6/28/2011 - RegularJune 28, 2011 381
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of June 2011.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Church called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call
was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph B. "Butch" Church; Supervisors Michael
W. Altizer, Eddie "Ed" Elswick and Richard C. Flora
MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice Chairman Charlotte A. Moore
STAFF PRESENT: B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; Diane D.
Hyatt, Assistant County Administrator; Daniel R. O'Donnell,
Assistant County Administrator; Teresa Hamilton Hall,
Director of Public Information; Paul M. Mahoney, County
Attorney; Deborah C. Jacks, Clerk to the Board
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by Pastor Ron Young of the Plantation Road
Baptist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
Chairman Church recognized Boy Scout Troop #2 from the Raleigh Court
area who are attending the meeting and are working on their citizenship and community
merit badge.
1. Recognition of citizens and officers for saving the life of a four -
year -old drowning boy (James R. Lavinder, Chief of Police)
Chief Lavinder outlined the situation for which this recognition was given.
In attendance for this recognition were: Julianna Marquez and her family, Timothy
Tilley, Quamir and his mother, Sheena Rosser, Sgt. Matze and Officers Zizelman,
Hogan and Moore. Julianna Marquez and Timothy Tilley received certificates of
382 June 28, 2011
recognition. Also in attendance was Ms. Lous Kadiri, Constituent Services Director from
Senator Mark Warner's office to present commendation from Senator Warner. All
Supervisors offered their thanks and congratulations.
2. Recognition of Roanoke County's Public Information Office for
receiving a 2011 Silver Anvil Award (Teresa Hamilton Hall,
Director of Public Information; Anne Marie Green, Director of
General Services)
Ms. Green outlined the background of this award and notes it is
considered to be the "Oscar" in the Public Information field. In attendance for the
recognition were Teresa Hamilton Hall, Director of Public Information; Penny Lloyd,
Marketing and information Manager; Gray Craig, Web Content Manager.
Lieutenant Chuck Mason spoke briefly on the situation for which this
award was given and thanked Scott Ramsburg, Marketing Manager of Parks,
Recreation and Tourism; Chuck Lionberger, Community Relations Specialist; Lacy
Stinnett, Television Producer for Roanoke Valley Television.
All Supervisors congratulated the recipients on a well- deserved award.
Chairman Church then recognized the following from the Town of Vinton:
Mayor Bradley E. Grose, Council Members: Robert R. Altice, Carolyn D. Filer, and
Mathew S. Hare. All of the council members thanked the Board for the opportunity to
work with Roanoke County's Board of Supervisors.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING
1. Public hearing to receive citizen comments regarding proposed
amendments to the fiscal year 2010 -2011 and 2011 -2012 budgets
in accordance with Section 15.2 -2507, Code of Virginia (W. Brent
Robertson, Director of Management and Budget)
No citizens spoke on this item.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Request to approve a resolution granting a waiver under Section
13 -23 of the Roanoke County Code to the provisions of the
County's noise ordinance — Article II. "Noise" of Chapter 13.
"Offenses- Miscellaneous" of the Roanoke County Code to Branch
Highways, Inc. at the request of Branch Highways, Inc. — Buck
Mountain Road Improvement Project, Cave Spring Magisterial
District (Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development)
June 28, 2011 383
Mr. Covey outlined the request. There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 062811 -1 GRANTING A WAIVER UNDER SECTION
13 -23 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO THE PROVISIONS
OF THE COUNTY'S NOISE ORDINANCE - ARTICLE II. "NOISE" OF
CHAPTER 13. "OFFENSES — MISCELLANEOUS" OF THE
ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO BRANCH HIGHWAYS, INC. —
BUCK MOUNTAIN ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, CAVE
SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Branch Highways, Inc. have requested a waiver of the County's
noise ordinance as contemplated under Sec. 13 -23. "Undue hardship waiver" be given
to Branch Highways, Inc., the contractors for the Buck Mountain Road improvement
project, to permit the road construction to be performed at night to take advantage of
lower traffic volumes beginning on June 29, 2011, and ending August 19, 2011; and
WHEREAS, Lumsden Associates, P.C. had prepared road improvement plans
for the project. These plans have been approved by Roanoke County and are pending
approval by the Western Virginia Water Authority and the Virginia Department of
Transportation; and
WHEREAS, Section 13 -23 of the Roanoke County Code establishes certain
standards for the Board of Supervisors to grant waivers from the provision of the
Roanoke County Noise Ordinance - Article II. "Noise" of Chapter 13. "Offenses —
Miscellaneous" to avoid undue hardship upon consideration of certain factors set forth in
subsection (b) of Sec. 13 -23 and after making certain alternative findings.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke,
Virginia, as follows:
1. In making its determination as to whether to grant the requested waiver to
Branch Highways, Inc. from the County's noise ordinance, the Board of
Supervisors has considered the following factors:
a. The time of day the noise will occur and the duration of the noise:
Beginning at approximately 10:00 p.m. on June 29, 2011, and ending
7:00 a.m. on August 19, 2011.
b. Whether the noise is intermittent or continuous: The noise produced
during the process of performing road construction is done in order to
take advantage of lower traffic volumes, minimizing impacts on the
public, while maximizing safety to the public and construction workers.
Tasks currently identified as those that will be performed at night
include but are not limited to: storm drain piping and structures
including road crossing; water line relocation; curb and gutter and
concrete medians that tie to US 220 from Buck Mountain Road; all
road widening, profiling and paving; and pavement marking. The noise
384 June 28, 2011
waiver will not be utilized on a daily basis; rather it will be used when
necessary and prudent to do so.
c. The extensiveness of the noise: May be extensive at times depending
upon the nature of the work.
d. The technical and economic feasibility of bringing the noise into
conformance with the noise ordinance: This work has to be completed
at night in order to minimize impacts on the traveling public, while
maximizing safety to the public and construction workers.
e. Other matters related to the impact of the noise on the health, safety
and welfare of the community and the degree of hardship resulting
from enforcement of the ordinance:
f. The extent to which the noise is necessary and incidental to the
commercial and industrial use generating the sound: The noise to be
generated by this road work is necessary and incidental to completion
of the new traffic patterns from the Clearbrook Walmart.
2. The Board of Supervisors makes the following finding: Compliance with the
provisions of the County's noise ordinance concerning the specific act of noise
disturbance by operation of equipment for road construction under subsection (1)
of Sec. 13 -21. "Specific acts as noise disturbance "" would produce serious
economic hardship for Branch Highways, Inc. without producing any substantial
benefit to the public, further it would result in greater impacts on the public using
Buck Mountain Road and U.S. Route 220, increase safety hazards both for the
public and the construction workers.
3. That the provisions of Sec. 13-21. "Specific acts as noise" subsection (1) of Article
II. "Noise" of Chapter 13. "Offenses — Miscellaneous" be WAIVED for a period
from June 29, 2011 until August 16, 2011.
4. This Waiver is granted specifically to Branch Highways, Inc., their officers,
employees and agents for road construction work and related activities on Buck
Mountain Road at Route 220 at the Clearbrook Walmart development in
Roanoke County, Virginia.
5. That this Waiver may only be extended upon written application and approval by
the Board of Supervisors.
6. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect from its passage.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
June 28, 2011 385
2. Request to accept and appropriate additional State revenues in
the amount of $1,025,000 to the Department of Social Services for
fiscal year 2010 -2011 budget (W. Brent Robertson, Director of
Management and Budget)
A- 062811 -2
Mr. Robertson outlined the request to appropriate additional State
revenues in the amount of $1,025,000 to the Department of Social Services. There was
no discussion. Supervisor Church moved to approve the staff recommendation to
accept and appropriate the additional funds. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
3. 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 (B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator)
Mr. Goodman outlined the agreement and explained at the Board Meeting
held on June 14, 2011, the Board had expressed concerns with Section 6 of the
agreement which stated after ten years and the County had failed to building the library,
Roanoke County would be required to refund the Town of Vinton's contribution within
ninety (90) days. Discussion was held again with the Town of Vinton and all references
to a refund for failure to construct the library after ten years were removed, however,
language was added that if the library was not built after ten years, the Town of Vinton
would be given half interest in the property. This was the only change.
Supervisor Altizer thanked Mayor Grose and Town Council for making this
happen. He stated this is a very exciting time, even though the library is not being built
now, just the acquisition of this property has generated a "buzz" in east county and the
Town of Vinton. He further commented this would be the beginning of downtown Vinton
revitalization. Additionally, it shows an investment of the Town and the County to
making things happen there and to do everything that is possible to revitalize downtown.
Chairman Church stated he fully anticipates, unless the economy has a
downturn, the library to be built in the ten -year timeframe.
386 June 28, 2011
Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the staff recommendation to enter
into the agreement with the Town of Vinton. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
4. Appeal of a denial of a claim by John N. Gibson (3814 Belle Meade
Drive, Roanoke, Virginia), Cave Spring Magisterial District (Paul
M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
A- 062811 -3
Mr. Mahoney advised this item is an appeal of a denial of a claim. Mr. and
Mrs. Gibson who live at 3814 Belle Meade Drive are appealing Risk Manager and
County Attorney's denial of their claim as a result of damages to their property that
occurred during the April 16, 2011, heavy rains and flooding. He advised the claim is in
the amount of $52,881.64. He advised the Risk Manager and himself had denied this
claim for several reasons. Once of which, he stated they believe the heavy rains
occurred on April 16, 2011, is an "Act of God." He clarified when seven (7) inches of
rain fall within a two or three (2 or 3) hour period of time in Southwest County, staff does
not believe that any kind of drainage system could handle that kind of heavy rainfall. He
commented that the Board may recall that portions of Tanglewood Mall and Cave
Spring High School were flooded at that same time. Based on the information they
have, it appears that the drainage system adjacent to the Gibson property appeared to
have been blocked by organic material. What staff surmised was the neighboring
property owner further upstream had chopped down some trees (organic material) and
when the heavy rains occurred, tree limbs happened to be thrown into the back of the
property in a drainage ditch or stream and the water carried the organic material
downstream and when it came close to the Gibson property there were several pipes
there and this organic material blocked one of the pipes. One of the pipes were blocked
by the material with the wood acting like a cork to block the pipe and when the pipe was
blocked the water built up and flooded the Gibson home and property. Their claim is for
$52,000. The Gibsons have provided staff with a very detailed listing of all the damages
to their property and it includes books, DVDs, CDs, appliances, furniture, tools, furnace,
and even destroyed some of the flooring. This is a serious problem and staff feels very
sympathetic toward the Gibsons in terms of the loss they suffered. It appears the
drainage system probably dates from 1956, when the Belle Meade subdivision was put
to record, October 13, 1956. If someone was constructing this development today, the
storm drainage system would be deemed to be inadequate. Since that time and
June 28, 2011 387
separate from Mr. and Mrs. Gibson's claim, staff has looked at the property.
Approximately a month and one half before the flooding occurred; Mrs. Gibson had
telephoned County staff. Mr. Workman went out and looked at the property and agreed
the piping system that had been in place for many years needed to be replaced. This
was put on the Board's project list for improvements through the drainage program,
project number 290. Realistically and compared to all of the other projects that are on
the project list, this was fairly low in the priority of projects to be addressed. Staff had
looked at this as an erosion control request for the existing channel. The system
downstream was not evaluated. When looking at this closer and what staff has
proposed and what the County is doing now, separate from this claim, is regarding the
easement, and have asked Mr. and Mrs. Gibson to donate an additional easement to
the County, about three hundredths of an acre and are looking at installing
approximately one hundred and sixty four feet (164) feet of thirty -six (36) inch pipe that
would replace the fifteen (15) and eighteen (18) inch pipes that were blocked. Mr.
Mahoney stated it is his recommendation to deny this claim, which will provide an
opportunity for the Gibsons to take advantage of any judicial or legal remedies that are
available to them. As indicated in the staff report, there is a claims procedure where if
the Board agrees with this recommendation then a citizen claimant has thirty (30) days
to appeal that denial and to proceed to circuit court so they can maintain a legal action,
if any, against the County. Mr. Mahoney advised that Mr. Butch Workman, Stormwater
Operations Manager, was in attendance in case there were any questions.
Mr. Gibson thanked Mr. Workman and his crew for coming to his home
and helping them after the storm. He stated the drain has not been worked on since
1960, there is no record of when it was put in and the gentleman that built this
subdivision is the one that put it in. When the surveyors and engineers came and
looked at it, they advised it was not adequate for the twenty -six (26) acres that runs into
it. I know that Mr. Workman had advised us he had been out there to look at it and it
had a low priority. He stated he is a disabled veteran and his wife is also disabled and
that is a "lot of stuff' we lost. The furnace is still not usable. He advised they were
planning on moving due to medical problems and will lose quite a bit of money on this
property because of this storm. All rain is an "Act of God ", but he did not stop the drains
up. If you go up there and look at this personally, there is not much of a ditch there and
then there is grass and another ditch and he knew Asplundh was out there cutting trees
and the logs that were found there were from Asplundh. Staff wants to blame the
neighbors when if you looked at the storm drain itself it is not much of a drain at all. Mr.
Gibson stated he hopes the Board would approve this.
Chairman Church then asked Mr. Workman on that particular day is he
correct that the flooding was in the Tanglewood parking lot and flooded quite deep? He
asked him to clarify how much rain in such a short amount of time. Mr. Workman stated
the storm was in the category of a "100 -year storm" that localized in the Cave Spring
area. He clarified there was six to seven (6 to 7) inches, the storm claims were a little
bit too low to pick up on radar. A local citizen had stated he showed seven inches in his
388 June 28, 2011
rain gauge. Mr. Mahoney stated he had seen Steve Spangler, Principal in the parking
lot of Cave Spring High School and the water was up to mid -thigh on the upper parking
lot; a very unusual event.
Supervisor Flora moved to approve the staff recommendation to deny this
claim. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
1. The petition of Angelo R. Gianni, Jr. to obtain a Special Use
Permit in a R -1, Low Density Residential, District for a multiple
dog permit for five (5) dogs on 1.02 acres, located at 6539 Fairway
View Trail, Windsor Hills Magisterial District
Supervisor Elswick moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading and public hearings for July 26, 2011. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance authorizing the lease of space in the South County
Library to Johnson & Elich Roasters, Ltd. d /b /a Mill Mountain
Coffee and Tea for the operation of a coffee shop (Diane D. Hyatt,
Assistant County Administrator)
Ms. Hyatt explained the ordinance to authorize the lease. She explained
the County Charter requires two readings and the second reading and public hearing
are tentatively scheduled for July 12, 2011. She indicated staff is still working through
some of the final details on the lease document and it will be attached to the second
reading of the ordinance. Chairman Church inquired if this is a three (3) -year lease
followed by an additional three (3) -year lease with the same terms and conditions. Ms.
Hyatt responded affirmatively by stating the lease can be extended an additional three
(3) -year term. Supervisor Elswick indicated he is a fan of libraries and stated libraries
are some of the most important assets Roanoke County has. He added he has never
June 28, 2011 389
really been a fan of putting food and coffee into the new library, however he has been
overruled. He understands that he cannot change anything at this point; however, it
appears to him that the County is not getting a lot of money out of this lease agreement.
He stated he would much rather have the efforts providing "library kind of activities" to
citizens rather than a drive - through window.
Supervisor Flora stated he was one of the ones fortunate enough to visit a
number of libraries out of the area when staff was looking at what to do in South County
in terms of a new library. What was found is that libraries are turning into more than just
books. Books are becoming almost obsolete. Computers are replacing them in a lot of
respects, so the idea is to try to create a social environment, a reason for people to
come and do research and spend some time and enjoy the quiet and peacefulness
found in a library. Libraries today are breaking up into sections for children, young
adults and adult areas, with special emphasis on the young adults so that they can be
entertained while the parents are spending time at the library. The idea is to create a
social environment, not just a library for books, a different kind of place for people to go
visit, learn and experience what learning can be all about in the 21 century opposed to
what it used to be like. Libraries today serve an entirely different purpose than what
they did fifty years ago. Roanoke County will have to change or lose participation in
libraries. Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading and public hearings for July 12, 2011. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
N RE: APPOINTMENTS
1. Parks, Recreation and Advisory Commission
Charlotte Moore has appointed Beth Doughty to an additional three -year
term, which will expire on June 30, 2014. Confirmation has been placed on the consent
agenda.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 062811 -5 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM K- CONSENT AGENDA
390 June 28, 2011
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 28,
2011, designated as Item K - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 9 inclusive, as follows:
1. Minutes — May 24, 2011
2. Resolution to accept Green Ridge Court into the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) Secondary System
3. Confirmation of Appointments to the Parks, Recreation and Advisory
Commission; Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional Commission; Roanoke
Valley Alleghany Regional Commission — Metropolitan Planning Organization
4. Request to appropriate $2,000 to the Police Department from donation funds
for fiscal year 2011 -2012 for the Blue Ridge Regional Crash Investigation
Team for traffic safety projects
5. Request to accept and appropriate $242,251 from the Department of Juvenile
Justice for the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCA) grant
for the fiscal year 2011 -2012
6. Request to appropriate $16,314.68 to the Clerk of the Circuit Court from the
State for fiscal year 2010 -2011
7. Resolution approving the revised Flexible Benefits Plan Document for
Roanoke County effective July 1, 2011
8. Resolutions requesting changes in the Virginia Department of Transportation
Secondary System of State Highways, Route 766, Stable Road, Route 674,
Clearbrook Lane and Route 675, Clearbrook Village Lane, Cave Spring
Magisterial District
9. Request to authorize amendments to the Deferred Compensation Section
457 Plan
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
A- 062811 -5.b
A- 062811 -5.c
A- 062811 -5.d
A- 062811 -5.e
A-062811-5.k
June 28, 2011 391
RESOLUTION 062811 -5.a TO ACCEPT GREEN RIDGE COURT
INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(VDOT) SECONDARY SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached VDOT Form AM -4.3, fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and
WHEREAS, the representative for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised this Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Virginia
Department of Transportation's Subdivision Street Requirements, and
WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have
entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999, for comprehensive stormwater detention
which applies to this request for addition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to add the street(s) described on the attached Additions
Form AM -4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1 -229, Code
of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, after receiving a
copy of this resolution and all outstanding fees and documents required of the
developer, whichever occurs last in time.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right -of -way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage,
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
RESOLUTION 062811 -5.f APPROVING THE REVISED
FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLAN DOCUMENT FOR ROANOKE
COUNTY EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2011
WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke desires to revise the flexible benefits plan
document for Roanoke County effective July 1, 2011.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows:
1. That the revisions to the Flexible Benefits Plan Document reflect changes
392 June 28, 2011
in the laws that govern cafeteria plans and in our current practices are approved
effective July 1, 2011.
2. That the County Administrator or designee is authorized to take such
actions that are deemed necessary and proper in order to implement the Plan, and to
set up adequate accounting and administrative procedures to provide benefits under the
Plan.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
RESOLUTION 062811 -5.g REQUESTING CHANGES IN THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY
SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS, ROUTE 766, STABLE ROAD,
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the street(s) described on the attached VDOT Form AM -4.3, fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, the representative for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised this Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Virginia
Department of Transportation's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
WHEREAS, Wal -Mart Real Estate Business Trust, the developers of the
Clearbrook Wal -Mart, request a resolution from the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors to abandon old road facilities, and subsequently add newly constructed
road facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation abandon, and subsequently add, the facilities described
on the attached Form AM -4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to
§33.1 -155, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements,
after receiving a copy of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Virginia Department of Transportation
guarantees a clear and unrestricted right -of -way, as described and any necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
June 28, 2011 393
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
RESOLUTION 062811 -5.1h REQUESTING CHANGES IN THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY
SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS, ROUTE 674, CLEARBROOK
LANE, CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the street(s) described on the attached VDOT Form AM -4.3, fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, the representative for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised this Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Virginia
Department of Transportation's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
WHEREAS, Wal -Mart Real Estate Business Trust, the developers of the
Clearbrook Wal -Mart, request a resolution from the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors to abandon old road facilities, and subsequently add newly constructed
road facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation abandon, and subsequently add, the facilities described
on the attached Form AM -4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to
§33.1 -155, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements,
after receiving a copy of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Virginia Department of Transportation
guarantees a clear and unrestricted right -of -way, as described and any necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
RESOLUTION 062811 -5.i REQUESTING CHANGES IN THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY
SYSTEM OF STATE HIGHWAYS, ROUTE 675, CLEARBROOK
VILLAGE LANE, CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
394 June 28, 2011
WHEREAS, the street(s) described on the attached VDOT Form AM -4.3, fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, the representative for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised this Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Virginia
Department of Transportation's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
WHEREAS, Wal -Mart Real Estate Business Trust, the developers of the
Clearbrook Wal -Mart, request a resolution from the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors to abandon old road facilities, and subsequently add newly constructed
road facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation abandon, and subsequently add, the facilities described
on the attached Form AM -4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to
§33.1 -155, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements,
after receiving a copy of this resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Virginia Department of Transportation
guarantees a clear and unrestricted right -of -way, as described and any necessary
easements for cuts, fills and drainage.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
June 28, 2011 395
4. Treasurer's Statement of Accountability per Investment and
Portfolio Policy as of May 31, 2011
5. Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of May 31, 2011
6. Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of May 31, 2011
7. Accounts Paid — May 2011
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 4:22 p.m., Chairman Church moved to go into closed meeting following
the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2 -3711 A .1. Discussion
concerning appointments to the Virginia Western Community College Board; Roanoke
Valley Sustainability Consortium Steering Committee. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
The closed session was held from 4:43 p.m. until 4:53 p.m.
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. 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 explained the reason for the changes in the ordinance as
outlined in the work session on June 12, 2011. There have been no changes since the
first reading. Supervisor Altizer inquired in looking under section 4 -11, under "Security ",
at the current time it was all about swimming facilities and now it says swimming pools,
which incorporates both. He read from the ordinance reading "The pool area shall be
adequately secured against unauthorized entry by the public in general ". When talking
about the public in general, it goes back to public swimming pools. When he visualizes
public swimming pools in Roanoke County, there is a six -foot tall chain -link fencing,
different types of area. Now residential swimming pools are included and when he sees
396 June 28, 2011
the word adequate secured," who is going to make that determination of "adequate
secured "? Someone may have a four (4) -foot high fence with one gate and it is
padlocked. Is that adequately secured? He advised all he is trying to do is make sure
it is going to be the same in this neighborhood as is in another neighborhood. Mr.
Mahoney responded that he is correct in that staff has not specifically defined the height
of the fencing, the type of fencing, the locking mechanism, if any. He stated he knows
in other provisions of the code, the building code, and some provisions that deal with
those kinds of details. That reference is going to link back in to the building code the
Board has already adopted under another Chapter. Supervisor Altizer stated he was
hoping Joel Baker, Building Commissioner, would be here to answer his questions. At
that time, it was the consensus of the Board to defer this item until the evening session
when Mr. Baker can verify.
Mr. Baker was brought before the meeting and advised Mr. Mahoney that
the Uniform Statewide Building Code does have a requirement for fencing around pools,
forty -eight (48) inches in height, entrance gate has to be a self closing gate and must
open out away from the pool, the latch has to be on the backside so that a child cannot
reach over from the top.
ORDINANCE 062811 -6 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
WHEREAS, Section 15.2 -1200 of the Code of Virginia authorizes any county to
adopt such measures as it deems expedient to secure and promote the health, safety
and general welfare of its inhabitants; and
WHEREAS, such power shall include the adoption of quarantine regulations, the
adoption of necessary regulations to prevent the spread of contagious diseases, and
the "adoption of regulations for the prevention of the pollution of water which is
dangerous to the health or lives of persons residing in the county "; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has adopted ordinances (Ord. Nos. 62894-
18, 52395 -9 040996 -3) to regulate the operation of public swimming pools in Roanoke
County; and
WHEREAS, the operation of certain private swimming pools in Roanoke County
have threatened the public health, safety, and welfare of neighboring citizens as a result
of a failure to maintain these private swimming pools; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 10, 2011, and the
second reading was held on June 28, 2011.
June 28, 2011 397
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County as follows:
1. That Article I. "In General" of Chapter 4. "Amusements" of the Roanoke
County Code is amended and reenacted as follows:
Sec. 4-4. - Definitions.
For the purposes of this article, the following words and phrases shall have the
meanings ascribed to them by this section, unless otherwise indicated to the contrary:
Agent shall mean a legally authorized representative of the owner.
Disinfectant shall mean the chemical that disinfects by inhibiting, neutralizing, or
destroying the growth of harmful microorganisms.
Free residual disinfectant shall mean the amount of measurable chlorine and
bromine remaining in the water following disinfection.
Health director shall mean the health director of the Roanoke County- Vinton
Health Department, or his authorized representative.
Lifeguard shall mean an individual who is currently certified as a lifeguard in
accordance with the standards as recommended by the American Red Cross or other
accredited agency recognized by the health director, or qualified by a reputable water
safety organization.
Operator shall mean the individual who is currently a certified pool operator in
accordance with the standards as recommended by the National Swimming Pool
Foundation, the National Recreation and Park Association, or other accredited agency
recognized by the health director;
Owner shall mean any person who owns, leases or has signed a contract to own
or lease a public swimming pool.
Public swimming pool shall mean any swimming pool, other than a private
residential swimming pool, intended to be used collectively by numbers of persons for
swimming or bathing and operated by any person, whether as owner, lessee, operator
or concessionaire, for which any fee or consideration is charged directly or indirectly for
such use. The term "public swimming pool" includes, but is not limited to, tourist
establishment pools, pools owned or operated by hotels and motels, condominium,
private club, apartment, or any association of persons. The term "public swimming pool"
shall not include single occupant tubs and showers used exclusively for therapeutic
purposes nor spas or hot tubs regulated by Article VI of this chapter.
Swimmer capacity or load shall mean the maximum number of persons permitted
in the pool at a given time, to be determined by dividing the total square footage of
swimming pool water surface area by 27.
Swimming pool shall mean any structure, basin chamber, or tank, located either
indoors or outdoors, including public and private residential swimming pools, containing
an artificial body of water intended to be used for swimming, diving or recreational
bathing, and having a water depth of twenty -four (24) inches or more at any point
Sec. 4 -11. - Security.
398 June 28, 2011
Swimming pools shall be maintained in a manner which will not create a
nuisance or hazard to the public safety and well- being, and the pool area shall be
adequately secured against unauthorized entry by the public in general. The impounded
water shall, at all times, be treated in a manner which will prevent the growth of algae
and the breeding of mosquitoes or other vermin
Sec. 4 -13. - Entry and inspections; enforcement; penalties.
(a) In accordance with the provisions of section 32.1 -25 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, the health director or his designee shall have the right to
enter any property to conduct inspections and to ensure compliance with this article. All
public swimming pools in the county may commence operations each year only after
being inspected by the health director or his designee and receiving a permit from the
director and after complying with all licensing requirements of the commissioner of the
revenue. The health director is authorized to require each owner to complete and
submit an annual application, all in such form as the director shall approve. Each
application shall be accompanied by a fee in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) to
partially reimburse the county for the cost of this inspection.
(b) When the health director finds that the provisions of this article are not met
or that any condition exists that endangers the life, health or safety of the users of any
public swimming pool, he may order the facility closed until the condition is corrected.
When the health director finds that any provisions of this chapter are not met, he shall
give written notice to the owner of the specific sections of this Code which are being
violated and afford the owner an opportunity to respond to such notice. Failure of any
owner to respond to the health director's notice either in writing or in person, within ten
calendar days, shall be considered an admission of fact as to the existence of the
violations set forth in the notice of violation. Upon the occurrence of any violation of this
chapter, which does not threaten the life, health or safety of any user of the pool, the
health director shall have the authority to develop reasonable steps for the correction of
any violations in consultation with pool owner. Continued failure to comply with these
regulations shall be cause for revocation of any permit or business license issued, as
required in subsection (a). Any person aggrieved by the refusal of the health director to
grant, or by the revocation or suspension of, a permit or license shall have the right to
appeal therefrom to the circuit court of the county within thirty (30) days of such refusal,
revocation or suspension.
(c) Any owner, agent or operator in charge of or control of any public
swimming pool which is in violation of the provisions of sections 4 -4 through 4 -12 shall
be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. Any owner, agent or operator who shall operate a
public swimming pool without a license or permit shall be guilty of a Class 1
misdemeanor. Each day of operation of such pool without a valid license or permit shall
constitute a separate offense.
(d) The health director shall utilize the inspection process to develop
recommendations designed to promote safety and health in swimming which are
responsive to the unique needs and situations of each pool.
June 28, 2011 399
(e) Any owner of a private residential swimming pool who is in violation of
Section 4 -11 shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. In addition to any criminal
penalty the County Administrator or his designee shall be authorized to take such
remedial actions as may be necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare,
and the cost of such remedial actions shall be assessed against the property owner, a
lien for such costs shall be placed against the real estate, and collected as real estate
taxes.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 7:00 p.m., Chairman Church moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 062811 -7 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING
WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2 -3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies; and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
400 June 28, 2011
AYES : Supervisors, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
1. Resolution approving a proposed amendment to the Roanoke
County Comprehensive Plan to incorporate Urban Development
Areas (UDAs) (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson explained the reason for the proposed resolution as
outlined in the Board Report. He advised the General Assembly had adopted back in
2007 legislation that would require certain growth rates be identified by July 1, 2011.
Supervisor Flora asked Mr. Thompson to describe what it means to require Urban
Development Areas (UDAs) in the Comprehensive (Comp) Plan as opposed to how it is
implemented after it is incorporated into the Comp Plan. Mr. Thompson responded
typically most areas will have areas that have growth. The Comp Plan is a guide for
development for decision makers to make future decisions; meeting the Comp Plan is
for areas with future growth where high densities may be allowed if a rezoning came
through and might be appropriate through that process. Mr. Thompson explained when
looking at infrastructure funding, this may be available in the future from the State if it
represented as located in an urban development area. He explained this is a guide.
The legislation allows rezoning and other development outside the urban development
areas; it is more of an attempt to look at what infrastructure is currently in place and
where would be the most advantageous places to be for the future higher density
development to take place. It is an exercise. Typically, most places have a growth area
boundary in their designation; Roanoke County does not, but has certain categories that
fit the densities they are requesting. So, in essence staff is identifying areas along the
Plan to meet the legislation. It does not change the future land use designations,
zoning or existing infrastructure and development can take place outside of those.
Supervisor Altizer inquired in regard to the State Code, when talking about
infrastructure, roads, does the premise of creating higher density and having roads in
place even though there is within the area four -lane roads, divided highway, as a
measurement of infrastructure in place when it comes to transportation on how quick
that transportation can move? Mr. Thompson responded in the negative. He explained
going back to the legislation, this is just one piece, back in 2007 there was a whole
myriad of laws that dealt with transportation, some dealing with traffic impact fees,
urban development areas, access management, it was part of a bigger package. He
stated he thinks the intent was an attempt to look at transportation and land use
together in making decisions especially with limited funding from the State government
for transportation. He advised in his opinion the intent at that time when the economy
June 28, 2011 401
was fairly decent was that in these areas, there may be money coming from the State to
help fund some of these projects, but ultimately changed when the economy went
down.
Supervisor Elswick stated aside from the State deciding they want to start
doing work that is the locality's and belongs to the local planning and zoning people, if
the Board were to follow the new guidelines from the State, would it really result in staff
doing anything differently? Staff has done a good job of looking at where growth should
occur and planning and zoning for the County. Does the State make a contribution as a
result of this? Mr. Thompson responded in the negative, stating this is just an exercise
that meets the State law and there are current designations that meet these urban
densities, it is actually going through the population index and seeing how many areas
staff can accommodate. This meets the State law that is in place, it does not mean they
are telling the County what to do and staff is not going to do anything differently than is
currently done.
Chairman Church inquired if it is all based on percentages, with Mr.
Thompson responding in the affirmative; they require the localities to use the numbers
of ten year population growth. Chairman Church responded sometimes numbers can
be made to look differently. Chairman Church then opened the public hearing and the
following spoke against this resolution.
Max Beyer of 2402 Coachman Drive in LaBellvue stated he is standing
here to recommend this resolution be rejected and the issue be deferred until after this
year's State elections. In the last general assembly session, bill HB1721 was
introduced to make UDA's optional for jurisdictions. Although the bill was defeated in
the Senate, which is also democratically dominated, there is a good chance that this
position in the Senate may be more favorable based on this fall's election. He further
indicated should that not occur, of course, this iniative could be reintroduced. Mr. Beyer
explained the proposed UDA addition to the Comp Plan is a good plan, it is good plan if
you are a beaurocratic planner; if you want to make zoning issues easier to resolve, if
you enjoy living in an urban environment, if you do not care about protecting private
property and the long -run implications of centralized planning and control upon our
basic freedoms. Further, it is not a good plan for those who wish to maximum the uses
of private property, who enjoy living space and cherish their privacy and wish to
maximize their freedom of movement and the freedom to live where they want to live,
freedom to buy and sell property without undue governmental constraint. He stated he
fears that this is the opening move for a domino effect. He fears that once the punted
funds come down the hill it will eventually lead to the next step, etc. of more control. In
fact, he states he thinks it is discriminatory as it would subsidize or centrally develop
dictated by governmental agencies instead of allowing free market forces to make those
vital, economic decisions of what, how and for whom development resources are to be
used. The consequences of those governmental decisions will be to cut off large
geographical sections of the County and those who live there from the full benefit of
their tax dollars. In economic textbooks, the manner of economic decisions is defined
402 June 28, 2011
as socialism. He stated he believes in economic freedom, and is talking about the
foundation of our society as we know it. He believes that political freedom is proceeding
by and is dependent upon economic freedom, one follows the other as night follows
day. He looks to this Board to defend economic freedom.
Micky Mixon who lives in the Cave Spring Magisterial district stated he
wanted to talk about this particular amendment for UDA. He understands this is an
optional thing, per the last speaker's comment he has made it clear how this bill works.
However, he shares a lot of his feelings and thinks this rule smacks of government top -
down ruling and does not think it is a good thing and is the anthesisis of freedman and
whole area of private property, which many of us as citizens cherish so greatly. So, he
would encourage the Board to consider rejecting this resolution, he just does not think it
is a good idea. He added regarding the fact it is focused on urban development, many
people in Roanoke County are like him, as he moved here from Atlanta to get away
from the urban environment. There is a lot of beauty here, with the mountains and
everything else. He stated he would encourage the Board to put the citizens and local
government rule ahead of the top -down rule and reject this UDA.
Ms. Robert Harding advised she lives in Mr. Elswick's district at 3044
Stoneybrook Drive and stated when she recently heard about Agenda 21 and ICLEI,
she did not know much about it and was asking a friend if he had heard about it and he
said no what is it all about and she responded she thinks it is about moving people into
urban areas and getting them maybe closer together and leaving the rest of the
landscape fallow or whatever you want to call it. He said that is communism and she
looked at him funny. She advised she has been to Romania recently and the people
there told her that is how all their troubles started, when they were encouraged to move
into urban areas and leave the countryside alone and she said that the people told her
that was the way it was done and sounded so good until it was too late. She advised
she hopes Roanoke County is not making the same mistake that those people made in
allowing that to happen. She stated she is a retired teacher and many of us, herself
included are ignorant of a lot of our own history. She has been reading this book, "The
5000 Year Leap ", by W. Cleon Skousen and has learned a lot. One of the things that
she has learned is that when the English settlers came here first in Jamestown in 1607
and later in Plymouth in 1620, both groups were financed by the same London company
and this company told them that they were to practice communal economics, which
sounds like a form of socialism. They were to have a leader who would assign tasks
and they were all to do the work that was assigned to them and when the task was
completed they would all enjoy in the proceeds of their labor. It did not work well in
Jamestown and it had pretty much been thrown out by the time the Pilgrims came over
in 1620 and she has heard and read somewhere that when the Pilgrims came over, this
London company told them, you are Christians, you can make this work. So they over
and tried it and it was not very successful for them. The man that was the taskmaster,
William Bradford, one of their governors kept notes about things and he noticed that
some of the people were laggards, they did not work as hard as the others and they
June 28, 2011 403
often had a sore elbow or something that meant they could not go out into the fields that
day. However, Mr. Bradford noticed that when it came time for the harvest, these guys
were the first in line with the biggest baskets for their share of the food. He had enough
of it eventually and he told them he would not tell everybody what to do anymore and he
said you are all going to get a plot of land equivalent to the size of your family so that
everyone can take care of their own family, enough land to grow what you need, we are
going to divide up the tools, seeds and then it is sort of root hog or die. The next year
he wrote in his diary something to the effect of, he could hardly believe his eyes,
everybody was out in the fields working and those who had been laggards before were
out there working as hard as anyone else and their wives and children were out there
with them. They just got rid of that communal type of economics right then and there.
They all had a good harvest that year. Our colonists learned when they got away from
where the Duke or the Earl told them what they had to do, they enjoyed freedom and
the opportunity to try something the chance to succeed or fail, but at least a chance to
try and between then and 1776 when the Declaration was written and then between
then and 1787 when the Constitution was written, the colonists had learned to try to
experiment. When they had come over here, they had come over on a boat that was
not much larger than the boats in use for 5,000 years, thus the title of the book. What
she is trying to say, they tried in close quarters, which they did not like, they wanted
freedom. When they got the constitution written they included twenty -eight principles
that had maybe been tried different places, but never put together all in one and the
freedom America had inspired the whole world and in the next 200 years, we went from
spinning thread to weave cloth to make our clothes to buying and storage and putting a
man on the moon, etc. She stated she hopes the Board will reject this.
Mr. Mike Bailey from the Hollins District stated as many of the Board
knows, he is the chairman of the Roanoke County Republican Committee, although he
is speaking to the Board regarding the role of government and the County's participation
in and he is not here as a collective voice of the party. He stated he noticed there are
several people here tonight that are of similar mind and want to speak to the Board and
he simply wants to join that conversation. As many others here, he has just become
aware of the nature of the UDAs and how they fit into the comprehensive plan and how
that impacts zoning and regulations. He is concerned about the connection between
the United Nations (UN) Agenda 21, which is concept called Sustainable Development
and the International Counsel of Local Environmental Issues. He recognizes that
Roanoke County joined ICLEI several years ago. Perhaps at the time, it was a good
idea, but nevertheless, he has some concerns. The concept of community planning and
community development sounds harmless on the surface, but cautions the Board to
relook at the agenda of these organizations. He encouraged the Board to be careful not
to overreach the Board's responsibilities. As a conservative, he believes the role of
government, including community planners is to help us live the lives that we want not
to tell us how to live the lives we have. Therefore, because we are a nation built around
freedom, community planning built around restrictions should be viewed with an air of
404 June 28, 2011
caution, because property rights and the pursuit of happiness are so closely bound
together in our constitution. It is the apparent agenda behind the concepts of
sustainable development in ICLEI that he would like to ask the Board to reevaluate the
County's participation. Please take the time to check the websites, hear your
constituents, read and study their concerns to see why these people are speaking to the
Board tonight. He stated his concern was not those of "kooks" chasing a conspiracy
theory, but concerns that are the beginning of a serious discussion, the role of
government and the connection of property rights to freedom. He therefore urged the
Board to put these concerns first and try to find a way to led without future restrictions
and legislations, to reconsider the County's participation in ICLEI.
Charles S. Werterlek stated he lives in the Mt. Pleasant and is one of Mr.
Altizer constituents and just wanted to add his two cents about this ICLEI situation. He
stated he has just become aware of this very lately as many of us have even though it
has been going on for a long time. Our towns, counties and freedoms are being
threatened through insidious programs that appear harmless. Right now policies are
being implemented that will ultimately eliminate our freedoms and destroy our way of
life. We need to know what is going on to stop this process. Many officials are selling
us out to global, regional development with help from the international counsel for local
environmental initiatives; just the term really bugs him because on the one hand,
international counsel and the other local environmental iniatives, which are totally at
odds with each other. ICLEI is used as one of the mechanisms to undo the political
recognition of inalienable rights. Why should we care about this? It is social
engineering and behavior modification and they are the real objectives being
implemented under the guise of environmental and climate protection. It is
accomplished by exploiting people's desire to maintain a healthy and lasting
environment in the name of sustainability. It is behavioral change and elected officials,
too many of them allow ICLEI to influence policy changes through the use of funding
incentives and rewards. While some of these policies sound good on the surface, they
result in consequences such as high density housing scams, traffic congestion, open
space where access is not allowed, government partnering with favored private
business and non - profit agencies, using our tax money, undermining constitutional
administration of government, managed control over our lives, mismanagement of
public utilities, prohibitions on natural resource management which increased fire
hazards, lack of water, private property restrictions and last, but not least, increased
taxes, fees, regulations and restrictions. In other words, this is a bad scene and he
would like to add his request to drop out of this situation and let it be.
Mr. Noah Tickle of 1603 Frosty Lane stated he is a resident of Roanoke
County since 1956, landowner and thus tax payer since 1965. He stated he was in
attendance asking that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors remove all
associations with the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives commonly
known as ICLEI. He is also here asking Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to follow
the example set by the Board of Supervisors in the era of Thomas Jefferson, Albemarle
June 28, 2011 405
County, Virginia. They have recently removed ICLEI from their county; listening to the
wisdom of Dr. Charles Battig. He stated he would like to read a little something.
"Defunding ICLEI and terminating the members of the county in that organization does
not mean the County is abandoning its interest in true conservation principles. It means
that freedom of choice and individual rights are to be preserved in an open regulatory
process." Please eliminate ICLEI. The more we allow an unconstitutional UN world
government into our area the more we will lose our freedoms. Our Board of
Supervisors is made up of local people deciding local issues. Let's keep it that way.
With the UN through an out of control federal government, our Board of Supervisors will
lose their authority.
Linda LaPrade states she is from the Cave Spring District of Roanoke
County. It is a known fact that we live in a beautiful area. Both you and I want this
beauty preserved for future generations. A growing number of citizens here in the
county, the state, and around the country are becoming more aware of and concerned
about the invasive presence of ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental
Issues). It is an integral part of UN Agenda 21, which is essentially government control
of private property. They, according to their website propose "an array of actions to be
implemented by every person on earth." According to the President's Council on
Sustainability: "Land ... cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by
individuals." and "Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of wealth and
therefore contributes to social injustice." All of this is under the guise of sustainability.
Did you know that single - family homes are not sustainable? According to this group,
they are not. Recognizing the problem with people finding out their meaning of
sustainability, Gary Lawrence, the advisor for this group, discovered that people might
object to that language and says, "We must call it something else, such as
comprehensive planning, growth management, or smart growth." Do those terms sound
familiar? This is where ICLEI comes in, and takes many forms: UDAs, Cool Cities,
RCCLEAR, Smart Growth, Regional Planning, and the list goes on. ICLEI's ideas on
land use and preservation are based on Global Warming Theories. Climate science, like
much science, is not settled. Before you joined ICLEI in 2007, did you, the BOS, find
independent scientific studies, or accept ICLEI's theories as facts? Examining the Local
Comprehensive Plan for Future Use in Roanoke County, new designations of land use
are given. These designations are straight from ICLEI and Agenda 21. These plans
subtly mandate where you may live and what control you have over the land you own. It
is nicely worded in all the "key" words... natural preserve, neighborhood villages, green
living. They are designed to herd human population into designated village areas and
away from rural areas. How it is to be accomplished is left open. We do not believe that
your rural home will be taken; however, a non - elected board might, as some localities
are finding out, decide that you must have the EPA inspect your septic system every
year ... at your expense of course ... that it must fit standards yet to be set.... effectively
making it unaffordable to live there. Many Board of Supervisors throughout the country,
as they become aware of what the ICLEI mandates could mean for landowners in their
406 June 28, 2011
counties, are opting out of ICLEI membership. Because if you are a member, you will
follow their plans. This is a part of membership, and Roanoke County is following the
ICLEI plan to the letter. Carroll County, MD. recently stopped their ICLEI membership
because, as a member of their BOS stated, "it violated private property rights and the
U.S. Constitution." Albemarle County recently halted their membership after the Board
of Supervisors began to investigate what it does mean and might mean for their
citizens. This is indeed, a growing movement. Terminating participation in and funding
of all ICLEI related activities does not mean the county is unconcerned with our
environment. It simply means that the county respects individual rights and will do what
is right for their area.... not to fulfill a UN agenda. She advised she has provided some
documents for you to examine. Take a look at Agenda 21 and ICLEI on their own
websites and see in their own words the dangers to the landowners of Roanoke County.
You and all of us who oppose ICLEI want to preserve our environment. ICLEI does not
do that. It simply takes control subtly and a little bit at a time. Ms. LaPrad urged the
Board to preserve the rights of its citizens and to terminate all affiliation with ICLEI.
Chairman Church closed the public hearing and asked Mr. Mahoney to
advise the Board how the General Assembly in Richmond, Virginia has come into this
matter and where it stands at this time. Mr. Mahoney advised when the General
Assembly adopted 15.2.22.23.1 in 2007 and there have been several amendments
since then. The bottom line it said in its enactment, if your localities fell within certain
population ranges, each local governing body shall incorporate urban development
areas into their comprehensive plans by July 1, 2011. This is what staff has brought
before the Board to satisfy or meet that directive from the General Assembly. Chairman
Church then reiterated July 1, 2011, which is this Friday with Mr. Mahoney confirming.
Supervisor Elswick stating knowing it is a UN effort to do something; it
typically has a few countries doing it. The war that the UN is involved in is a few
countries that are really fighting and most of the other members do not make a
contribution. On this one, he is wondering what other countries would actually
implement the requirements of Agenda 21 or ICLEI or these kinds of programs. It would
be implemented by a few countries, which have procedures already in place and
probably are already doing a real good job with zoning and planning for communities. It
would not be implemented by third -world countries; they do not have zoning in place. It
would not be implemented by Iran, Russia or Syria a lot of those kinds of countries. So
they are directed pretty much at a few countries and ours is one of them. If you look at
the provisions for the UDA, they read like it is common sense and they read very much
like what has already been done. It is our responsibility at the local level, normally. So,
he asked, why would the State decide all of a sudden to tell us to do it their way and to
make reports to the State resulting in another layer of State bureaucracy. He stated it
just does not make sense that the State would decide all of a sudden to start doing jobs
that Roanoke County is responsible for. It costs extra money and they hang money
over localities heads; saying if you do not do it maybe we will not fix your roads.
Roanoke County cannot be bought and those kinds of threats should not bother us.
June 28, 2011 407
Supervisor Elswick stated based on the July 1, 2011, date the Board should come up
with a response that has conditions associated with it, or just wait, however, with the
July 1 st date as a requirement, the Board cannot wait. Supervisor Elswick stated maybe
a letter to our State representatives to whom the citizens have elected to prevent this
kind of thing from happening would make some sense.
Supervisor Flora advised he has a number of issues with UDA's. The
biggest issue is it is a mandate from the General Assembly. A mandate which requires
Roanoke County to do a specific thing, which is to include UDAs in our comprehensive
plan. The second problem he has with this issue, is it encroaches on the localities
ability to do their own planning, which takes away from the Board the ability to actually
plan for the growth the way the Board sees it. The third problem is it does tend to get
people into urban areas to allow development in areas where you have water, sewer
and highways, which means you are going to bring a lot of people into a smaller area.
More importantly than that, his fourth problem is what it does to the rural areas; it
actually creates a situation where their land is less valuable, if you cannot develop or if it
happened to be in an urban development area. Having said that, Supervisor Flora
stated they need to be reminded that Virginia is a "Dillon" rule state. A "Dillon" rule state
is a state where the General Assembly can tell you what to do and what not to do. So,
the Board can only do what the State General Assembly gives us the power to do and
Roanoke County has to do what they tell us to do. That in itself strikes at property rights
and our ability to govern ourselves, but it is the law. Localities have tried to get rid of
the "Dillon" rule here in Virginia for decades, but the General Assembly is not willing to
give up the power they have as long as it is a "Dillon" rule state. They have the power
and they keep the power in Richmond and they want to keep it way. So, this is what is
called a "Catch -22;" it is something we are told we have to do by July 1, 2011, and it is
something the Board does not want to do. It is a dilemma, and he stated if he has to
err, it will be on the side of caution. If the law says it has to be done, then it will be
done. This does not mean that Roanoke County gives up its effort to try to change the
law, because if it changes next year you can bet things will change in our
comprehensive plan because frankly he is uncomfortable with designating areas in the
County where staff is going to encourage growth and other areas where it will be
discouraged. He stated it seems to him the marketplace ought to do that. Let the
people who want to build their homes and subdivide their property make the decision
and the Board will follow suit. Roanoke County needs regulations, when ICLEI was
adopted in 1992, there were 178 nations that gathered in Rio De Janero from June the
4 through 14, 2009, and adopted Agenda 21. Zoning has been around for decades,
Roanoke County has been zoning since the 1960's, maybe as far back as the 1950's.
So, it has been around a lot longer than ICLEI has been, so the two need to be
separated, they are not necessarily tied together.
Chairman Church commented that the Board has a real problem with what
is going on from the State of Virginia, this Board has on more than one occasion sent
out objectionable language in resolutions to the State objecting to the many mandates
408 June 28, 2011
that they have. The area that he represents, the 127 square miles is probably the most
adversely effected because the land in his area is the most volumous land and he
stated he has to believe the citizens out in the rural area moved there for a reason. This
Board almost unanimously has objected to Richmond trying to guide local government.
Supervisor Altizer stated he had spoken from this dais four weeks ago
about speaking to a group in Vinton several weeks ago when going through the budget
process. A senior lady stated "you made it through the budget process; we are still in
somewhat of a deepening economy, so tell all of us here what your biggest fear is."
Without hesitation he stated his biggest fear is the General Assembly. He advised he
has many friends that are legislators in the State of Virginia. He stated he thinks they
try to do well and they mean well, but the legislation over the last several years
increasingly has been coming down on localities without the legislators understanding
what the impact will be on localities. Supervisor Altizer stated he still stands by that, it is
his biggest fear. He stated Mr. Flora spoke very eloquently about the distaste that many
of us have with UDAs, his biggest fear is they have changed since 2007 when they
started; they can change even more. There was a promise of funding if you went to
UDAs and there are incentives and encouragement for people to go into areas
designated with higher density. His question earlier to Mr. Thompson was when
speaking of infrastructure and transportation if you are from New York, Chicago,
California, you may not think the traffic is bad here, but when looking at parts of the
areas to where there is increased density and this is supposedly where it would be put,
Tanglewood Mall, Route 419, Route 220. We have all fought that traffic. Electric Road,
South Peak, Brambleton Avenue, Route 221 and the Bonsack area and Route 460 back
and forth, so under a UDA quite frankly from a transportation standpoint have we got
the roads there that will handle it, yes, but what are we going to do to the citizens in
those areas and do we become a Chicago or Los Angles, Baltimore, Maryland or
Washington, DC where if you have to be at work at 8:00 a.m. you would need to leave
at 5:00 a.m. to get there. This is just some of the ramifications of what a UDA in his
opinion can do; the opportunity to change. He stated he will preface his comments by
stating Roanoke County is a rule of law community and a rule of law State. It is as
Supervisor Flora stated the "Dillon" rule. Localities are only granted the power that the
General Assembly says it may have. When they pass something and say, we shall
pass it, Roanoke County shall pass it. Land use needs to be determined by the
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, Town of Vinton, Botetourt County, and Craig
County, who are closest to the situation; that is where land use issues need to be
handled. Everything is unique; a wide - painted brush from the State of Virginia cannot
uniquely identify what is best for the citizens of Roanoke County. He further
commented that it is legislation like this and times like this that he does fear what the
General Assembly does. The Board is in a no win situation, wherein here is something
that he believes the whole Board knows is wrong and not the right thing to do and
should not have it shoved down our throats, but the Board has no choice. No matter
how this goes, he would like to go on record whenever a motion comes forward to ask
June 28, 2011 409
that part of the motion be attached to the legislative agenda for this year and in our talks
with local legislators; and try to have this mandate removed by the next General
Assembly and if the General Assembly still wants a part of it, it will be by choice, not by
force to any locality.
Chairman Church inquired of Mr. Mahoney the consequences if the Board,
votes yes or no on this particular item. Mr. Mahoney responded there is no specific
prohibition or penalty established in the legislation of the General Assembly. He stated
his concern is when he reads the word "shall" in a piece of legislation from the General
Assembly, it does place a burden on local governments, Board of Supervisors, City and
Town Councils and he would hate to have the governing body in a position where it has
not followed a specific mandate or directive from the General Assembly. A citizen could
accuse the Board of misfeasance or malfeasance of office, even though there is no
specific penalty; the General Assembly is silent as to that. The concern he would have
is just that the Board was told to do something and the Board does not do it, he thinks
there could be an accusation leveled against any one of the Board members that they
violated their oath of office. He further commented that might be farfetched, he is not
aware of anyone who is suing members of local governing bodies for failure to comply,
but feels it is a risk.
Supervisor Elswick stated there are times when you have to stand up for
what you think is right and as far as he is concerned, the Board should vote no and if
the State wants to come and gets us they will have a hard time doing it.
Chairman Church remarked that it is not many times that you see four out
of four Board members with not much of a choice.
Supervisor Flora states there is a term for defiance, it is called civil
disobedience.
Supervisor Elswick stated the Board is here because legislators and
federal and state people looked at something and said "that kind of makes sense ", it has
a few things wrong with it, cumulatively all those little things add up and none of them
stood up and said no.
Chairman Church stated he felt whatever is done should be done
unanimously. There comes a time when this Board has had enough in Roanoke
County.
Supervisor Altizer stated he has said twice in two meetings that his
biggest fear was the General Assembly and they are his biggest fear and thinks each
Board member has railed on the State for forcing things down our collective throats, and
we have complained and he would be a hypocrite if he did not follow through and say
there are times when maybe you just have to get sued.
Chairman Church stated he is ready to make it three, not just to follow
anyone because it is not in his nature to be shoved around by federal and state
government, especially if he feels in his heart that it is not correct and is ready to reject
this resolution.
410 June 28, 2011
Supervisor Flora stated the question is how do we do it without just putting
it back into the face of the General Assembly, or is that what the Board wants to do?
Chairman Church responded maybe they need a dose of "back at you ".
Supervisor Flora moved that this item be delayed for one year to give the
General Assembly an opportunity to back up.
Chairman Church stated he just does not see the General Assembly
taking us off in cuffs. It is not like the Board is dreaming up something that is not
relevant to what our citizens feel. He does not believe the people in attendance tonight
are just a selected few. He stated that each Board member takes an oath to represent
the citizens, it says the constitution, but each Board member is elected by the people.
Supervisor Elswick stated the people here were not sent by some
organization, it is not any kind of conspiracy, they are citizens and throughout this
County everyone is very concerned about some things that are going on and feels that
is why so many people are here on this issue. He stated he has wondered because
Roanoke County is highly respected throughout the State because it has always done a
good job at whatever it does and if Roanoke County says no then are other localities
going to say maybe they need to think about this a little more. Putting this off for a year
essentially says that you do not respond, which is maybe not a bad strategy instead of
saying no or yes.
Supervisor Flora stated the purpose is if the election does go in our favor
in November this will change. This is a rumor the Board is hearing from the people that
are opposed to it in Richmond; instead of saying yes the Board is going to adopt it, or
no the Board is going to reject it, it will give the General Assembly the chance to correct,
which is rejecting it philosophically without saying no. Roanoke County is not complying
with the law because it is not adopting it by July 1, 2011. It might also give the Board an
opportunity to find out whether the State is serious about enforcing their laws or not.
Chairman Church stated if this does not happen as you are anticipating,
the Board needs to be ready to take action at a point in time.
Supervisor Altizer stated at the beginning of this meeting, some citizens
spoke about putting it off, certainly some citizens wanted the Board to vote no, which he
understands. He stated by deferring this for one year conversely to voting outright,
which in effect does the same thing, it allows the Board to go talk to our legislators and
say this needs to change; it is a smack to the General Assembly, but it opens up the
dialog because not only does the County have to deal with its own State elected, but
they also have to deal with other areas. There may be some wisdom in the negation.
He further clarified that he hopes anyone does not think the Board is caving, but trust
him the majority of the Board members have been to Richmond and fought some very
hard causes and succeeded and thinks is a direct correlation to our relationship with the
local elected. It does send a signal and if they do not change within a year, he will be
prepared to vote no and let them decide whatever they want to do. Supervisor Altizer
stressed to the people in the room to work with the local elected, both already there
June 28, 2011 411
and going through the nominating process because if they do not do their part and the
Board does not do its part then shame on all of us at the end of the day.
Supervisor Flora added that the deadline is July 1, 2011, but knowing how
government works he doubts that even fifty percent (50 %) of the localities that are
required to have these adopted in the comp plan will have it done. It may send a
message to the others who have not done it and they may take a lesson from us and do
the very same thing as opposed to either rejecting it or adopting it. It is an opportunity
and he truly hopes that it becomes optional by the General Assembly. As part of the
2007 legislation the bill started out to require Counties to have cluster zoning in rural
areas and that changed, they have taken that out and made it optional. This could
possibly trigger a rethinking in Richmond with or without a change in State Senate. He
is sure it is going to make the news because usually when the Board does things like
this, controversial, the media jumps all over it.
Chairman Church remarked if it does happen to change, election wise or
not, the Board needs to be prepared to make a change. There are some strong
sections in the State of Virginia, i.e. Northern Virginia and the Tidewater area that have
the votes to really control legislation and everyone can camp out at our legislators and
still not be effective. If the Board does not take action tonight, it still needs to be
prepared to take some action at the proper time, because it may not go away.
Supervisor Flora repeated his motion to table this matter for one year and
Supervisor Altizer asked to also include as a part of our legislative agenda. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES : Supervisors, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
Chairman Church then called for a ten minute recess and called the
meeting back into session at 8:20 p.m.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1. The petition of Sandra Finck to obtain a Special Use Permit in an
R1 -S, Low Density Residential District, with Special Use Permit, to
acquire a multiple dog permit for four (4) dogs on a 2.27 acre
parcel located at 2929 Elderwood Road, Catawba Magisterial
District (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the petition to the Board. He indicated there was a
public hearing with the Planning Commission on June 7, 2011, and no citizens spoke.
He indicated one letter of protest has been received from one citizen. The Planning
Commission approved the request with one condition. No citizens spoke on this matter.
412 June 28, 2011
Chairman Church asked Mr. Thompson to verify that there is over an acre of land and
no one spoke at the Planning Commission public hearing with Mr. Thompson
responding in the affirmative. There was no further discussion.
ORDINANCE 062811 -8 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO
ACQUIRE A MULTIPLE DOG PERMIT FOR FOUR DOGS ON A
2.27 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 2929 ELDERWOOD ROAD
(TAX MAP NO. 44.03- 5 -8.1) CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT, UPON THE PETITION OF SANDRA FINCK
WHEREAS, Sandra Finck has filed a petition for a special use permit to acquire a
multiple dog permit for four dogs on a 2.27 acre parcel located at 2929 Elderwood Road
(Tax Map No. 44.03- 5 -8.1) in the Catawba Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
June 7, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on May 24, 2011; the second reading and public hearing on this
matter was held on June 28, 2011.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Sandra
Finck to acquire a multiple dog permit for four dogs on a 2.27 acre parcel located at
2929 Elderwood Road in the Catawba Magisterial District is substantially in accord with
the adopted 2005 Community Plan, as amended, pursuant to the provisions of Section
15.2 -2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and that it shall have a minimum
adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood or community, and said special use
permit is hereby approved with the following condition:
a) The Multiple Dog Permit shall be for a maximum of four dogs.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The provisions of this special use
permit are not severable. Invalidation of any word, phrase, clause, sentence or
paragraph shall invalidate the remainder. The Zoning Administrator is directed to
amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
June 28, 2011 413
2. The petition of National Park Service /Blue Ridge Parkway, to
obtain a Special Use Permit in an AG -3, Agricultural /Rural
Preserve District, to construct a 120' self - supporting, lattice tower
to replace an existing 85' guyed tower on a 27 acre parcel located
atop Poor Mountain off Honeysuckle Road, Windsor Hills
Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of
Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the petition for the Board. He indicated the
Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 7, 2011, with no citizens speaking.
The Planning Commission approved the petition four to zero (4 to 0), with three
conditions. No citizens spoke on this matter. Supervisor Elswick advised this is for our
friends at the Parkway, there is already an existing tower and is a replacement one only
slightly higher. The citizens of the community do not have any strong objections. There
was no further discussion.
ORDINANCE 062811 -9 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO
CONSTRUCT A 120' SELF - SUPPORTING LATTICE TOWER TO
REPLACE AN EXISTING 85' GUYED TOWER ON A 27 ACRE
PARCEL LOCATED ATOP POOR MOUNTAIN OFF
HONEYSUCKLE ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 102.00- 1 -1.1), WINDSOR
HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON THE PETITION OF THE
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE — BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY
WHEREAS, the National Park Service — Blue Ridge Parkway has filed a petition
for a special use permit to construct a 120' self- supporting lattice tower to replace an
existing 85' guyed tower on a 27 acre parcel located atop Poor Mountain off
Honeysuckle Road (Tax Map No. 102.00- 1 -1.1) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
June 7, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on May 24, 2011; the second reading and public hearing on this
matter was held on June 28, 2011.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to the
National Park Service — Blue Ridge Parkway to construct a 120' self- supporting lattice
tower to replace an existing 85' guyed tower on a 27 acre parcel located atop Poor
Mountain off Honeysuckle Road (Tax Map No. 102.00- 1 -1.1) is substantially in accord
with the adopted 2005 Community Plan, as amended, pursuant to the provisions of
Section 15.2 -2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and that it shall have a
414 June 28, 2011
minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood or community, and said
special use permit is hereby approved with the following conditions:
a) The proposed development shall be in general conformance with the concept
plan prepared by the United States Department of the Interior dated January
25, 2011.
b) The proposed tower shall not exceed a total height of 120'.
c) The existing 85' tower and supporting structures shall be removed and
properly disposed of from the site by January 1, 2012.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The provisions of this special use
permit are not severable. Invalidation of any word, phrase, clause, sentence or
paragraph shall invalidate the remainder. The Zoning Administrator is directed to
amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Elswick to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
3. The petition of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, Town of
Vinton and Cardinal Company to amend the protective covenants
and Master Plan and to remove proffered conditions on 99 acres
zoned PTD, Planned Technology Development, District at the
Vinton Business Center, located near the 2100 to 2400 blocks of
Hardy Road and the 2100 block of Cardinal Park Drive, Vinton
Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson explained the reason for the petition. He indicated there
was a community meeting that was held on May 31, 2011 and the Planning
Commission held a public hearing on June 7, 2011 with no speakers. The petition was
approved by the Commission four to zero (4 to 0). There were no citizens to speak on
this item.
Supervisor Altizer explained the community meeting was held on May 31,
2011 and there are a portion of the people that are attached to or adjacent to the park
and there are some that want trails approximately one third and there is probably one
third that do not know if they want them depending on where they are located.
Discussion was held to hold another meeting and come up with a design plan for the
park and where that would be located. Additionally, he noted the Blue Ridge Parkway
June 28, 2011 415
actually has a plan they are working on to open up something right off of the Parkway
that would open up into the trails into the Industrial Center. He advised he would be
meeting with them some time this week and planning a timeframe. Although these trails
have been removed from the master plan that does not set aside the fact we are still
trying to do something to bring the parties together there and also to draw a conclusive
good plan for the trails depending where the Parkway is. He indicated he would be
meeting with the citizens at that time and come back and add the trails back at that
time.
ORDINANCE 062811 -10 REPEALING THE PROFFERED
CONDITIONS ON A 97.17 ACRE TRACT OF REAL ESTATE
(MCDONALD FARM NOW VINTON BUSINESS CENTER)
LOCATED AT THE 2100 BLOCK OF HARDY ROAD (TAX MAP
NOS. 71.07 -3 -1, 71.07 -3 -4, 71.11 -1 -1, 71.11- 1 -1.1, 71.11- 1 -1.2,
71.07 -3 -3, 71.07 -3 -2) AND ADOPTING AN AMENDED MASTER
PLAN, VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on October 26, 1999, the Board of Supervisors adopted an
ordinance changing the zoning classification of a 99.78 acre tract of real estate known
as the McDonald Farm upon the application of the Town of Vinton and this action
accepted a series of proffered conditions including "Protective Covenants, Conditions
and Restrictions for the McDonald Farm "; and
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2003, the Board adopted Ordinance 102803 -14,
which amended these proffered conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
June 7, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 24, 2011, and the
second reading and public hearing was held on June 28, 2011; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows
1. That the proffered conditions on that certain tract of real estate containing
97.17 acres located at the 2100 block of Hardy Road (Tax Map Nos. 71.07 -3 -1, 71.07-
3-4, 71.11 -1 -1 71.11- 1 -1.1, 71.11- 1 -1.2 71.07 -3 -3 71.07 -3 -2), Vinton Magisterial
District and which were accepted by ordinances adopted on October 26, 1999 and
October 28, 2003, and including the "Protective Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
for the McDonald Farm" are hereby repealed.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of the Board of Supervisors
of Roanoke County, the Town of Vinton, and Cardinal IG Company.
3. That said real estate is a 97.17 acre tract previously known as the
McDonald Farm and now known as the Vinton Business Center and further described
416 June 28, 2011
as Tax Map Nos. 71.07 -3 -1, 71.07 -3 -4, 71.11 -1 -1, 71.11- 1 -1.1, 71.11- 1 -1.2, 71.07 -3 -3,
71.07 -3 -2.
4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its final
passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The zoning administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
4. The petition of Carol and Jason Lachowicz to rezone
approximately 5.476 acres from AG -3, Agricultural /Rural Preserve,
District, C -2C, General Commercial, District with conditions, and
C -1C, Office, District with conditions to AV, Agricultural/Village
Center, District and AG -3, Agricultural /Rural Preserve, District,
located at 8346 Bent Mountain Road, 8364 Bent Mountain Road,
and 8399 Strawberry Lane, Windsor Hills Magisterial District
(Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the reason for the petition. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing on June 7, 2011, and approved the petition four to
zero (4 to 0). There were no citizens to speak on this issue. Supervisor Elswick
advised at the public meeting held at the Back Creek Civic League, the citizens had no
major objections and the people think the agriculture village zoning might very well open
up the opportunity to get some sort of small restaurant where they could actually not
have to drive twelve miles to get a hamburger. There was no further discussion.
ORDINANCE 062811 -11 REZONING 5.476 ACRES FROM AG -3,
AGRICULTURAL /RURAL PRESERVE DISTRICT; C -2C,
GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS; AND
C -1C, OFFICE DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS TO AV,
AGRICULTURAL/VILLAGE CENTER DISTRICT AND AG -3
AGRICULTURAL /RURAL PRESERVE DISTRICT LOCATED AT
8364 BENT MOUNTAIN ROAD AND 8399 STRAWBERRY LANE,
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT (TAX MAP NOS.
94.00 -1 -57 AND 58), UPON THE APPLICATION OF CAROL
LACHOWICZ OF L &H COMPANY AND JASON LACHOWICZ
June 28, 2011 417
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on May 24, 2011, and the
second reading and public hearing were held June 28, 2011; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on June 7, 2011; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real estate containing
approximately 5.476 acres, as described herein, and located at 8364 Bent Mountain
Road and 8399 Strawberry Lane (Tax Map Numbers 94.00 -1 -57 and 58) in the Windsor
Hills Magisterial District, is hereby changed from the zoning classification of AG -3,
Agricultural /Rural Preserve District; C -2C, General Commercial District with Conditions;
and C -1 C, Office District with Conditions, to the zoning classification of AV,
Agricultural/Village Center District and AG -3, Agricultural /Rural Preserve District.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of Carol Lachowicz of L &H
Company and Jason Lachowicz.
3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
Tax Map #94.00 -1 -57 — C -1 C bounded as follows:
Beginning at an iron pin, corner to L &H Company property being the original
southeasterly corner of the property formerly owned by John D. Blankenship, but
now also owned by L &H Company, said point being located S 17° 54' 27" W
588.65 feet from the southerly side of VA Sec. Rt. 221; thence with four new
division lines through the property of L &H Company S 72° 05' 33" E 210.00 feet
to a point; thence S 17° 54' 27" W 210.00 feet to the point of Beginning and
containing 1.0 acre and being a portion of the property owned by L &H Company
and being shown on a map by T. P. Parker & Son, dated October 31, 1980 and
revised February 25, 1983.
Tax Map #94.00 -1 -58 — C -2C bounded as follows:
Beginning at an iron pin on the southeasterly side of VA Sec. Rt. 221 at the
northwest corner of property owned by L &H Company, being also northeast
corner of property formerly John W. Blankenship now also owned by L &H
Company; thence with south side of VA Sec. Rt. 221 S 86 57' 54" E 18.66 feet
to a point; thence still with VA Sec. Rt. 221 S 83 28' 30" E 89.37 feet to a point;
thence with two new division lines through the property of L &H Company S 17
54' 27" W 211.10 feet to a point; thence N 78 12' 45" W 106.25 feet to a point on
the outside line of the original L &H Company property; thence with the said old
line N 17 54' 27" E 200.0 feet to the Beginning and containing 0.50 acres and
being shown on map made by T. P. Parker & Son, dated October 21, 1980
revised January 9, 1984.
4.476 acres to be rezoned AV
418 June 28, 2011
Beginning at corner #1 said point being the northeasterly corner of property of
Jason T. and Karen J. Lachowicz (Instrument #200502264) said point also
located on the southerly right -of -way of Bent Mountain Road (US Rt. 221) thence
leaving Lachowicz and with Bent Mountain Road for the following 5 courses:
thence N 77 05' 50" E 225.90 feet to corner #2, thence with the curve to the right
with said curve defined by delta angle of 16 11' 11 ", radius of 334.26', and arc of
94.43', a chord of 94.12' and bearing N 85 11' 25" E to corner #3; thence S 17
54' 27" W 6.64 feet to corner #4; thence S 86 57' 54" E 18.66 feet to corner #5;
thence S 83 28' 30" E 89.37 feet to corner #6; thence S 70 29' 22" E 91.86 fee
to corner #7; thence leaving Bent Mountain Road and with a new division line
through the property of L &H Company (DB 1174 pg. 178) S 35 53' 10" W
639.74 feet to corner #37 said point located on the eastern boundary of Jason T.
and Karen J. Lachowicz, thence leaving remaining property of L &H Company
and with Lachowicz for the following two courses: thence N. 64 27' 33" W
250.40 feet to corner #38, thence N 13 21' 00" E 411.27 feet to corner #1, being
the place of Beginning and containing 4.476 acres and being parcel "B1" as more
particularly shown on plat prepared by Lumsden Associated dated March 30,
2011.
4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Elswick to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
5. 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 in the Vinton Magisterial District and
appropriating $415,000 from the Major Capital Fund (B. Clayton
Goodman III, County Administrator)
Mr. Goodman explained this ordinance and advised this was the second
reading of this ordinance to purchase this property for library purchases. No citizens
spoke on this matter and there was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 062811 -12 AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF
APPROXIMATELY 1.24 ACRES OF REAL ESTATE (TAX MAP
June 28, 2011 419
NOS. 60.16 -8 -3 AND 4) FROM TAZ WADE, INC. FOR LIBRARY
PURPOSES IN THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT AND
APPROPRIATING $415,000 FROM THE MAJOR CAPITAL FUND
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2011, Roanoke County entered into a contract of sale,
subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors, with Taz Wade, Inc. for the purchase of
approximately1.24 acres of real estate for the purchase price of $415,000 in the Vinton
Magisterial District for library purposes; and
WHEREAS, the County now wishes to approve and ratify the execution of said
contract and purchase this real estate; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the
first reading of this ordinance was held on June 14, 2011, and the second reading was
held on June 28, 2011; and
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the contract of sale dated June 14, 2011, for the acquisition of
approximately 1.24 acres of real estate (Tax Map Nos. 60.16 -8 -3 and 4) for the sum of
$415,000 is hereby approved and ratified and further that the acquisition of said real
estate is hereby authorized and approved.
2. That the sum of $415,000 is available in the Major Capital Fund to pay all
of the costs of this acquisition, and is hereby appropriated for this purpose. This
amount is for the purchase price of this real estate.
3. That the Town of Vinton will reimburse the County $207,500 (one -half of
the purchase price) over the next ten (10) years. As this money is received by the
County it will be appropriated to an account for expenses related to the design,
demolition and construction of the new Vinton library.
4. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator are
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of
Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this
real estate, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
6. Ordinance authorizing the purchase of approximately 0.761 acres
of real estate (Tax Map Nos. 60.16 -8 -1 and 2) from B. Wayne
Dunman and Rebecca J. Dunman for library purposes in the
Vinton Magisterial District and appropriating $863,300 from the
420 June 28, 2011
Minor Capital Reserve (B. Clayton Goodman, III, County
Administrator)
Mr. Goodman explained this ordinance and advised this was the second
reading of this ordinance to purchase this property for library purchases. No citizens
spoke on this matter and there was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 062811 -13 AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF
APPROXIMATELY 0.761 ACRE OF REAL ESTATE (TAX MAP
NOS. 60.16 -8 -1 AND 2) FROM B. WAYNE DUNMAN AND
REBECCA J. DUNMAN FOR LIBRARY PURPOSES IN THE
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT AND APPROPRIATING
$863,300 FROM THE MINOR CAPITAL RESERVE
WHEREAS, on June 8, 2011, Roanoke County entered into a contract of sale,
subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors, with B. Wayne Dunman and Rebecca
J. Dunman for the purchase of approximately 0.761 acre of real estate for the purchase
price of $840,000 in the Vinton Magisterial District for library purposes; and
WHEREAS, the County now wishes to approve and ratify the execution of said
contract and purchase this real estate; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the
first reading of this ordinance was held on June 14, 2011, and the second reading was
held on June 28, 2011; and
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the contract of sale dated June 8, 2011, for the acquisition of
approximately 0.761 acre of real estate (Tax Map Nos. 60.16 -8 -1 and 2) for the sum of
$840,000 is hereby approved and ratified and further that the acquisition of said real
estate is hereby authorized and approved.
2. That the sum of $863,300 is available in the Minor Capital Reserve to pay
all of the costs of this acquisition, and is hereby appropriated for this purpose. This
amount is for the purchase price of this real estate and for the various closing costs to
complete this transaction, and due diligence expenses prior to purchase.
3. That the Town of Vinton will reimburse the County $420,000 (one -half of
the purchase price) over the next ten (10) years. As this money is received by the
County, it will be appropriated to an account for expenses related to the design,
demolition and construction of the new Vinton library.
4. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator are
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of
Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this
real estate, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney.
June 28, 2011 421
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
7. 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 outlined the request to lease the property back to the
Dunman's until the library begins construction. The $45,000 annually would go toward
the necessary architectural and engineering costs, etc. The funds will be set aside for
that expense. No citizens spoke regarding this request and there was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 062811 -14 AUTHORIZING THE LEASE TO B.
WAYNE DUNMAN AND REBECCA J. DUNMAN T/A DUNMAN
FLORAL SUPPLY, INC. FOR ONE YEAR (PLUS OPTION TO
EXTEND FOR TWO ONE -YEAR PERIODS) OF COMMERCIAL
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 304 POLLARD STREET, VINTON,
VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, Roanoke County is planning for the construction of a new Vinton
branch library, and to implement this plan the County is acquiring approximately two (2)
acres of real estate located at 304 Pollard Street, Vinton, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the construction of this new Vinton branch library is subject to future
appropriations by a Board of Supervisors, and that this construction may not occur until
2018; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that it is in the best interests of the
County to lease this property to B. Wayne Dunman and Rebecca J. Dunman t/a
Dunman Floral Supply, Inc. for a period of time until the demolition of the existing
structure and construction of a new branch library will occur; and
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of
Roanoke County, a first reading concerning the disposition of the herein - described real
estate was held on June 14, 2011; the second reading and public hearing was held on
June 28, 2011 ; and
422 June 28, 2011
2. That this property to be leased consists of portions of a building consisting
of approximately 26,805 square feet and the adjoining parking area and is located at
304 Pollard Street, Vinton, Virginia; and
3. That it is in the County's best interests to lease this property to B. Wayne
Dunman and Rebecca J. Dunman t/a Dunman Floral Supply Inc. for one year with two
additional one -year lease terms. This lease is subject to the provisions of Section 2.03
and 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter. The annual rental for this property is Forty -
five Thousand Dollars ($45,000); and
3. That the rental income will be appropriated to an account for expenses
related to the design, demolition and construction of the new Vinton library.
4. That the County Administrator, or his designee, is authorized to execute
such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary
to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be upon a form approved by the County
Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
8. 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
Waldrond Park, Hollins Magisterial District (Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney explained this was the second reading of this ordinance and
there were no changes from the first reading. He further indicated this easement is for
ball field lights at Waldrond Park. There were no citizens to speak on this item and
there was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 062811 -15 AUTHORIZING THE GRANTING OF A
FIFTEEN FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT TO APPALACHIAN
POWER ON PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ROANOKE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (TAX MAP NO. 027.10 -02- 19.00)
FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
POWER LINE TO WALDROND PARK, HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT
June 28, 2011 423
WHEREAS, Appalachian Power Company (AEP) requires a permanent utility
easement for purpose of providing upgraded electrical service to Waldrond Park; and
WHEREAS, granting this non - exclusive utility easement for an underground
electric line is necessary for the operation of Waldrond Park; and
WHEREAS, the proposed utility easement to Waldrond Park will serve the
interests of the public and is necessary for the public health, safety and welfare of the
citizens of Roanoke County.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County
Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by
ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on June 14, 2011, and a second
reading and public hearing was held on June 28, 2011.
2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County
Charter, the interest in real estate to be conveyed is hereby declared to be surplus, and
is hereby made available for other public uses by conveyance to Appalachian Power
Company for a non - exclusive utility easement.
3. That donation to Appalachian Power Company of a utility easement for
purpose of an underground electric line, as shown on a plat titled "Proposed Right of
Way on Property of Roanoke County Board of Supervisors ", drawing No. V -2142,
prepared by Appalachian Power Company and dated May 5, 2011, is hereby authorized
and approved.
4. That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrator, is
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such further actions as may be
necessary to accomplish this conveyance, all of which shall be on form approved by the
County Attorney.
5. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Moore
424
June 28, 2011
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Church adjourned the meeting at 8:46 p.m.
of -• •
-0•
Clerk to the Board
;bsep roved by:
11 ,, B. "Butch" Church
Chairman