HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/14/2011 - RegularJune 14, 2011 345
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday and the first
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of June 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, Eddie
"Ed" Elswick and Richard C. Flora
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
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 J. Barton Weakley of Northview
United Methodist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Chairman Church added the following under Second Reading of
Ordinances: 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 ".
Mr. Goodman added the following under Closed Meeting: Section
2.2.3711.A.5. Discussion concerning a prospective business or industry or the
expansion of an existing business or industry where no previous announcement has
346 June 14, 2011
been made of the business' or industry's interest in locating or expanding its facilities in
the County.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Recognition of J. Barton Weakley, Chaplain for the Roanoke
County Fire and Rescue Department (Richard E. Burch, Jr., Chief
of Fire and Rescue)
In attendance for this recognition were Chief Richard E. Burch, Jr.,
Division Chief Todd Maxey and Fire Marshal Brian Simmons. Chaplain Weakley
advised he was leaving for a new congregation. All Supervisors thanked Reverend
Weakley for his service and congratulated him on his new location.
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
1. Roanoke County Fire and Rescue chosen to participate in a
Statewide study on Volunteer Recruitment and Sustainability
(Richard E. Burch, Jr., Chief of Fire and Rescue)
In attendance for this briefing were Chief Richard E. Burch, Jr., Volunteer
Fire Chief Woody Henderson, Volunteer Firefighter Becky Ayers and Jennifer Sexton,
Volunteer /Marketing Coordinator. Chief Burch explained this study is the first of its kind
throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia, and will be used on a national level. Based
on the information gleaned, a "model volunteer" will be formed. Ms. Sexton remarked
that the resources available are tremendous and they will be blanketing the County with
materials. Ms. Ayers stated it was an honor to be chosen and will be utilizing social
media; Facebook and Twitter. Supervisor Moore expressed good luck and what an
honor it was to be chosen. Supervisor Altizer remarked he has already seen the
promotional materials in Vinton. He stated he feels this will be a beneficial program.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING
1. Public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding proposed
amendments to the fiscal year 2010 -2011 budget in accordance
with Section 15.2 -2507, Code of Virginia (W. Brent Robertson,
Director of Management and Budget)
No citizens spoke on this item.
June 14, 2011 347
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Request to accept and appropriate additional State revenues in
the amount of $100,000 to the Sheriff's Office for fiscal year 2010-
2011 budget (W. Brent Robertson, Director of Management and
Budget)
I_Qli *ElIIaI
Mr. Robertson outlined the request and noted Sheriff Winston and Major
Poff were in attendance to answer any questions. Supervisor Elswick questioned why
the County was receiving an additional $100,000 from the State that was not
anticipated.
Mr. Robertson explained the County normally takes a very conservative
approach and advised it has been this way for approximately ten or twelve (10 or 12)
years. Staff thought it was likely the County would receive these monies because the
expenditures are contingent upon the prisoner population which triggers food, hospital
costs, medical, etc. At the end of the year, when staff is sure of what the numbers will
be the Board is asked to appropriate the final funds to make the Sheriff's budget whole
by year end. Supervisor Elswick stated it sounds like a budget under run instead of
more money from the State. Mr. Robertson replied it is a conservative budget estimate
in the beginning. Supervisor Elswick stated are they taking the under run from one year
and putting into the next. Mr. Robertson explained it is based on this year's collections.
We have adjusted the Sheriff's expenditure budget based on this year's number and do
not expect this will occur again unless some significant changes happen along the way
in State reimbursements or in the prisoner population, which probably will not occur
because the local jail is almost maxed out. Supervisor Elswick stated he guessed he
read it wrong, the way he read it implies the County is getting more money from the
State than anticipated Mr. Robertson stated it is additional State revenues beyond the
current budget amount.
Supervisor Altizer stated in dealing with the State, it is better to be
conservative when expecting reimbursements. Fortunately, he commented this year
the governor and General Assembly put more funds in and from a per diem standpoint
they generally hold back the per diem and do not pay the last three to four months of
what is due. This is understandable how it happens; you have to be very conservative
when you are dealing with the State. Roanoke County is fortunate to be receiving
money back and not having the fourth quarter cut.
Chairman Church recognized and thanked Sheriff Winston and Major Poff
for their service.
Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the staff recommendation. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
348 June 14, 2011
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
2. Request to appropriate $26,759,448 for the renovation of Cave
Spring Middle School from school capital reserves and future
Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) bond proceeds (Rebecca
Owens, Director of Finance)
A- 061411 -2
Ms. Owens outlined the request and noted the following were in
attendance from the Roanoke County Schools: Chairman of the School Board, David
M. Wymer; Vice Chairman H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix; Dr. Larraine S. Lange, School
Superintendent; Penny A. Hodge, Assistant Superintendent of Finance and Dr. Martin
Misicko, Director of Operations.
Mr. Minnix stated they are grateful for the Board of Supervisor's
assistance in the past. He reiterated Cave Spring Middle School is over fifty (50) years
old and are hoping to have the new school finished in one year. The new school will be
a cutting -edge facility. Mr. Wymer thanked the leadership of both Boards for the
arrangements for capital. He indicated the new school would be more energy efficient
and have additional, much needed space for education. Dr. Lange commended the
Board of Supervisors and the School Board on the revenue sharing process, which
enables schools such as Mason's Cove, Cave Spring Middle School and are looking
forward to Glenvar in the future to be built.
Supervisor Elswick remarked the building will be geo- thermal and built by
a local contractor. He also noted it would not be a Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) project, but a lot of the design will meet those
qualifications. He then asked if the County had borrowed enough money to pay for this
rather than being obligated for an additional bond issue; or in the capital reserves. Ms.
Owens responded there would be a ten ($10) million dollar Virginia Public School
Association (VPSA) bond scheduled for later this year and next year. Supervisor
Elswick asked if there was enough money in the bank to pay for right now with Ms.
Hodge responding there is currently $16.8 million cash in the bank and that the project
was built around the funding timeline. She further noted this was the end of the cash
reserve, which was a planned depletion and no funds were borrowed.
Supervisor Flora explained in the 2004 agreement, in addition to allowing
for some of the year -end money to roll -over into major and minor capital, the Board also
agreed to set aside $300,000 each for future debt service payment. He indicated
enough funds have been set aside to cover the debt service for these ten million ($10)
dollars. Accordingly, he commented no additional funds will be needed to make the
debt service payment. He further clarified it is not paid for, but the process has already
taken place to allow for it to be paid.
June 14, 2011 349
Chairman Church explained both Boards had laid the foundation for this to
become a reality, which has become a model for other localities. Supervisor Moore
complimented the schools for a job well done.
Supervisor Moore moved to approve the staff recommendation. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
3. Request to adopt a resolution declaring intent to reimburse
expenditures for renovations to Cave Spring Middle School from
future Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) bond proceeds
(Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance)
Ms. Owens outlined the request to adopt the resolution and advised the
School Board had adopted a similar resolution on June 9, 2011. There was no
discussion.
RESOLUTION 061411 -3 OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, DECLARING ITS
INTENTION TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FROM THE PROCEEDS
OF A FINANCING FOR CERTAIN COSTS OF RENOVATIONS OF
CAVE SPRING MIDDLE SCHOOL
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the "County ") have
determined that it may be necessary or desirable to advance money to pay the costs
associated with the renovation of Cave Spring Middle School (the "Project ").
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows:
1. The Board of Supervisors adopts this declaration of official intent under
Treasury Regulations Section 1.150 -2.
2. The Board of Supervisors reasonably expects to reimburse advances made or
to be made by the School Board to pay the costs of designing, acquiring, constructing,
and equipping the Project from the proceeds of its debt or other financing. The
maximum amount of debt or other financing expected to be issued for the designing,
acquiring, constructing and equipping the Project is $10,000,000.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
350 June 14, 2011
NAYS: None
4. Request to adopt a resolution to opt out of the Virginia Retirement
System (VRS) Line of Duty Fund and authorize an agreement with
VACoRP to group self -fund Line of Duty (Rebecca Owens,
Director of Finance)
Ms. Owens explained the request for resolution. Supervisor Moore
inquired if staff was opting to do the fully insured plan with Ms. Owens explaining the
terminology has changes, but reiterated this is a fully insured plan. Supervisor Moore
then asked which deductible option staff was recommending with Ms. Owens
responding they are recommending the no deductible option.
Supervisor Altizer stated this program has been in effect for forty -five (45)
years. He stated he had spoken with a group of citizens in the Town of Vinton, East
County, probably three weeks ago and they asked what his biggest fear is. He stated
his biggest fear is the Virginia General Assembly. This item is something that has been
taken care of by the State, implemented for the State for forty -five (45) years and they
can pass a budget and feel good about it, but yet pass this kind of cost along to local
government to balance their budget and they continue to balance the budget on the
back of localities. Roanoke County is going to do the right thing; continue to offer the
services that our public safety people need. He further reiterated these are important
issues and need to be addressed; at some point in time, there needs to be a real budget
balancing.
Chairman Church indicated that this Board has been totally unified on the
stance that Supervisor Altizer indicated; each year more and more mandates are being
unfunded. He stated the Board would continue to fight.
RESOLUTION 061411 -4 ELECTING IRREVOCABLY NOT TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE LINE OF DUTY ACT FUND WITH
VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYSTEM (VRS)
WHEREAS, pursuant to Item 258 of the Appropriations Act, paragraph B, the
Virginia General Assembly has established the Line of Duty Act Fund (the "Fund ") for
the payment of benefits prescribed by and administered under the Line of Duty Act (Va.
Code § 9.1 -400 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, for purposes of administration of the Fund, a political subdivision
with covered employees (including volunteers pursuant to paragraph B2 of Item 258 of
the Appropriations Act) may make an irrevocable election on or before July 1, 2012, to
be deemed a non - participating employer fully responsible for self- funding all benefits
relating to its past and present covered employees under the Line of Duty Act from its
own funds; and
June 14, 2011 351
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the County of Roanoke to make this irrevocable
election to be a non - participating employer with respect to the Fund.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the County of Roanoke
hereby elects to be deemed a non - participating employer fully responsible for self -
funding all benefits relating to its past and present covered employees /volunteers under
the Line of Duty Act from its own funds; and it is further
RESOLVED that the following entities, County of Roanoke employees and all
volunteer organizations to include Vinton Fire Company, Vinton First Aid Crew, Cave
Spring Fire Company, Cave Spring First Aid and Rescue Squad, Catawba Fire
Company, Catawba - Masons Cove Rescue Squad, Hollins Fire and Rescue Company,
Mount Pleasant Fire Company, Bent Mountain Fire Company, Bent Mountain First Aid
and Rescue Squad, Fort Lewis Fire Company, Back Creek Fire Company, and Read
Mountain Fire /Rescue Company to the best of the knowledge of the County of
Roanoke, constitute the population of its past and present covered employees under the
Line of Duty Act; and it is further to the best of the knowledge of the County of Roanoke,
constitute the population of its past and present covered employees under the Line of
Duty Act; and it is further
RESOLVED that, as a non - participating employer, the County of Roanoke
agrees that it will be responsible for, and reimburse the State Comptroller for, all Line of
Duty Act benefit payments (relating to existing, pending or prospective claims) approved
and made by the State Comptroller on behalf of the County of Roanoke on or after July
1, 2010; and it is further
RESOLVED that, as a non - participating employer, the County of Roanoke
agrees that it will reimburse the State Comptroller an amount representing reasonable
costs incurred and associated, directly and indirectly, with the administration,
management and investment of the Fund; and it is further
RESOLVED that the County of Roanoke shall reimburse the State Comptroller
on no more than a monthly basis from documentation provided to it from the State
Comptroller.
RESOLVED that this resolution is in full force and effect from and after July 1,
2011.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
352 June 14, 2011
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance authorizing the granting of a fifteen (15) foot utility
easement to Appalachian Power (AEP) on property owned by the
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors (Tax Map No. 027.10 -02-
19.00) for the purpose of an underground electric power line to
Waldron Park, Hollins Magisterial District (Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney explained this is the first reading to grant a fifteen (15) foot
underground easement for Waldron Park. There was no discussion. Supervisor Flora
moved to approve the first reading and schedule the second reading and public hearing
for June 28, 2011.
2. Ordinance authorizing the purchase of approximately 1.24 acres
of real estate (Tax Map Nos. 60.16 -8 -3 and 4) from Taz Wade, Inc.
for library purposes and appropriation of $415,000 from the Major
Capital Fund, Vinton Magisterial District (B. Clayton Goodman III,
County Administrator)
Mr. Goodman explained the purchase of this property along with the
Dunman property is being considered for a future Vinton Library for the east Roanoke
County area. He outlined there are three separate actions. He explained the due
diligence has been done, including a Phase I environmental study and there were
additional requests for further studies. A preliminary report has been received and with
regard to the contaminants and concerns identified in the environmental Phase I, after
the additional work, there are no further recommendations needed for soil or ground
water contamination at the subject property. Additionally, staff looked at the existing
building for potential mold and asbestos issues. There are some minor mold and
asbestos issues, but at the time spot remediation is not recommended. In regard to the
asbestos, it will need to be addressed in the future, if and when staff moves forward with
the building and to possibly demolish the structure. Finally, the geological subservice of
the site was looked at and staff has been advised there were some areas reported that
did provide some concerns, but nothing major was found that would be a "no
recommendation" for development.
Supervisor Altizer stated when looking at Library sites, there were only two
available in this area. He commented this library is in the capital plan at some point.
He explained this is long -term thinking, not just a library but about other issues with
revitalization, getting new business into the Town. Once the library is built it will be a
big plus for downtown revitalization and will create an environment in which the Town
and the County would want from a tax base standpoint and adding one quarter of a
million people in downtown Vinton a year for the businesses that exist there and future
June 14, 2011 353
businesses that will come.
Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the first reading and scheduled the
second reading and public hearing for June 28, 2011.
3. Ordinance authorizing the purchase of approximately 0.761 acre
of real estate (Tax Map Nos. 60.13 -8 -1 and 2) from B. Wayne
Dunman and Rebecca J. Dunman for library purposes, Vinton
Magisterial District (B. Clayton Goodman III, County
Administrator)
Mr. Goodman advised this was the second parcel being considered for the
future Vinton Library. There was no discussion. Supervisor Altizer moved to approve
the first reading and scheduled the second reading and public hearing for June 28,
2011.
4. Ordinance authorizing the lease to B. Wayne Dunman and
Rebecca J. Dunman t/a Dunman Floral Supply, Inc. for one (1)
year (plus option to extend for two (2) one -year periods) of
commercial property located at 304 Pollard Street, Vinton, Virginia
(B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator)
Mr. Goodman explained that this lease back to the former owners was
brought forth as the building of the library is several years down the road. There was no
discussion. Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the first reading and scheduled the
second reading and public hearing for June 28, 2011.
IN RE: SECOND 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 and appropriation of $100,000 for the 2010-
2011 fiscal year (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined that this was the second reading of this ordinance
which is an attempt to provide guidance to staff to implement the constitutional
amendment. He advised Ms. Horn, Commissioner of the Revenue, was in attendance
to answer any questions the Board might have. He indicated the only change from the
first reading was the addition on page four (4) of the draft ordinance, Section D, the
addition of clarification or broadening with regard to the primary residence of the
veteran. He advised several other states had included this language and thought it was
a good item.
354 June 14, 2011
Supervisor Altizer asked with regard to the change, under this
circumstance this is geared towards the veteran who lives in a house owned by the
spouse, but not the veteran who qualifies. Under this circumstance, if the veteran was
the wife and they were to separate, does this make dual properties that would be
available for this with Mr. Mahoney responding in the negative.
Supervisor Flora stated that this ordinance makes some assumptions that
further down the road staff may find are too generous and could the ordinance be
changed at a later date. Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative and stated he
anticipated the General Assembly to revisit their legislation in 2012 and he fully expects
to be back before the Board in a year to adjust the ordinance.
ORDINANCE 061411 -5 AMENDING CHAPTER 21. TAXATION,
ARTICLE III. REAL ESTATE TAXES, DIVISION 3. EXEMPTION
FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSON TO PROVIDE
EXEMPTIONS FOR DISABLED VETERANS, AND
APPROPRIATION OF $100,000 FOR THE 2010 -2011 FISCAL
YEAR
WHEREAS, at the November 2010 referendum, the voters in the
Commonwealth of Virginia approved a Constitutional amendment exempting from real
property taxation the principal place of residence of any veteran with a one hundred
percent (100 %) service - connected, permanent and total disability; and
WHEREAS, the 2011 session of the Virginia General Assembly adopted
Sections 58.1- 3219.5 and 58.1- 3219.6 to implement the provisions of this Constitutional
amendment; and
WHEREAS, this legislation fails to address various administrative matters for the
local administration of this real property tax exemption; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County intends to provide
guidance and direction to the County employees in the implementation of this
Constitutional amendment by the adoption of this ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 24, 2011, and the
second reading was held on June 14, 2011.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County as follows:
1. That the Roanoke County Code be amended to read and provide as
follows:
ARTICLE III. REAL ESTATE TAXES
DIVISION 3. EXEMPTION FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED PERSONS,
DISABLED VETERANS
Sec. 21 -71. - Administration of division.
June 14, 2011 355
(a) The commissioner of the revenue, with the approval of the board of supervisors,
shall develop such rules and regulations, consistent with the provisions of this division,
as are determined necessary for the proper administration of this division.
(b) This division shall be construed to allow county personnel administering the
program provided for herein all authority granted to the county by section 58.1 -3210 of
the Code of Virginia.
(c) This division shall be construed to allow county personnel administering the
program provided for herein all authority granted to the county by sections 58.1- 3219.5
and 58.1- 3219.6 of the Code of Virginia.
Sec. 21 -72. - Authorized.
(a) The commissioner of the revenue shall, upon application made and within the
limits provided in this division, grant an exemption of the tax on real property occupied
as the sole dwelling house of a person holding title or partial title thereto who is not less
than sixty -five (65) years of age or totally and permanently disabled. A dwelling unit
jointly owned by a husband and wife may qualify, if either spouse is over sixty -five (65)
years of age or is permanently and totally disabled.
(b) The commissioner of the revenue shall, upon application made and within the
limits provided in this division and Section 21 -81, grant an exemption of 100% of the tax
on real property occupied as the sole dwelling house and principal place of residence of
a disabled veteran holding title or partial title thereto. A surviving spouse of a veteran
eligible for this exemption shall also qualify for the exemption so long as the death of the
veteran occurs on or after January 1, 2011, the surviving spouse does not remarry and
the surviving spouse continues to occupy the real property as his or her principal place
of residence.
Sec. 21 -73. - General prerequisites to grant.
Exemptions provided for in this division shall be granted only if the following conditions
are met:
(1) That the total combined income, during the immediately preceding calendar year,
from all sources, of the owner of the dwelling and his relatives living therein did not
exceed fifty six thousand five hundred sixty -six dollars ($56,566.00); provided, however,
that the first ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) of income of each relative, other than the
spouse of the owner, who is living in the dwelling shall not be included in such total.
(2) That the owner and his spouse did not have a total combined net worth, including
all equitable interests, exceeding one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000.00) as of
December 31 of the immediately preceding calendar year. The amount of net worth
specified herein shall not include the value of the sole dwelling house and up to one (1)
acre of land.
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above if a person qualifies for an exemption and
if that person can prove by clear and convincing evidence that his or her physical or
mental health has deteriorated to the point that the only alternative to permanently
residing in a hospital, nursing home, convalescent home or other facility or physical or
mental care is to have a relative move in and provide care for that person, and if a
356 June 14, 2011
relative does then move in for that purpose, then none of the income of the relative or of
the relatives spouse shall be counted towards the income limit, provided the owner of
the residence has not transferred assets in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00)
without adequate consideration within a three -year period prior to or after the relative
moves into such residence.
(4) For disabled veterans, see Section 21 -81.
[SECTIONS NOT CHANGED LEFT OUT]
Sec. 21 -77. - Amount of exemption.
(a) The amount of the exemption provided for in this division is that portion of the tax
which represents an increase in tax liability since the year the taxpayer reached age
sixty -five (65) years or became disabled or the year ordinances authorizing the
exemption became effective, whichever is later. The tax exemption for the elderly
became effective, for those who reached age sixty -five (65) on or before December 31,
1974, in 1974. The tax exemption for those who became totally and permanently
disabled on or before December 31, 1977, became effective for the 1977 tax year.
(b) Disabled veterans are exempt from all real property taxes on the qualifying
dwelling and land not exceeding one acre.
[SECTIONS NOT CHANGED LEFT OUT]
Section 21 -81. — Property tax exemption for qualifying disabled veterans.
A. The principal place of residence is the place at which a person's habitation is
fixed and to which that person, when absent, has the intention of returning.
(1) A person can have only one principal place of residence.
(2) If the veteran is confined to a hospital, nursing home or assisted living
facility, the real estate can still be considered the veteran's principle of residence
if:
(a) It is occupied by the veteran's spouse or minor child,
(b) It is not rented or leased to third parties, or
(c) The property is unoccupied.
B. A principal place of residence includes the following:
(1) The dwelling, the dwelling site, the surrounding land, not exceeding 1 acre
and related improvements located on the 1 acre of real estate, such as garages,
carports, storage buildings, swimming pools, tennis courts, and similar non-
agricultural facilities.
(2) The dwelling may be a single - family residence, a unit in a multi - family
complex, a condominium, a unit in a cooperative housing project or a
manufactured home.
C. The principal place of residence does not include land on which agricultural
facilities such as barns, pig pens, corrals; bunk houses, farm equipment, sheds and
other outdoor buildings are located.
D. To be eligible for the exemption:
(1) The real estate must be owned and occupied by a disabled veteran or an
unremarried surviving spouse.
June 14, 2011 357
(a) The veteran's ownership of the property can be limited to a
fractional, joint, or life estate interest. If the veteran owns a multiple dwelling unit
property, the exemption will only be granted to the unit occupied by the veteran
as his or her primary residence.
(b) The veteran's real estate may be owned by a trust, corporate
partnership, or other legal entity and the veteran will meet the ownership
requirement if each of the following items is true: 1) the veteran or spouse is a
maker of the trust or a principal of the corporate partnership or legal entity, 2) the
property was transferred solely for estate planning purposes, and 3) the veteran
or spouse would otherwise be the owner of record.
(c) Property held in a grantor trust, established by the IRS code, by a
disabled veteran or the veteran's surviving spouse can also be exempt from the
property tax providing the property meets all other requirements for exemption.
The power to revoke the trust, terminate (the trust or any conveyance of property
to the trust), alter or amend the trust itself, or appoint a new trustee must be
present.
(2) If the veteran's spouse is an owner and the veteran is not, the veteran can
meet the ownership requirement if the couple was married on or before January
1 and both have occupied the property as their primary residence since January
1.
E. A "disabled veteran" is an individual who:
(1) Has been honorably discharged from membership in the armed forces of
the United States or has received a discharge certificate from a branch of the
armed forces of the United States for civilian service recognized pursuant to
federal law as service in the armed forces of the United States; and
(2) Has been rated by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs or its
successor agency pursuant to federal law to have a 100 percent service -
connected, permanent, and total disability, or
(3) Has a determination of Individual Unemployability from the Veterans
Administration.
(a) Individual Unemployability is a part of VA's disability compensation
program that allows VA to pay certain veterans compensation at the 100%
rate, even though VA has not rated their service- connected disabilities at
the total level.
(b) With a determination of Individual Unemployability, a veteran must be
unable to maintain substantially gainful employment as a result of his /her
service - connected disabilities.
(4) "Honorably Discharged" means discharged from the armed forces pursuant to
a discharge other than a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge.
F. Claims for exemption
(1) The deadline for filing claims for a disabled veteran's exemption is
between January 1 and March 31 of the tax year for which the exemption is requested.
358 June 14, 2011
(2) For the 2011 calendar tax year claims for exemption may be filed up to
December 31, 2011 for a full 100% of the exemption.
(3) Claims for exemption and refunds of real estate taxes previously paid may
be retroactive to the effective date of the rating determination by the United States
Department of Veteran Affairs or its successor agency if the claim is filed with the
commissioner of the revenue within thirty (30) days of the receipt by the applicant of the
rating determination.
2. That the sum of $100,000 be appropriated from the General Fund
Unappropriated Balance for the 2010 -2011 fiscal year, in order to cover the credit for
the first half of the 2011 real estate tax bill, which is due June 5, 2011. Funds needed to
cover the credit in future years will be included in the adopted budget ordinance for that
year.
3. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage.
On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
2. 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"
Chairman Church explained this item was brought forward from a citizen
to address an issue with a citizen discharging a firearm close to his home. The State
code has a law, which has been on the books for many years and prohibits shooting a
firearm within three hundred (300) feet of a public road. There is no intention to do
anything to restrict gun rights, just attempting to be sure a child or family is not
unknowingly or recklessly injured.
Mr. Mahoney indicated there was a request from a citizen to try to address
an issue with respect to hunting or discharging firearms within a close proximity to an
occupied dwelling. After looking at the State code and trying to look at some of the
enabling legislation that is included there, staff tried to put together a draft ordinance
that would meet the concerns of the citizen. During the work session, there were
several questions raised, one of which specifically dealt with (refer to page 2 of the
ordinance under subsection (a) a property owner and if the owner gave permission to
someone else, i.e. friend, neighbor, relative to allow that person to hunt or discharge a
firearm within one hundred (100) yards of that occupied dwelling. The draft ordinance
June 14, 2011 359
was then amended from the first reading to incorporate that possibility. There are some
questions with respect to the authority or enabling legislation of this draft ordinance and
as indicated to the Board, Roanoke County already has within its County Code
provisions that address discharging firearms within one hundred (100) yards of a road
or street or secondary highway within a hundred (100) yards of a County park or County
school, so the Board would be expanding this reach to occupied dwellings in attempting
to utilize the State - enabling legislation dealing with heavy populated areas to use that
as support, justification or authority for this proposed ordinance.
Chairman Church stated simply put the Board is well aware there are
numerous ordinances in Roanoke County that can be called unenforceable. This is not
something new to clamp down on anybody. For example, a barking dog, which
happened recently in the Catawba district; just because it is the law, does not mean
people can be arrested immediately. Additionally, staff has found out that you must
have a documented complaint, someone swearing out a warrant and proof, etc. This is
just something to coincide with what the State already has an attempt to do whatever
the Board can to put it on the record.
Chairman Altizer stated in going back to the work session, does this
ordinance pertain to people that are on someone else's property without permission and
shooting within a hundred (100) yards or as an example, if he owns a ten acre track,
and he shoots or gives someone else permission to shoot, if there is a house within one
hundred (100) yards to his back property line, but shooting to the left of his property line,
would he be in violation of the ordinance. Mr. Mahoney stated if he is within one
hundred (100) yards of an occupied dwelling and it is not his property or you do not
have the owner's permission that would be in violation. Mr. Altizer then asked but what
if it was his property or he has given someone permission to, but if they are still
discharging a firearm within a hundred (100) yards, whether they are shooting towards
the dwelling or not, are they in violation. Mr. Mahoney responded if he is the neighbor
and it is his house and within one hundred (100) yards of his house, even if you are on
your property, he would suggest that this ordinance would state that is a violation of that
ordinance. He further clarified he could understand this ordinance if someone was on
the property without permission and shooting around, which is what he understands
happened to the citizen and anytime the Board can make it safe for shooting, it should,
however, on the other side of this and in looking at rural areas and according to the
Police Chief there is not a lot of this going on in the subdivisions, this will be effecting
people negatively in the rural areas that may be shooting to the left of their property, but
the way their property line is and if there is a house fifty (50) yards beyond their property
line and they are sitting in their backyard shooting in the opposite direction safely, then
they could be in violation and could be cited. Mr. Mahoney confirmed Supervisor Altizer
was correct.
Chairman Church asked how this would be proven, would it be the same
as any other ordinance, with Mr. Mahoney responding in the affirmative.
360 June 14, 2011
Citizen, May Beyer of 2402 Coachman Drive in LaBellvue stated he
attended the work session regarding this issue and it was his recollection it was quite
controversial and there were pro's and con's, most of which have been mentioned by
Supervisor Altizer and also in discussion with the County attorney. He stated what
concerns him is this item was not on the agenda, since that meeting he has had
discussion with other citizens and has overheard conversations. He stated he is here
alone and is sure others would be here and would let their feelings be known. He
stated he is concerned it was not on the agenda and does not know why this cannot be
delayed to give other citizens an opportunity to speak concerning this item. He asked
that the Board consider continuing this as only one citizen raised this issue and is not
sure that two weeks would make a big difference and asked if it could be continued to
give citizens an opportunity to speak. He added as it stands right now, he does not
have a copy of the ordinance because it was not in the extended agenda. He then
asked again that the Board reconsider and thanked the Chairman for giving him the
opportunity to speak about this, but he really thinks it should be continued over to the
next session.
Supervisor Elswick stated when he initially looked at this when it was first
proposed he thought the County really does not need more regulations, but then he
talked to a couple of citizens who have had issues with people shooting close to their
houses and what is practiced by himself and his neighbors is to never shoot if close to
somebody's house, an isolated area to shoot in is always found. He commented further
it is something expected in rural areas and he understands in a urban area there
certainly needs to be some control exercised but on the other hand, he can agree to
wait until the next meeting until more people have an opportunity to speak on it.
Supervisor Moore indicated she also feels it would be appropriate to wait
so that the Board can hear citizen's comments. She clarified she is a huge gun
advocate herself as she likes to target shoot; my son comes in from the Navy and he
likes to target shoot, but on the other hand, there are a lot of people in the more
populated areas moving to rural properties and rural areas and thinks everyone needs
to be more cautious. This ordinance may better define the property boundaries for both
the shooters and the non - shooters.
Chairman Church thanked Mr. Beyer for taking the time to address the
Board today and stated he does not see a problem with setting this ordinance aside for
two more weeks and in an era of transparency let anyone come and make it a public
hearing. Chairman Church instructed the Clerk to the Board to extend until June 28,
2011.
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
1. Roanoke County Community Leaders Environmental Action
Roundtable (RC CLEAR) (appointed by District)
June 14, 2011 361
Supervisor Altizer appointed Dawn Werness to fill the unexpired term of
Ruth Deibler representing the Vinton Magisterial District, which expires on August 31,
2013. Confirmation of this appointment was placed on the Consent Agenda.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
Supervisor Church requested the agenda item to Request to authorize an
agreement between Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton in the purchase of
approximately 0.71 acre of real estate (Tax Map Nos. 60.16 -8 -1 and 2) from B. Wayne
Dunman and Rebecca J. Dunman and approximately 1.24 acres of real estate (Tax
Map Nos. 60.16 -8 -3 and 4) from Taz Wade, Inc. for library purposes be removed from
the Consent Agenda to be addressed separately. There were no objections.
RESOLUTION 061411 -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 June 14,
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 8 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes — May 10, 2011
2. Request to accept and appropriate a grant in the amount of $7,950 from the
Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
3. Request to appropriate funds in the amount of $6,453.99 to the Roanoke
County Public Schools
4. Request to accept and appropriate $231,380 from the Department of Juvenile
Justice for the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA)
grant for the fiscal year 2010 -2011 and to allow participation by the City of
Salem
5. Request to accept and appropriate funds to the Fire and Rescue Department
from the former Mount Pleasant Volunteer First Aid Crew in the amount of
$38,033.87
6. Confirmation of 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
362 June 14, 2011
Commission — Metropolitan Planning Organization; Virginia Western
Community College Board; Western Virginia Water Authority
7. Request to approve a resolution for a wording change to the General Fund
Unappropriated Balance Policy to comply with the Governmental Accounting
Standards Board Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and
Governmental Fund Type Definitions
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, with the exception of
Item J -8, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: Request to authorize an agreement between Roanoke County and
the Town of Vinton in the purchase of approximately 0.71 acre of real
estate (Tax Map Nos. 60.16 -8 -1 and 2) from B. Wayne Dunman and
Rebecca J. Dunman and approximately 1.24 acres of real estate (Tax
Map Nos. 60.16 -8 -3 and 4) from Taz Wade, Inc. for library purposes
Chairman Church stated his reason for pulling this item is his concern with
the Substantive Provisions, number six, which states "If the County does not complete
the construction of a new library on this Property within ten (10) years of the date of this
Agreement, then the County will refund to the Town its portion of the purchase price of
the Property. The County and the Town may extend this date for completion upon
mutual written agreement. If the County decides at any time not to construct a library
on this Property, to sell the Property, or use the Property for a use other than a new
Vinton Branch library, all paid funds will be reimbursed to the Town within 90 days of
that decision." He stated this section is his only sticking point. He stated he feels staff
has been dealing in good faith with the Town of Vinton and their neighbors, but just
does not think it is financially responsible for the Board to commit to an exact timeframe.
He commented the Board has talked about this agreement in general in all of its
sessions and work sessions about hoping to build one in the near future, with the near
future being anywhere between ten and fifteen years. He then inquired of Mr. Goodman
how much money is involved with Mr. Goodman stating over $622,000, which is one
half of the purchase price. Chairman Church stated he thinks the Board is not being
good stewards if it allows a drop -dead date on this. He stated he thinks the intentions
and agreements and everything being done with the Town of Vinton is fine, it may well
be built, but for the Board to issue a document stating Roanoke County is going to be
liable for over one half a million dollars, in his estimation is not reasonable. Mr.
Goodman stated the reason it was in agreement was the fact that the Town in
discussions with County staff, there was discussion concerning the need for the Town's
June 14, 2011 363
contribution of up to half of the purchase price of the land to situate it in the downtown
Vinton area. The Town has seen it as an economic development incentive and they
would like for us to build the Library tomorrow, but staff has told them repeatedly it is not
possible, but is one of the concerns the Town Manager had relayed to him. In follow -up
discussions it was determined the library would be located in the Town, it would be a
significant economic incentive for the downtown area with over 260,000 some visits in
the current library, they would really hope the library would be built within ten years and
that is why they included item six in the agreement, hoping the County would move
forward sooner, but at least within ten years.
Supervisor Altizer stated if it were not for one thing, he would be right in
agreement with this; this was discussed during the first work session. It is an extra cost
to put a library downtown, but there are many, many benefits that will come from it, and
the thing that makes him not have any problem with this is that number one the Town is
paying half of the cost of that property, with absolutely no ownership in the property and
thinks over a ten -year commitment is reasonable and probably if the roles were
reversed, the Board would probably be asking for some kind of commitment. He stated
he believes this is a reasonable request.
Supervisor Elswick stated he does not recall the Board during work
sessions putting time frames into the agreement and it says the Town's participation is
predicated on the County building a new library within seven years of the date of this
agreement; he does not remember the Board talking about that. He further commented
that it seems to him that library building is very important, and he is a fan of libraries, but
any new library the County is committing to build ought to be based on what the library
representatives and the citizens who work with the library administration outline is the
next library priority wise. It there is a library in a part of the County that is falling down
and inaccessible and because of population growth is simply not big enough and The
Board is advised by those most in know that it is the number one priority in terms of
libraries then that is the one the Board should commit its resources to. The Board
would be obligated to a decision to build a library that was not approved by the Library
Board and people who are involved with prioritizing when we build libraries.
Supervisor Moore stated she was in agreement the library for downtown
Vinton is needed and it would definitely enhance the Town, but also in this time of
economic downturn it is really not a good idea to add to spending right now, so she is in
agreement; and stated she would be good with the expectation of ten years, but to
commit to that right now, she is really not comfortable with that.
Chairman Church remarked the gentleman from Windsor Hills is right, the
Board knows how important libraries are and would like to have the library done as soon
as possible. He commented the people in his area are elated to have a new library, but
if the Board has a deadline for a financial commitment he feels the Board would be
putting the County in jeopardy with the taxpayer's money, over one half a million
dollars,. He stated it would be better if the Town of Vinton would remove the ten years
and go with something that is more realistic. The County does have a capital
improvement committee that rates projects and the library could in fact be number one,
but to put into black and white "ten years" and adhere to a seven year agreement, he
just does not think it is the financial responsible thing to do.
364 June 14, 2011
Supervisor Altizer stated the Board can send this back and bring back at
the second reading of the Vinton ones and have the County Administrator talk to the
Town of Vinton as far as this agreement is concerned.
Chairman Church stated he wanted to work something out, but thinks the
Board should have further discussion and requested Mr. Goodman get with the Town
and give them the consensus of the Board is really not that happy with the limitations,
see if something can be worked out whereby they feel better and the Board can be
responsible stewards. Mr. Goodman responded in the affirmative.
Supervisor Altizer then asked Ms. Hyatt if the Vinton library is the next
library priority and then Mt. Pleasant with Ms. Hyatt responded these two are tied.
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Lisa O'Neil who lives in Daleville, Virginia and is representing the
Roanoke No Kill Coalition; a group of concerned citizens about the Roanoke pound
also known as the Regional Center for Animal Control and Protection. One of the
biggest concerns the Coalition has is the high euthanasia rate in Roanoke. Last year
the intake number of animals; dogs and cats brought into the pound were 7,299; of that
number 4,674 were killed. The bottom line in Roanoke we are saving about thirty -six
percent (36 %) of the homeless pets that are entrusted into our care. Meanwhile, other
communities in Virginia are saving ninety percent (90 %) of the animals that come into
their local pounds, not thirty -six percent (36 %), not fifty percent (50 %). They are at
ninety percent (90 %) or greater and those communities range from large cities to small
counties including Richmond, Charlottesville, Lynchburg and Pulaski. All of those
communities are able to save ninety percent (90 %) or more of the animals that come
into their pound and they are doing a great job and the coalition feels that Roanoke
County can do much better. Another concern about Roanoke County is the actual care
the animals receive. A packet has been provided to the Board and on the second page
there is a little dog named Pumpkin. She was brought into the Roanoke pound on April
1 2011, granted she was not in great shape when she arrived. She came from a bad
situation; however, she sat there until April 12 without any medicines, eye drops,
without anyone realizing she had a hard time reaching her food and water bowl. You
can see the condition of her eyes; nobody wiped them and she was in a lot of pain when
we took her to Angels of Assisi and the vet started her on medical treatment right away.
The cost of the medical treatment was under $20 and the bottom picture is her today
and that is with very minimal care. When we first got her she was unable to walk, she
was so weak and now she is bouncing around the house, her eyes are clear, her coat
and skin is coming back and we are concerned she sat at the pound for eleven days
without any type of medical treatment. Another example is a dog named Rocky that
was at the Roanoke pound. He is a pit -bull mix, he was there for approximately three
weeks and we kept inquiring about him. The staff at the pound told us that he was
becoming very fearful, timid to the point where he was becoming fear - aggressive and
cage crazy. We were told one Friday afternoon if we did not get him, he would be put to
June 14, 2011 365
sleep because he was becoming progressively worse and worse and going crazy in his
cage. This is because the animals at the pound do not get out for exercise, they do not
get a bone to chew on, they do not have any volunteers come and walk them. If you
have ever walked through the pound, it is very, very noisy in there. Those animals are
confined into the cages with no break, 24 hours a day, day in and day out. We did take
Rocky out of the pound to Angels of Assisi. We learned he can sit, stay and is perfectly
house trained. He was adopted a few days ago. We are just concerned that animals sit
there without any type of exercise, any type of socialization. Changes that we are
asking for are that volunteers be allowed to come into the pound, we have been told
that volunteers cannot come in for two reasons, the liability and because the animals
there are still on hold time and that means they are still the responsibility of the
municipalities that have brought them there. As far as the liability issues, there is
something called a "waiver" that many pounds throughout the State of Virginia utilize.
There is a list of them in the packets. As far as the public not being responsible to care
for the animals, we let the public take care of our children in schools; coach our
children. We have volunteers work with Big Brothers, Little Sisters program, into our
hospitals, into nursing homes. If they can be trusted with our children, our sick and our
elderly, we feel they can be trusted to take care of dogs or cats. We are also inquiring
about the leadership at the Roanoke pound; the SPCA and the Pound has the same
leadership. The SPCA has many wonderful programs in place that are not extended to
the pound side and we very much appreciate you looking into those issues.
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Flora, McNamara, Altizer
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Moore congratulated Ryan Martin for receiving his Gold Royal
Ranger Badge. He worked very hard for this and the ceremony that he had on Sunday
was incredible.
366 June 14, 2011
Supervisor Flora stated a few years ago we talked about doing a survey
and we did a community survey on recreation but we also talked about doing some
additional surveys. He stated he would like for staff to give this consideration, based on
the tough economic times going into the fourth year. The County employees have been
without a raise for four -years and have been downsized. He would like to see a staff
survey to see how this has been handled, whether or not the loss of staff has caused
any degradation of morale and whether there are any stressors in place that staff should
be aware of so that staff can perhaps take a look at ways to take care of; just a way to
find out how our staff is functioning. He stated he did not want to get in a discussion
now, but maybe at the next work session we could just bring it up and discuss the pros
and cons.
Supervisor Elswick stated at the same work session could the Board again
discuss a County -wide survey of all the citizens as to how well they think the County is
doing. He stated he only proposed this because he talked to thousands of citizens a
couple of years ago; they wanted to be involved with a lot of the decisions that are
made in the County. They wanted their input heard and they wanted the Board to listen
to them. They wanted to agree with what the Board was doing and it seems to him that
one of the best ways to do that is with a good survey.
Chairman Church stated it was a privilege and pleasure to go to Glenvar
High School and Northside High School's graduation. He stated there are some great
young students in the Roanoke valley and to participate as a spectator to follow
Northside as they came so close to winning three State championships. They got to
semi - finals in girls' soccer, girls softball but the one unexpected was he boys' baseball
team who came home with the State championship. The first one in the history of the
school and you talk about a happy group of "Vikings ", Coach Ed Culicerto, Principal
Frank Dent and Athletic Director John Michael Deeds. They all do a fantastic job to
help our young athletes perform and he has gone out of town with them and seen how
they interact and play out of town as well as their own playing field. Of particular note,
they have not had a home game since May 20, 2011. They traveled, played very well
and Ms. Moore I am sorry but Cave Spring had a nine -run lead on them in the quarter-
finals and Northside got nine runs in the sixth inning and came back to win the game.
He stated he was also present along with Ms. Moore at the Christian Life International
Church for the Royal Ranger awards; what a moving experience to see a young man be
awarded what is equivalent to above an Eagle Scout. He spent loads and loads of
months and time and went out campaigning for help for the needy nursing homes. He
took up donations, worked hours at local Wal -marts soliciting donations and was able to
fill forty bags and took himself to the nursing home and went to his own church and
collected money on his own to help these people that are in need in nursing facilities.
There were six hundred to eight hundred people in attendance. He remarked it was a
moving experience and congratulated Ryan and his parents.
June 14, 2011 367
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 4:46 p.m., Chairman Church moved to go into closed meeting pursuant
to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2.3711.A.1. Discussion concerning appointments to
the Virginia Western Community College Board and Section 2.2.3711.A.5. Discussion
concerning a prospective business or industry or the expansion of an existing business
or industry where no previous announcement has been made of the business' or
industry's interest in locating or expanding its facilities in the County. The motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
At 4:48 p.m. Chairman Church recessed to the fourth floor for work
session and closed meeting. The closed session was held from 5:00 p.m. until 5:25
p.m. Supervisor Altizer left the meeting at 5:05 p.m. for the Vinton War Memorial
Opening.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 5:30 p.m., Chairman Church moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution. Chairman Church stated Supervisor Altizer had left
the closed session at 5:05 p.m. for a prior commitment. Supervisor Altizer has provided
his certification of the portion of the closed session he was in attendance for to the Clerk
to the Board of Supervisors and is on file in the Clerk's office.
RESOLUTION 061411 -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
368 June 14, 2011
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, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Altizer
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session on amendments to the Roanoke County Zoning
Ordinance dealing with Large Wind Energy Systems and Utility Wind
Energy Systems (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning; John
Murphy, Zoning Administrator)
In attendance for this work session was John Murphy, Zoning
Administrator and Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning. The work session
was held from 5:33 p.m. until 6:47 p.m. Mr. Murphy went through a PowerPoint
presentation (a copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of
Supervisors) outlining the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. He advised the
Planning Commission recommended unanimously to forward these amendments to the
Board of Supervisors. He also advised the Planning Commission had considered a lot
of different things in this process: sample ordinances for different Virginia localities,
other State ordinances, documents, articles, reports, brochures, fact sheets,
photographs, maps, presentations, DVD's, email and letters from a lot of different
sources, conversations with individuals, websites. Staff went to different conferences
where there were presentations on wind energy and brought the information back to the
Planning Commission. We did do an onsite visit. Supervisor Elswick inquired what
conferences the staff attended. Mr. Thompson replied a zoning conference on wind
energy regulations and the James Madison University one as well. Supervisor Elswick
inquired if this was sponsored by the wind industry with Mr. Thompson responding in
the affirmative. Supervisor Elswick then asked what sites had been visited with Mr.
Thompson responding Beech Ridge. Supervisor Elswick then asked if the Planning
Commission visited any sites in the County with Mr. Thompson responding in the
negative, as there are no wind energy systems in the County. Mr. Thompson
commented as part of the process, staff did get invited by the citizens on Bent Mountain
to come up there and visit, which was done in August of 2010. This is all part of the
process the Planning Commission considered in review of this ordinance. Mr.
Thompson stated there would only be three articles in which there would be
June 14, 2011 369
amendments to. Article II deals with definitions and use types. Article III deals with
district regulations and Article IV with use and design standards.
Mr. Thompson explained the three items that he would be addressing in
detail would be the setback requirements, noise and the application requirements. He
stated the setback requirement is one hundred and ten percent (110 %) of the height of
the wind energy system and is from all adjoining, non - participating property lines, so
there are multiple lines, the exterior lines. Supervisor Elswick asked if it was an air
measurement or a ground measurement with Mr. Thompson responding "as the crow
flies." Supervisor Elswick stated he asked because they tend to be on ridgelines and
you go up 1,300 feet. Mr. Thompson stated there was also a setback of 2,640 feet from
existing dwelling units. There is also a provision through the special use process the
Board may modify the setbacks based on site specific considerations. He also stated
the setbacks would be measured from the base of the tower. Supervisor Moore asked if
the one hundred and ten percent (110 %) is plus 2,640 feet. Mr. Thompson stated it is
both as it is one hundred and ten percent (110 %) of the height of the structure from the
property line. A residence can be offsite. You can go one hundred and ten percent
(110 %), but if you are less than 2,640 feet, the 2,640 feet would have the precedent; but
it is from where the house is located on the adjacent property. Mr. Thompson explained
there was a real discussion about protecting existing property owners in a particular
area; the 2,640 feet was added at one of the last meetings. Supervisor Elswick inquired
if the adjoining property does not have a dwelling on it yet, with Mr. Thompson
explaining it would be one hundred and ten percent (110 %) from the property line.
Supervisor Elswick stated so you would ignore the fact that the adjoining property might
be subdivided when the person was intending to put a house on it with Mr. Thompson
responding in the affirmative because the Planning Commission wants to protect
existing units not potential units.
Mr. Thompson then discussed the noise issue and advised the Planning
Commission had settled on 60 decibels, as measured from the closest non - participating
property line. He explained whenever a standard is set in the process; compliance
would be required upon completion of the project.
Mr. Thompson added one of the things staff looked at with regard to the
application and stated there were four components: (1) There must be a pre -
submission meeting at least thirty (30) days prior to submitting an application with staff.
(2) There is a listing of requirements to be included in the submission (3) The applicant
shall be responsible for all fees associated including the cost of any independent
analysis deemed necessary to verify the information submitted and (4) The applicant
shall conduct at least one public meeting to discuss its development plans and obtain
community feedback. He stated with regard to the information that is required includes
a detailed concept plan showing project location plans and clearing limits of all
components; a description and analysis of existing site conditions; a photographic
simulation; a sound study; construction phasing schedule; written verifications with
regard to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) including a copy of the completed
370 June 14, 2011
FAA Form 7460 -A and all attachments submitted and a copy of the written FAA
determination; a summary of the wind data to include dates and periods of the collection
of the wind data; written notifications to national or state forests or units within a five (5)
mile radius; information on shadowing and shadow flicker and additional information as
deemed necessary by County staff. Mr. Goodman inquired if that would be the impact
of radio transmissions and communications. Mr. Thompson stated if there was an
airport overlay district or emergency communications district, they would need to comply
with those. There is also a standard with regard to communication interference. Mr.
Goodman stated so they would have to look at this impact with Mr. Thompson
responding in the affirmative and stating it would be covered in the pre- submission
meeting and Commit would also be a part of the process. This meeting would
encompass all the impacted areas.
Mr. Thompson stated the next steps would be two readings and
anticipated that a public hearing could not be held until July 26, 2011, at the earliest if
the Board so chooses.
Supervisor Elswick inquired about bonding or dismantlement. Mr.
Thompson responded it is under Section 15.
Supervisor Flora stated he has two concerns. The first is under the
general standards, Section 3, where it talks about the distance of the setback on the
property line being one hundred and ten percent (110 %). He stated he did not have a
problem with the one hundred and ten percent (110 %), but he did have a problem with
this being able to be modified than less than one hundred and ten percent (110 %) by
special use permit. He stated he would suggest that be a minimum distance from the
property line because it is commonly considered the "fall zone" so you do not want to
reduce so it can fall on someone else's property. The other issue he has is with the
system height. The height should be measured at the lowest point to the tip of the
router or the blade of the structure as opposed to the average point. He explained in
most cases would not matter, but would like to take the most conservative approach.
He then indicated he does have some concerns about the 2,600 hundred feet, but feels
this will be addressed separately.
Supervisor Elswick stated when they went to Beech Ridge; from 3,600
feet away they were pretty loud. He then stated if the Board wanted, there is a Dr.
Burdisso at Virginia Tech who is considered to be somewhat of an expert and has done
a lot of research on wind turbines and if the Board wanted someone like him or
someone from James Madison University (JMU) to speak, either pro or con, because if
you think about it between the Planning Commission and the Board, we are not very
knowledgeable whatsoever. He clarified the most knowledgeable experience he has
had was when he went to Beech Ridge to see what they were really like, see what the
amount of clearing was, see how loud they were and looking at ordinances from other
locations does not mean a lot to him because you can cherry pick ordinances and tell
any story that you would like to tell. He reiterated the County's actual experience and
people like Dr. Burdisso or from JMU, people who have actually looked at this in depth
June 14, 2011 371
could be very meaningful in terms of giving advice as to where to go from here and
whether or not to modify the proposed ordinance. If that is the case and the Board
decides they want some people who are more knowledgeable than the Board is they
could come in and give a short, education speech then the timetable for the first and
second reading is probably a bit aggressive. He suggested that staff not have the first
and second reading of this ordinance until the Board has an opportunity to hear from
people that are more knowledgeable.
Supervisor Moore stated she recommends that staff process with the plan
to have the first and second reading and maybe have someone speak at the meeting or
before the public hearing is held. She stated this issue has been ongoing for two years
and is just a guideline to get the County prepared for when someone does bring a large
wind to the Board.
Chairman Church stated he did not have a problem with anyone that is an
expert in the field coming to talk, because he thinks the more information the Board can
obtain, if they are in fact experts, cannot hurt.
Supervisor Elswick stated he thinks the Board needs it. He explained he
and Jim Gray had done some decibel measurements and at night on Mt. Chestnut
Road, 11:00 p.m. the noise outside was twenty -five (25) decibels and go from twenty
five (25) to sixty (60) is forty (40) times louder than the normal ambient noise level. So
there are some things the Board needs to be educated on. He stated he disagreed with
people in urban areas writing ordinances for rural locations with no rural people involved
whatsoever in the determination of those ordinances. Sixty (60) decibels is acceptable
for an urban area in California or Virginia or any place because if you go to Route 419,
that is like sixty (60) decibels, so it is like it does not matter, it is no louder than what
citizens are already used to, but for someone who wants to go to sleep at night, twenty -
five (25) decibels is the normal level of noise and they experience a lot of hardship to
live in those kinds of areas. They live in those areas because they appreciate nature,
peace and quiet. So, he stated he thinks the Board needs a little more input as to
whether or not the setbacks and the noise levels are correct.
Chairman Church stated he is not interested in pros and cons; he wants to
get some objective facts from knowledgeable people.
Supervisor Flora stated he agrees but feels the time to present that factual
information is when there is an application before you and then you can actually,
specifically address that request because that particular wind turbine is going to have an
effect on this or that resident. He commented they are trying to create an ordinance
that fits all and it is not going to work.
Supervisor Elswick stated with that being the case, then the ordinance
ought to be very conservative and at this point it is liberal. He explained the Board has
been elected by citizens to look after their interests and as everybody knows he is from
the area where the wind mills are being proposed. He stated he has a responsibility to
those citizens and if the Board is saying this is a general guideline, the real test is when
a special use permit comes up. Why put liberal requirements in, put conservative
372 June 14, 2011
requirements and debate from that rather than liberal requirements. Supervisor Flora
stated when you can adjust up or down, it is like not having any requirements at all.
Supervisor Elswick stated but people look at what Roanoke County does. As soon as
the small ordinance at sixty (60) decibels was established the City of Roanoke decided
to do an ordinance with sixty (60) decibels. He stated a Planning Commission member
told him that sixty (60) decibels is the standard, which he obtained from Mr. Thompson's
first advice to use sixty (60) decibels. He commented he did not use twenty -five (25) for
a rural area, but sixty (60) which is consistent with an urban area. Accordingly, it was in
the Planning Commissioner's mind as the accepted standard and it is not. At Virginia
Tech there is a wind tunnel where they study wind turbines and here the Board is
thinking about doing an ordinance and has not even asked the Professor at Virginia
Tech who has been studying wind turbines to give us what their findings are.
Supervisor Flora asked if there was any prohibition to asking for these findings; would
they give them to you if you asked? Supervisor Elswick responded he thought so, and
is certain Dr. Burdisso would tell us what he knows and he does not know what he
knows. All Supervisor Elswick knows is he is a lot more of an expert than the Board as
he has spent a lot of time on it.
Supervisor Flora commented he does not have a problem with stretching
out the first reading and second reading, but his personal opinion is that he does not
think the Board needs to have someone come in and tell us what we need to put in
ordinance. He stated he thinks this information needs to be taken care of between
when the application is made and first and second reading so you can be very site
specific because if you are doing a study on flat land, unobstructed, you are going to get
an entirely different reading than if you are doing something on the mountain with ridges
in between it. It needs to be flexible enough so it's specific to a site. Every wind turbine
will have a separate set of standards because they are going to have different impacts
at different locations.
Supervisor Moore stated this is just an ordinance, we are not talking about
Bent Mountain, is it nothing but a guideline.
Supervisor Elswick stated it is true that is has to be applicable to a number
of areas because if the wind turbines are put on a ridge top, then they are obviously
going to be put on other ridge tops; it would not just be Bent Mountain and Poor
Mountain. It could be the Appalachian Trail, Catawba, it could be anywhere.
Supervisor Flora stated that the Appalachian Trail is completely different.
Supervisor Elswick stated he has heard the Appalachian Trail is excluded because
there are people who hike on it; a large percentage of them do not live in Roanoke
County. There are a lot of people living in Roanoke County on Poor Mountain, so who
should the Board be concerned about, the people who live here and pay taxes or the
people that are transients who come to walk a trail. Supervisor Flora stated it is not
Roanoke County's ordinance that gives that kind of protection to the Appalachian Trail;
it is federal law and the National Park Service.
June 14, 2011 373
Supervisor Church commented this issue is such a complex situation that
he does not know how in the world the Board will be able to handle because you cannot
please everyone. It is almost an impossible task to find something that would fit a
majority of the situation.
Mr. Thompson stated as staff was going through the process, on more
than one occasion the Planning Commission was asked if they wanted to bring people
in. Also, when the standards were discussed, it requires a special use permit and with
noise being such a complex issue with so many variables, staff questioned whether or
not a standard should be set. As it is now in most of the language, there is no standard
for noise standards. The only standard that noise is mentioned is for home occupation,
which is sixty (60) decibels. Staff also looked at other zoning special use permits that
dealt with noise levels and all of those were sixty (60) or above for standard. He stated
when it comes to standards there is a process that someone would have to go through
and whether or not there should be a set standard is really not necessary. The
Planning Commission choose to do so; after the public hearing it went down to forty (40)
decibels and after Beech Ridge, they took a decimeter to measure the sound and just
the wind blowing at several times was between sixty and seventy (60 -70). After that
information, the Planning Commission came back to sixty (60). Supervisor Elswick
stated he disagreed with Mr. Thompson as he was by Jason Peters observing the
decibels that he was measuring and most of the time; it was between forty and fifty (40-
50). Mr. Thompson responded that was correct in some areas, but when he went with
Mr. Peters out on one ledge where the wind was really blowing; it was between sixty
and seventy (60 -70). Supervisor Elswick responded at the numerous times he looked
at the meter, it was between forty and fifty (40 -50). Mr. Thompson stated his point was
because they took some of those readings and that is why it was taken back to sixty
(60). This is what the Planning Commission recommended and stated staff had stated
if there is a problem with noise, you could always not have a standard and state noise
would be dealt with the special use permit process. This is what the Planning
Commission came up with after going through a lot of information. There are three or
four (3 -4) binders thick full of information and the information can be provided to the
Board. Supervisor Elswick stated he and Mr. Gray wanted a measurement and they did
not take measurements on Route 419, they did take measurements on Poor Mountain
and he did. The measurements on Poor Mountain are twenty -five (25) at night. Mt.
Chestnut is the same. The measurement on Route 419, would be sixty to seventy (60-
70) and yet people who are accustomed to twenty -five (25) when they go to sleep at
night, if the ordinance is adopted it would be like saying it would be forty (40) times
more than what a rural resident is accustomed to. He then inquired if the County
normally does that for whatever venture that is being discussed for approval, an industry
and this would be an industrial type area. Does Roanoke County say that the neighbors
for Mennel Mill or any other business that is coming to the County should be subjected
to noise levels that are forty (40) times greater than what they normally experience?
Supervisor Flora responded that he did not think there are regulations regarding noise,
374 June 14, 2011
except between certain hours. He advised when a business goes in staff does not
require them to do a study on noise.
Supervisor Elswick then stated the issues of mountaintop mining has
come up because this area would have to be cleared so the towers could go up and
inquired what in the ordinance covers that. Does the ordinance state the potential
business would have to abide with all of the reclamation and DEQ, etc? Supervisor
Flora stated when they demolish it they do, they have to remove everything, even the
structure that held it up. Supervisor Elswick stated but they have to have roads into
them as did Beech Ridge, which is a great facility. He further added he is a great
proponent of that facility because that ridge was given up years ago to meet the
Westvaco and the coal mining interest and there is no -one living near it, it is the perfect
place. Where mountaintop mining has been done is a perfect place to put windmills.
Where a lot of people live, the Board needs to be very conservative in how it
approaches allowing wind energy systems to come in. Supervisor Flora stated he did
not go to Beech Ridge, but he did walk up on top of the mountain in Massachusetts
where there are windmills and that was before the Board ever talked about windmills.
Actually the excavation for that windmill was no more than what it would be for a house;
there was a very small excavating path. Supervisor Elswick stated he has photographs
in case anyone wants to see what Beech Ridge looks like. Supervisor Flora asked if it
was a strip- mining site, with Supervisor Elswick responding it was Mead Westvaco to
begin with, periodically they harvest the trees and they have roads all over the top of the
mountain and then the roads had to be expanded and areas had to be cleared, because
to do one of the large windmills it takes two huge cranes and to get a blade that is one
hundred and twenty -five feet long around a curve, they have to have special trucks, so
they had to expand a lot of curves to accommodate, but most of the mountaintop was
clear. It was not visible because there were not many people living there. If the Board
puts them on Roanoke County ridge tops, they are going to be very visible, which may
or may not be good. It might bring a lot of people to the area, but they will not produce
a lot of electricity. The PGM that manages our grid expects to get twelve percent (12 %)
of the rated capacity from a windmill farm. The rated capacity, according to what
Supervisor Elswick has read with installations on Bent Mountain, which would be 30,000
homes, so twelve percent (12 %) of that would be a little over 3,000. Beech Ridge in
one month produces between nine hundred and one thousand (900- 1,000) megawatts.
Coal fired utility plants produces that in one (1) hour. He advised there are sixty -seven
(67) turbines at Beech Ridge; there would be eighteen (18) on Poor Mountain. So in
terms of contributing to our need for electricity, these are not going to do a lot. There is
one place in Texas, where a company reduced their electricity usage by twelve percent
(12 %); that reduction in usage was done by simply modifying lights, air conditioning, etc.
was the equivalent to building fifty (50) large windmills. According, he stated, in terms
of bettering society and reducing pollution, everyone would be better off just turning
lights off and lowering thermostats. He further commented he has not turned his air
conditioner on all year and the people on Bent Mountain and other rural areas dry their
June 14, 2011 375
clothes outside. They are very conservative in terms of electricity usage. In this area,
people think nothing of having street lights everywhere, keeping their lights on all nights,
leaving their computer on twenty -four (24) hours a day. If we could just barely make a
commitment to reducing the demand. Supervisor Flora stated that was a very good
argument, but what the Board is dealing with is in the event an application for a wind
farm is received, there needs to be something on the books. He further commented
that Supervisor Elswick is very passionate about this and it is very educational, but is an
argument for another time. Supervisor Elswick stated he agreed.
Supervisor Flora reiterated his two concerns; if the 2,600 feet would be
modified, he would be okay. In regard to the setbacks, he stated he thinks that should
not be flexible, but should be a minimum of one hundred and ten percent (110 %), so if it
falls it will fall on the property of the owner. The measurement should be from the
lowest point of the structure to the tip of the blade. He stated he thinks that is the more
conservative approach.
Supervisor Moore stated she thinks staff has done a great job on obtaining
information and stated she understood Supervisor Elswick is passionate about this, but
this is a guideline that she feels is going to help everyone. If Roanoke County does get
a petition before the Board, this would be a good guideline to go by and feels the board
should proceed with the public hearing and first and second readings and debate this at
public hearing. Supervisor Flora stated if the Board is having this much trouble
obtaining an ordinance, imagine how hard it will be to get a special use permit. Mr.
Thompson reminded the Board that if they amend the ordinance it does not mean it is
appropriate, what it means if it is not an appropriate site then the Board would deny it,
because the impact is too great. This would be a process to go through. Supervisor
Flora states when you receive the application, the Board would be looking at a land use
issue, not whether you like or dislike windmills, whether they are efficient or not, but is it
appropriate, is it the highest and best use of that property. Chairman Church stated he
has always in his twelve (12) years approached it with what Supervisor Flora stated, but
there is much more to it. He stated just because it is the best use of the site, he would
also consider what is going on in the County. Supervisor Flora reiterated that when he
says the highest and best use, the Board would have to take everything into
consideration. Chairman Church commented on plain paper that may sound like one
way, but in reality our Board has historically done many different things. This is
probably one here that begs for a variation almost each time, based on site selection.
Site selection is one of the most critical in his mind. In his opinion, this is something that
will continually be a moving target. So, the Board is now faced with where to go from
here; an imperfect process with questionable guidelines that can pertain to a number of
locations on any given site.
Supervisor Elswick stated there had been a study by NASA, and on their
final page they put a page that stated estimated community response to wind turbine
generator noise and then a column that stated amount of decibels that exceed the
normal level. If the normal level is exceed by five (5), little response; sporadic
376 June 14, 2011
complaints; if they exceed the normal level by ten (10) decibels, there would be
widespread complaints and if exceeded by twenty (20) decibels and in this case it is
thirty -five (35) there would be strong complaints and vigorous community action. He
then stated he thinks the Board needs to be very careful and conservative.
Supervisor Flora then inquired what is the decibel level of a wind turbine at
the base of the tower, typically. Mr. Thompson responded it depends on the wind
speed, but is probably anywhere from forty -five to sixty (45 -60), depending on the wind.
Supervisor Flora then stated this ordinance called for sixty (60) at the property line,
which may be four hundred to five hundred (400 -500) feet away and does not think it
will be the same. Supervisor Elswick stated he thinks the measurement of 3,600 feet
compared to 4,500 at Beech Ridge.
Supervisor Elswick then asked if the Fish and Wildlife people would be
involved; in the ordinance because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service does not allow
wind farms where there are endangered species, wetlands or other known bird or bat
concentration areas or areas of high incidents of fog or low cloud ceilings, especially
during spring and fall migrations. There are guidelines from the US Fish and Wildlife
service. There are eagles on Poor Mountain; there are also migratory birds that come
through there and he stated he would think either the State wildlife people or the
Federal wildlife people ought to look at it and tell the Board what they think. He stated
that can be made as part of the special use permit, like everything else. Mr. Thompson
responded there is a State process that after the local special use permit is completed,
then the State agencies will also review and comment on it and whatever mitigation
matters will be structured and the environmental quality has the lead on that, however, it
could be added into the ordinance.
Chairman Church inquired in Mr. Thompson's opinion what could be done
in addition to whatever has already been done that could make this any better. Is there
anything that the Board needs to review? He advised he wanted to take a look at the
bulk of information. Mr. Thompson stated he feels that all the issues have been
addressed, they might not be agreement in what the standard is, but all the issues have
been addressed. He further stated there was some discussion that the County should
not have a standard; just let the special use process dictate. He advised it is different
than the small wind where there were certain that were by right; therefore the standards
had to be in place; whereas in the special use permit process they will need to go
through the public review process. There will be information submitted and so the
argument on some of the standards where there was a lot of debate, setback, noise,
there are so many different components, each site is different would the Board actually
want to set the standard or not. He stated it is his opinion that the Planning
Commission was trying to be consistent with the small wind as far as the standards
were concerned. Noise is a very complex issue, thereby the reason for the sound study
and has the ability to have someone analyze (a third -party consultant). There is a
process to go through whether there is a standard or not. The Board can make the
June 14, 2011 377
special use permit more stringent. Any of the seventeen standards can be changed in
the special use process.
Supervisor Elswick stated it almost sounds like we should leave the
numbers out of the ordinance and leave it up to the Board in the special use permit. On
the other hand, asking the Board in two weeks to make the Board's mind up about the
quality of this ordinance, when the Planning Commission took two years, in terms of the
first and second reading is too aggressive. The Board does not have time to do their
own evaluation.
Supervisor Flora stated as far as the standards are concerned he thinks
they are a good idea, for one reason because it puts out there what the County's
expectation is. So, when an applicant comes in and there are no standards, they may
think it would be a "slam dunk" for them to come in and do what they want to do.
However, if there are standards, at least they know the Board has looked at it and there
are expectations and will be more careful about issuing special use permits than if there
were no standards.
Chairman Church stated this was a huge undertaking, and cannot feel
comfortable so far and wants to err on the side of caution. He stated that he thinks
some standards need to be identified as a starting point. Does not want to rush to first
reading.
Mr. Mahoney stated Supervisor Elswick has raised some excellent points
and pointed out there are seventeen standards by which a future application can be
judged. He noted you can disagree what the standard ought to be, there is a
reasonable disagreement, however, his concern is this is not an academic exercise.
There is an ordinance in place and if someone came in today, that someone could
submit an application for fifty (50) turbines under the existing ordinance and what you
have in the existing ordinance would make it difficult for the Board to make a rational
decision, because it does not give you very many standards at all. There is no good
weapon to evaluate an application if received today. The applicant could hold Roanoke
County to the paltry number of standards currently in place and he stated his fear is the
County would not be well defended no matter what the Board decided. The standards
currently in place are very weak. Supervisor Elswick stated the current ordinance says
nothing can be put on a ridgeline over forty -five (45) feet tall. Mr. Thompson explained
with a special use permit they can change the height of the district. Supervisor Elswick
then questioned if there was any ordinance wording anywhere related to ridgelines that
says you cannot put something on a ridgeline over forty -five (45) feet tall. Mr.
Thompson responded there is a height requirement for a structure in that district, and
forty -five feet is typically the standard and under item 3, the height limitation contained
in each district as forty -five feet may be increased as part of the approval of the special
use permit. Supervisor Elswick asked if there was some wording related to the height of
any structure on a ridge top. Mr. Thompson stated there are things that deal with the
height limitation in a zoning district, which is the principal height standard in any zoning
district, most of the height requirements in a zoning district are forty -five (45) feet or
378 June 14, 2011
lower. Supervisor Elswick stated it is not like we have nothing, but agrees something is
needed and whatever that is arrived at should represent a conservative approach and
that it ought to be designed to protect our citizens to the extent the Board thinks they
need to be protected.
Mr. Mahoney stated he agreed, but is not saying more is better but right
now, there are six (6) standards and the proposal will give you seventeen (17) and there
is better data and information to obtain from an applicant. He stated he goes back to the
analogy with what the County faced fifteen (15) years ago when cell towers started to
proliferate. He stated staff had gone through a similar analysis and a similar and
lengthy ordinance was done to address cell towers. Mr. Mahoney added the County
had lost a federal court case and was the impetus to move forward to put together a
better ordinance. Supervisor Elswick stated the ordinance makes sense, but anything
that is done should be for the benefit or protection of our citizens and not favor an
outside company. If the Board is going to favor anyone, then favor "our family ", not
someone not known or some small group of individuals that have a different motivation.
Supervisor Flora then asked Mr. Mahoney if the only restriction to building the windmills
on Bent Mountain is the height limitation right now. Supervisor Elswick also asked
what about the noise ordinance. Mr. Mahoney advised there is no noise ordinance, but
a noise provision in the draft. Mr. Mahoney stated there are height limitations in each
zoning district. Supervisor Flora again asked if this was the only restriction with Mr.
Thompson responding yes and the special use permit. Mr. Mahoney advised the only
use by right are in the industrial districts and planned residential development (PRD),
everything else in the agricultural district, which from looking at the map where the wind
speeds are, he thinks all of the wind speeds, 4 -7, look like they are in AG 3 or AG 1, so
he does not think there will be any rural area by right. Mr. Thompson advised this was a
little misleading because in order to do a PRD, the property would need to be rezoned
so there is a process and would have to be listed as one of the uses.
Chairman Church then inquired as to the proposed time frame.
It was the consensus of the Board to hold another work session on July
12, 2011, to discuss the scheduling of this ordinance with the full Board.
2. Work session on a proposed amendment to the Roanoke County
Comprehensive Plan to incorporate Urban Development Areas
(UDAs) (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning)
In attendance for this work session was Megan Cronise, Principal Planner;
Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning; B. Clayton Goodman III, County
Administrator and Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney. The work session was held from
6:58 p.m. until 7:15 p.m. Ms. Cronise went through a PowerPoint presentation with the
proposed amendments in incorporating Urban Development Areas, a copy of which is
on file in the office of Clerk to the Board of Supervisors, explaining this was a State
June 14, 2011 379
requirement. Mr. Goodman asked if there was anything in this report that would require
the County to add bus service with Ms. Cronise responding in the negative.
Supervisor Elswick commented if Carillion continues to grow, Clearbrook
in ten years would be the best site for development. Ms. Cronise stated that was one of
the reasons this area remained on this list.
Supervisor Elswick then inquired what would happen if the Board does
nothing. Ms. Cronise remarked there are no UDA police, but it does have to be
submitted within 90 days. Supervisor Elswick stated if this could not be dropped five
years down the road when the State decides to stop funding. Ms. Cronise responded
there was not that much that needed to be done once it was in place. There are
optional financial incentives, which are not required, and there is language that talked
about the traditional neighborhood development concepts and at least one should be
included, so it has been written to be very vague. Mr. Mahoney added additionally there
were some penalties included in some of the early draft legislative, but a lot of those
penalties were stripped out when it first surfaced. Supervisor Elswick stated it sounds
like an opportunity to get money out of them. Ms. Cronise responded "hopefully ". Mr.
Mahoney then advised the State was trying to link it to Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) funding. Ms. Cronise was hoping this will provide some
leverage with regard to the Plantation Road project.
Supervisor Flora commented this was a good planning tool, makes you
look at your infrastructure and keeps the development more compact and leaves the
rural areas, rural.
Supervisor Elswick stated he would like to see a rural development plan
also. It was the consensus of the Board, with Supervisor Altizer absent, to bring this
item forward as a public hearing on June 28, 2011.
3. Work session to discuss an ordinance amending Chapter 4.
"Amusements ", Section 4 -4. "Definitions ", Section 4 -11.
"Security" and Section 4 -13. "Entry and inspections;
enforcement; penalties" of the Roanoke County Code to provide
for security, inspection and penalties for the failure to maintain
private swimming pools (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the reason for the ordinance request. The first
reading of this ordinance was held on May 10, 2011. At that time, it was the consensus
of the Board to hold a work session before the second reading. Mr. B. Clayton
Goodman, County administrator remarked there should only be a couple of properties
and would only be handled on a complaint basis only. Ms. Moore inquired if this would
apply to bubble pools with Mr. Mahoney responding in the affirmative. It was the
consensus of the Board, with Supervisor Altizer absent, to hold the second reading of
this ordinance on June 28, 2011. The work session was held from 7:16 p.m. until 7:22
p.m.
:1
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
June 14, 2011
Chairman Church adjourned the meeting at 7:23 p.m.
A ebo bmitted by: Approved by:
rah C. Ja Joseph B. 'butch" Church
Clerk to the Bo d Chairman
1