, building or structure. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church NAYS: None October 12, 2010 401 At 4:28 p.m., Chairman Church recessed to the 4t" Floor for work sessions and closed meeting. The closed meeting was held from 5:59 p.m. until 6:19 p.m. IN RE: WORK SESSIONS (Training Room - 4t" Floor) 1. 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) The work session was held from 4:40 p.m. until 5:33 p.m. Brent Robertson gave a PowerPoint presentation to review preliminary revenue projections for fiscal years 2011 and 2012, a copy of which is on file in the office to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Robertson indicated that a $300,000 revenue deficit in fiscal 2010/2011 is anticipated and is expected to be covered through reductions in expenditures. Supervisor Altizer requested that the telecommunications numbers be relooked at as they appeared to be incorrect. Brent Robertson and Rebecca Owens advised they would research to check on the variance and provide corrected information. Chairman Church inquired whether or not the hotel/motel numbers would rebound as a result of future events, with Pete Haislip responding the downside is in leisure travel. Chairman Church indicated that it was his belief that based on historical data, Roanoke County will rebound, but not to the extent it has in the past. He urged caution and noted that the key is all the directors are working together. Chairman Church commended Mr. Goodman on providing the Board with quarterly updates. Mr. Goodman explained to the Board that all the directors have been working together as a group and they all understand that the only way Roanoke County will be able to weather the storm is by working together. He further outlined with the new normal being zero to two percent growth, Roanoke County will be very limited with regard to new programs, etc. because the organization that was established based on prior growth patterns must be maintained. Supervisor Altizer asked based on the new growth pattern, what happens to the expenditure pattern and are those two lines coming closer. Mr. Robertson reviewed the five-year expenditure summary and explained that expenditure levels have remained flat. He pointed out however that internal service charges will increase due to necessary technology upgrades. Additionally, Mr. Robertson noted another large expenditure item is with School operation expenses, which is a high priority. Mr. Robertson then outlined expenditure scenarios with zero to two percent growth, adding committed expenditures and indicated the corresponding 402 October 12, 2010 projected surplus/deficit. Mr. Robertson indicated that these scenarios do not include the School operating transfer, any salary increase or any change in aid to the Commonwealth. Based on the projected numbers, Mr. Robertson stated that staff was a little concerned. He indicated that all of the "low-hanging fruit" has been utilized. He explained that staff's rationale for providing these updates is to make sure any future discussions are put into proper context. Mr. Goodman stated that he would like to have a brief discussion on the priorities of the Board. Mr. Goodman indicated staff was working with the priorities of the Board as being public safety, including social services, savings jobs and finally refuse collection. He advised that staff has heard consistently that public safety is a priority, but to staff that means the men and women on the street and in the fire stations. Mr. Goodman indicated that he felt however, that these departments should be looked with regard to certain items within those departments where duplication can be eliminated and cost savings ideas can be implemented. Mr. Goodman stated that he does not feel that any department is in a position where the particular budget would not be reviewed. Additionally, he stated in the past Board members have said that jobs should be saved; do not eliminate services and position, but try to look at fitting people in the vacancies as they occur. He stated the problem associated with this scenario is that nothing can be done strategically, staff is unable to say, these are the positions needed or not needed. Staff can only take the opportunities as they present themselves. Mr. Goodman indicated that as an example, staff is currently working with two departments over two retirements and trying to figure out if the positions need to be filled, and if so where will they be filled from. Mr. Goodman stated that he would appreciate the Board's comments regarding how staff should proceed over the coming months with regard to these issues. Chairman Church stated that from his perspective that Mr. Goodman had interpreted the Board's direction correctly. Chairman Church indicated that he would encourage Mr. Goodman to continue trying to look at positions, and their associated expenditures, and if it is possible to do more, then do so. Supervisor Flora stated he feels that public safety is the highest priority, but that does not mean "hands off." He stated that the individuals on the front lines need to be protected first, however, if there is a smarter way to do something or someone is retiring and staff can figure out how not to fill that position and still get the job done, it must be looked at. Supervisor Flora indicated that he received a number of messages from Mr. Robertson's presentation, the first being that if all goes well, Roanoke County can maintain the status quo and that might be all that can be done for a couple of years. Secondly, Supervisor Flora pointed out that the problem is the unknown variables, which staff has no control over and these unknown variables are what he is concerned with the most. He stated that he is of the opinion the economy has not improved and if it double dips, it presents a completely different approach and no one knows what the general assembly will do again this year. Supervisor Flora stated that he feels that one area that the Board needs to be consistent with is not October 12, 2010 403 making decisions to spend money outside of the budget process as Roanoke County cannot afford to jump in and start spending money that is not in the budget. Supervisor Flora indicated that all and all, Roanoke County is in an enviable position as there have no layoffs and no elimination of services. He stated that staff should continue to look at creative ways of getting the job done and saving money at the same time. Diane Hyatt indicated that another big item that could impact the numbers is there is no change in health care insurance figured into these projections. Supervisor Elswick inquired where have expenditures turned out for the first quarter compared to last year and where they should be. Mr. Robertson replied that the first quarter numbers have not been reviewed as most of staff time had been allocated to completing year-end numbers. Mr. Robertson stated that these numbers would be looked at to arrive at a benchmark for the Board. B. Clayton Goodman outlined for the Board several areas that staff had recently been working on: cell phone services, joint purchase of computers, all travel is reviewed and currently two retirements are being looked at to see if they can be filled differently. Supervisor Altizer stated that staff needed to hope for the best and plan for the worst. He reiterated Supervisor Flora's comments by stating items must go through the budget process. He stated that nothing should be committed to until it goes through this process, where items are scrutinized and where the final hard decisions are made. Supervisor Moore indicated that she felt staff has done a phenomenal job and feels everything should work out fine. Supervisor Flora indicated that he would like to see a comparison of the first quarter expenditures at 25% of the budget, and the same for previous years. He stated this would provide some benchmarks to go by. Supervisor Elswick indicated that he was in agreement with Supervisor Moore, stating he could not ask for a better crew to help the County manage through these difficult economic times. He stated that he does not feel any area should be excluded. Additionally, he advised that the County ought to have a contingency plan, if all of sudden Roanoke County becomes $5-$10 million short, decisions will already have been made on who to cut and where and done so as under group consensus. Brent Robertson indicated he appreciate the Board comments and felt that the Board has given clear direction, which will be outlined with staff during their retreat on October 13, 2010. Supervisor Elswick stated that he felt the Board cannot get an accurate feeling for how the citizens feel in each district. He stated that he feels it is very important to conduct a survey to as the people what they want. Supervisor Flora indicated that he would like to see the survey before a decision is made. Chairman Church indicated that the methodology would be the key. 404 October 12, 2010 B. Clayton Goodman stated there are several ways to approach; ICMA has one that Roanoke County has used in the past. Additionally, Roanoke College and Hollins have research groups that could handle it and Virginia Tech also has a survey group. Mr. Goodman indicated that the issue is with cost. He stated that it will cost even to get the survey instrument because it is the most important factor. He explained that typically and in order to be scientificially sound, a phone bank should be utilized; not mail or focus groups, but a survey based on randomly generated phone calls. He explained that he estimated the cost to approximate $20,000 to $30,000. It was the consensus of the Board for Mr. Goodman to proceed and obtain additional information and associated costs. 2. Work session to present the Board with information regarding the redesign of the Roanoke County website (Teresa Hamilton Hall, Director of Public Information; Bill Greeves, Director of Communications and Information Technology) The work session was held from 5:34 p.m. until 5:55 p.m. Bill Greeves advised that based on the feedback from the last work session, the direction was given to revisit, regroup and reconsider certain items, particularly around the use of the County seal and a few details regarding the layout. Mr. Greeves indicated that he had some one-on-one sessions with most of the members of the Board and received some good additional details. Mr. Greeves explained staff summarized the detail from the Board and had forwarded the information to the design partners at Civic Plus, the company that Roanoke County has partnered with to create the design and at that point introduced Mr. Harlan Bryant from Civic Plus Mr. Bryant gave a PowerPoint presentation including smock-up of the draft of the homepage for the new website and explained why certain items are included. A copy of this presentation is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Elswick asked why there was no color in the logo, with Mr. Bryant stating the designer felt with the vibrant colors that the logo had, it would detract from the rest of the website. Supervisor Elswick then questioned the choice of picture selection with Mr. Bryant indicating Roanoke County had complete control over the pictures and they could be changed at any time. Supervisor Elswick stated that he wanted to see more natural surroundings instead of people and buildings. Supervisor Altizer indicated that he felt the Roanoke County logo was too large and overpowering as it was portrayed on the draft. Supervisor Moore stated she liked the new process and the pictures, however she stated she felt the original logo should remain intact. October 12, 2010 405 It was the consensus of the Board to keep the proposed format, add the colors back into the logo, reduce the size of the logo and to change some of the photographs that rotate like a slide show through the home page. IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION RESOLUTION 101210-6 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 Supervisor Moore to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church NAYS: None 406 IN RE: ADJOURNMENT October 12, 2010 Chairman Church adjourned the meeting at 6:20 p.m. to Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. for a joint meeting with the Roanoke County School Board to be held at the School administration building, 5937 Cove Road, Roanoke, Virginia. ubmitted by: Approved by: t ~ Deborah C. a ks Josep B. "Butch" Church Deputy Clerk to the Board Chairman D J