Loading...
5/24/2011 - RegularMay 24, 2011 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 May 2011. 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 and Richard C. Flora MEMBERS ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick 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 Reverend Dan Holloway of the Unity Church of the Roanoke Valley. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Recognition of Roanoke County Detective Christopher S. Welch for receiving the 2011 National Missing Children's Award (James R. Lavinder, Chief of Police) In attendance for this recognition were Chief Lavinder; Detectives Christopher S. Welch, Dale Clark, Katrina Goodman; Lieutenant Chuck Mason and Assistant Chief Terrell Holbrook. Each Supervisor thanked the Police Department for a job well done. 290 May 24, 2011 2. Recognition of Solid Waste Employees for winning and placing in the 2011 Virginia /Maryland /DC American Public Works Association Equipment Rodeo (Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services) In attendance for this recognition were Anne Marie Green, Director of General Services; Nancy Duval, Solid Waste Manager; Jim Vodnik, Assistant Director of General Services and drivers Tim Burford and Tony Frymier. Ms. Green explained to the viewing audience what is contained in the rodeo and stated that Tim and Tony were great representatives of all of the County's drivers. Each Supervisor congratulated Ms. Green and her drivers. 3. Introduction of Ms. Leslie Chappel, summer intern. Chairman Church recognized Ms. Diane Hyatt, Assistant County Administrator who introduced Ms. Leslie Chappel as the new summer intern. All Supervisors welcomed Ms. Chappel to Roanoke County. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Reappointment of Special Assistant for Legislative Relations, authorization to continue an agreement and an appropriation of funds in the amount of $31,020 (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) A- 052411 -1 Mr. Mahoney explained this request was to continue the arrangement the County has had with Eldon James and Associates as legislative liaison, however, this year he is requesting the Board add a subcontract with Sue Rowland of S R Consulting. Mr. Mahoney advised Ms. Rowland is an expert in the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) field. He reiterated that he expects to see more initiatives in the future from the General Assembly with regard to the CSA. Chairman Church commented he felt it is vital to keep a continual watch on what is going on in Richmond as it relates to this issue. All Supervisors expressed their concern for keeping watch over the General Assembly as it relates to CSA. Chairman Church moved to approve the staff recommendation. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick May 24, 2011 291 2. Appeal of a denial of a claim by Vernal D. and Kimber Holbrook (5131 Springlawn Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia), Cave Spring Magisterial District (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) A- 052411 -2 Mr. Mahoney advised Mr. and Mrs. Holbrook were in attendance and would like an opportunity to speak to the Board with respect to staff's denial of their claim for damages. He explained they had filed a claim for damages in the amount of $37,198.91 and has provided the legal department a list of property damage. He stated he has not discussed or debated with Mr. Holbrook the differences between replacement costs versus depreciated costs. He advised he believed these were all new costs for the damages. The damages were to the Holbrook's property on 5131 Springlawn Avenue and was the result of the heavy rains that occurred on Saturday, April 16, 2011. He stated the Board may recall that the storms were somewhat localized in SW County. He advised the County has had another claim that was filed from the same weekend; in excess of $51,000. The Risk Manager, Don Karnes, has investigated this claim. The amount of the claim exceeds his authority under the Board's ordinance as to what he can settle. The claim was then sent to his office and he assisted and consulted with him. It is Mr. Mahoney's recommendation that the Board deny this claim stating he does not believe there is any negligence involved on the part of the County based on the amount of rainfall. Mr. Mahoney explained it is his understanding, sewage backed up into the Holbrook's home from floor drains and from toilets, plumbing fixtures. After consultation with Butch Workman, the drainage crew supervisor, surface water did not flow into the home. When this development was constructed back in 1960, the stormwater facilities were adequate; they are not adequate today. Mr. Workman and his crew had identified this area back in the late 1990's as an area for a possible drainage improvement project; that drainage improvement project was abandoned. The Board at that time had indicated to staff that they were unwilling to exercise its powers of condemnation and imminent domain. The reason that project was abandoned was because one of the property owners refused to provide an easement for the County. Mr. and Mrs. Holbrook are very frustrated. They hear from the County that the County believes that it is the water authority's problem. The Water Authority says it is the County's problem and I think they feel that they are caught sort of in the bureauocratic middle. Under the State code provisions, a citizen can appeal a denial of a claim to the governing body. The governing body can make a decision to either approve or deny the claim. If the claim is denied, then that person would have thirty (30) days to appeal that denial to Circuit Court and typically it is staff's recommendation in these situations that the Board deny the claim and provide an opportunity for the claimant to proceed to Circuit Court. Mr. Holbrook advised he would like to "paint a little picture." He stated he 292 May 24, 2011 would like to go back to July 16, 2009 and waking up at 1:00 a.m. to hear stuff pouring into his basement. Say it was sewage, and having your little girl screaming and crying because your basement is filling up with three feet of water. He advised he called the County and they came out and looked at it and said, "Yes, you do have a problem, we understand there is a problem, we just cannot fix it right now." He advised he has a letter from 1999, that specifically states there is a drainage problem and with that drainage problem they said we were put on the docket. Phone calls were made in January that told us we were 25 Phone calls were made in March that told us we were 27 Phone calls were made in April to Butch Workman with no response. He advised they lost every single thing in their basement; we had to rebuild. He advised they brought up sovereign immunity. Mr. Holbrook stated they received a letter from the County saying they would not do anything about it. We got a letter from the Water Authority saying they would not do anything about it. Mr. Holbrook advised he can honestly state this is not a Water Authority problem and would go to bat for that because the only time he has a water problem in his basement is when his street floods. If the water was backing up every six months or every year, then he could blame it on the water authority, but the fact of the matter is it only builds up and he gets a flow of water that is the size of a river down the side of his house. He emphasized he lives in Roanoke County by Cave Spring Elementary, where there is no creek, no nothing. The problem is a group of patio homes that were built behind his house. A wonderful containment pond was built right behind his house as well, with a drainage pond. If you are familiar with a containment pond, a containment pond basically sits, all the drains come into that and the water slowly builds up and dumps into a ten -foot grate, which slowly allows this pond to go out to the street, which is adequate drainage when it is done correctly. Mr. Holbrook stated Butch Workman told him the contract was passed because it was already being build upon; they knew it was done incorrect and they did not fix it. When Mr. Workman came out to his house, again after April 16 his wife tells him to look at the drainage pond. We walked to the fence and as we walked to the fence it was slowly rising. Mr. Holbrook advised he has pictures that shows the chain of events. As the pond slowly rises, it goes down the side of his house; he watched it and was out there with a shovel trying to keep it away from his house. He advised he also has pictures of six feet of water in his basement stairwell pouring through his doorway. He explained he has a seven, five and a three year old and advised the water practically knocked him off his feet due to the size and if his three -year old had been in it, there would be a different discussion. The water rose past his kneecaps in the front of the house, please understand that he lives on Springlawn Avenue with no creeks, rivers, nothing. He advised he is in walking and seeing distance to the elementary school. Three feet of water poured in his basement again, the difference this time was was told that it would not happen. He stated he was told that the first time was an Act of God. God causes rain, not disasters. Unfortunately, he cannot tell the Board about any other type of disaster, but can tell the Board about what happened at his house. He indicated his children's toys, their playroom, his dryer were in the basement. The house May 24, 2011 293 has been up for sale for the past four weeks, it was taken off the market after they had already bought another house. Mr. Holbrook stated he lost everything. Do you want to look at your children's face when they see all of their toys go, every single toy they owned was gone. He then advised Mr. Workman came out to his house along with Don Karnes and he took them back and showed them the containment pond and the drainage pond. He also showed them where the property owners behind and on the patio homes where they are supposed to be keeping up the drainage pond and keeping it cutback, which has completely grown over his fence and the pond is no longer visible. He explained they have built a dam with grass growing over it so that the water would not flow down their side into the pond, and diverts and goes right into the drainage pond. Mr. Holbrook stated he has asked Mr. Workman on several occasions and has spoken with a Supervisor from the Virginia Department of Transportation who happened to be driving by when all of this happened and wrote a letter stating the same. He advised he has had County employees come out to his house and look him in the eyes and state they know it is a problem. He advised he had Mr. Workman call him on his phone and say, "You know what, it is a problem and we are going to fix it, we will fix it, we will fix the problem but understand when it happens again, will you call me, will you call me because it is a sewer issue." He responded to Mr. Workman that his sewer has backed up twice and both times flooded into his street and it came through. He stated he has pictures that will verify and show exactly how much water dumped into his basement through the stairwell as a result of the flood that does down the side of his house. He explained the wall of water was approximately eight to ten feet wide, bad enough to break his children's swing out front, ripped his deck up, took part of the fence away and ripped up his driveway. He stated he did not add these items into the cost, because he would fix those personally. So, he added, do I feel that Roanoke County is not responsible, no. This was something that was known, talked about, called about since 2006 and was going on way before then. We had asked for something to be done. So say that the easement was not big enough that Roanoke County would not condemn it. The easement is twelve feet, which is what the property owner would not allow the County to use. He stated he went back and looked himself, and it would have taken part of her fence. So, the Board stopped the process of putting in new pipes to contain the water because of twelve feet. He further advised that his house is not the only house that flooded and knows there was a hard rainstorm in Roanoke County and Tanglewood and Colonial Drive was flooded, but he advised he can tell the Board in 2009 that was not the case. He stated that when he has to sit up every single night because he told his wife after July it would not happen again, because that is what he was told and he has to sit up every single night it rains and wonder whether they are going to get water. He stated he has an issue with that because he lives in Roanoke County, not a rural neighborhood. He stated he lives in Roanoke County where there is a drainage problem that has been noted since 1998 and nothing has been done. Accordingly, he asked the Board to look at that piece of the issue, not the fact that someone is standing before them asking for a dollar amount; he will not get rich off of 294 May 24, 2011 $37,000, but he is going to finish his basement back to the way it was because he does not have flood insurance, because he does not live in a flood area. He indicated not many people living in the Cave Spring or Penn Forrest area of Roanoke County carry flood insurance and if they need to everyone should be notified they need to carry flood insurance. He advised the dollar amount of the claim is exactly what it cost for Servepro to come in, clean his basement, rip the walls out, put new walls up, put flooring back down, fix his shower back, fix his toilets back, fix his sinks that were just put in and his door that was just put in within the last year and one half. He stated he lost things that cannot be replaced; his wedding pictures, and the pictures of his children growing up. There is not an amount of money you could give him that can replace those. I can buy more toys, yes his children were upset. He stated he can buy things for the house and they will get through this and will move, but he cannot fix pictures, baskets that were given to them when his first child was born; he cannot fix things like that. Outside forces happen as seen on television every day. If that is the case, and we are going to blame the fact of property dwellings and drainage because it is not adequate, but what do you tell all those families all over the United States that are dealing with disasters every single day. "Sorry guys, we did not have adequate preparation." He stated that is why he is having a little bit of a problem about adequacy, because this has been known; it is not something that was just brought up and this is twice in less than two years of the same exact thing, not one thing different. There was enough water that it bowed his door from the outside. Chairman Church commented from the Chair that he is really sorry that the Holbrooks have had this kind of damage. He then asked Mr. Mahoney to talk about what year this happened because he is trying to recollect what Board was sitting at the time. Mr. Mahoney stated he thought it was in 1998. Mr. Church stated he would have remembered this and he was not here at the time. He then asked Mr. Mahoney about the twelve foot easement Mr. Holbrook was talking about and asked Mr. Workman to come forward and provide a little information. Mr. Workman advised the twelve foot easement runs parallel to all the properties through there and ends up in the creek behind and across the street. There is a triangle piece that staff wanted to curb the new pipe away from the flow or with the flow instead of against it like it is now. Mr. Mahoney stated one of the problems with a lot of the older subdivisions (this is a subdivision from 1960) is the easements on the property lines are very narrow and so when you go in with a back hoe and you put those arm braces out, a lot of times you need more than ten to twelve feet. Mr. Workman advised eighteen feet is required. Additionally, assuming you received a wider easement and you came across Springlawn to the adjoining property on the other side of the street which would then eventually lead to the creek down below, as Mr. Workman is saying, you do not want the new pipe to come in at a right angle to that creek. If it came in at a right angle, there would be another problem of erosion and washing out and that was the May 24, 2011 295 property owner who was reluctant to convey an additional easement, not only wider, but also to angle the pipe that would come in at a 45 degree angle versus a 90 degree angle. At that point, the direction from the Board was to talk to citizens to get donations or buy the property, but if the citizen was reluctant, the Board direction was not to condemn, so at that point, that project went off the list. Chairman Church then asked Mr. Workman if in his opinion what part that decision had in a so called "fix" of the problem. He asked Mr. Workman to discuss the cause and effect. Mr. Mahoney then asked Mr. Workman to also talk about what Mr. Holbrook referred to in terms of the containment pond or drainage facility that serves the patio homes and how the proposed project would tie into that correction. Mr. Workman stated the pond above Mr. Holbrook was designed to contain the new development. There are outside areas that drain around there that also go to the pipe through Mr. Holbrook's property and if the project had been undertaken, a twenty -four inch pipe would have gone through the property and a larger berm, etc. There would have been a more defined contained area outside of that pond that would have helped funnel the water into the pipe. As far as the other question regarding what impact it had for the County not to do that, if staff had been able to go in at right angles, it would have flowed out into the street just like it has been doing. Mr. Workman stated it was not a good situation either way and would have been a complete fix if we could have gotten the easement. Mr. Workman also stated the height limit under the street is also inadequate sized, based on today's standard, which would require a twenty -four inch pipe all the way through. Mr. Holbrook stated his next question is if you look at the pictures provided and you look at the containment pond, you will notice in some of those pictures there are actual gutters that are coming in that have no water, that is the containment pond. During this rain when the water was flowing out of the drainage pond, there was no water coming into the containment pond, everything was coming from the development behind was coming straight into the drainage pond that is only 8 x 8, the drains do not run into the containment pond. He advised he has complained about this forever. When they built the containment pond, the drains flow into the drainage pond. It is not the amount of water that is flowing in; there is no water in the containment pond. He stated he has taken pictures of it and that is why it was flooding. While the flooding was going on, the containment pond was empty. The containment pond is set up, his Dad was in building and he knows exactly how things work. He knows code; having looked into them, and he is not stupid when it comes to this. Mr. Holbrook explained he runs a nursing facility that is a multimillion dollar company. He watched it be designed with drainage. There is a containment pond on that land, when those containment ponds are built, the drains from those developments run into that containment pond because that containment pond is a deep hole. The actual gutter that sits on top of the cement block is ten feet, it is huge. The water fills up and as it hits the top of the culvert and it slowly drains and runs to a drainage pond that is down below, which allows for 296 May 24, 2011 adequate water to get in there out of a pipe. He explained you cannot have a pipe that allows it to rush in all at once because that is going to cause it to swirl and not go out. As far as the easement goes, he understands what they are saying and he agrees with that and understands what they are saying about backing up in the street, but let me tell you I would much rather have it back up in the street than into his house. He stated he would give Roanoke County the right -of -way on his land. He stated if the water rushes into that person's house that would not give the easement; it will be a different story. He explained his family is having to suffer with this problem and being told, "Yes, it is a problem we understand, yes you have a big problem." The problem is not so much just the pipe on the other side that cannot be accessed. It is the containment pond, because if that was working properly we would not be having this problem as much. There was a pond, a huge pond, which used to be on that land before the patio homes were built. He advised his sister lived on that street for fifteen (15) years, before that patio home was set there was a huge pond. He asked the Board where do you think all the water that came off the mountain went to; it went into that pond. When the patio homes were built that containment pond was put in to house that water. They built a gully that went up and was supposed to trap the water coming off the mountain and rush into the containment pond. This cannot be accomplished; because if you build a damn on it will roll off. Additionally, somebody planted grass and a nice little tree around it. So whose fault is it, is he supposed to go out there and dig that back up on somebody else's property? Is he supposed to maintain the drainage pond? Is he supposed to cut the trees down that keep it from going in there? Or, is that the complaint when we come to the County and say look there is an issue with the containment pond. There is an issue with the drainage pond. There is an issue with the new development as far as how that water is collected, that is called code and he does not feel it was followed because if he had this much water rushing in that is not an Act of God or that is not an issue because of the amount of water. This has happened two times in one year; it is going to happen again because no water sits in that containment pond. The pictures verify this; you can look right at it. You can see the date and the time stamped on the picture that shows exactly when the picture was taken so nobody thinks we took it way after. This is what the drainage pond looks like as of right now (shows the Board a picture.) This is what our street looked like as the water flowed on it (shows another picture.) There are holes in the front of the street that VDOT is now repairing because he had sink holes from the water sitting out there that went all the way down; right over the top of the drainage pipe that goes underneath our road. Mr. Holbrook stated he understands what everybody is saying about the 1960's when this home was built and they were good back then, but what about now, because if these were $500,000 homes and you were getting $350,000 claims and you were getting issues with drainage, there would be a big difference. He stated his claim is not a lot of money and understands that piece of it, but he still thinks he is entitled to those fixes and those fixes from the County because this is something that was known. Supervisor Moore thanked the Holbrooks for coming in and sharing their May 24, 2011 297 story with the Board. She stated it is unfortunate that they have had not one but two experiences of the same nature in the past two years. She advised she knows it has been very difficult; Roanoke County has been researching and trying to improve the stormwater system all over Roanoke County and staff has been working on that diligently. Hopefully, one day it will be a huge improvement so that we do not have issues like this. Supervisor Altizer asked if he understood Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Holbrook correctly in that the water that came into the house was it sewage. Mr. Holbrook responded it was both, what happens is based on information from The Water Authority there are grates on top of their culverts out front that have holes in them. The water rushes down and sits on top of those and bubbles down into the sewer system. The sewer system is not meant to hold that much water that comes down because the water sits there and causes the backflow into the house. It was also coming through the yard, which you can see in the pictures provided. What happens is it builds up in the drainage pond and starts to roll down the back of the yards and then it comes rushing through. Supervisor Altizer inquired if he had any kind of sewer backup with Mr. Holbrook responding they would not cover it. Chairman Church stated water and sewer backup will and would cover water coming back through the drains and sewer. He advised he is saying that based on his past experience. Mr. Holbrook advised he agreed and the first time it happened State Farm covered it fine. This time Nationwide would not cover it because they stated there is a clause in their policy with stormwater if it is caused through rain and there is stormwater backup as well as sewer, they will not cover it. Chairman Church indicated it is an option that the homeowner can purchase and it should be recommended to everyone. There has been a big emphasis on it from the Federal and State level to offer that coverage to property owners. Mr. Holbrook explained a sewer backup coming from your toilet or overflows, or three or four inches in your basement is one thing, however, with three feet he does not think there is any homeowner out there that expects sewer water to backup due to a rain problem. Chairman Church then asked Mr. Workman to address the issue regarding the containment pond and the patio homes and what has happened there and what has caused a negative effect. Mr. Workman responded that he is not sure. The patio home area is pretty small and he thinks there is a thirty (30) acre drainage area above that. The patio homes are only designed for what is required for their site. He stated that he understands what Mr. Holbrook is saying. It is a huge pond; maybe it is because there is so much area outside of the patio homes that is supposed to bypass and he thinks that is probably what he is seeing there. Mr. Holbrook stated he is also going with what he was told. He stated what he was told about the gutter system and the containment pond and had discussed with everyone who lives on the street and has lived there for thirty years. The problem is when the patio ponds were built and that containment pond was put into place is when the flooding started; they did not have problems before the patio homes were put in. In 298 May 24, 2011 that area, there are gullies that are built there for that water to run into to hit that containment pond that are damned up, so how can the water rush in there. He advised he showed that to Mr. Workman and Mr. Karnes when they came to his house. So how can water rush into those things if they are dammed up and projecting up and going into a drainage pond that is only eight feet by eight feet. It cannot hold that amount of water and if that is the case, why did they not make that area bigger or clean it out to hold and withstand that water. Chairman Church then asked Mr. Mahoney for options for the Board and what course it takes with approval or denial of this claim. Mr. Mahoney responded that under option one the Board would approve the claim for Mr. and Mrs. Holbrooke and the Board would authorize the payment of $37,198.91. Under option two, the Board denies the claim and that would allow Mr. and Mrs. Holbrook to pursue what other legal remedies they deem appropriate. Supervisor Moore thanked the Holbrooks, Mr. Mahoney and Mr. Workman and stated this seems to be a very complex situation with a lot of variables and perhaps this is one that would better serve everyone to go before the Judge and let him hear the case and make a decision. Supervisor Moore moved to approve the staff recommendation to deny the claim. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA 1. The petition of Sandra Finck to obtain a Special Use Permit in a R- 1 S, Low Density Residential, District with a special use permit for a multiple dog permit for four (4) dogs on 2.24 acres, located at 2929 Elderwood Road, Catawba Magisterial District There was no discussion. Chairman Church moved to approve the first reading and scheduled the second reading for June 28, 2011. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick 2. The petition of National Park Service /Blue Ridge Parkway, to obtain a Special Use Permit in a AG -3S, Agricultural /Rural Preserve, District with a special use permit to construct a May 24, 2011 299 broadcasting tower on 27.612 acres, located off Honeysuckle Road on Poor Mountain, Windsor Hills District There was no discussion. Supervisor Moore moved to approve the first reading and scheduled the second reading for June 28, 2011. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick 3. The petition of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, Town of Vinton, and Cardinal IG Company to amend the covenants, conditions, and Master Plan on 99 acres zoned PTD, Planned Technology Development, District at the Vinton Business Center, located near the 2100 through 2400 block of Hardy Road and the 2100 block of Cardinal Park Drive, Vinton Magisterial District There was no discussion. Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the first reading and scheduled the second reading for June 28, 2011. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick 4. The petition of Carol and Jason Lachowicz to rezone approximately 5.476 acres from AG -3, Agricultural /Rural Preserve, District, C -2C, General Commercial, District with conditions, and C -1C, Office, District with conditions to AV, Agricultural/Village Center, District and AG -3, Agricultural /Rural Preserve, District, located at 8346 Bent Mountain Road, 8364 Bent Mountain Road, and 8399 Strawberry Lane, Windsor Hills Magisterial District There was no discussion. Chairman Church moved to approve the first reading and scheduled the second reading for June 28, 2011. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick 300 May 24, 2011 IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code Chapter 21. "Taxation ", Article III. "Real Estate Taxes ", Division 3, "Exemption for Elderly and Disabled Person" To Provide Exemptions for Disabled Veterans (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) Mr. Mahoney advised he is recommending that the Board approve this ordinance in order to provide staff guidance in which to implement a recent constitutional amendment to provide a real estate tax exemption for veterans who have served our Country and who have suffered a one hundred percent (100 %) service connected and total disability. He advised he had worked very closely with Nancy Horn, the Commissioner of the Revenue and her staff, Kevin Hutchins, Treasurer and his staff and Kathy Jones in the legal department who has done a significant amount of research on this. He stated he did want to indicate there is some controversary State -wide about this. Some localities believe the constitutional amendment adopted by the voters last November is self- executing; what that means is you do not need any local ordinance in order to implement it. Other localities and he stated he is in the other locality camp believe it would be helpful for the Commissioner of Revenue's staff and for the Treasurer's staff to have some guidance in this area because he thinks there are some questions, some gaps, some ambiguities that people have some questions as to what applies and what does not apply. He further stated he thinks the General Assembly in 2012 is going to adopt some legislation to address those gaps, but the County has an obligation now to implement this constitutional amendment because it was made effective for the current tax year, that is the calendar tax year that began January 1 st of this year. He stated Ms. Horn has indicated to him that she has over ninety veterans who have come in to her office inquiring about this. He stated staff would like to give some guidance. This ordinance attempts to address some questions that have surfaced, i.e. when looking at it has to be a qualifying dwelling, it has to be the principal place of residence of the veterans, but what if the veteran is in a nursing home. Staff believes that it was the intent of the voters of the Commonwealth to provide this exemption to our veterans. Mr. Mahoney questioned what if the veteran has talked to an attorney and for estate planning purposes is not the "owner" of the property but they have put the property in a trust for estate planning purposes, they are still obligated to pay the real estate taxes. He stated from staff's point of view, we think it was the intent of the voters to provide this exemption to the veterans who have one hundred percent (100 %) service - connected disabilities. Another question deals with if you are a veteran, when do you have to apply? He stated he realizes this is a new law and suggests the Board consider a transition provision so that if you are veteran and want to take advantage of this tax exemption you can apply any time during the current 2011 tax year. After that, staff was considering coordinating with what is already in existence for elderly and handicapped citizens and would look for an individual to make an May 24, 2011 301 application between January 1 St and March 31 for future years. Another issue that Ms. Jones has raised based on her experience being a JAG officer, is the fact that a person can go to the Veterans Administration (VA) and apply for disability, but it may take two (2) years before the VA works through its backlog and makes a decision. Based on this, staff thought if a veteran obtains their determination two (2) years from now, but made the application today, it may be a problem due to refunds over previous tax years. If this ordinance is approved, Mr. Mahoney advised he may have to come back again next year and alter it because the General Assembly may have filled in some of the blanks. Mr. Mahoney explained this ordinance reflects an expansive reading, not a narrow approach. He then advised Ms. Horn, Ms. Jones and Mr. Hutchins were in the Board room to answer any questions. Chairman Church thanked Ms. Jones, Ms. Horn and Mr. Hutchins and stated he truly believes this Board is here today because of our veterans; open and free government session because of the price these men and women paid. Chairman Church then applauded Mr. Mahoney and staff for what they had done to try to eliminate any type of roadblock for these men and women. Supervisor Moore thanked everyone who worked so hard on this and stated it is the least we can do for our veterans. Mr. Mahoney advised they are having some difficulty getting a good estimate of what the fiscal impact is. He indicated that the fiscal impact is not the driving factor, but staff needs to report to the Board and come up with an estimated $300,000 impact and at the same time he thinks by looking at some of the numbers that might impact current year is $100,000. He advised staff really will not know until the applications come in and everything is calculated, but that is the ballpark for fiscal impact. Chairman Church moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for July 28, 2011. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick IN RE: ADOPTION OF PROPOSED BUDGET AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE 1. Resolution adopting the fiscal year 2011 -2012 budget, including the fiscal years 2012 -2016 Capital Improvement Plan, for Roanoke County, Virginia (W. Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget) Mr. Robertson explained this was the second reading of the ordnance to adopt the fiscal year 2011 -2012 budget, which included the School Budget. He explained there was one change from the first reading; under proposed expenditures 302 May 24, 2011 the following language will be struck. "In addition to the above revenues and expenditures, $2 million of the unappropriated balance is appropriated to a reserve for contingency for unanticipated or emergency expenditures." Mr. Robertson explained staff would like to strike that language from the resolution because this section was originally added to accommodate emergency economic development prospects when there was a requirement for a public hearing for any budget amendment that exceeded $500,000. This public hearing requirement has been amended and is now one percent (1 %) of the County budget, which is $1,896,000. In addition, the better reason to strike that language is a new accounting pronouncement that will be coming out GASB 54, which has to do with the reporting of fund balance amounts. The inclusion of this paragraph, if we were to include, would remove the $2 million from unappropriated balance and staff wants to keep this in our unappropriated balance for the purpose of meeting our eleven percent (11 %) goal. There was no discussion. Chairman Church commented that he thinks the Board has always thought of the unappropriated fund balances as an emergency fund. RESOLUTION 052411 -3 APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2011- 2012 BUDGET FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, Section 15.2 -2503 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, provides that the governing body of the County shall prepare and approve an annual budget; and WHEREAS, said budget shall be prepared and approved for informative and fiscal planning purposes only; and WHEREAS, this budget contains a complete itemized and classified plan of all contemplated expenditures and all estimated revenues and borrowings for the ensuing fiscal year; and WHEREAS, a brief synopsis of said budget was published as required by the provisions of Section 15.2 -2506 of the State Code, and the public hearing as required thereon was held on April 26, 2011. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia: 1. That there is hereby approved the annual budget for fiscal year 2011 -2012 for Roanoke County, Virginia, as shown on the attached Schedules. 2. That the preparation and approval of this budget is for informative and fiscal planning purposes only. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick May 24, 2011 303 County of Roanoke Adopted FY 2011 -2012 Budget May 24, 2011 Revenue Estimates Amount General Fund General Government General Property Taxes $ 118,985,000 Local Sales Tax 9,474,340 Telecommunications Tax 4,200,000 Business License Tax 5,575,000 Bank Franchise Tax 525,000 Utility Consumer Tax 3,650,000 Motor Vehicle License Tax 2,020,000 Recordation/Conveyance Tax 1,075,000 Meals Tax 3,630,000 Hotel/Motel Tax 775,000 Other Local Taxes 711,000 Permits, Fees & Licenses 575,610 Fines and Forfeitures 835,400 Interest Income 269,100 Charges for Services 3,144,433 Commonwealth 9,857,782 Federal 3,740,000 Other 1,953,112 Total General Government $ 170,995,777 Communications & Information Technology 7,561,883 Comprehensive Services 6,627,799 Law Library 27,175 Public Works Projects 175,693 S B & T Building 444,580 Recreation Fee Class 4,442,000 Criminal Justice Academy 202,172 Police Special Programs 1,000 County Garage 2,242,864 Total General Fund $ 192,720,943 Debt Service Fund - County 8,031,694 Capital Projects Fund 4,230,635 Internal Service Fund 1,301,360 School Operating Fund 131,373,270 School Nutrition Fund 5,704,000 304 May 24, 2011 School Debt Service Fund 13,654,394 School Grants Fund 5,508,401 School Capital Fund 904,000 School Textbook Fund 798,477 School Bus Fund 910,000 School Laptop Insurance Reserve 358,600 Total Revenues All Funds $ 365,495,774 Less: Transfers (107,856,516) Total Net of Transfers $ 257,639,258 Proposed Expenditures Amount General Fund General Government General Administration $ 2,900,259 Constitutional Officers 13,087,654 Judicial Administration 865,732 Management Services 3,200,379 Public Safety 23,922,567 Community Services 11,076,112 Human Services 20,007,899 Non - Departmental 11,368,810 Transfers to School Operating Fund 64,006,726 Transfers to School Insurance - Dental 477,299 Transfers to (from) Capital Fund (1,317,385) Transfers to Debt Service Fund 16,937,402 Transfer to Public Works Projects 175,693 Transfer to Comprehensive Services 3,253,000 Other 1,033,630 Total General Government $ 170,995,777 Communications and Information Technology 7,561,883 Comprehensive Services 6,627,799 Law Library 27,175 Public Works Projects 175,693 S B & T Building 444,580 Recreation Fee Class 4,442,000 Criminal Justice Academy 202,172 Police Special Programs 1,000 County Garage 2,242,864 Total General Fund $ 192,720,943 Debt Service Fund - County 8,031,694 Capital Projects Fund 4,230,635 Internal Service Fund 1,301,360 May 24, 2011 305 School Operating Fund School Nutrition Fund School Debt Fund School Grants Fund School Capital Fund School Textbook Fund School Bus Fund School Laptop Insurance Reserve Total Expenditures All Funds Less: Transfers Total Net of Transfers 131,373,270 5,704,000 13,654,394 5,508,401 904,000 798,477 910,000 358,600 365,495,774 $ (107,856,516) $ 257,639,258 In addition to the above revenues and expenditures, $2,000,000 from the Unappropriated Balance is appropriated to a Reserve for Contingency for unanticipated or emergency expenditures; and funds allocated to the Unappropriated Fund Balance must be appropriated by the Board of Supervisors before such funds may be expended. 2. Ordinance appropriating funds for the fiscal year 2011 -2012 budget (W. Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget) Mr. Robertson explained this was an ordinance to appropriate funds for fiscal year 2011 -2012 and pointed out there were two changes from the first reading. The first change is the same as the previous item and is the $2 million language to be struck. The second change has been added, section number nine (9) to approve the two -year supplement for the Plan II employees that was approved by the Board on May 10, 2011. A salary supplement needs to be approved by an ordinance, so Mr. Mahoney and Ms. Hyatt have agreed adding this to the budget appropriation ordinance would serve that purpose. There was no discussion. ORDINANCE 052411 -4 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE 2011 -2012 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, a public hearing was held on April 26, 2011, concerning the adoption of the annual budget for Roanoke County for fiscal year 2011 -2012; and 306 May 24, 2011 WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was held on May 10, 2011, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 24, 2011, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the respective funds for the period beginning July 1, 2011, and ending June 30, 2012, for the functions and purposes indicated: County of Roanoke Adopted FY 2011 -2012 Budget May 24, 2011 Revenues: General Fund General Government $ 170,995,777 Communications & Information Technology 7,561,883 Comprehensive Services 6,627,799 Law Library 27,175 Public Works Projects 175,693 SB &T- Social Services Building 444,580 Recreation Fee Class 4,442,000 Police Special Programs 1,000 Criminal Justic Academy 202,172 County Garage 2,242,864 Total General Fund $ 192,720,943 Debt Service Fund - County $ 8,031,694 Capital Projects Fund $ 4,230,635 Internal Service Fund - Risk Management $ 1,301,360 May 24, 2011 307 School Funds: $ 761,116 Commonwealth Attorney Operating $ 131,373,270 Nutrition 1,028,559 5,704,000 Capital Total Constitutional Officers 904,000 Debt 13,654,394 Bus 910,000 Laptop Insurance Reserve 358,600 Grant 5,508,401 Textbook 798,477 Total School Fund $ 159,211,142 Total All Funds $ 365,495,774 Expenditures: General Government: General Administration Board of Supervisors $ 291,611 County Administrator 282,180 Public Information 182,190 Asst. Co. Administrators 351,363 Human Resources 710,140 County Attorney 546,940 Economic Development 535,835 Total General Administration $ 2,900,259 Constitutional Officers Treasurer $ 761,116 Commonwealth Attorney 1,001,313 Commissioner of the Revenue 775,854 Clerk of the Circuit Court 1,028,559 Sheriffs Office 9,520,812 Total Constitutional Officers $ 13,087,654 Judicial Administration Circuit Court $ 237,972 1 ' May 24, 2011 General District Court Magistrate J & DR Court Court Service Unit Total Judicial Administration Management Services 69,940 1,590 21,086 535,144 $ 865,732 Real Estate Assessments $ 813,315 Finance Building Maintenance 1,192, 503 Public Transportation Total Community Services 525,000 Management and Budget Human Services 275,912 Procurement Services $ 2,216,906 393,649 2,130,944 Total Management Services $ 3,200,379 Public Safety Contributions -Human Service, Cultural, Police $ 10,893,568 Fire and Rescue VA Cooperative Extension 13,028,999 Elections Total Public Safety $ 23,922,567 Community Services General Services $ 4,896,586 Community Development 4,214,972 Building Maintenance 1,964,554 Total Community Services $ 11,076,112 Human Services Grounds Maintenance $ 2,216,906 Parks and Recreation 2,130,944 Public Health 369,098 Social Services 10,302,439 Contributions -Human Service, Cultural, Tourism, Dues 1,290,468 Library 3,294,779 VA Cooperative Extension 84,382 Elections 318,883 May 24, 2011 SCI• Total Human Services Non - Departmental Employee Benefits Miscellaneous Internal Service Charges Total Non - Departmental Transfers to Other Funds Transfer to Debt - General & Schools Transfer to (from) Capital Transfer to Schools Transfer to Schools - Dental Insurance Transfer to Public Works Projects Transfer to Internal Services Transfer to Comprehensive Services Total Transfers to Other Funds Unappropriated Balance Board Contingency Total General Government Communications & Information Technology Comprehensive Services Law Library Public Works Projects SB &T- Social Services Building Recreation Fee Class Police Special Programs $ 20,007,899 $ 2,675,297 1,976,500 6,717,013 $ 11,368,810 $ 16,937,402 (1,317,385) 64,006,726 477,299 175,693 933,630 3,253,000 $ 84,466,365 $ 100,000 $ 170,995,777 $ 7,561,883 $ 6,627,799 $ 27,175 $ 175,693 $ 444,580 $ 4,442,000 $ 1,000 310 May 24, 2011 Criminal Justice Academy $ 202,172 County Garage $ 2,242,864 Total General Fund $ 192,720,943 Debt Service Fund - County $ 8,031,694 Capital Projects Fund $ 4,230,635 Internal Services Fund - Risk Management $ 1,301,360 School Funds: Operating $ 131,373,270 Nutrition 5,704,000 Capital 904,000 Debt 13,654,394 Bus 910,000 Laptop Insurance Reserve 358,600 Grant 5,508,401 Text Book 798,477 Total School Funds $ 159,211,142 Total All Funds $ 365,495,774 2. That the County Administrator may authorize or delegate the authorization of the transfer of any unencumbered balance or portion thereof from one department to another. 3. That all funded outstanding encumbrances, both operating and capital, at June 30, 2011, are re- appropriated to the 2011 -2012 fiscal year to the same department and account for which they are encumbered in the previous year. 4. That appropriations designated for capital projects will not lapse at the end of the fiscal year but shall remain appropriated until the completion of the project or until the Board of Supervisors, by appropriate action, changes or eliminates the appropriation. Upon completion of a capital project, staff is authorized to close out the project and transfer to the funding source any remaining balances. This section applies May 24, 2011 311 to appropriations for Capital Projects at June 30, 2011, and appropriations in the 2011- 2012 budget. 5. That all school fund appropriations remaining at the end of the 2010 -2011 fiscal year not lapse but shall be appropriated to the School Capital Fund in fiscal year 2011 -12 as follows: a.) Two - thirds (2/3) of the year -end balance in the school operating fund will be allocated to the Major School Capital Reserve; b.) One -third (1/3) of the year -end balance in the school operating fund, will be allocated to the Minor School Capital Reserve; 6. That all General Fund unexpended appropriations at the end of the 2010- 2011 fiscal year not lapse but shall be re- appropriated, as provided by Resolution 122104 -4, as follows: a) Forty percent (40 %) of these unexpended appropriations shall be transferred to the unappropriated Minor County Capital Fund Reserve; b) Sixty percent (60 %) of these unexpended appropriations shall be re- appropriated to the same department for expenditure in fiscal year 2011- 2012. 7. That all General Fund revenues collected in excess of appropriated revenues shall be re- appropriated, as provided by Resolution 122104 -5, as follows: a.) Revenues in excess of budget will first be allocated to the General Fund Unappropriated Balance, until the maximum amount for the current year is met, as specified in the General Fund Unappropriated Balance Policy, as adopted by Resolution 122104 -2; b.) The remainder of revenues in excess of budget will then be allocated to the Major County Capital Fund Reserve 8. Rescue fees collected by the Fire and Rescue Department in excess of budgeted amounts will be reappropriated and allocated to the Fire and Rescue Capital Reserve. 9. That all Virginia Retirement System (VRS) Plan 2 employees that were hired by Roanoke County prior to May 10, 2011, will receive up to four (4) payments of a supplement to minimize the financial impact on these employees of paying their member contribution for the Virginia Retirement System. Each payment is based on two point seven seven five percent (2.775 %) of their base salary. These payments will be made in July 2011, January 2012, July 2012 and January 2013. The employee must still be employed by Roanoke County at the time of the payment to receive the supplement. The intent of this supplement is to minimize the financial impact on these employees of paying their member contribution for the Virginia Retirement System for a (2) two year period. These employees must now pay the five percent (5 %) employee portion of the VRS contribution, but were hired by Roanoke County before this change went into effect. Funds needed to pay the supplement for the two year period will be 312 May 24, 2011 set aside from the VRS savings resulting from the change to the Plan 2 funding recognized in the 2011 -2012 fiscal year. 10. This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2011. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 3. Ordinance authorizing the granting of a fifteen foot utility easement to Appalachian Power on property owned by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors (Tax Map No. 097.05 -01- 26.00) for the purpose of an underground electric power line to the new South County Library facility, Cave Spring Magisterial District (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) Mr. Mahoney explained this was the second reading of this ordinance and there were no changes from the first reading. There was no discussion. ORDINANCE 052411 -5 AUTHORIZING THE GRANTING OF A FIFTEEN FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT TO APPALACHIAN POWER ON PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (TAX MAP NO. 097.05 -01- 26.00) FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC POWER LINE TO THE NEW SOUTH COUNTY LIBRARY, CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, Appalachian Power Company (AEP) requires a permanent utility easement for purpose of providing electrical service to the new South County Library from an existing overhead electric line; and WHEREAS, granting this utility easement for an underground electric line is necessary for the operation of the new South County Library; and WHEREAS, the proposed utility easement to the South County Library will serve the interests of the public and is necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Roanoke County. THEREFORE, 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 Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by May 24, 2011 313 ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on May 10, 2011, and a second reading and public hearing was held on May 24, 2011 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County Charter, the interest in real estate to be conveyed is hereby declared to be surplus, and is hereby made available for other public uses by conveyance to Appalachian Power Company for a utility easement. 3. That donation to Appalachian Power Company of a utility easement for purpose of an underground electric line, as shown on a plat titled "Proposed Right of Way on Property of Roanoke county Board of Supervisors ", prepared by Appalachian Power Company and dated April 26, 2011, is hereby authorized and approved. 4. That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrator, is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such further actions as may be necessary to accomplish this conveyance, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. 5. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA RESOLUTION 052411 -6 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J- CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for May 24, 2011, designated as Item J Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 4 inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes —April 26, 2011 2. Request to appropriate $14,086.32 to the Clerk of the Circuit Court from the State for fiscal year 2010 -2011 3. Request to renew the Fiscal Agent Agreement between the County of Roanoke and the Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority 4. Request to execute a Memorandum of Agreement for participation in the Roanoke Valley Sustainability Consortium 314 May 24, 2011 On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church NAYS: None 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board Contingency 4. Treasurer's Statement of Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy as of April 30, 2011 5. Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of April 30, 2011 6. Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and Encumbrances as of April 30, 2011 7. Accounts Paid — April 2011 IN RE: CLOSED MEETING At 4:36 p.m., Chairman Church moved to go into closed meeting following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2.3711.A.1. Discussion concerning appointments to the Court Community Corrections Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP) Policy Board; Court Community Corrections Program Regional Community Criminal Justice Board; Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission; Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission — Metropolitan Planning Organization; Virginia Western Community College Board; Western Virginia Water Authority; Section 2.2.3711.A.3. Namely acquisition of property for public use for economic development purposes, where the discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the County and Section 2.2- 3711.A.5. May 24, 2011 315 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, Flora, Elswick, Church NAYS: None The closed session was held from 6:16 p.m. until 6:52 p.m. IN RE: WORK SESSIONS At 4:39 p.m. Chairman Church recessed to the fourth floor for work session and closed meeting. 1. Work session to review the 2011 Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grant (Ray Lavinder, Chief of Police) In attendance for this work session was Ray Lavinder, Chief of Police; Terrell Holbrook, Assistant Chief of Police; W. Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget and B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator. The work session was held from 4:46 p.m. until 5:27 p.m. Chief Lavinder advised the Police Department received notification the Justice Department is offering Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants. Since there is a need for police officers and they understand the financial constraints the County is operating under, it was Mr. Goodman's suggestions that a work session be held to discuss.. He indicated that for six officers the cost would be $280,000 for three years, in addition the County would have to pay $11,688 per year because the County starting salary is low and must pay five percent (5 %) above in order to be competitive, plus equipment. He indicated the department can utilize old vehicles, but new equipment is preferable. Supervisor Flora stated the dilemma is the first three years are great, it is the fourth year when the County would have to bear the full cost; "At some point, you have to pay the piper." He then inquired if this was discussed last year with Chief Lavinder stating he did not think so. Mr. Goodman stated the previous discussion was in regard to the firefighters and at that time he recommended not to pursue the grant because of the equipment issues; he sat down with the Chief and advised him to talk to the Board and explain his situation with the department and how he would like to pursue this, but he stated he also told the Chief as he did with the Fire Department, he could not recommend it, because of the unfunded equipment and the unknowns as to what would be occurring three or four years from now with revenues. Additionally, he noted if staff 316 May 24, 2011 were to pursue the grants and get the grant, he feels it would be important to provide them with the same equipment as all other officers. Supervisor Flora stated there have been some discussions about the grants around and a lot of smaller agencies are passing them by. He stated he suspects that the larger urban agencies that have a fair amount of turnover would not have an issue because they are going to have those slots available in four years no matter what, so for them because they are going to have to equip the officers anyway, they get three years with most of their salaries paid and the fourth year with the turnover they have, expect to pick it up. Mr. Goodman pointed out during the budget process the Chief had sought six (6) additional officers, which he believes is a precinct, but could not recommend those either so he thinks it is important that the Chief has the opportunity to talk to the Board and express his concerns about his staffing levels. Supervisor Flora stated there is a fair amount of uncertainty. Chairman Church inquired when was the last time the Board was able to add officers for the Police Department with Chief Lavinder responding 2007 with six positions, but they were withdrawn in 2008 before they were filled. Supervisor Altizer stated he guessed the Board can always identify need: the Police Department, Fire and Rescue. He commented he thinks if staff does apply there is going to be a presumption that others will be done, when staff has elected not to do those yet. He advised everyone is hoping that within two years we are in better shape, we do have some positive signs, but what happened if it does not and with worrying about what the State can possibility do to us, he stated he don't know if we can go out spending money four years out that we do not have right now. He further added he cannot justify that in addition to telling fire and rescue the same thing, especially in Mt. Pleasant in my own district, who just lost their volunteer rescue squad and we just have to be mindful that there is a day you have to pay the piper. Supervisor Altizer stated he thinks the Board needs to err on the side of caution to see what next year and the year after brings. Hopefully, we are back into those things when we can start doing some additions to some of those public safety positions that we know we need, but for right now, I think we are going to have to wait and see. He stated he thinks the economy is coming back somewhat, but he has a fear of what the State is going to do us and the potential of what they could pass down to the County. Supervisor Flora inquired what is the Police Department's annual turnover in the enforcement area with Chief Lavinder responding between five to seven percent (5 -7 %). Chief Lavinder stated that the federal agencies are starting to hire and that gives him some concern, as they seem to have plenty of money and they pay much better. He explained he knows a number of his staff have applications in with the federal agencies. Supervisor Flora inquired if there was any obligation to accept the money if you receive it and when was the deadline. Chief Lavinder advised the deadline is May 24, 2011 317 June 15, 2011; most of the paperwork is done, it is just a matter of putting in the number of officers and the amounts. Supervisor Flora inquired if there is any way staff can identify a certain number of applicants, new hires that could reduce the upfront costs; not give new equipment, etc and then after eighteen (18) months start looking at your turnover and start holding positions open that in three years, there could be five (5) slots already there. If the economy turns around on the other hand, then the Board could probably look then at increasing the actual number of officers. Mr. Goodman stated it is his understanding of the Cops Grant, that is what it is called, is that if you hire that individual, there is an expectation of continuation of employment for that individual. Chief Lavinder stated the way he understands how this grant works is you must designate three, four or five (3,4 or 5) slots, however the initial three -year period, you have to have a named person in that cops grant slot. No matter what happens within another unit within the Police Dept. that is not affected by this grant. Mr. Goodman asked what would happen if staff applied for six (6) and got six (6), but we hold them back for eighteen (18) months. Supervisor Flora explained he agreed, but sometimes you can and cannot afford to hire them on; now would not be the best time to hire six additional police officers. Mr. Goodman stated he feels the job of a police officer is getting much more complicated than the citizens may understand. It is very demanding, stressful, there is a lot of computer work, paperwork and takes more than just patrolling. If they arrest someone, they are tied up a whole shift. Chairman Church commented their job is a little more unique than that, they are one of the few people that can walk out the door in the morning and there is no guarantee that they will be coming back. Routinely, people are not shooting at our Fire and Rescue people, but they may with a Police officer. Mr. Goodman stated that is why we provide additional benefits in regard to retirement and line of duty and things of that nature to recognize that it is additional exposure. Supervisor Altizer inquired if the grant is received is the Department obligated to accept it or spend it with Chief Lavinder advising no. Supervisor Altizer then asked, if the Departments obtains the grant and personnel are not hired, does that harm the Department's chances in the future for additional grants or the Department receives it and then turns it down. Chief Lavinder responded that he is not certain and stated the Police Department has turned down grants in the past and that does not seem to affect the Department's ability to receive them. Mr. Goodman stated when the Chief was talking about the six positions that were funded in the middle of the year, there was no money budgeted for any of the equipment and things of that nature. We sat down in 2009 and discussed it. We made a decision not to kill the positions, but during the budget process for the current year, we try to add additional money. Mr. Goodman asked Mr. Robertson how much money we added to the operating budget for the Police Department. Mr. Robertson responded over a couple of years; approximately $300,000 has been added. Mr. Goodman 318 May 24, 2011 advised the Department is operating on a very tight budget and staff tries to recognize that to provide additional funds. Additionally, Mr. Goodman commented unfortunately, until the revenues change significantly and with other priorities there is a huge demand for the schools and other projects, we are not going to be able to greatly expand our level of service, because where we used to have five and eight percent (5 to 8 %) annual growth and revenues, we are looking at zero to two percent (0 to 2 %) now. Mr. Robertson advised staff had budgeted just under two percent (2 %) growth for next year. Mr. Goodman explained most of that growth was $1 million for the Department of Social Services. If you remove that million dollars, and $350,000 for the Sheriff's office, the end result is in the range of one percent (1 %) growth and with one percent (1 %) growth it is going to be extremely difficult for the Board or the County to really look at expanding any kind of service unless we eliminate something else that we would consider less priority. Supervisor Altizer commented Roanoke County is eating $180,000 that the State put back on the County this year in the line of duty. He commented he understands where Supervisor Flora is coming from, if you hire the people and you have a vacant position to swap them out, there is no net and no gain. Mr. Goodman advised the issue is the ability to expand services with the revenues that the County has and hopefully, we are seeing some things in a three - month trend that appears to indicate it might be going up, but we did not want to recommend additional revenues based on a three -month trend if we were not sure for revenue growth that was sustainable. We are still continuing to monitor. He then asked Mr. Robertson if he had noticed any changes since their last discussion. Mr. Robertson stated he feels it has been fairly constant over the last several months; however Mr. Driver is still seeing what he considers erosion of the value of what houses are selling for now. A lot of the meals tax and sales are holding constant, which gives us room for optimism, but still a short trend. Mr. Altizer stated this is a dilemma, everyone knows there is a need, but he is just afraid to go out on a limb and end up committing and then have to cut people loose or the vacancies are not there. He stated he understands the human nature of the Chief's position in thinking this way. As people are lost, new employees will need to be trained and go through the academy, which takes approximately nine months. Chief Lavinder advised it takes at least nine months. Supervisor Altizer stated so when you take that and throw it into the mix, going out there and he can see where the need would be and the thought would be we just need to keep people in the pike, keep rolling the dice and hope that the time when the bill comes due we have that many positions. Mr. Goodman stated he thinks they have addressed some of that with the over hires; and asked Chief Lavinder how this was working. Chief Lavinder responded you are never fully staffed. He stated he saw some numbers in the newspaper that are not actually right, but thinks Roanoke County is down a little bit more than was quoted in the newspaper a few weeks ago. We are looking probably in the fall academy to hire about ten people, but with the over hires we have to find money within the budget. May 24, 2011 319 Supervisor Altizer stated it is a continuing evolution of being behind. It is the same way at the regional jail; every police academy there is seven to eight people every time. He stated he understands the principal of where you can get caught up in really justifying in your mind not filling the position and trying to roll the dice. He explained he is not advocating this is the prudent thing to do, but at the end of the day, and with four years to pay that bill, he would much rather look at it on a year to year basis and see what the revenues and everything come up to and then do it. Supervisor Moore stated she thinks the thing to do would be wait, she understands that the department always needs officers and can never catch up. She stated she thinks with the economy picking up and with new businesses coming within the next year, hopefully taxes will increase and the economy will get better and the Board can take another look at it. That way, there is no obligation. Supervisor Flora stated the whole thing may be academic, given the number of positions there are nationwide and the needs in the urban areas, we could make application for two and get nothing. There are not that many slots available. Mr. Church advised it was the consensus of the Board to decline and instructed Mr. Goodman to put the Police Department in a higher line for the future. Before the next work session began, Mr. Mahoney briefed the Board on a Green Ridge safety inspection which he, Don Karnes, Risk Manager; Daniel O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator and representatives from VACO participated in. Everything was looked at including processes and procedures, equipment. Everything appeared good and ready to go for the Memorial Day opening. Roanoke County has had a lot of claims out at Green Ridge, nothing major. We wanted to work with Staff there so that everything was safe for our citizens. Mr. O'Donnell advised that staff is very safety conscious and have done a very good job with risk management. Chairman Church advised that he had also been out there for approximately an hour on Sunday and had a good discussion with Matt Henke and staff. Mr. Mahoney advised that Green Ridge was ready for another successful season. 2. Work session to discuss an ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code Chapter 13. "Offenses — Miscellaneous ", Article I. "In General ", Section 13 -4. "Discharge of firearms, air guns, etc., generally" by the addition of a new section numbered 13 -4.1. "Discharge of firearms near dwellings" (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney) This work session was held from 5:30 p.m. until 5:54 p.m. Mr. Mahoney outlined the background associated with this proposed ordinance. He detailed over the last decade, the General Assembly has placed restrictions on local governments with regard to firearms, which was included in the materials provided to the Board in the agenda packet. He indicated he and Mr. Church had been approached by a citizen who expressed concerns about people who are hunting in close proximity to his home; 320 May 24, 2011 indicating that he lived in the Masons Cove area. After discussion with Chairman Church, he had prepared the ordinance to address the problem of people discharging firearms or hunting in close proximity to people's homes. At the Board meeting on May 10 there was a first reading and the Board requested a work session before the second reading. Chairman Church stated this does not prohibit anyone from shooting on their own property and public roads come under the same distance restrictions, one hundred (100) yards, three hundred (300) feet. He stated he does not think any of the Board is against gun rights, as he is not. Supervisor Moore inquired how close this person was to the residence, with Chairman Church responding the citizen did not provide him with an exact number but he stated "well less than one hundred (100) yards ". Supervisor Moore then asked how this ordinance would be enforced. Chairman Church stated it would be just like any other ordinance, a phone call to the Police Department. It would be like any other ordinance that was being violated. Supervisor Moore then inquired if the citizen heard the gun or did he see the person with Chairman Church responding he saw the person. Mr. Mahoney stated enforcement is a problem and it is like any other ordinance Roanoke County has, there are two situations. If he knows the person, he could go to a magistrate and convince the magistrate to issue a warrant. The second approach is if you do not know who it is, you do not want to go out and confront the person. If you do call the police, probably by the time they show up the person is long gone. Enforcement will be problematic and will have to be observed by the officer, just like any other ordinance. Supervisor Altizer then inquired if he wanted to target practice on his property, but if his son comes over and pulls out a gun and starts targeting with him is he breaking the law? Chairman Church responded that the Board had discussed adding giving permission or consent by the homeowner. Supervisor Altizer then stated this ordinance pertains only to people who are discharging a firearm without permission from the property owner that they are on. Supervisor Flora stated unless you have a dwelling within one hundred (100) yards of where you are shooting. Mr. Mahoney stated he does not think the Board would want him to go in the back of his yard in Penn Forrest discharging firearms. Supervisor Altizer stated no, but there are other rules and regulations that take that into consideration. For example, if he is looking at a acre of land and he can do something in his backyard because he is not within a hundred (100) yards of a public road, but if he reads the ordinance right, you can shoot within a hundred (100) yards of a house if you are on your own property and with what you are saying now, if he gives permission to my son or whomever, they are exempt from this. Virtually, all you have that you are creating an ordinance for is a person who is on a piece of property that does not have permission to be there to fire a firearm. Supervisor Flora stated he is coming from "it shall be unlawful for any person to engage in hunting with a firearm or to May 24, 2011 321 discharge a firearm within one hundred (100) yards of a dwelling, house or occupied building not his or her own." Supervisor Altizer stated if he has a piece of property that is ten (10) acres and he is shooting in one direction and there is nobody for five (5) miles, but his lot is only one hundred and fifty feet wide, and if there is a house on the other side of that and he is firing away from that house, is he in violation or not? Mr. Mahoney stated the way the ordinance is drafted he would be in violation. Supervisor Altizer stated what if he is flushing a rabid fox out of my backyard. Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Moore stated if you live in an area where houses are close together and one house is a hunter and the other house has five kids and they are out playing and it is hunting season, she could potentially see a problem. Supervisor Flora stated he is looking at Section 15.2.1209, and there are some exceptions. Mr. Mahoney stated there are limitations and qualifications with respect to the two enabling statutes. Mr. Flora proceeded to read the code and asked if this ordinance was adopted would it only apply for property with less than five (5) acres? Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Moore stated it would only pertain to where the house is located. For example, if you live on five or six acres and the neighbor could be two hundred feet beside you so even if you shoot out the back, it is still in violation because the property is less than three hundred (300) feet. Mr. Mahoney stated Supervisor Moore was correct, but thinks we have the same issue with respect to the prohibition of being within one hundred yards of a public road, public school. He stated he thinks the Board is raising very serious and legitimate issues, however the police department is going to have problems attempting to enforce, but at the same time whether you are within a hundred yards of a house, school, park, road, I think we have that same kind of interpretation problems. Chief Lavinder advised this is not an issue Supervisor Altizer stated he guessed this was the issue as it relates to himself. It appears from the Chief's response that in Roanoke County most people discharge firearms in a safe manner. The State laws that we have now are doing everything in subdivisions, he stated he thinks encompassing the rural areas will prohibit some people from utilizing their land or do some of the things they are doing now safely. He explained the concern he has is we are going to breach over somehow and take some property rights from people, even though the argument can be made that the State has already done that in a subdivision, but from a safety standpoint. Chairman Church responded that he has been against more government all his life with Supervisor Altizer stating it was no reflection on his bringing the issue forward. Chairman Church asked how many laws were on the books that are trouble to enforce, maybe one hundred, but does that mean we do not put in an ordinance that could protect two or three children playing on a swing set, all it would take is one time and he understands where the Chief is coming from, but what if the call is a fatality. Mr. Mahoney stated currently under State law, if he fires into an occupied dwelling, is that a class 11 felony. Chief Lavinder responded it is a felony. Chairman Church stated he is 322 May 24, 2011 not trying to invent government; he is trying to put something in an ordinance that will perhaps save a life. Supervisor Altizer responded it is a legitimate request; it is just a balancing act of what we can do and how we affect different people. He stated he does not know that the Board could ever adopt any law that is going to adapt to every situation. He stated he is of the opinion that we are affecting more good people with this than we are people who are being reckless with a firearm. Supervisor Flora asked if this ordinance is intended to be County wide with Mr. Mahoney responding in the affirmation. Supervisor Flora stated but the first paragraph of the legislation states in any area of the county, which in the opinion of the Board of Supervisors is so heavily populated as to make such conduct dangerous to the inhabitants thereof, however Catawba Valley, Bent Mountain and parts of Back Creek and Mt. Pleasant are extremely rural. Mr. Mahoney stated as County attorney, he could argue within the sound discretion of the governing body. Supervisor Moore stated in looking into the future she knows that more people are moving into more rural areas as the urban areas are becoming overpopulated and people are moving out and she thinks as that happens we are going to have more children running around, more people walking in the woods and site seeing and bird hunters and all kinds of things. She stated she lives on six (6) acres and she loves to target shoot and does not know if her neighbor is 300 feet, but thinks we can never be too cautious and looking into the future and trying to address this now. She further stated she does not want to take away hunters or shooters rights but thinks we can never be too protective of everyone and we need to do that so she does not have a problem with changing this ordinance. Supervisor Flora stated he recognizes the dilemma, but certainly hates to put a hardship on people. He is trying to find middle ground. If staff could actually identify the areas that are densely populated, but then it would be impossible for the Police Department to enforce it. They would have to know the demographic of every section of the County. Chairman Church stated that is the same with any ordinance. Supervisor Flora suggested that the Board should obtain Supervisor Elswick's opinion on this matter. 3. Work session to review the funding recommendation for Line of Duty (Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance) The work session was held from 5:55 p.m. until 6:06 p.m. Ms Owens reviewed the material in the agenda packet with the Board and stated there were several options. Ms. Owens explained each option and outlined the self- insured workers compensation component. Ms. Owens stated at this point in time the VACoRP option would be advantageous because of the self- funding component, it is self- funding, an intergovernmental contract and protects against "coming up with the funds" for the reserve level. Ms. Owens also indicated she has surveyed other localities and May 24, 2011 323 explained the results of the survey. She advised that staff is recommending opting out of VRS and going with VACoRP. Additionally, she advised this should be evaluated on an annual basis to move toward the goal of self- insuring and had been put on the agenda for tonight's Board meeting. Supervisor Flora stated the reason the workers compensation piece comes into play is that they have the records and can predict what could happen down the road. It was the consensus of the Board to move forward with the staff recommendation. IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION At 7:00 p.m., Chairman Church moved to return to open session and adopt the certification resolution. RESOLUTION 052411 -7 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, Flora, Church NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick 324 May 24, 2011 IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of congratulations to the William Byrd Girls Swim Team 200 Medley Relay for winning the 2011 VHSL State Group AA Championship Supervisors Altizer and Flora joined Chairman Church on the floor to congratulate the Team. In attendance for this recognition were Allen W. Journell, Deputy Superintendent of Roanoke County Schools; Coach Krista Martin; and the entire team. All Supervisors congratulated the team. RESOLUTION 052411 -8 OF CONGRATULATIONS TO THE WILLIAM BYRD GIRLS SWIM TEAM 200 MEDLEY RELAY FOR WINNING THE 2011 VHSL STATE GROUP AA CHAMPIONSHIP WHEREAS, team sports are an important part of the curriculum at schools in Roanoke County teaching cooperation, sportsmanship and athletic skill; and WHEREAS, the William Byrd High School Girls Swim Team 200 Medley Relay won the 2011 Virginia High School League (VHSL) State Group A/AA Championship on February 26, 2011, in Christiansburg, Virginia with a time of 1:49.44, setting a new school record; and WHEREAS, State Champion Kacy Edsall also won the 100 Backstroke with a time of 57.37, breaking her own school record; and WHEREAS, the Lady Terriers are coached by Krista Martin. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia does hereby extend its sincere congratulations to the members of the WILLIAM BYRD HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS SWIM TEAM 200 MEDLEY RELAY: Kacy Edsall, Kali Edsall, Courtney Heck and Annie Lane; for winning the 2011 VHSL State Group AA Championship; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors extends its best wishes to the members of the team, the coaches and the school in their future endeavors. On the joint motion of Supervisors Altizer and Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES May 24, 2011 325 1. Ordinance to amend the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance (John Murphy, Zoning Administrator) Mr. Murphy explained the need to amend the ordinance and the items amended. There were no changes from the first reading. No citizens spoke and there was no discussion. ORDINANCE 052411 -9 AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE WHEREAS, in June 2009, the Planning Commission and Community Development staff identified several areas of the zoning ordinance to review and update dealing with, but not limited to: parking and parking structures, solar energy systems, private roads, fuel centers, religious assembly, home occupations, accessory apartments, private stables, multiple dog permits, temporary family health care structures, conditional zoning, enforcement procedures, nonconforming uses, broadcasting towers and the board of zoning appeals including reducing the appeal period for certain use violations; and WHEREAS, on April 5, 2011, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on various amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and recommended said amendments to the Board of Supervisors for adoption; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 2011, the Board of Supervisors held a work session on said amendments; and WHEREAS, public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice are valid public purposes for such recommendations by the Planning Commission and action by the Board of Supervisors; and, WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 10, 2011, and the second reading and public hearing was held on May 24, 2011. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County as follows: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read and provide as follows: ARTICLE I — GENERAL PROVISIONS SEC. 30 -15. CONDITIONAL ZONING; GENERALLY. Sec. 30 -15 -4. Amendments and Variations of Conditions. (B) There shall be no amendment or variation of conditions created pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance until after a public hearing by the commission and board advertised pursuant to the provisions of section 15.2 -2204 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. However, where an amendment does not affect conditions of use or density, a local governing 326 May 24, 2011 body may waive the requirement for a public hearing. The cost of all public advertisements shall be the responsibility of the applicant. SEC. 30 -21. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES. (B) Property owners, permit applicants, and /or establishment owners /managers, as applicable, shall be notified in writing via certified mail of violations of the provisions of this ordinance. The administrator shall, in the notice of violation, state the nature of the violation, the date that it was observed, and the remedy or remedies necessary to correct the violation. The administrator may establish a reasonable time period for the correction of the violation, however in no case shall such time period exceed thirty (30) days from the date of the delivery, mailing or posting of the notice, except that the administrator may allow a longer time period to correct the violation if the correction would require the structural alteration of a building or structure. (C) If the administrator is not able to obtain compliance with these provisions in accordance with the procedures outlined above, civil and /or criminal procedures may be initiated in accordance with county law. SEC. 30 -23. NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES; GENERALLY. Sec. 30 -23 -2. Nonconforming Uses of Buildings, Structures or Land. (1) If a non - conforming residential or commercial building or structure is damaged or destroyed by a natural disaster or other act of God, such building or structure may be repaired, rebuilt or replaced to eliminate or reduce the non - conforming features to the extent possible without the need to obtain a variance. If such building or structure is damaged greater than 50% and cannot be repaired, rebuilt or replaced except to restore it to its original non - conforming condition, then the owner shall have the right to do so. The owner shall apply for a building permit and any work done to repair, rebuild or replace such building or structure shall be in compliance with the Uniform Statewide Building Code and the County's floodplain regulations. Unless such building or structure is repaired, rebuilt or replaced within two years of the date of natural disaster or other act of God, such building or structure shall only be repaired, rebuilt or replaced in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance. If the non - conforming building is in an area under federal disaster declaration and it has been damaged or destroyed as of a direct result of conditions that gave rise to the declaration, then the owner shall have an additional two years to repair, rebuild or replace the building or structure. SEC. 30 -24. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS. Sec. 30 -24 -1. Powers and Duties. (B) The BZA shall have the power and duty to authorize upon appeal or original application in specific cases a variance from the terms of this ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, when, owing to May 24, 2011 327 special conditions a literal enforcement of this ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship. No such variance shall be granted unless the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. To legally grant a variance, the BZA must be presented evidence and make a finding that: 3. That the granting of the variance will alleviate a clearly demonstrable hardship as distinguished from a special privilege or convenience sought by the applicant. Sec. 30 -24 -2. Applications for Variances. (B) The BZA shall not consider substantially the same request for one (1) year, unless it is the subject of a motion to re -hear. Sec. 30 -24 -3. Applications for Appeals. (A) Appeals to the BZA may be taken by any person aggrieved or by an officer, department, board, or bureau of the county affected by any decision of the administrator, or from any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by any other administrative officer in the administration or enforcement of this ordinance. Appeals must be made within thirty (30) days after the entry of the decision appealed from by filing with the administrator and with the BZA, a notice of appeal, specifying the grounds thereof. (B) An appeal period of ten (10) days may be made for a notice of violation involving temporary or seasonal commercial uses, parking of commercial trucks in residential zoning districts, maximum occupancy limitations of a residential dwelling unit, or similar short -term, recurring violations. (C) The administrator shall forthwith transmit to the BZA all of the papers constituting the record upon which the action appealed from was taken. An appeal shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from unless the administrator certifies to the BZA that by reason of facts stated in the certificate a stay would cause imminent peril to life or property. In such cases, proceedings shall not be stayed unless a restraining order is granted by the BZA, or by a court of record, on application and on notice to the administrator and for good cause shown. ARTICLE II — DEFINITIONS AND USE TYPES SEC. 30-28. DEFINITIONS. (C) For the purposes of this ordinance, the words and phrases listed below in this section shall have the meanings described below. Act of God: A natural event, not preventable by any human agency, such as flood, storms, or lightning. Forces of nature that no one has control over, and therefore cannot be held accountable. Alley: An open way that affords a service (i.e. garbage collection, delivery, mail) means of access to an abutting property, which allows homeowner or property owner use /access, but is not maintained by any local, state or federal government. 328 May 24, 2011 Buffer, riparian: A natural vegetated area left undisturbed or an established vegetated area, adjacent to the bank of a watercourse, through which stormwater runoff flows in a diffuse manner so that the runoff does not become channelized and which provides for infiltration of the runoff and filtering out sediment and other nonpoint source pollutants from runoff before it reaches a watercourse. Disaster. Any (i) man -made disaster including any condition following an attack by any enemy or foreign nation upon the United States resulting in substantial damage of property or injury to persons in the United States and may be by use of bombs, missiles, shell fire, nuclear, radiological, chemical, or biological means or other weapons or by overt paramilitary actions; terrorism, foreign and domestic; also any industrial, nuclear, or transportation accident, explosion, conflagration, power failure resource shortage, or other condition such as sabotage, oils spills, and other injurious environmental contaminations that threaten or cause damage to property, human suffering, hardship, or loss of life; and (ii) any natural disaster including any hurricane, tornado, storm, flood, high water, wind - driven water, tidal wave, earthquake, drought, fire, communicable disease of public health threat, or other natural catastrophe resulting in damage, hardship, suffering, or possible loss of life. Identification sign: A permanent sign displaying only the name of a subdivision, multifamily housing project, shopping center, industrial park, office park, church, school, public or quasi - public facility or similar use type. Lighting plan: A plan showing the location, height above grade, type of illumination, type of fixture, the source lumens, and the luminous area for each source of light proposed. Parking area: An area provided for the temporary parking of operable motor vehicles and bicycles, including any related aisles, parking spaces, ingress and egress lanes, turning and maneuvering areas, private garages, incorporated landscaped areas, and similar features meeting the requirements established by section 30 -91 but not including any part of a public right -of -way or public street. Parking, off - street: Spaces on premises rather than on the street for the temporary parking of one (1) or more operable motor vehicles and bicycles conforming to the parking area standards of section 30 -91. Parking structure: A structure, or portion thereof, composed of one (1) or more levels or floors used for the temporary parking of operable motor vehicles and which may include other permitted uses. A parking structure may be totally below grade (as in an underground parking garage) or either partially or totally above grade with those levels being either open or enclosed. For purposes of this definition, a parking structure includes a building for a standalone parking facility use or a structure for parking which is accessory to a permitted principal use. Pasture: An area covered with grass or other plants used or suitable for grazing by horses or ponies. Recreational vehicle: A vehicle which can be towed, hauled or driven, designed and used as temporary living accommodations for recreational, camping or travel uses May 24, 2011 329 only. Recreational vehicles shall include travel trailers, pick -up campers, motor homes, tent trailers or similar devices used for temporary mobile housing, boats and personal watercraft. Solar collector. Any device used to collect direct sunlight for use in the heating or cooling of a structure, domestic hot water, swimming pool or for the generation of electricity. Solar energy: Refers to radiant energy (direct, diffuse, and reflected) received from the sun. Solar energy system: Any solar collector or other solar energy device along with its ancillary equipment whose primary purpose is to provide for the collection, storage, and distribution of solar energy for space heating, space cooling, electric generation or water heating. Temporary family health care structure. A transportable residential structure, providing an environment facilitating a caregiver's provision of care for a mentally or physically impaired person, that (i) is primarily assembled at a location other than its site of installation, (ii) is limited to one occupant who shall be the mentally or physically impaired person, (iii) has no more than 300 gross square feet, and (iv) complies with applicable provisions of the Industrialized Building Safety Law and the Uniform Statewide Building Code. Underground structure: A structure that is entirely or the majority of the structure is below grade. Undeveloped land: Land in its natural state before development. SEC. 30 -29. USE TYPES; GENERALLY. Definitions. Fuel center. Any building, structure, or land used for the dispensing, sale or offering for sale at retail of any vehicle fuels, oils or accessories. This use can be a standalone business or accessory to another business. Outdoor gathering: Any temporary organized gathering expected to attract five hundred (500) or more people at one time in open spaces outside an enclosed structure. Included in this use type would be music festivals, church revivals, carnivals and fairs, and similar transient amusement and recreational activities not otherwise listed in this section. Such activities held in public parks, university campuses or on public school property shall not be included within this use type. Parking facility: Use of a site for surface parking or a parking structure unrelated to a specific use which provides one or more parking spaces together with driveways, aisles, turning and maneuvering areas, incorporated landscaped areas, and similar features meeting the requirements established by this ordinance. This use shall not include a parking structure accessory to a permitted principal use, such as a private garage in a residential or agricultural district. Restaurant, drive -in or fast food: An establishment primarily engaged in the preparation of food and beverages, for either take -out, delivery or table service, served 330 May 24, 2011 at a counter, a drive -up or drive through service facility or by curb service. Typical uses include drive -in or fast food restaurants or coffee shops. Scrap and salvage services: Places of business primarily engaged in the storage, sale, dismantling or other processing of uses or waste materials which are not intended for reuse in their original forms. Typical uses include towing services, paper and metal salvage yards, automotive wrecking yards, junk yards, used tire storage yards, or retail and /or wholesale sales of used automobile parts and supplies. ARTICLE III — DISTRICT REGULATIONS SEC. 30 -36. AV AGRICULTURAL/VILLAGE CENTER DISTRICT. Sec. 30 -36 -2. Permitted Uses. (B) The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to section 30 -19. An asterisk ( *) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. 4. Commercial Uses Fuel Center* SEC. 30 -41. R -1 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Sec. 30 -41 -2. Permitted Uses. (A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk ( *) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. 1. Agricultural and Forestry Uses Stable, Private* 2. Residential Uses Accessory Apartment* Multiple Dog Permit* 3. Civic Uses 4. Miscellaneous Uses (B) The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to section 30 -19. An asterisk ( *) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. 1. Residential Uses 2. Civic Uses 3. Commercial Uses SEC. 30 -42. R -2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Sec. 30 -42 -2. Permitted Uses. (A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk ( *) indicates May 24, 2011 331 additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. 1. Residential Uses Multiple Dog Permit* (B) The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to section 30 -19. An asterisk ( *) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. 1. Residential Use SEC. 30 -47. PRD PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. Sec. 30 -47 -2. Permitted Uses. (A) The following uses are permitted in the planned residential development district. However, no use shall be permitted except in conformity with the uses specifically included in the final master plan approved pursuant to section 30 -47 -5. An asterisk ( *) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. 4. Commercial Uses Fuel Center* Sec. 30 -47 -3. Site Development Regulations. (A) Each planned residential development shall be subject to the following site development standards. 9. Streets in the PRD district may be public in accordance with VDOT and county standards or may be private in accordance with the private road standards specified in the Roanoke County Design Handbook. In reviewing the PRD preliminary master plan, the commission may recommend, and the board may approve, one or more private streets within the proposed district. SEC. 30 -51. NC NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. Sec. 30 -51 -2. Permitted Uses. (B) The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to section 30 -19. An asterisk ( *) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. 1. Commercial Uses Fuel Center* SEC. 30 -53. C -1 OFFICE DISTRICT. Sec. 30 -53 -3. Site Development Regulations. General standards. For additional, modified, or more stringent standards for specific uses, see article IV, use and design standards. (B) Minimum setback requirements. 332 May 24, 2011 2. Side yard: None. SEC. 30 -54. C -2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. Sec. 30 -54 -2. Permitted Uses. (A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk ( *) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. 4. Commercial Uses Fuel Center* SEC. 30 -57. PCD PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. Sec. 30 -57 -3. Site Development Regulations. (A) Each planned commercial development shall be subject to the following site development standards: 5. Public streets in the PCD district shall be built in accordance with VDOT and Roanoke County standards. In reviewing the PCD preliminary master plan, the commission may recommend, and the board may approve, one or more private streets within the proposed district. Private residential streets in the PCD district shall be built in accordance with the private road standards specified in the Roanoke County Design Handbook. Construction details for private residential streets shall be submitted with the PCD preliminary master plan. Sec. 30 -57 -7. Revisions to Final Master Plan. (B) All other changes in the final master plan shall be considered minor amendments. The administrator, upon receipt of a written request of the owner, may approve such minor amendments. 1. If the administrator fails to act on a request for a minor amendment to the master plan within 30 calendar days, it shall be considered approved. SEC. 30 -58. CVOD CLEARBROOK VILLAGE OVERLAY DISTRICT. Sec. 30 -58 -4. Permitted Uses and Use Restrictions. (B) Unless prohibited in 30- 58 -4(A) a special use permit shall be required for all uses listed as a special use in the underlying zoning district. In addition, the following uses shall require a special use permit within the Clearbrook village overlay district. An asterisk ( *) indicates additional, modified, or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. 2. Commercial Uses Fuel Center* SEC. 30 -61. 1 -1 LOW INTENSITY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Sec. 30 -61 -2. Permitted Uses. May 24, 2011 333 (A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk ( *) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. 6. Miscellaneous Uses Parking Facility* SEC. 30 -62. 1 -2 HIGH INTENSITY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. Sec. 30 -62 -2. Permitted Uses. (A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to all other applicable requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk ( *) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. 6. Miscellaneous Uses Parking Facility* (B) The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to section 30 -19. An asterisk ( *) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. 2. Commercial Uses Fuel Center* SEC. 30 -63. PTD PLANNED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. Sec. 30 -63 -3. Site Development Regulations. (A) Each planned technological development shall be subject to the following site development standards: 5. Public streets in the PTD district shall be built in accordance with VDOT and Roanoke County standards. In reviewing the PTD preliminary master plan, the commission may recommend, and the board may approve, one or more private streets within the proposed district. Private residential streets in the PTD district shall be built in accordance with the private road standards specified in the Roanoke County Design Handbook. Construction details for private residential streets shall be submitted with the PTD preliminary master plan. Sec. 30 -63 -7. Revisions to Final Master Plan. (B) All other changes in the final master plan shall be considered minor amendments. The administrator, upon receipt of a written request of the owner, may approve such minor amendments. 1. If the administrator fails to act on a request for a minor amendment to the master plan within 30 calendar days, it shall be considered approved. SEC. 30 -71. EP EXPLORE PARK DISTRICT. Sec. 30 -71 -3. Permitted Uses. 334 May 24, 2011 (D) The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to section 30 -19. An asterisk ( *) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific uses. 1. Miscellaneous Uses Broadcasting Tower* ARTICLE IV — USE AND DESIGN STANDARDS SEC. 30 -81. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY USES. Sec. 30 -81 -5. Stable, Private. (A) General standards: 1. Minimum lot size: Two (2) acres. 2. A private stable shall be permitted only when accessory to a single - family dwelling. 3. No more than one (1) horse or pony shall be permitted for every two (2) acres of pasture area. 4. Stables, corrals, and other confined areas shall be setback at least 50 feet from any property line. For the purpose of this section, perimeter fencing of a yard shall not be considered a confined area. 5. Private stables shall prepare and follow a management plan for responsible and environmentally safe management of all animal wastes. Such plan shall be approved, when required by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water. Animal waste shall not create a nuisance or health hazard to adjoining property owners. 6. A plot plan shall be required showing the location of the single - family dwelling, the location of the required horse or pony shelter, the location and type of fencing, and the acreage of pasture. 7. A special use permit shall be required on lots less than five (5) acres in an R -1 zoning district. SEC. 30 -82. RESIDENTIAL USES. Sec. 30 -82 -1. Accessory Apartments. (A) Intent. Accessory apartments afford an opportunity for the development of small dwelling units designed to meet the special housing needs of persons with fixed or limited income, and relatives of families who live or desire to live in the county. Accessory apartments provide a degree of flexibility for home owners with changing economic conditions and /or family structure, while providing a reasonable degree of protection for existing property values. In addition, these provisions are provided to formally recognize previously established apartments and provide for improved safety and physical appearance. (B) General standards: May 24, 2011 335 1. An accessory apartment shall be permitted by right as an accessory use to a detached single family residence. 2. An accessory apartment may be located in a structure other than the principal structure on the lot if a special use permit has been obtained by the property owner. 3. Maximum floor area: Upon completion of the construction, the accessory apartment shall not contain more than fifty (50) percent of the finished floor area of the principal dwelling unit located on the same lot, but in no case shall the accessory apartment exceed 1,000 square feet. 4. Only one accessory apartment shall be allowed on any one lot or parcel, and the owner of the property shall reside on the premises. 5. Exterior entrances to an apartment in a principal structure shall be located so as to appear as a single family dwelling. 6. Minimum floor area of the apartment: Three hundred (300) square feet. 7. One parking space shall be required in addition to required parking for the principal dwelling and no separate driveway shall be permitted except as otherwise permitted in the subsections below. 8. Health Department approval of sewage disposal shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit for an accessory apartment. (C) Additional standards in the AG -3 and AG -1 districts: 1. An accessory apartment may be permitted by right in a building other than the principal building provided: a. The parcel contains a minimum of three (3) acres. b. The building in which it is located complies with all applicable zoning requirements for a principal building. (D) Additional standards in the AV, AR and residentially zoned districts: 1. A detached accessory apartment may be permitted in a building other than the principal building with a special use permit provided: a. The parcel meets the minimum lot size requirement of the zoning district it is located in. b. The accessory building shall comply with all applicable zoning requirements for a principal building. c. A separate driveway shall be permitted for a detached accessory apartment on parcels larger than two (2) acres. (E) General standards in the C -1 and C -2 districts, independent of the general standards above: Sec. 30 -82 -3. Home Occupations, Type I and Type II. (B) General standards: 336 May 24, 2011 3. There shall be no outside storage of goods, products, equipment, or other materials inconsistent with a residential use associated with the home occupation. No toxic, explosive, flammable, radioactive, or other hazardous materials used in conjunction with the home occupation shall be used, sold, or stored on the site. The sale of firearms as a home occupation shall be prohibited. 4. There shall be no sale of goods or products not produced on the premises except for an individual representative for cosmetics or crafts for offsite events. 6. Deliveries related to the home occupation shall be limited to the United States Postal Service, parcel delivery services, and messenger services. The commercial delivery by tractor trailer of materials or products to or from the premises shall be prohibited. (C) Additional standards for all Type I home occupations: 8. No advertising through local media, including telephone books, flyers, and the internet shall call attention to the residential address of the home occupation. Sec. 30 -82 -4. Multiple Dog Permit. (A) General standards: 4. A special use permit shall be required on lots less than five (5) acres in an R -1 or R -2 zoning district. Sec. 30 -82 -9. Manufactured Home Park. (H) Streets and walkways: 1. Private streets shall be allowed within a manufactured home park and shall be constructed in accordance with the private road standards specified in the Roanoke County Design Handbook. 2. Manufactured home lots not served by a public or private street may be served by a walkway, trail or bikeway, provided such pathway serves the front, rear, or side of the manufactured home lot. Each pathway shall be constructed of a hard - surface, or gravel material, and shall have a minimum width of three (3) feet. Sec. 30 -82 -13.1. Single Family Dwelling, Attached and Detached (Cluster Subdivision Option). (F) Street and access requirements. 1. All residential lots within a cluster subdivision shall have frontage on and access to a publicly dedicated or maintained street or a private street constructed in accordance with the private road standards specified in the Roanoke County Design Handbook. Sec. 30- 82 -14. Townhouses. (B) General standards: May 24, 2011 337 9. If utilized, private roads shall be constructed in accordance with the private road standards specified in the Roanoke County Design Handbook. Sec. 30- 82 -16. Temporary Portable Storage Containers. (B) General standards: 7. Temporary portable storage containers cannot be located in the floodway or floodplain overlay district without meeting the standards in section 30 -74, as amended. 8. Temporary portable storage containers shall be permitted on a lot for a period not to exceed thirty (30) consecutive days within a six (6) month period. For extensive construction projects a written extension may be granted by the zoning administrator. 9. Maximum cumulative size of temporary portable storage containers on a property shall not exceed one hundred thirty (130) square feet. 10. There is a limit of one (1) portable temporary storage container per lot. 11. A zoning permit shall be required to be obtained prior to the placement of a temporary portable storage container by the department of community development with sufficient information, as determined by the zoning administrator, to determine compliance with all applicable regulations such as: a. Size of container b. Location c. Delivery date d. Removal date e. Purpose of container f. Container provider contact information SEC. 30 -83. CIVIC USES. Sec. 30 -83 -3. Community Recreation. (A) General standards: 1. Any parking lot, outdoor activity area, swimming pool, or ball field or court which adjoins a residential use type shall be landscaped with one row of small evergreen trees in accordance with section 30 -92 along the property line adjoining the residential use type. Where night -time lighting of such areas is proposed, large evergreen trees shall be required. Sec. 30 -83 -5. Educational Facilities. (A) General standards: 1. Any parking lot, outdoor activity area, ball field or court, or stadium which adjoins a residential use type shall be landscaped with one row of small evergreen trees in accordance with section 30 -92 along the property line adjoining the residential use type. Where night -time 338 May 24, 2011 lighting of such areas is proposed large evergreen trees shall be required. (C) In residential districts, the maximum building coverage shall be 40 percent and the maximum lot coverage shall be 60 percent of the total lot area. Sec. 30 -83 -7. Park and Ride Facility. (A) General standards: 2. Park and ride facilities shall comply with the parking facility standards listed in section 30 -87 -4. Sec. 30 -83 -9. Religious Assembly. (B) In residential districts, the maximum building coverage shall be 40 percent and the maximum lot coverage shall be 60 percent of the total lot area. (C) In the AG -3, AG -1 and AR districts, the maximum building coverage shall be thirty 30 percent and the maximum lot coverage shall be fifty (50) percent of the total lot area. (D) In the AG -3, AG -1, AR, and R -1 districts a special use permit shall not be required for the expansion of an existing use provided all of the following conditions are met: a. The total gross floor area of the expansion itself does not exceed 15,000 square feet; and b. The gross floor area of the expansion is not more than two hundred (200) percent of the existing gross floor area; and c. The expansion does not include a principal worship area expansion of more than fifty (50) percent of the existing permanent seating. All other expansions must obtain a special use permit. (E) Additional standards in the C -2 district: 1. All new religious assembly uses require a special use permit. 2. Expansions of existing uses are permitted by right. SEC. 30 -84. OFFICE USES. Sec. 30 -84 -3. Financial Institutions. (A) General standards: 1. All drive - through windows shall conform to the standards for drive - through facilities contained in section 30 -91 -6. SEC. 30 -85. COMMERCIAL USES. Sec. 30 -85 -3. Automobile Dealership, New. (A) General standards: 1. Outdoor display areas in conjunction with automobile sales shall be constructed of the same materials required for off - street parking areas as required in section 30- 91 -4.3, parking area surface standards. Sec. 30 -85 -4. Automobile Dealership, Used. (A) General standards: May 24, 2011 339 1. Outdoor display areas in conjunction with automobile sales shall be constructed of the same materials required for off - street parking areas as required in section 30- 91 -4.3, parking area surface standards. Sec. 30 -85 -14.5. Fuel Center. (A) General standards: 1. Bulk storage of fuel shall be underground pursuant to the standards established by the National Fire Prevention Association (NFPA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2. Fuel dispensers shall be located at least 30 feet from any public street right -of -way, and shall be located at least 100 feet from any adjoining residential use type. 3. When adjoining a residential use type, a Type C buffer yard in accordance with section 30 -92 shall be provided along the property line which adjoins the residential use type. Sec. 30- 85 -16. Gasoline Station. (A) General standards: 2. Fuel dispensers shall be located at least 30 feet from any public street right -of -way, and shall be located at least 100 feet from any adjoining residential use type. 3. When adjoining a residential use type, a Type C buffer yard in accordance with section 30 -92 shall be provided along the property line which adjoins the residential use type. (B) Additional standards in the AV and NC districts: Sec. 30- 85 -24. Restaurant, Drive -In or Fast Food. (A) General standards: 2. A special use permit shall not be required for any fast food restaurant that is located within a shopping center (excluding outparcels) that provides delivery service but does not propose drive -in or curb service. SEC. 30 -87. MISCELLANEOUS USES. Sec. 30 -87 -3. Outdoor Gatherings. (A) General standards: 2. In addition, a detailed plan shall be submitted of all facilities to be provided in accordance with the following guidelines: e. Any lighting installed for the gathering shall be directed away from adjoining properties and public rights -of -way, and shall not exceed one -half (0.5) foot candle measured at the property boundary of the site. Sec. 30 -87 -4. Parking Facility. (A) General standards: 2. Structured parking facilities shall comply with section 30- 91 -4.5, parking structures. 340 May 24, 2011 SEC. 30 -88. ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES. Sec. 30 -88 -2. Accessory Uses: Residential Use Types. (A) Residential use types may include the following accessory uses, activities or structures on the same site or lot: 9.Temporary family health care structures in accordance with section 15.2- 2292.1 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. ARTICLE V — DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. SEC. 30 -90. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS. Sec. 30 -90 -1. Information Required. 11. Off-street parking areas and parking spaces including handicapped spaces, loading spaces, shopping cart corrals, and walkways indicating type of surfacing, size, angle of stalls, width of aisles, and a specific schedule showing the number of spaces provided and the number required by this ordinance. SEC. 30 -91. OFF STREET PARKING, STACKING AND LOADING. Sec. 30- 91 -2.2. Recreational Vehicle and Commercial Vehicle Parking. (A) In the AR district and in all residential districts: 1. Except for vehicles parked within multi - family developments all utility trailers and recreational vehicles, shall be parked behind the front building line, unless space is provided in a completely enclosed garage or other building. For the purposes of this section only, a corner lot that fronts on two (2) streets shall have only one (1) front building line in accordance with section 30- 100 -7. In the case of a unique house configuration the zoning administrator shall determine the parking location for the recreation vehicle, based on having no interference on sight distance in accordance with section 30- 100 -8. Sec. 30- 91 -3.2. Spaces for Disabled Parking. (A) Generally, the number of parking spaces reserved for the disabled, except for single- and two - family dwellings, shall comply with the following table and shall count toward the minimum number of off - street parking spaces reauired. Total Off - Street Parking Required Parking for Disabled Required 1 to 25 1 26 to 50 2 51 to 75 3 76 to 100 4 101 to 150 5 151 to 200 6 201 to 300 7 301 to 400 8 401 to 500 9 May 24, 2011 341 501 to 1,000 2 percent of total 1,001 and over 20 plus 1 for each 100 over 1,000 (B) Disabled parking aisle and space dimensions shall comply with the current edition of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. Sec. 30- 91 -3.3. Minimum Parkina Required. (E) Commercial Use Types Equipment Sales and Rental See Schedule A Fuel Center 1 space per employee, plus required stacking space Funeral Home 1 space per 4 seats in main chapel, plus 1 space per 2 employees, plus 1 space per company vehicle Sec. 30- 91 -3.4. Maximum Off - Street Parking. Sec. 30- 91 -3.5. Shared Parking. Sec. 30- 91 -4.5. Parking Structures. (A) General standards: 1. Parking structures shall be subject to the minimum yard, setback and height requirements applicable in the zoning district in which the structure is located, except for below grade parking structures. 2. All parking structures with at least one wall facade exceeding 100 feet in length shall incorporate vertical or horizontal variation in setback, material, or fenestration along the length of facades visible from a public right -of -way. (B) Access and Circulation standards: 1. Parking spaces and aisles shall conform to the standards set forth in the Roanoke County Design Handbook. 2. Parking spaces, aisles, approach lanes and maneuvering areas shall be clearly marked with directional arrows and signage to ensure the safe and efficient flow of vehicles. (C) Lighting: 1. Parking, access and pedestrian areas shall have adequate illumination for security and safety, and shall comply with section 30 -94, exterior lighting. 2. Exterior lighting fixtures shall be energy efficient with standards and fixtures (poles, vertical supports) not exceeding a height of 15 feet measured from the surface of the parking area. (D) Landscaping: 1. Landscaping for parking structures shall be provided in all yards pursuant to perimeter landscaping requirements for surface parking areas. However, where the location of such structure with respect to 342 May 24, 2011 property boundaries and adjacent structures will substantially inhibit the growth of required trees, such trees may be located along another perimeter of the site in a manner approved by the administrator. 2. Parking structures shall not be required to provide planting islands or landscaped medians within the parking structure. 3. A minimum of five (5) percent of the area of the top level of a parking structure must be permanently landscaped where the top level of the structure has a four (4) foot or less vertical distance from street grade or is directly accessible from the street. 4. Top level landscaping shall consist mainly of evergreen planting material, such as groundcover and small shrubs, and may include large pots that have a minimum diameter of three (3) feet measured from the inside of the planter and a minimum height of three (3) feet. 5. Parking structures located entirely below grade shall incorporate the required perimeter landscaping into the overall landscaping plan for the site and shall be designed to have adequate soil depth above the parking structure to ensure healthy tree and landscape growth. Sec. 30- 91 -5.1. Bicycle Parking Standards. Sec. 30- 91 -5.2. Motorcycle Parking Standards. Sec. 30- 91 -5.3. Mass Transit Options. SEC. 30 -92. SCREENING, LANDSCAPING, AND BUFFER YARDS. Sec. 30 -92 -6. Applicability of Regulations and Requirements. (F) Additional screening requirements: 1. All refuse service (dumpsters /containers) and outdoor storage areas in all zoning districts shall be screened from surrounding views per section 30 -92 -5 and as shown in the Roanoke County Design Handbook. Height of screening must be a minimum of six (6) feet. 2. Ground level and roof top mechanical equipment shall be screened or landscaped per section 30 -92 -5 and as shown in the Roanoke County Design Handbook. SEC. 30 -100. MISCELLANEOUS. Sec. 30- 100 -2. Yard, Setback, Coverage, and Height Requirements. (E) A structure that is entirely below grade (underground) shall be exempt from the minimum setback requirements of that zoning district. In the case of a unique setback for a partially underground structure, the administrator shall determine the setback for the structure based on having no interference on sight distance with section 30- 100 -8. Portions of an underground structure which are below grade shall not be counted when calculating lot or building coverage. Sec. 30- 100 -13. Solar Energy Systems. (A) The purpose of this regulation is to promote the safe, effective and efficient use of solar energy systems installed to reduce the on -site May 24, 2011 343 consumption of utility supplied energy and /or hot water while protecting the health, safety and welfare of adjacent and surrounding land uses. (B) Solar energy systems are permitted in any zoning district and may be installed upon receipt of the necessary permit(s) from the County and subject to the following use and design standards: 1. General standards: a. The design of the solar energy system shall conform to applicable industry standards. b. A solar energy system shall provide power for the principal use and /or accessory use of the property on which the solar energy system is located and shall not be used for the generation of power for the sale or donation of energy to others, although this provision shall not be interpreted to prohibit net metering. c. A solar energy system connected to the utility grid shall provide written authorization from the local utility company acknowledging and approving such connection. d. All mechanical equipment associated with the operation of a solar energy system shall be considered ground level equipment and shall be screened from any adjacent property per section 30 -92 -5. e. Solar collectors shall be placed such that concentrated solar radiation or glare shall not be directed onto nearby properties or roadways. f. If a solar energy system is abandoned or is in a state of disrepair it shall be the responsibility of the property owner to remove or repair the solar energy system. 2. Roof - Mounted Solar Energy Systems: a. A roof - mounted system may be mounted on a principal building or an accessory building. b. A roof - mounted system shall not exceed the maximum building height for the type of building (principal or accessory) it is mounted to based on the underlying zoning district; and shall not be more than three (3) feet higher than the finished roof to which it is mounted. In no instance shall any part of the solar energy system extend beyond the edge of the roof. c. The minimum roof - mounted system setback shall be equivalent to the principal structure or accessory structure setback requirements of the underlying zoning district. 3. Ground - Mounted and Pole- Mounted Solar Energy Systems: a. A ground- or pole- mounted system shall conform to the accessory structure setbacks of the underlying zoning district; and shall not exceed 15 feet in total height. 344 May 24, 2011 b. The surface area of a ground- or pole- mounted system, regardless of the mounted angle, shall be calculated as part of the overall lot coverage. The surface area of a ground- mounted system shall not constitute more than ten (10) percent of the allowable lot coverage or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. c. All exterior electrical lines from a ground- or pole- mounted system to any building or other structure shall be located underground. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Elswick IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Flora announced the Planning Department is working on the Peters Creek/Hollins Plan and the third meeting will be held on Thursday, May 26, 2011 at the Burlington Elementary School at 6:30 p.m. in the Cafeteria. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Church adjourned the meeting at 7:17 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: Deborah C.'J&ks Joseph B. "Butch" Church Clerk to the Board Chairman