4/26/2011 - RegularApril 26, 2011
211
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 April 2011. 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
was taken.
Chairman Church called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph B. "Butch" Church; Vice Chairman
Charlotte A. Moore, Supervisors Michael W. Altizer; Eddie
"Ed" Elswick
MEMBERS ABSENT: Supervisor Richard C. Flora
STAFF PRESENT: B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; Diane D.
Hyatt, Assistant County Administrator; Daniel R. O'Donnell,
Assistant County Administrator; Teresa Hamilton Hall,
Director of Public Information; Paul M. Mahoney, County
Attorney; Deborah C. Jacks, Clerk to the Board
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by Pastor Greg Hetherington of Melrose Baptist
Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Proclamation declaring the month of May 2011 as Building Safety
Month in the County of Roanoke ( Tarek Moneir, Deputy Director
of Development)
Tarek Moneir, Deputy Director of Development and Brenda Harris,
Customer Service Coordinator were in attendance to accept this Proclamation. All
Supervisors thanked Mr. Moneir and his department for all the work they do.
212 April 26, 2011
2. Proclamation declaring the week of May 2 through 6, 2011, as
Business Appreciation Week in the County of Roanoke (E.
Douglas Chittum, Director of Economic Development)
Ms. Jill Loope, Assistant Director of Economic Development and Ms.
Melinda Cox, Economic Development Specialist were in attendance for this
proclamation. Ms. Loope introduced Mr. David Wallenborn, President and Chief
Executive Officer of Plastics One, who accepted the proclamation on behalf of the
Roanoke County business community. Mr. Wallenborn thanked the Board for their
service and advised it was an honor to accept the proclamation on behalf of the
business community stating it was a pleasure to do business with Roanoke County. All
Supervisors thanked Mr. Wallenborn and the entire Economic Development Staff.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Donation of Starkey family materials to Roanoke County Public
Library, Cave Spring Magisterial District (Diana L. Rosapepe,
Director of Library Services)
A- 042611 -1
In attendance for the donation were Mr. Benton Hopper, Mr. Robert L.
Saunders, Jr. and Ms. Elon Hedrick to present the donation to the Board. Supervisor
Moore moved to approve the donation of the Starkey family materials to the Roanoke
County Public Library. The motion carried by the following recorded vote.
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
2. Request to approve the Roanoke Valley Television (RVTV) Budget
for fiscal year 2011 -2012 (Elaine Bays- Murphy, Cable Access
Director)
A- 042611 -2
Supervisor Altizer commented this budget is fairly level from the prior year
and the roll -over account will retain a $31,000 balance after this year and Board
approval will be needed for additional funding in the next budget year.
Supervisor Elswick asked for improvement in access to Cox Cable.
Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the Roanoke Valley Television
(RVTV) Budget for fiscal year 2011 -2012. The motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
April 26, 2011 213
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
2. Resolution granting a waiver to Hollins University under Section
13 -23 of the Roanoke County Code to the provisions of the
County's Noise Ordinance, Article II. Noise of Chapter 13.
Offenses — Miscellaneous, Hollins Magisterial District (Paul M.
Mahoney, County Attorney)
Chairman Church inquired of Mr. Mahoney if there have been any
problems to date with Mr. Mahoney responding there have been no complaints from
neighbors in the past.
RESOLUTION 042611 -3 GRANTING A WAIVER TO HOLLINS
UNIVERSITY UNDER SECTION 13 -23 OF THE ROANOKE
COUNTY CODE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE COUNTY'S
NOISE ORDINANCE, ARTICLE II. NOISE OF CHAPTER 13.
OFFENSES — MISCELLANEOUS
WHEREAS, Hollins University, a private university located in north Roanoke
County will be holding an outdoor concert known as "MayFest" for the campus
community and the general public on Friday, May 6, 2011, ending at 11:00 p.m. on the
grounds of the University; and
WHEREAS, in order to accommodate the advertised time frame and to mitigate
economic hardship by enhancing students' sense of connectedness with Hollins and the
Roanoke Valley through social interaction that supports recruiting and retaining students
that in turn affects the economic vitality of the University and Roanoke County with this
event, Hollins University is requesting a waiver of the County noise ordinance for one
hour from 10:00 P.M. till 11:00 P.M., on Friday, May 6, 2011; and
WHEREAS, Section 13 -23 of the Roanoke County Code establishes certain
standards for the Board of Supervisors to grant waivers from the provision of the
Roanoke County Noise Ordinance to avoid undue hardship upon consideration of
certain factors set forth in sub - section (b) of Section 13 -23 and after making certain
alternative findings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the provisions of Section 13 -21. Specific acts as noise, sub - section
(5) and Section 13 -20. General prohibition of Article II. Noise be WAIVED for a period of
one (1) hour until 11 :00 P.M. on Friday, May 6, 2011.
214 April 26, 2011
2. That this Waiver is granted specifically to Hollins University for the event
scheduled at the University on Friday, May 6, 2011.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance reapportioning the representation in the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, by altering the
boundaries of the election districts by establishing voting
precincts therefor, incorporating a map showing the boundaries
of said districts and precincts and providing for an effective date
of this ordinance (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney explained this was the first reading of this redistricting
ordinance and advised that Judy Stokes, General Registrar, Todd Booth, GIS Technical
Supervisor and Gary Coleman, GIS Coordinator were in attendance to answer any
questions. He stated the Board had held work sessions on this item on March 8, 2011,
March 29, 2011 and April 12, 2011. Mr. Mahoney explained essentially this is a no-
change ordinance, but there are a couple of minor changes that are recommended.
First, is to perform a minor adjustment on the border between the Cave Spring and the
Vinton Districts, which affects approximately forty seven (47) citizens. The second
change is based on information from Richmond, although the State's redistricting plan
has not been completed; and is confident with respect to the House of Delegates
changes it appears the House changes do not appear to have any controversy. One of
the actions of the General Assembly requires a split of one of our precincts.
Accordingly, the recommendation is to alter the boundaries between the Hidden Valley
Precinct and the Penn Forrest Precinct. It does not affect any Board of Supervisor
districts and accommodates what the General Assembly is doing and follows the rail
line. The third change is in the Vinton election district and involves moving the
boundary between the Lindenwood and the North Vinton precincts effecting 287
citizens; it moves the precinct boundary back as it was ten years ago essentially
following the Town of Vinton boundary and will alleviate an issue that the Registrar has
with Town elections. The final change would change the polling place for the Castle
Rock precinct, which will move from Cave Spring Junior High School across the street
to Cave Spring Baptist Church and is necessitated by the renovations to the school.
Additionally, Mr. Mahoney noted staff has gone through the ordinance and cleaned up
the language, corrected some errors and inaccuracies and inconsistencies. Mr.
April 26, 2011 215
Mahoney noted there would be a second reading and public hearing of this ordinance
on May 10, 2011 at 7:00 p.m.
Supervisor Moore asked Mr. Mahoney to verify on Route 666, which is
Bandy Road to Virginia Springs, southeasterly area, everyone in Crowell Gap will be
voting in the Cave Spring District with Mr. Mahoney answering in the affirmative.
Chairman Church thanked staff for the hard work on this ordinance.
Supervisor Elswick asked for confirmation that the polling place for Cave
Spring was the Cave Spring Middle School with Mr. Mahoney confirming this polling
place would now be across the street at the Cave Spring Baptist Church.
Chairman Church moved to approve the first reading and scheduled the
second reading and public hearing for May 10, 2011.
2. Ordinance authorizing the purchase of approximately two (2.0)
acres of real estate (Tax Map No. 79.01 -4 -22) from K.W. and Nancy
A. McNeil for library purposes, Vinton Magisterial District (Diane
D. Hyatt, Assistant County Administrator)
Ms. Hyatt outlined the explanation for this ordinance and advised this was
the first reading with a second reading and public hearing scheduled for May 10, 2011.
Supervisor Altizer stated it was a good business decision to take
advantage of this opportunity. Chairman Church commented he concurred with
Supervisor Altizer.
Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the first reading and scheduled the
second reading and public hearing for May 10, 2011.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 042611 -4 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM G- 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 April 26,
2011, designated as Item Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred
in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 6
inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes — March 29, 2011
2. Request to renew contract to provide Commonwealth's Attorney services
to the Town of Vinton for 2011 -2013 and appropriate $10,920 each year
216 April 26, 2011
3. Confirmation of appointments to the Roanoke County Community Leaders
Environmental Action Roundtable (RCCLEAR); Roanoke Valley Greenway
Commission
4. Request to accept and appropriate funds in the amount of $51,137.58 to
the Roanoke County Public Schools
5. Proclamations signed by the Chairman
6. Resolution authorizing an amendment of a lease agreement previously
approved by Ordinance 102610 -1 to change the lease term dates of said
lease with the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice
for office space in the Court Services Building at 400 East Main Street,
Salem, Virginia, owned by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
RESOLUTION 042611 -4.d AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT OF
A LEASE AGREEMENT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY
ORDINANCE 102610 -1 TO CHANGE THE LEASE TERM DATES
OF SAID LEASE WITH THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE FOR OFFICE SPACE IN
THE COURT SERVICES BUILDING AT 400 EAST MAIN
STREET, SALEM, VIRGINIA, OWNED BY THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, is the owner
of an office building located at 400 East Main Street directly across the street from the
Roanoke County Courthouse and known as the Court Services Building; and,
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)
had requested the lease of office space in the Court Services Building for use by the
Regional Operations Manager for the Western Region and the County approved this
lease by Ordinance 102610 -1 with a term commencing November 1, 2010 through
October 31, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth has subsequently requested that the two (2)
year term of this lease be from May 1, 2011, until April 30, 2013; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition or conveyance of an interest in real estate, including leases, shall be
accomplished by ordinance; the first reading of Ordinance 102610 -1 was held on
October 12, 2010 and the second reading was held on October 26, 2010; furthermore,
said Section 18.04 provides that all subsequent proceeding incidental thereto and
April 26, 2011 217
providing for the carrying out of the purpose of such ordinance may be taken by
resolution of the board.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That lease of approximately 224 square feet of office space in the Court
Services Building located at 400 East Main Street, Salem, Virginia, to the
Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice for use by the Regional
Operations Manager for the Western Region with an initial lease term of two (2) years
shall be from May 1, 2011 until April 30, 2013, instead of from November 1, 2010, until
October 31, 2012, at an initial rental of $175 per month or $2100 per year, said term
becoming month to month at the end of the initial two year term, is hereby authorized
and approved.
2. That the County Administrator or an Assistant County Administrator is
hereby authorized to execute a lease agreement on behalf of the Board of Supervisors
of Roanoke County and to execute such other documents and take such further actions
as are necessary to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be upon form and
subject to the conditions approved by the County Attorney.
3. That the funds generated by this lease shall be placed in the General
Services Facility Management Account for payment of utility and custodial costs.
4. That this resolution shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Altizer moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Treasurer's Statement of Accountability per Investment and
Portfolio Policy as of March 31, 2011
218 April 26, 2011
5. Report of Claims Activity for the Self- Insurance Program for the
third quarter ended March 31, 2011
6. Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of March 31, 2011
7. Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of March 31, 2011
8. Accounts Paid — March 2011
9. Quarterly Report — Community Development Activities
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. 3. Discussion or
consideration of the acquisition of real property for a public purpose, or of the
disposition of publicly held real property, where discussion in an open meeting would
adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body and
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.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
The closed meeting was held from 5:40 p.m. until 6:20 p.m.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
At 4:02 p.m. Chairman Church recessed to the fourth floor for work
session and closed meeting.
1. Work session on proposed amendments to the Roanoke County
Zoning Ordinance (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning;
John Murphy, Zoning Administrator)
In attendance for this work session was Philip Thompson, Deputy Director
of Planning; John Murphy, Zoning Administrator and Arnold Covey, Director of
Community Development. The work session was held from 4:20 p.m. until 4:33 p.m.
Mr. Thompson explained staff goes to the Planning Commission approximately every
year to review items that have been brought up by the citizens. The Planning
Commission held a work session on the proposed amendments and unanimously
April 26, 2011 219
approved on April 5, 2011. No citizen spoke at the Planning Commission meeting. Mr.
Murphy then proceeded to review each correction and explained why the change was
made. A copy of the revised Zoning Ordinance with all the changes noted is on file in
the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Murphy noted that the Explore
Park cell towers have been added to this ordinance. Supervisor Altizer asked if pods
were included with Mr. Murphy explaining pods were put in under the last amendments,
but there is a provision in these amendments that they cannot be placed in a flood plain,
which would be the case with any type of storage building. Supervisor Altizer then
asked where they can be placed on the property. Mr. Murphy explained they cannot be
within the right -of -way, can be placed for a maximum of thirty (30) days at a time and
then will have to be removed.
Chairman Church then asked if they are normally in the driveway or close
proximity to the driveway unless it is blocked. Mr. Murphy responded they are typically
on any flat surface, wherever they can get access to drop the unit. Supervisor Altizer
asked if pods could be located in a front yard as long as they were out of the right -of-
way. Mr. Murphy responded in the affirmative.
Chairman Church asked Mr. Murphy if it was his opinion that basically
these amendments were clarifying and cleaning up definitions and have made the
ordinance more user friendly, but keeping the "bite" we need to have. Mr. Murphy
responded absolutely and in terms of enforcement, there is no compromise; this helps
give additional clarification for County staff and our development communities.
Supervisor Altizer asked if staff had made any changes that are now going
to create problems for some people and cause the Board to start getting calls on; are
there any roadblocks that are going to create havoc with some people that if brought to
our attention the Board could correct. Mr. Murphy responded basically these changes
are just making this ordinance more user friendly.
2. Work session to discuss fiscal year 2012 -2016 Capital
Improvements Plan (CIP) and items related to finalization of the
fiscal year 2011 -2012 operating budget development (W. Brent
Robertson, Director of Management and Budget)
In attendance for this session were W. Brent Robertson, Director of
Management and Budget; Daniel R. O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator and Mr.
B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator. The work session was held from 4:33
p.m. until 5:01 p.m.
Supervisor Altizer inquired if the CIP Committee would not be visiting with
the Board. Mr. Robertson advised they will be visiting later in the summer. He
explained the purview of the committee changed this year because of the capital plan
and there would not be much in the pipeline. The Committee held a roundtable forum
and agreed not to rank the projects this year since they were ranked last year and there
were basically no changes except for the Glenvar Library. Mr. Robertson advised the
220 April 26, 2011
Committee decided they would come to the Board this summer with some thoughts
about moving into the next planning cycle and would go back to ranking the projects at
that time.
Mr. Robertson advised the first discussion point was the Summary of
Funded Projects. He indicated there is very little in the next five years for capital
projects, which reflects the reality of where the County is today. He indicated the point
for today is to advise the Board what is included in next year's budget, which included
the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Revenue Sharing of $300,000 and
the two (2) year implementation of the Glenvar Library. He indicated that one of the
things he wanted to discuss was the first steps in planning for 2013 with regard to
capital purposes. In 2013, there is the $10 million number, which is Roanoke County's
turn with the joint Roanoke County /School CIP program. The Board will need to start
thinking about what project that will be. He stated staff included in the packet all of the
projects that the departments have submitted. He highlighted one item which is the
conceptual parking garage for Social Services of $6 million. He noted the City of Salem
is a partner with Social Services and the building is located in Salem and if the parking
facility is done it would have to be done in downtown Salem. He explained he brought
this up because the CIP review committee had wanted to discuss. There are additional
projects with a great deal of need in the County. Mr. O'Donnell advised there are a lot
of variables associated with this item.
Chairman Church stated this item is an ongoing need and thinks it needs
to be looked into and the fact the County is partnering with City of Salem. He advised
Mr. O'Donnell to put it "on the radar" that Salem always seems to be an unspoken
location, near Court Services. He stated he understands the need to be near Court
Services, however, does that restrict anything in the immediate area; something that
would benefit Roanoke County and the people that are served by Social Services. He
advised it is a terrible situation regarding the number of parking spots. Mr. O'Donnell
reiterated parking is a key issue. In addition to employees, citizens also need parking.
He suggested staff try to revisit and look at somewhere outside the City of Salem, which
could also decrease some of the associated costs. This is a need everyone recognizes.
Mr. Robertson agreed this is an important area to address and suggested scheduling a
work session later in the fall.
Supervisor Altizer stated that Chairman Church had made some valid
statements. He advised what he is looking for whenever this project is done is a cost
comparison; the cost of downtown Salem versus moving west. He stated a large
number of people going to Social Services comes out of the Vinton magisterial district
and have to travel a long distance; figure out ways to get there. He indicated it has
been a good partnership with the City of Salem; however the cost must be weighed and
if it no longer works, there is nothing wrong with changing. It may very well be the
facility could be located somewhere else and Salem could have the facility and it could
be cheaper on both localities than spending $15,000 to $20,000 a space for a parking
garage. He stated that whenever that decision comes, staff needs to provide all the
April 26, 2011 22
alternatives, whether in Salem or somewhere more centrally located. He stated he
thinks this Board has always said when the County can regionally cooperate, when it is
a direct benefit to the other locality and to our locality, that is the favorable solution,
however, he stated not to be afraid to "look outside the box" and say "can we do it
cheaper, can they do it cheaper by themselves." Supervisor Altizer stated from a cost
analysis, payback and benefit, the County needs to operate Roanoke County within its
means to arrive at the best cost scenario.
Chairman Church explained Social Services has people coming from all
over, but knows the numbers for Vinton and Catawba is big. He stated he believes we
have probably hurt ourselves time wise because the money has not been available for a
while, however, before any money is put into a parking garage, a building to house
these people must be looked at. He stated he does not feel the County needs to be that
close to the Court; the bottom line is service to the people. He stated he has nothing
against downtown Salem, it is just locked up and why would you want to put millions
into a parking garage, when a better need can be accommodated.
Supervisor Moore concurred with Chairman Church and stated she has
always felt the same way. There is just no room in Salem.
Supervisor Altizer commented when it comes to spending money and how
the County does business, there is no status quo. It needs to be done the most prudent
way and to be looked at if the partnership works, but just because we have been in a
certain place for so many years does not mean that is the right way to do it now.
Supervisor Elswick stated he thinks this project should be given the
highest priority.
Supervisor Altizer stated when staff starts looking at this issue he would
like a cost benefit analysis on the Salem Bank and Trust building, especially with
residual value and does it make sense to keep it or more sense to sell it. He remarked
there are a lot of ways to leverage for both localities.
Next, Mr. Goodman advised there was $300,000 in VDOT revenue
sharing. Based on the discussion at last week's work session, Roanoke County only
received approximately $88- 89,000 in matching funds in the current year. The current
year has $500,000 budgeted for revenue sharing. He advised that during the public
hearing the Board will hear that we only need $100,000. If the Board is in agreement,
this will free up $200,000, of which staff is recommending $70,000 for Line of Duty, the
additional $130,000, Mr. Goodman suggested go into a building maintenance reserve
so there are sufficient funds to take care of our buildings. This will give staff additional
one -time funds to keep our buildings up. Mr. Goodman stated he is recommending this
change to the budget. Chairman Church stated he was in agreement. Supervisor
Altizer stated he feels staff is "heading down the right path," but wants them to remain
cautious and understand its spending. Supervisor Moore and Elswick stated they were
both in agreement.
Mr. Robertson stated the final item was the summary of the Board's
collective decision for the health and human services related agencies and advised the
222 April 26, 2011
total was an additional funding amount of $26,187, which is a minor increase from last
year. Chairman Church stated he would like to have a discussion concerning an issue
Mr. Goodman has brought to his attention. Mr. Goodman explained one of the items
that staff requested funding is for the Regional Partnership which attracts new
businesses and new industries, etc. There are six (6) or seven (7) jurisdictions that are
members of this partnership, plus there are private donors that match or exceed what
the local governments provide. They had requested $173,756 and the Board
recommended they receive $154,700, which is approximately $19,000 less than what
they requested. The request of $173,756 was based on $2.07 per capita and have
been using since 2008, however, last year they cut their request ten percent (10 %) for
everyone. He stated that they are asking now that consideration be given to restoring
the original funding and provide additional funds. Mr. Goodman stated it is his
recommendation to fund the full amount. He indicated it is his understanding if the
Board does not approve the request, Roanoke County would be the only local
government that did not meet that request. He suggested further discussion be held
when all of the Board members are in attendance. Chairman Church stated he feels the
Board may have overlooked and was not intentional. It was the consensus of the Board
to work the additional $19,000 into the budget and be reflected in the first reading on
May 10, 2011.
3. Work session on Bent Mountain Elementary School building
future proposed use (B. Clayton Goodman III, County
Administrator)
In attendance for this work session was B. Clayton Goodman III, County
Administrator and Daniel R. O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator. The work
session was held from 5:01 p.m. until 5:36 p.m. Mr. Goodman reviewed with the Board
the status of the working group concerned with the future use of the Bent Mountain
Elementary school building. Mr. Goodman indicated Mr. O'Donnell, Mr. Elswick and a
group of citizens were working on this with him. He indicated the use of the entire
school would be too costly; accordingly, they have earmarked the gym /kitchen /stage for
the community. He explained the group visited a Shawsville 501(c)(3), which had
stepped up and raised the necessary capital for the operation of their community center.
The community has agreed to establish a 501(c)(3) and have started working on this.
Mr. Goodman indicated he did not think the County should own the building. He
advised it was his suggestion Roanoke County lease from the Schools, with the ability
to sublease. Mr. Goodman indicated Roanoke County would assume maintenance of
the structure and would need to weatherize the building. More details were reviewed
concerning the details of operating this community center. He indicated Roanoke
County would continue to operate the Bent Mountain Library and no costs were
duplicated. The total cost is between $24,000 to $28,000 and $3,800 in capital items.
Mr. Goodman reviewed the spreadsheet provided in the agenda package with the
April 26, 2011 223
Board. The first item was phone service is not necessary. Internet service will be used
at the library. The water supply /sewer is already there for the library. He advised the
kitchen is basically empty of equipment and will not be refitted. He advised there is no
air conditioning in the gym and there is no plan to add air conditioning. Mr. Goodman
advised the volunteers have agreed to find the necessary fixtures, furniture and
equipment, however, staff requests that Roanoke County and the Schools where they
have surplus property to avail these to the volunteers. He indicated one of the key
items of importance is the custodial work. He advised that Roanoke County would have
someone there one day a week and a couple more days in the month for any needed
heavy cleaning, but the citizens and volunteers will assist with light maintenance and
opening and closing the building. He explained the facility does have some issues of
concern; it was upgraded in 1988 and the roof is getting past its prime. Additionally, the
heating is getting some age. If either of these things needs to be done, it will be
Roanoke County's responsibility. If there are not enough funds, it will need to be
addressed with the Community. Mr. Goodman indicated the funds for this project would
be one -time money. The members of the community that he has met with have stated
they realize they will need to step up and raise funds. He advised Mr. Elswick is
obtaining information to seek grants, etc. He stated they want to partner with the
Parkway, Friends of the Parkway, the Fiddle and Banjo Club and will be a collaborative
effort. Mr. Goodman stated it is his recommendation to allow the community an
opportunity to raise the funds and provide them with the "seed" money to get started for
one year. He further indicated this would not be included in the budget, but would use
year -end funds.
Supervisor Elswick explained in reality the school facility has always been
a community center and this changes the relationship from what it has historically been
and makes it utilized more and probably provides an opportunity to have activities there
that other areas of the County can enjoy. The community was approached by the
Fiddle and Banjo Club and Fiddle fest, and indicated if this was accomplished they
would like to be involved. He noted if you think about it, it is an area of the County that
can be developed without very much cost and makes it a very desirable asset for the
County that everybody can be proud of. A survey was sent to five hundred (500)
households, with sixty four (64) responses, which is a good response. Of the
responses, forty -eight percent (48 %) said they would volunteer, of the thirty -one (31)
people, twenty five (25) stated they would volunteer a lot of the time and six (6) people
said they would volunteer randomly, which is the kind of support you would expect from
this Community. The community felt that even though the building was owned by the
School Board, it was really theirs because it had been there so long. He stated he
thinks using it will prevent deterioration and the odds are that the facility will be
surplused by the School Board and it will become our responsibility and there are local
citizens volunteering and raising money for upkeep and feels utilizing the place will save
the County money, especially once it becomes our facility and not part of the School
Board's responsibility. He indicated the Parkway people are very enthusiastic about
224 April 26, 2011
making it a stop off the Parkway and doing something to draw some people into the
area. Mr. Church inquired how far is the school from the Parkway with Supervisor
Elswick responding approximately three (3) miles. Supervisor Elswick stated the
community is meeting regularly and have already decided on their slate of officers, the
bylaws have been completed and the paperwork is being done for the 501(c)(3).
Supervisor Altizer stated he understands what is happening with the
citizens and the forming of the 501, but what about the other organizations that come in
and want office space, etc. Is that something that is incorporated under the 501 or is
that a separately negotiated use with those entities, how would it work? Mr. Goodman
suggested establishing a lease with the 501(c)(3) and in that lease it would be clearly
delineated the facility use and their responsibilities. In addition, the fact that they could
not sublease without the County's approval would be included in the lease. Mr.
Goodman stated the County and the Community would be partners and would need to
work together. However, he stated one of the issues is that any other other part of the
building could not be used, as they would then need to heat the entire facility and would
become cost prohibitive, however, if four or five groups came together the remainder of
the building could be opened up. Chairman Church indicated he felt it was premature to
talk about opening the other side of the building.
Supervisor Altizer then inquired how the heating system is set up. Mr.
Goodman indicated it is split in half, both sides would need to be heated, but the
temperature would be reduced on the winterized side to protect the plaster walls. On
the gym side, it has been agreed that the community members will cut it off then they
leave. Additionally, they may be able to rearrange the water situation so that it can be
winterized as well.
Supervisor Elswick stated there are contractors on the mountain that will
volunteer their services. In addition, instead of the monster heat pumps, similar to what
was done in Shawsville; smaller contained units can be purchased for each room.
Supervisor Moore inquired regarding the liability insurance and if the
building is leased will School Board permission be required. Mr. Goodman indicated all
changes would require a three -party approval. Additionally, Roanoke County will cover
the liability insurance; the estimate includes liability insurance for $2,100.
Supervisor Elswick indicated there is a very real possibility for some
grants.
Supervisor Altizer commented his only concern is that Roanoke County
will have the liability. He inquired in the lease with the School Board, if it reopens and
we have invested $200,000 during a reasonable amount of time, they should agree to
pay the County back one -half of the capital cost. Mr. Goodman indicated he did not
think that would be a problem. Supervisor Elswick stated that could be negotiated up
front.
Supervisor Altizer inquired what happens in a year if the community is not
able to raise the funds. Mr. Goodman stated this issue has already been discussed and
April 26, 2011 225
agreed that it would be shut down. Chairman Church commented this would need to be
in writing so that all parties are fully aware. He remarked that he hoped they succeed.
Supervisor Moore asked to see a plan, with Mr. Goodman responding they
are currently working on. He also stated the community would partner with Parks and
Recreation. If the Board approves, all details will be worked out and the cost would
need to stay the same.
Supervisor Elswick indicated if additional room is needed, there are
already two trailers on site. He commented there are so many things up on the
mountain that many people do not realize and feels spring and fall tours could be
arranged.
It was the consensus of the Board for Mr. Goodman to proceed.
Supervisor Elswick remarked that the community is appreciative of all the work Mr.
Goodman and staff have done.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 7:00 p.m. Chairman Church moved to return to open session and adopt
the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 042611 -5 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING
WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2 -3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies; and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
226 April 26, 2011
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING
1. Public hearing for the proposed budget for fiscal year 2011 -2012
and the fiscal year 2012 -2016 Capital Improvements Program (W.
Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget)
Mr. Robertson provided a brief overview of the budget for the viewing
public. No citizens spoke on this item. Chairman Church remarked that he felt staff has
prepared a sound financial plan and thanked the budget staff for all the work involved in
this process.
IN RE: RECOGNITIONS
Chairman Church recognized Boy Scouts of America Troup #289 from
Grace Church as being in attendance earning their merit badge for citizenship.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
1. Public hearing and adoption of resolutions approving the
Secondary Roads System Six -Year Improvement Plan for fiscal
years 2012 through 2017 and the allocation of Revenue Sharing
funds for fiscal year 2011 -2012 (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director
of Planning; David Holladay, Planning Administrator)
Mr. Thompson outlined the request for the Six -Year Improvement Plan
and the allocation of Revenue Sharing funds. The only project that would be receiving
funds would be the Cotton Hill Road project, which is the priority for Roanoke County.
David Holladay, Planning Administrator and Mr. Scott Woodrum from the Virginia
Department of Transportation were in attendance to answer any questions. No citizens
spoke on this item. Chairman Church inquired of Mr. Mahoney if one motion could be
made to adopt both resolutions with Mr. Mahoney responding in the affirmative.
RESOLUTION 042611 -6 APPROVING THE SECONDARY SIX -
YEAR ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR FISCAL YEARS 2012
THROUGH 2017 AND THE CONSTRUCTION PRIORITY LIST
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
WHEREAS, Sections 33.1 -23 and 33.1 -23.4 of the Code of Virginia (1950, as
amended) provides the opportunity for Roanoke County to work with the Virginia
April 26, 2011 227
Department of Transportation in developing a Secondary Six -Year Road Improvement
Plan; and
WHEREAS, this Board had previously agreed to assist in the preparation of the
Secondary Six -Year Road Improvement Plan, in accordance with Virginia Department
of Transportation policies and procedures; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing which was duly advertised on the proposed
Secondary Six -Year Improvement Plan for fiscal years 2012 -2017 and Construction
Priority List for fiscal year 2012 was held on April 26, 2011, to receive comments and
recommendations on Roanoke County's Secondary Six -Year Road Improvement Plan
for fiscal years 2012 -2017 as well as the Construction Priority List for fiscal year 2012;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors does
hereby approve the Secondary Six -Year Road Improvement Plan for Roanoke County
for fiscal years 2012 -2017;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors does also hereby
approve the Construction Priority List for fiscal year 2012;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution duly attested to be
forthwith forwarded to the Virginia Department of Transportation Salem Residency
Office along with a duly attested copy of the proposed Roanoke County Secondary Six -
Year Road Improvement Plan for fiscal years 2012 -2017 by the Clerk to the Board.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
RESOLUTION 042611 -7 REQUESTING APPROVAL AND
ADOPTION OF THE REVENUE SHARING PROJECTS AND
FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2011 -2012
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors at a work session on April 12, 2011,
reviewed the projects identified in Roanoke County Revenue Sharing Program for fiscal
year 2011 -2012; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors desires to submit an application for an
allocation of funds of up to $500,000 through the Virginia Department of Transportation
fiscal year 2011 -2012, Revenue Sharing Program; and
WHEREAS, $500,000 of these funds are requested to fund the projects identified
in Roanoke County Revenue Sharing Program for fiscal year 2011 -2012.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors hereby approves the Revenue Sharing Project list for fiscal year 2011 -2012
228 April 26, 2011
and supports this application for an allocation of $500,000 through the Virginia
Department of Transportation Revenue Sharing Program.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator is authorized to
sign the Letter of Intent and appropriate funds ($500,000) for the fiscal year 2011 -2012
Revenue Sharing projects.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1. The petition of Kenneth J. and Linda J. Lapiejko to obtain a
Special Use Permit in a R -1, Low Density Residential, District to
operate a private stable on 44.5 acres, located at 3525
Harborwood Road, Catawba Magisterial District (Philip
Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson explained the petition to operate a private stable on 44.5
acres. He advised that this petition was approved by the Planning Commission on April
5, 2011, with two conditions.
Supervisor Elswick inquired the maximum number of horses that would be
allowed with Mr. Thompson responding eight. Supervisor Elswick then asked what kind
of ordinance requirements are required with regard to smell from these kinds of stables.
Mr. Thompson advised there is a waste management plan requirement; however,
because of the amount of acreage, there was no requirement for waste management.
Supervisor Elswick then inquired if there were any restrictions as to how close the
horses can come to neighboring property lines. Mr. Thompson explained there is a
setback requirement; if there was a concentrated area with a corral there is a setback of
twenty -five feet from the property line. Supervisor Elswick advised the reason he was
inquiring is there is a number of horses on Martins Creek Road and the smell is strong
at the neighboring property and was wondering if there might be the same kind of
condition here. Mr. Thompson advised he felt there was enough acreage to assist with
the smell on this property.
Chairman Church commented there is a lot of land there and thinks it
would be a better site for this stable. No citizens spoke on this request.
ORDINANCE 042611 -8 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO
OPERATE A PRIVATE STABLE ON THREE (3) CONTIGUOUS
April 26, 2011 229
PARCELS MEASURING APPROXIMATELY FORTY -FOUR (44)
ACRES IN TOTAL LOCATED AT 3525 HARBORWOOD ROAD
(TAX MAP NOS. 65.00 -1 -62, 62.2, AND 63) CATAWBA
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON THE PETITION OF KENNETH
J. AND LINDA J. LAPIEJKO
WHEREAS, Kenneth J. and Linda J. Lapiejko have filed a petition for a special
use permit to operate a private stable on three (3) contiguous parcels measuring
approximately forty -four (44) acres in total located at 3525 Harborwood Road (Tax Map
Nos. 65.00 -1 -62, 62.2, and 63) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
April 5, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on March 22, 2011; the second reading and public hearing on
this matter was held on April 26, 2011.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Kenneth J.
and Linda J. Lapiejko to operate a private stable on three (3) contiguous parcels
measuring approximately forty -four (44) acres in total located at 3525 Harborwood Road
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:
a) No more than one (1) horse or pony shall be permitted for every
two (2) acres of pasture area.
b) A maximum of eight (8) horses shall be permitted with the private
stable.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance. Severance Clause: This special use permit is not severable.
Invalidation of any word, phrase, clause, sentence or paragraph shall invalidate the
remainder.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
230 April 26, 2011
2. The petition of Douglas R. and Mary E. McCallum to obtain a
Special Use Permit in an AG -1, Agricultural /Rural Low Density,
District to operate a small wind energy system on 2.414 acres,
located at 4824 Wade Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District
(Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the petition to the Board for this special use
permit; which consists of a height allowance over 115 feet and a reduction of setback on
the western property line. Mr. Thompson advised this property is not located directly on
a ridgeline; however, a letter has been received that stated this small wind energy
system would not create an adverse impact to the site line. He indicated there were no
problems with regards to communications. Mr. Thompson explained four citizens spoke
at the public hearing one (1) in favor and three (3) opposed. The Planning Commission
had a problem with the setback and approved with three conditions.
The petitioners, Mary and Douglas McCallum were in attendance to
answer any questions. Ms. McCallum stated she knows those living on Wade Road do
so because of the views that cannot be measured in value. She explained that is why
they chose to live here twenty (20) years ago, and because of the cleaner air and the
cooler temperatures in the summertime. It is for exactly these reasons that they have
always wanted to put up a small residential wind turbine, to protect this beautiful place.
We do not live in a bubble on Wade Road. The smog in the valley may usually be
below us, but it does not last. In the summer, we frequently cannot see Bent Mountain,
which is only a few miles from my window. Do we really think that coal plants and car
emissions are somehow going to avoid our mountain? Saying that a residential wind
turbine is only a benefit to the property owner could not be further from the truth.
Benefits to the community include: reduced pollutants from traditional forms of power
generation; reduced demand on the local power grid; increased in -state power
generation; American green jobs and increased regional economic growth. She added
they are choosing to provide their own renewable power for which they will pay a
premium amount for during the twenty to twenty five (20 -25) year payback period. After
that time, it will be free power, but that is a very long time to wait. She stated their main
motivation is to offset power produced by coal and other polluting sources. The county
ordinance currently states that they can install a one hundred (100) foot wind system on
our property by right with no special use permit. She stated they have applied for a
special use permit to allow installation of a one hundred and eleven and one half (111.5)
foot system to improve the efficiency of the system. The higher the tower, the better the
wind. She indicated they are also asking for a reduction in the side set back from their
own empty lot, for the ideal placement. The tower is a twelve (12) foot triangle at the
base which tapers the higher it goes. The turbine is twenty -three (23) feet in diameter.
When this turbine is one hundred (100) feet in the air it looks like a model airplane. It in
April 26, 2011 231
no way resembles the utility scale turbines. She explained if they do not get the special
use permit, they can still install an eight (80) foot tower in their front yard. The system
would be less than one hundred (100) feet tall and meet all the requirements in the
ordinance. The higher turbine that is being proposed would be more efficient, seem
even quieter, seem smaller and be more attractive in the side yard. They have been
approved by the Virginia Dept. of Mines, Minerals, and Energy for a small wind rebate in
March of 2010. This program is being administered by Virginia Center for Wind Energy
at James Madison University (JMU). They have selected turbines that have a proven
history of reliability and have chosen qualified installers. They are going to oversee all
approved projects. The State program requires a project be started by early spring
2011. This money has already been allocated for State renewable projects. If they do
not use this rebate, it will go to a project in a different county. The federal tax credits are
also already allocated for renewables and will also go to different projects elsewhere.
The concern that the tower and turbine would be abandoned and cause a property to
have a questionable future use, is clearly addressed in the ordinance. The ordinance
states that the system must be removed after ninety days if it is not working. Mention
has been made that construction of the foundation may disturb private water supplies.
The foundation is only five point five (5.5) feet deep and a square fifteen point five by
fifteen by five (15.5 x 15.5) feet smaller than most swimming pools. It is our
understanding that the ordinances have a special use permit clause so that each project
can be carefully studied. The report for our project is one hundred (100) pages long.
They agree there is a lot to be learned so that the ordinances can be updated in the
future. The learning curve needs to start somewhere. Windmills have long played a part
in individual American's energy independence. Given modern technology, they are
safer, quieter and more efficient than ever. As Roanoke county residents, they are
happy to take positive steps to make clean renewable energy a reality. They are hoping
that county officials, neighbors, school children and interested residents can learn more
about small wind systems. She stated they feel this project fulfills the purpose and intent
of the new small wind ordinance. She explained they know those that oppose our
project are sincere in wanting to protect this beautiful place; be assured that they are
equally sincere and feel strongly they are also protecting this beautiful place for
generations to come.
The following citizens spoke with regard to this petition. Mr. Wil Dibling
from the Roanoke law firm of Gentry, Locke Rakes and Moore. He stated he is
representing Don and Jackie DeBusk who reside at 4842 Wade Road and are here
tonight with their son Don, Jr. and he also represents a number of the neighbors. They
are opposed to the windmill that will be constructed on the adjoining property of the
McCallums. Specifically, the DeBusk's are opposed to the Board granting two (2)
special exceptions to the small wind energy system ordinance that was just adopted on
February 22, 2011. First, they are opposed to a fifteen (15) feet increase in the
maximum height allowed by your new ordinance. The ordinance allows one hundred
(100) feet, but the applicant has requested a special use permit for one hundred and
232 April 26, 2011
fifteen (115) feet. Second, they are opposed to a special use permit that would grant a
one hundred and twenty -two (122) foot waiver of setback requirements. The proposed
height is one hundred and eleven and one half feet (111.5); the ordinance requires a
setback of one hundred and ten percent (110 %). A one hundred percent (100 %) of one
hundred and eleven and one half feet (111.5) is one hundred and twenty two (122) feet.
According to the application, the tower would be constructed three to six (3 -6) feet off
the adjoining property line and it is not known where it will be measured from. If they
are going to measure from the concrete pad, they may not even meet the setback
requirements for the DeBusk property, which is only one hundred and twenty -five (125)
feet away. Assuming a setback of six (6) feet, this is a waiver of one hundred and
sixteen (116) feet of the required one hundred and twenty two (122) foot setback. The
DeBusk property consists of four point twenty -two (4.22) acres and is zoned AG1. It is
designated as Mr. Thompson has told you, rural preserve on your 2005 Comprehensive
Plan. It is an L shaped property that lies behind the McCallum property. Doug and
Jackie purchased this property in 1997; they live in a beautiful log home, have
magnificent views, wildlife, solicitude and a history in the area. Don's family has lived
and farmed in this area since 1875. When I visited the property, Don was happy to take
me to visit the family cemetery, which is located on a hillside behind the Hedrick house.
The proposed windmill will be only one hundred and twenty -five (125) feet from the
DeBusk property line and three hundred (300) feet from their front door. The one -story
McCallum home is clearly visible from the DeBusk front yard; all that separates them
from the tower is a row of twenty (20) year old white pine trees and white pines have a
limited life and they are not that tall. From the front yard, the DeBusk's will see at least
fifty (50) feet of the top of the tower. The proposed one hundred eleven and one half
(111.5) foot tower is terribly located in the front yard of the McCallum property. It is
setback only one hundred and thirty three (133) feet from Wade Road; there is no
screening of any type around the proposed base of the tower. What the neighbors will
see is a galvanized field structure with a three (3) blade propeller system twenty -three
(23) feet in diameter mounted on top of a one hundred (100) foot tower. Can you
imagine the sun reflecting off a galvanized field? The structure will be visible for miles
away. According to the staff report, another of the neighbors, the Hedrick property sits
across the street of an elevation of forty (40) feet higher than the McCallum property.
The Hedricks will look right down their driveway at the tower. Other neighbors will also
have their views desecrated. The ordinance authorizes staff to require a photo
simulation of the proposed tower; this has not been required in this case, accordingly no
one knows what it actually looks like. The photo simulation that is included in the
McCallum application package is not the McCallum property, do not be misguided by
this photo, it shows non - existing trees around the base of the tower. As noted in the
staff report, the McCallum property is rural reserve under your comp plan. According to
your comp plan, rural preserve areas require a high degree of protection to preserve
agricultural or recreational and remote residential areas. Indeed the staff report states,
"It is in the interest of Roanoke County to preserve and enhance the scenic and natural
April 26, 2011 233
beauty of this area." Yet, an apparent effort to advance clean energy, the staff has
chosen to overlook the comp plan and the Board's newly enacted ordinance, they are
virtually ignored. The manufacturer's representations with respect to height, siding,
available wind, energy produced and noise have all been accepted without question.
There is no evidence that there has been any consultation with impartial experts as to
these issues. We ask the Board to not grant special exception to allow an excess
amount of height. Generally in the AG district, your height limit is forty five (45) feet;
there's good reason for this. The tower will be located in a rural preserve district, which
deserves a high degree of protection. This is pristine land. Your zoning ordinance
requires that when you grant a special exception you should consider whether it's
consistent with the County's comp plan; it is not. There is no justification to extend the
height of this tower except the assertion of the applicants that it will allow for production
of unquantifiable, small amount of additional energy. Wade road is an area of beautiful
vistas, many people move there for that primary reason, so they can enjoy the view
shed. To construct this tower in the front yard without any attempt to screen it, without
any camouflage is an assault on the neighborhood. We note that this is the first
application you have had for a windmill under your new ordinance; when exceptions are
granted without compelling justification, I would suggest that the Board starts down a
slippery slope. The applicants as noted have requested a huge setback waiver. The
requested waiver is so large as to render the setback meaningless. Setback is of course
a public safety issue. While the McCallums own the adjoining property, nothing prohibits
them from selling that property tomorrow. Under this circumstance, the Planning
Commission attempted to accommodate the McCallums by requiring they vacate the
adjoining property line. The lot line, however, is what it is today and they do not conform
to your ordinance. We urge the Board to deny the special exception as well the setback.
The McCallums can come back, if and when they can meet the setback requirements.
The staff report notes that there are four (4) letters of support. One of these is from a
Ms. Barbara Mallow who states that her permanent residence is in the state of Maine.
The opponents have filed a petition with a Clerk with fifty -four (54) citizens who are
opposed to the application. The first preference of the neighborhood would be that the
Board defer action on the McCallum application and send the new small wind energy
system ordinance back to the Planning Commission for additional review. The
ordinance should require location of the tower behind the front lot line, screening of the
base of the tower by appropriate landscaping, that the tower be painted a flat earth tone
color, that there be fencing around the base of the tower, that photo simulations be
required, that insurance at certain levels be required, that a bond be required to ensure
performance and a firm height limit and setbacks be established that can be adjusted
only by variance. Mr. Chairman and members of the Board in closing, can you consider
that this is so much similar to a cell tower. The only difference is a mile pole cell tower of
one hundred (100) feet with flush mounted antennas would be far more aesthetic than
what is proposed in the front yard of this residence and consider also the cell tower that
serves tens of thousands of people, this only serves one family. At the very least, we
234 April 26, 2011
urge you to reject the two special exceptions that had been requested. Thank you very
much; we would be pleased to answer any questions.
Jessica McCallum, 4824 Wade Road in Roanoke, Virginia. Ms. McCallum
stated as a healthcare worker she understand the significance of caring for others. If no
one cared about one another or the consequences of their own actions she would not
want to be a part of that society. She stated we are but a link in a chain of generations
to come. She does not want to have to explain to her children or her children's children
why she could not make some simple changes to better our situation. Tiny changes can
make such great impacts for instance, looking at blood smears it's amazing how much
difference an imbalance of cells can make. This is the cause of anemia, leukemia and
certain cancers. Without harnessing some of what the earth provides, for instance, wind
energy, how can we cut down on our carbon footprint and allow the earth to regenerate
our much needed resources. As Robert Lewis Stevenson said, "sooner or later we have
to sit down to a banquet of consequences," She stated she wants to do what she can to
help and she hopes the Board is willing to do the same making simple lifestyle changes
for instance using wind energy solar panels, turning off the lights when you leave the
room, and not leaving the water running can help keep our impact to a minimum. In
conclusion, she thinks that we should not be concerned with the decisions we can make
to help future generations, but why we have not done them sooner.
Lucas F. Menezes, 317 Craig Creek Estate Drive in New Castle, Virginia.
Mr. Menezes stated the reason he is here is that many of the surrounding counties,
especially Craig County looks at Roanoke County for leadership and guidance
especially since you are leading the way for renewable energy applications and
licensing. The reason he is here is that there are many people out there, as energy
prices are going up, that will be looking for renewable energy systems. He stated he is
here to basically ask Roanoke County to evaluate that and not deny the right of
individual land owners to be able to produce their own power. If it's done responsibly,
properly engineered and with coordination with neighbors, we should be able to prepare
for high energy costs. All it took was for us to listen to the presentations prior to this one
that even the County is having special budgets due to high energy costs, we're trying to
do the same as individual landowners. Ten years from now, most of us, including myself
will be on a fixed income. Energy costs will still keep going up. Please allow us at least
a chance to put in our own systems, with responsible guidance in engineering and to
allow us basically to be prepared for the future. There was a comment about property
values, the times have changed. A lot of houses have lost their values. The few
exceptions are, especially the home builders, and many other states, the values of
homes that come with property that have renewable energy, basically wind, solar,
geothermal; those houses are demanding higher prices so there the tide has changed.
Energy efficient properties with renewable energies are demanding higher prices.
Lastly, these are not commercial large units, these are small, do not be confused with
the images that you see in the press.
April 26, 2011 235
Mark B. Hanson of 184 Vista Lane in Fincastle, Virginia. Mr. Hanson advised he
is with the Renewable Energy and Electric Vehicle Association and teaches a wind
turbine class at Dabney. He is here to support Mary and Doug McCallum. This is sort of
deja -vu for him because he got a Bergy put in on his property and had to go to two
public hearings; had twelve (12) neighbors against him. One guy circulated a petition
and got about fifty (50) signatures and the neighbors now tell me it is much ado about
nothing. They don't really notice it. Somebody mentioned the turbine was in the front
yard, it's actually in the middle. I have the plat map here and one hundred and eleven
(111) feet on top of the blade the hub height is one hundred (100) feet, if looking
through sixty (60) foot trees and if you are back two hundred (200) feet you're not going
to see it. He guessed it would be nice if the ordinance, when it says one hundred (100)
feet would be hub height because you always have blades on a wind turbine that are
eleven (11) feet something like that. I had a similar problem they wanted to cut four (4)
feet of my blades and they finally said that's okay. He was at the Virginia Wind Energy
Forum last week and they had a Pennsylvania model ordinance that they were looking
to adopt in Virginia. I can pass that over to you it shows that in the special use permit
they can add in things like setback requirements that type of thing for building zones. It
looks like looking at the plat map that if there was a building zone radius for a fall zone
around the Bergy that the northwest corner of the property could have a house and still
be out of the fall zone there. In regards to the last meeting, it was pointed out that
nobody brought up the bird thing, so I'll do that. The 2006 American Academy of
Science Study shows that wind energy is responsible for less than point zero zero three
percent (.003 %) of bird deaths caused by human and feline activities. Cats kill one (1)
billion per year. So we need to kill all the cats, building and coal smoke stacks one
hundred (100) million so one (1) billion per year, hunters, one hundred (100) million,
vehicles sixty -eight (60 -80) million, communication towers ten -forty (10 -40) million as
they fly in front of the microwave beam, pesticides sixty -seven (67) million, power lines
up to one hundred and seventy -four (174) million so wind turbines are responsible for
less than three (3) and one hundred (100) thousandth of these activities. On property
values on realtor.org, the US Department of Energy, December 2009 Berkley National
Ad Study says 7500 homes near wind turbans, between 96 and 2007 across this
country concludes neither the view of wind energy facilities nor the distance of the home
to those facilities was found to have any consistent measureable and significant effect
on the selling prices of nearby homes no matter how we look at the data, the same
result kept on coming back no evidence of widespread impacts.
Bruce Knappe of 2220 Westover Avenue in Roanoke, Virginia 24015
stated he has known the McCallums personally and Doug professionally for about ten
(10) years and has found them to be people of the very highest integrity and caliber.
This process serves to remind him that our modern communities do not come without
costs. We always scam the headlines to see the catastrophic impact of our present
dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear power. Last Wednesday marked the one (1)
year anniversary of oil well blowout that resulted in a BP oil disaster. Today marks the
236 April 26, 2011
25 anniversary of the Chernobyl accident. Just last month Japan experienced a
nuclear disaster, the impact of which is on a scale of Chernobyl and the situation there
is still not under control. These are just a few of the most high profile disasters. The
devastating impacts of our energy consumption go far beyond these major disasters
that make the headlines. As long as we continue our dependence on fossil fuels and
nuclear energy, there will be more oil spills and there will be more nuclear accidents. He
stated he firmly believes that change is needed and that renewable energy is part of the
solution. I believe the McCallums share that conviction. If they were out for their own
gain, there were certainly better investments they could have chosen. By supporting this
project, making it possible for them to move forward he thinks you will be in a small,
significant way helping to address these issues. The sacrifice being asked of the
McCallums' neighbors is to be subjected to the visual impact of one small wind turbine,
which is all. This will not affect your health and he does not believe it will cost them
anything. He is glad there is such a rigorous process for evaluating zoning requests and
is glad that everybody has had a chance to be heard. You cannot please everybody, but
hopes that you will see that the benefits of this proposal outweigh the costs and that you
will decide in the McCallums favor.
Sharon Hedrick of 4833 Wade Road in Roanoke, Virginia stated she lives
directly across from the McCallums. She stated she has one view from the parkway
and no disrupting the views from the parkway but every time she comes down her
driveway she is going to have to look at this and could understand if maybe this was
going to benefit a lot of people, but she still does not understand how this one wind
turbine can benefit as much as they say it is going to benefit. She advised she has
spoken to real estate regarding property values and it is basically not in our favor up on
Wade Road. So, if you would all take the time to look at the photograph, she would
appreciate it. Ms. Hedrick stated the view in the photograph was taken from her
driveway so every time she goes out of her driveway or the front porch or yard, this
windmill will be displayed in front of her.
Elliott Wheeler of Post Office Box 21734 in Roanoke, Virginia 24018
stated he is here to support the McCallums in their attempt to provide and not only
disperse an alternative energy but one additional factor, which has not been mentioned
here because this is also redundant. We do not want to be totally dependent on the
coal generation plants or nuclear generation plants or the big plants because
occasionally and they cost lives. Nobody has yet mentioned how many lives it cost us to
dig coal in places around the world, the coal techniques back in the 18 century and
even in our country we have lost a lot of people in the digging of coal, not to mention the
damage the coal does to the environment. He stated he would like to see this as the
beginning not only as the disperse but also a redundant energy situation where a lot of
people have the ability to independently generate electricity and therefore cancel out a
lot of the damage that has been done by weather. When Appalachian Power (APCO)
goes down for two (2) days or three (3) days or six (6) days; that especially affects the
rural communities because it's a lot harder for APCO to bring back up materials versus
April 26, 2011 237
where there are concentrated people. The allowance of rural energy generation
privately provides a redundant capability, it provides safety for the populous at a whole
because somebody has power and therefore neighbors, in an adverse situation have
the ability to save themselves, work for themselves for the common good. So he highly
supports this not only for the point of it being dispersed and environmental benefits, but
from the point of view from the beginning to set up a redundant energy system not
something to single mode failure of a plant.
Supervisor Altizer inquired in looking at the aerial photo that shows the
turbine and the existing lot line, is the separate lot to the left with Mr. Thompson
answering in the affirmative. He then asked if in the photograph that was just passed to
us, is the driveway going right across with Mr. Thompson responding it is across the
street from the McCallums. Mr. Thompson then reviewed several photographs of the
site from different directions. Supervisor Altizer remarked in looking at the fence line
there is no delineation in the picture of where the next door neighbor's property line is.
Mr. Thompson explained it is hard to see in the photo. Supervisor Altizer stated he is
trying to figure out how far the McCallums' extra lot goes towards that driveway to the
left; is it the tree line. Mr. Thompson stated the tree line is where the property line goes
to, where the white pines are located.
Supervisor Elswick stated he is in support of small wind projects, but this
is not the only one we are going to get and more than likely this one sets sort of a trend
for what might happen in the future. He advised it is hard to find experts and it is a
brand new subject. He stated he would like to make sure that we get all of the research
that we can and do a responsible evaluation and respect people's property rights.
Supervisor Elswick then moved this item be referred to a committee, consisting of the
Chairman of the Planning Commission, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, Dean of
Engineering at Virginia Western, Dean of Engineering or his representative from Virginia
Tech and others who might have been involved in doing legitimate research on small
wind turbines with instructions to review current results of wind turbine characteristics
and report their recommendations for installation requirements to the Board of
Supervisors at its second meeting in June, with the Chairman of that commission being
the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and that it is to be an investigative
commission to help evaluate this installation as well as others that might follow.
Supervisor Altizer stated in looking at the picture, the reason generally for
a setback line is for safety in falling on someone else's property. He stated he is having
a couple of issues. First, if there is setback, a setback is whatever it is designed to be,
to protect or not infringe upon. It appears the setback across this property line does
meet a setback and the intent of the setback was to keep it from falling upon another
structure, and it would meet that criterion at this point. Mr. Thompson responded that
Supervisor Altizer is correct. Supervisor Altizer then stated the reason we design a
special use permit is that when we create an ordinance for anything, horses, cell towers,
small wind or whatever, we have roughly 250 square miles in Roanoke County and
every ordinance just does not define itself for certain things in a certain area. This gives
238 April 26, 2011
the local governing body the ability to look at each circumstance. Mr. Thompson
reiterated it gives the Board the flexibility to look at on a site by site basis, which is the
reason the special use permit process was put in for the height and for the setback. He
further advised part of the reason is the McCallums are trying to locate this tower to get
the most power out of the wind and in the analysis they have done, this is highest
location on their property and the wind comes through at this location. Mr. Thompson
indicated the special use permit process allows the Board to be a little more flexible on
where these things can be located. He added when the ordinance was developed with
regard to setback, there were two things that were looked at, it had to be one hundred
percent (100 %) and a little more in case it fell on someone's property and the other was
looking at similar things in the ordinance. He stated if you look at cell towers and
amateur radio towers, both of those percentages are forty percent (40 %). He advised
there was considerable debate in the Planning Committee and the intention was to keep
it from falling into someone else's property. Mr. Thompson then stated the question is
what happens if the adjacent property sells and that was the question the Planning
Commission had with the setback issue.
Supervisor Altizer stated what he does have a problem with is property
rights and the ability to use. He stated in his opinion when the Board approves
something, it is saying we are going to make you take and combine this. He asked who
has the right, the current owner or some further owner who has the right to say yes or
no, because they have the right to buy that property knowing that there was a one
hundred and ten to one hundred and fifteen (110 -115) foot windmill right beside the
property. He stated he is just not comfortable with that be it a cell tower or a wind
turbine. Mr. Thompson explained that was a condition added by the Planning
Commission after their meeting and was not originally recommended by staff.
Supervisor Moore stated staff studied the wind ordinance before it was
adopted for eighteen (18) months, did a great deal of research on it and she stated she
thinks it is a violation of State law that we make it difficult on people who want to use
small wind and she stated she honestly thinks it is unfair that we are asking the
petitioner to depreciate the property by merging these lots; if they ever want to sell and
there is a windmill there, it will already be there. She advised she knows this is a
learning process and this is the first one to come about, obviously, the petitioner has a
time limitation that they really need to do something. Additionally, she stated she thinks
they have done a great deal of research on this and feels the Board should not make it
difficult on people who want to use small wind.
Supervisor Altizer questioned Mr. and Mrs. McCallum by asking in looking
at the chart provided by Bergy and the difference in annual output, annual energy
thirteen point one (13.1) on one hundred (100) feet and eleven point five (11.5) on
eighty (80) feet. How do you really feel about the added difference that you are getting.
Mr. McCallum responded that he believes the figures are accurate, when it comes to the
power output from wind, the power output is proportional to the cube of the wind speed.
Additional wind speed is critical in getting adequate power output from your investment.
April 26, 2011 239
Supervisor Altizer then asked if Mr. McCallum feels that the difference between the one
hundred (100) feet and what you are asking for is a significant difference that you are
going to lose a lot of wind or marginal, small amount of wind. Mr. McCallum responded
they have done calculations and it looks to be about a five (5) year payback difference,
which is a significant difference. Mrs. McCallum stated the tower only comes in eight
(80) and one hundred (100) feet, so they would have to go down to the eight (80) foot
tower.
Chairman Church then inquired of Mr. Thompson if this permit was
denied, can the petitioner go to eight (80) feet without coming before the Board. Mr.
Thompson responded in the affirmative, however the issue is the setback which is one
hundred and ten percent (110 %), and they would need to meet this requirement by all
four property lines, which would probably be more in the center of the property and
would not be able to place the turbine in the best possible location for the wind.
Chairman Church then asked the McCallums to talk about the cost. Mrs.
McCallum advised she did not have the paperwork with her, but would provide an
estimate. Chairman Church then asked if the total cost would be $75,000 without
rebates, all up front, but $37,000 would be the end result. Mr. McCallum advised that
Chairman Church was correct. Mrs. McCallum advised they would have to pay
everything upfront and the rebates would come years later. Chairman Church then
advised if approved are they are willing to place in writing a requirement to resolve this
issue on the sale of the property and asked Mr. Mahoney for a legal option. Mr.
Mahoney advised it would be difficult to enforce and any purchaser would notice an
eighty (80) or one hundred (100) foot wind turbine and accept that risk. Chairman
Church indicated he did not think the McCallum's could sell this property at any time.
Mr. McCallum indicated it is not their intention to sell the property but to make available
to their children in the future.
Chairman Church then asked Mr. Thompson to address several things
that were mentioned earlier by counsel. "Landowner has virtually ignored the comp
plan," does he agree or disagree with this statement. Mr. Thompson responded that he
disagreed and stated he was wondering where Mr. Dibling was getting that we are
ignoring it. This property is not a ridgeline; the comp plan deals with power locations
and this property is not directly on a ridgeline, it is below the ridgeline of Poor
Mountain /Bent Mountain area. Given the topography of the site, looking at the input
from our communications folks, the Blue Ridge Parkway, he would say that it is in
compliance with the intent of the comp plan. He also stated that one issue that was
raised was photo simulations, the ordinance says that it should be galvanized steel;
which it is and if they want to propose another color the zoning administrator may
approve it and that process may require photo simulations. All other requirements
except height and setback have been met. Photo simulations are not required.
Additionally, Mr. Thompson responded with regard to other ordinance, this is a
conceptual plan and there are requirements in the ordinance that will need to be met
when they come in for a building permit. Mr. Thompson stated one of the issues that
240 April 26, 2011
was brought up that may have merit deals with hiding the base; that could be something
that could be looked at and added as a condition. Chairman Church inquired how tall is
the base with Mr. Thompson responding fifteen point five (15.5) feet and if you wanted
to screen the bottom with some type of evergreen tree that was planted, depending on
what height the evergreen tree would be, could be added as a condition. Chairman
Church reiterated that everything was in line except the height and the setback.
Mr. Dibling asked in the interest of fairness could he respond to a couple
of these questions. Chairman Church responded he does not think he would be fair in
the interest of the other public hearings as he is not the petitioner and he was allowed
extra time and declined his request. Mr. Dibling stated he begs to differ with some of
the answers to the questions.
At this time, the son of Mr. and Mrs. Debusk stated he had just driven in
from Richmond and would like to speak in support of his parents. He stated he has
fifteen (15) photographs that were taken today and processed which is why he was not
able to sign up to speak; was in a hurry to get these photographs to you. Chairman
Church made an exception for Mr. Don DeBusk, Jr. since he does not live in Roanoke
and because he is granting the exception for Mr. DeBusk, Jr., he would grant the
exception for Mr. Dibling as well. Additionally, he requested Mr. DeBusk complete the
sign up form.
Mr. Dibling stated he wanted to make clear they are not opposed to win
turbines; there is a proper location in Roanoke County for wind turbines, i.e. a large
farm. There has been a great deal of discussion about the optimum location on this
property for wind purposes, however, in zoning we talk about balancing the views, what
about the optimum location for the neighbors for their viewscape, that needs to be
considered as well, there is an optimum location on this property that will mitigate the
views of this from adjoining properties, that is apparently not being considered. As to
the setbacks, the setbacks are extremely important when talking about public safety and
the government imposes regulations on people all the time to protect them from
themselves that is why we have setbacks. As far as the Parkway is concerned, it is
three (3) miles away from the Parkway; we know the Parkway is not going to have any
objections. When you are talking about a small property like this, setbacks are
extremely important. The Roanoke County ordinance permits an eighty (80) foot tower
on a lot that is up to one acre. The setbacks there would be eighty eight (88) feet on an
eight (80) foot tower, so under your ordinance you could construct an eighty eight (88)
foot tower, that is why setbacks are important and he urged the Board to enforce the
setbacks, let them comply with the setbacks when they come back, there is no harm
done, they can comply with the setbacks. As far as the maximum height, that is an
issue where you have to balance the interest of the neighborhood versus their interest
in gaining a very unquantifiable small amount of additional energy.
Chairman Church then recessed for ten minutes.
Chairman Church called the meeting back into open session and allowed
Mr. Don Debusk, Jr. his comments. Mr. Debusk, Jr. of 116 Memorial Avenue in
April 26, 2011 241
Richmond, Virginia thanked the Board for allowing him to speak. He stated this
afternoon he did an exhaustive photo study of the area as he could. He pointed out in
the photos; he had quickly sketched the approximate height relative to the tree line. He
commented it will exceed every single tree for at least one quarter mile. It will be visible
from nearly the entire region. He stated the thing we did not talk about in the roguish
attempt to save the planet; we did not talk about the salvation of a community. He
stated he stood before the Board as the son of the most honorable man he has ever
known in his life. This is a community for which he has taken up the yoke, these are
neighbors who plow one another's driveways in the winter; these are neighbors who fell
one another's trees when needed, neighbors who pull together. His father is not
operating individually, but has the support of every single member, save one family,
who wants to put up this atrocity. This is a heritage; his family, as you know, has been
there for nearly a century and a half. He stated he is a Virginian and is proud this is his
heritage and his legacy; the legacy and heritage of all Virginia that is at stake. He
stated this is not about a view, this is history, this is about heart, this is about belief and
this is about truth and purity and real justice. Sure, we all want to save the planet, we
all want to go green, we all want to go clean but do we want to do it at the expense of
the heart of a community. These people live on Wade Road by choice. It is difficult to
get to their jobs. There are days they cannot get in and out to and from work, they
cannot buy groceries, but they choose to live there. Yes, because of the view, yes,
because of this heritage, yes because of this beauty and yes because of this community
that is on that mountain that his great grandfather, William Wade, who never sold a
single parcel, but gave away many to those in need. This is his legacy, a Virginian. He
stated he could talk about property values and what one self- serving national Board of
Realtors says no impact. Think about my words and think about why these good people
live there.
Chairman Church commented the Planning Commission, the Community
Development and many others around the valley have spent a year and one half on
this. To Mr. Debusk, Jr., there is no way no matter what happens we can all be pleased
and you know that, there is no way we can encompass all, no matter what decision any
Board makes, including this one, it is not as a direct response or back toward any
individual property owner. If that were the case, we would have chaos at all times. We
try to do things in a methodical way. We try to understand the reasoning and study and
not do things haphazardly. So, I want you know that. I know you gave an impassioned
plea, but no matter what the outcome, it is not directed to or against you or the
McCallums or your family personally. Chairman Church then thanked Mr. Debusk for
taking the time to share your feelings about his family.
Chairman Church then advised there was a motion on the floor to send
this item to committee. Mr. Mahoney advised the motion from Supervisor Elswick was
to refer this item to committee and has provided the composition of the committee and
has provided what that committee is supposed to do, study this issue and make a report
back to the Board and I believe Supervisor Elswick wanted the committee to make their
242 April 26, 2011
report back to the Board by the second meeting in June 2011. The motion was denied
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisor Elswick
NAYS:
Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church
ABSENT:
Supervisor Flora
Chairman Church then commented on his vote, stating we have been
under evaluation and study for longer than some of us want to talk about. He stated he
could not in good conscience have our very first proposal or second or third each last an
indefinite time. We cannot study studies. He stated he does not think the Board is
accomplishing something when he is looking at a situation where by right the wind
turbine could be placed on this property, with the lowering of the height and couple of
items being done. He stated he does not think it would be the wise thing for us to go
back and involve people outside of this area who would come and study a particular
property site that was my drawback. Where do we stop? In his opinion, it is too much
government.
Supervisor Altizer stated he would like to follow -up the Chairman's
comments. Many times citizens do not understand how much time is spent, especially
our staff. They are unbiased and report to the Board unbiased and they probably know
every part of this County more than every Board member sitting up here. He stated he
thinks they are the experts. He thinks as the Chairman said, you just cannot keeping
going on. While the intentions of the gentleman from Windsor Hills were good to want
to have a committee to look at this, the Chairman is right when he says where do you
stop. What are the rules for which ones that you do and which ones you do not do? He
stated he thinks the McCallums are good people and trying to do a good thing for what
they believe. He believes the citizens who live there are passionate and believe in what
you believe in. He stated he would like to ask, before this goes any further, are the
McCallums and the people sitting here tonight is there anything you would like to talk
out with each other to try to reach an agreement for a common ground that you think
that before this Board makes a decision, you could reach that would be amenable to
both sides of the issue, because too many times we have sat up here and seen a
community divided over issues. Most of the time, communities do come back and they
mend and they heal, but stated he would be remiss in a case like this when he sees two
diverse groups that are passionate about their beliefs, is there a common ground. If
there is, it could be said to the Chairman and if you want to take some time, the Board
could move on to another issue and come back in ten to fifteen minutes and if not, he
thinks the Board is ready to move on.
April 26, 2011 243
Chairman Church reiterated Supervisor Altizer's comments by stating this
is going to be a situation where we hope that two sides can reach something that is
going to work and you can go back to your homes and be okay. Please keep in mind,
we know by the planning and the careful study of the small wind energy that any family
with certain lot requirements can put up an eighty (80) foot tower allowing setbacks
requirements, they can do it without anyone coming here. So there is a benefit here
and I hope it does not turn into a negative because the benefit is that you have
everyone here, counsel, family and a son who drove from Richmond. He stated he
appreciates every one of you and knows where they are coming from, but we are
required to make a decision based on studies and evaluations that have been done for
a long period of time, not about the McCallums or Wade Avenue, but about Roanoke
County. He stated he did not know if there is a compromise or if something that could
be worked out, however, it will either be voted up or down or get to a point where we
would have to wait until the full Board is in attendance. He then asked Mr. Mahoney if
this vote should come to two -two (2 -2) in some cases the motion would be denied. In
our case, is he correct that the Board would hold it over to the full Board is in
attendance. Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative, under Roanoke County's rules
of procedure, which are slightly different from Robert's Rules in this case, if there is a tie
vote where one member is absent, then that matter would be carried over to the next
meeting. If there is a tie vote because a member has to disqualify him or herself
because of a conflict of interest, then the motion would be killed. Chairman Church then
inquired if there was a feeling or consensus by any of you, do you need a ten minute
break to talk with each other?
Mr. Dibling advised he has conferred with his client and thinks it is virtually
impossible in ten (10) minutes to resolve the issues, but would be pleased to carry it
over for two (2) weeks and have some discussions and try to come back with a common
ground as suggested.
Mr. McCallum stated they have been pursuing this for the last seven years,
which is when we first contacted Roanoke County. They have worked with the County
very closely. They have been part of the Planning Commission sessions and as part of
those discussions one of the comments was the reason they put the special use
provisions in there was to be able to take more cases to this level of review in order to
basically not open the flood gates. Accordingly, he stated he feels the purpose of
special review is well placed, yet at the same time, they are dealing with time. He
stated he keeps sensing there is a great deal of attempts to slow this effort down and at
this point would like to move forward without delay.
Chairman Church then asked if two weeks would be too much of a delay
with Ms. McCallum stating she thinks two weeks is fine, she just does not know what
the consensus could be. Chairman Church stated he is trying to find a way where
maybe cooler heads can prevail and a decision will be made in two (2) weeks if that is
what the Board chooses to do, it will not be a waste of time.
244 April 26, 2011
Mr. McCallum stated he did not know that the Board was scheduled for
another hearing in two (2) weeks. Chairman Church explained the next Board meeting
would be held in two (2) weeks. Ms. McCallum stated are you saying the Board would
vote then with Chairman Church asking Mr. Mahoney if this were a motion to delay to
our next Board meeting with Mr. Mahoney responding the next Board meeting is May
10, 2011, unless it is the pleasure of the Board to do so, you have already held the
public hearing, you have closed the public hearing, no further advertising would be
required and no further public hearing occur. Therefore, the Board could carry this over
to May 10 or it could voted on it tonight.
Mr. McCallum stated one of his concerns is they approached the
neighbors well before the application was made and let them know they would like to
pursue this and asked them to contact us; none of them have. Ms. McCallum stated
only one family did. Accordingly, he stated he feels they have done what they can. Ms.
McCallum stated they did have four letters of support, which represent three
households. Since then, she stated she has received a verbal agreement from Mr. A. J.
Glick, who owns several properties around the area and is very supportive.
Additionally, Brent Riley, who lives up the road, had given his support, however, they
are not here to talk for themselves; there are a lot of other people who could not be
here.
Supervisor Elswick stated he has heard a lot of comments that we have
been working on this for eighteen (18) months. He stated he would just like to point out
that he has sat in on a lot of those Planning Commission meetings and they did not just
work on small wind turbines energy ordinance in that eighteen (18) month time period.
Many of those meetings, no wind energy ordinance was discussed. Another point he
outlined is the reason he advocates that we have experts give us their opinion on these
things is that we have not done that, it is an issue that none of us are familiar with, it is a
brand new thing. We need to do it to the best of our abilitly so that anybody that looks
at Roanoke County can say that the Board exercised a great deal of due diligence in
approaching the issue and to his knowledge staff has not asked. For instance, there is
a professor at Virginia Tech who is researching small wind energy and he is coming up
with all of the characteristics that might be involved with small wind energy turbines.
We have not asked that Professor to give us his evaluation or other experts who are
knowledgeable of these things. He stated he is not saying the Board is going in the
wrong direction or right direction, but would feel much more comfortable if there were
people who were more knowledgeable than us or the Planning Commission. He
emphasized none of the Board live in rural areas, except himself, have done any
legitimate research on small wind energy.
April 26, 2011 245
Chairman Church stated to Mr. Thompson that the gentleman from
Windsor Hills has spoken about engineers and experts, would an expert, whether it is
Virginia Tech or elsewhere, have any bearing on this particular item as it pertains to
what is before the Board tonight, setback and height. Mr. Thompson explained this was
taken to the Planning Commission in June of 2009. What happens is when the
Planning Commission adopts a motion for staff to study certain provisions in an
ordinance, a staff person is assigned. In this case, the staff person was Lindsay
Blankenship. While the Planning Commission did not study this every day for eighteen
(18) months, Ms. Blankenship was on that project for the majority of that time. A whole
list of things that were considered in the development of that ordinance could be
discussed. Additionally, the only two issues that are being discussed tonight are height
and setback, standard issues that are in any zoning ordinance that deals with any
structure. Mr. Thompson explained if the Board feels the detriments outweigh the
benefits, then it should be denied and it is the other way from a land use standpoint and
the benefits outweigh the detriments, and then it should be approved. Mr. Thompson
then explained the McCallums can put up to one hundred (100) feet tower by right on
their property, but they are saying it only comes in twenty (20) foot sections so it would
be an eight (80) foot tower with eleven and one half (11 1 /) feet propeller, which would
be ninety one or ninety two (91 or 92) feet. Mr. Thompson stated his understanding
from Supervisor Elswick is to look at the ordinance, not to look at this proposal, but
there really only two issues.
Chairman Church reiterated that the Board is looking at this proposal,
which is why he asked for clarification because he feels it is virtually impossible for any
expert to study each individual case that we have. He stated he does not see how the
Board can go back and change the ordinance for every case that comes before us. It
would be a never ending process and would never satisfy anyone in totality.
Supervisor Moore stated that she concurs with Supervisor Altizer and
Chairman Church that we cannot please everyone and with all due respect to everyone
here, we do sympathize and are listening to you and what you are saying. Although we
have an ordinance in effect and we have a petitioner that has come forward with a
special use permit request, she moved to approve and amend the special use permit
and remove condition number three, which will delete the merging of the two parcels
from the petitioner's request.
ORDINANCE 042611 -9 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 111.5 -FOOT SMALL WIND
ENERGY SYSTEM ON A 2.41 ACRES LOCATED AT 4824 WADE
ROAD (TAX MAP NOS. 74.00 -3 -38 AND 74.00 -3 -38.1) WINDSOR
HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON THE PETITION OF
DOUGLAS R. McCALLUM AND MARY E. McCALLUM
246 April 26, 2011
WHEREAS, Douglas R. and Mary E. McCallum have filed a petition for a special
use permit for construction of a 111.5 -foot small wind energy system to be located at
4824 Wade Road (Tax Map Nos. 74.00 -3 -38 and 74.00 -3 -38.1) in the Windsor Hills
Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
April 5, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on March 22, 2011; the second reading and public hearing on
this matter was held on April 26, 2011.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Douglas
R. and Mary E. McCallum for construction of a 111.5 -foot small wind energy system to
be located at 4824 Wade Road (Tax Map Nos. 74.00 -3 -38 and 74.00 -3 -38.1) in the
Windsor Hills 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:
a) The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the
concept plan prepared by Douglas R. and Mary E. McCallum for
the Wind Turbine dated March 18, 2011.
b) The small wind energy system shall not exceed 115 feet in height.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance. Severance Clause: This special use permit is not severable.
Invalidation of any word, phrase, clause, sentence or paragraph shall invalidate the
remainder.
On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church
NAYS:
Supervisor Elswick
ABSENT:
Supervisor Flora
Chairman Church commented the Board knew the McCallums could put
up a one hundred (100) foot windmill and the Board thinks it is doing what is in the
ordinance. He stated he wished it could work so that everyone is happy, but the motion
is carried.
April 26, 2011 247
3. Request to adopt an ordinance to approve a one -time salary
supplement for certain County of Roanoke employees (Diane D.
Hyatt, Assistant County Administrator)
Ms. Hyatt reviewed the request to approve the one -time salary
supplement and advised this was the second reading of this ordinance with no changes
No citizens spoke on this issue. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 042611 -10 AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT OF A
ONE -TIME SALARY SUPPLEMENT TO CERTAIN ROANOKE
COUNTY EMPLOYEES
WHEREAS, Section 15.2 -1508 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended,
authorizes the governing body of any county, city and town to pay a monetary bonus to
certain local government officers and employees; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County deems that it is in its
best interests to authorize a onetime payment of public funds to recognize the services
rendered by County officers and employees during these difficult economic times; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 12, 2011; and
the second reading of this ordinance was held on April 26, 2011.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to pay a onetime
payment to certain qualified Roanoke County officers and employees. This payment is
four percent (4 %) of annual salary of full -time employees with a maximum payment of
$2,500 and a minimum payment of $500; and a payment of $300 for regular part -time
employees. Officers and employees who qualify for the payment of this payment are
full -time and regular part -time employees who are actively employed with the county at
the time the payment is paid. Regular part -time employees are those who work a
regular weekly schedule, as defined by Human Resources. Part -time casuals and
temporaries, and members of boards and commissions are not eligible for this
payment.
2. That the sum of $1,615,376 is hereby re- appropriated for the purposes
specified herein for fiscal year 2010 -2011. These funds are re- appropriated from the
following sources: 1) $891,013 from a reduction in debt payments on Virginia Public
School Authority (VPSA) bonds and 2) $724,363 from a reduction in the transfer from
the County to the Schools.
On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
248 April 26, 2011
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
4. Request to adopt an ordinance authorizing the lease for eighteen
months (plus options to extend for additional three and six -month
periods) of commercial property on Route 11/460W in the City of
Salem, Virginia, as a location for a temporary Glenvar Branch
Library, Catawba Magisterial District (Daniel R. O'Donnell,
Assistant County Administrator)
Mr. O'Donnell explained the request to adopt the ordinance and explained
this is the second reading of this ordinance and there have been no changes. No
citizens spoke on this issue. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 042611 -11 AUTHORIZING THE LEASE FOR
EIGHTEEN MONTHS (PLUS OPTIONS TO EXTEND FOR
ADDITIONAL THREE AND SIX MONTH PERIODS) OF
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ON ROUTE 11/460W IN THE CITY
OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, AS A LOCATION FOR A TEMPORARY
GLENVAR BRANCH LIBRARY
WHEREAS, the Glenvar Library is currently being rebuilt which necessitates the
relocation of the community's public library facility for a period of approximately fifteen
(15) to eighteen (18) months; and
WHEREAS, the contractor's construction schedule requires the vacation of the
library space at the existing Glenvar Library prior to commencement of construction of
the new library facility; and
WHEREAS, the county has obtained agreement to sublease a portion of a
building located at 2630 West Main Street, City of Salem, Virginia for the benefit of the
Glenvar community from Valley Electric Supply, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, a first reading of this ordinance was held on April 12, 2011, a second
reading and public hearing was held on April 26, 2011.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of
Roanoke County, a first reading concerning the disposition of the herein - described real
estate was held on April 12, 2011; the second reading and public hearing was held on
April 26, 2011; and
2. That this property to be leased consists of portions of a building consisting
of approximately 2,000 square feet and appropriate parking area, as shown on the
attached Exhibit "A ", and is located at 2630 West Main Street, Salem , Virginia 24153;
and
April 26, 2011 249
3. That it is in the County's best interests to lease this property from Valley
Electric Supply, Inc. in order to provide a temporary location for the Glenvar Library.
This lease is subject to the provisions of Section 2.03 and 18.04 of the Roanoke County
Charter. The monthly rental for this property is Fifteen Hundred Dollars per month
($1,500.00) which includes water and sewer service; and
4. That the County Administrator, or his designee, is authorized to execute
such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary
to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be upon a form approved by the County
Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Flora
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Altizer stated he wanted to congratulate the Western Virginia
Regional Jail having gone through the American Correctional Association (ACA) Audit
and scored a perfect one hundred percent (100 %) on their accreditation audit for a
regional jail that has only been open for two (2) years. He quoted from the audit, "The
auditors commented continuously about staff and their knowledge and professionalism."
The auditors also stated, "for the Western Virginia Regional Jail to only been opened for
two years and obtain a one hundred percent (100 %) ACA Accreditation is a feat that is
almost unheard of." Supervisor Altizer stated this accomplishment speaks to the high
quality and outstanding ability of our staff and the job they do each and every day. He
stated on behalf of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors congratulations on being
accredited and scoring one hundred percent (100 %).
Supervisor Elswick stated recently he has been in touch with a citizen who
uses a wheelchair and one of our large grocery stores was hit by a car as she lowered
her ramp from the van so she could out. She pointed out to him at this grocery store,
the lines for the disabled parking area were not wide enough for her to lower the ramp
and get out of the van. Accordingly, Supervisor Elswick advised he is going to pursue
this issue and stated he thinks Roanoke County should do everything it can; those of us
who can walk should do as much as we can for the people who cannot walk. He stated
if anyone who has any advice, any citizen, etc. to assist him by telling him where to go
to get an evaluation of where there might be other instances that the disabled people
are not treated the way they should be or that the standards for their disembarking from
their vehicles are not in compliance, he would appreciate any help he could get.
Chairman Church requested that Mr. Goodman obtain the particulars from Supervisor
Elswick and see how staff can address this issue.
250
April 26, 2011
Supervisor Moore thanked the coaches and the students of the National
Little League for cleaning up Starkey Park after the flood on April 16, 2011, they did a
great job, all pitched in.
Chairman Church announced on May 2, 2011 at 6:30 p.m. at the Glenvar
Middle School another meeting of the Glenvar Community Plan for the Glenvar area will
be held; please put on your calendar.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Church adjourned the meeting at 9:16 p.m.
ubmitted by: n Approved by:
Deborah C. Jac oseph B. "Butch" Church
Clerk to the Board Chairman