HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/26/2011 - RegularJuly 26, 2011 445
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 July 2011. Audio and video recordings of
this meeting will be held on file for a minimum of five (5) years in the office of the Clerk
to the Board of Supervisors.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
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, Charlotte A. Moore and
Richard C. Flora
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; Diane D.
Hyatt, Assistant County Administrator; Daniel R. O'Donnell,
Assistant County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County
Attorney; Teresa H. Hall, Director of Public Information and
Deborah C. Jacks, Clerk to the Board
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by Reverent Scot Finley of Bonsack Baptist
Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney added Section 2.2- 3711.A.7.
Consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members pertaining to probable
litigation, namely, options with respect to the renewal of cable television franchise with
Comcast Cable as a closed session item. There were no objections.
446 July 26, 2011
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
Chairman Church introduced Larry Land, Director of Policy Development
for the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo). Mr. Land explained he tried to visit as
many Board meetings as possible in order to observe and learn. Mr. Land recognized
Supervisor Flora who sits on the VACo Board.
1. Recognizing Fire and Rescue for receiving two (2) Regional
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Awards (Richard E. Burch,
Jr., Chief of Fire and Rescue)
Chief Burch outlined for the Board members Division Chief Steve Simon
was selected for the highest honor awarded by the Western Virginia EMS Council the
Regional Excellence in EMS Award and Battalion Chief William "Bill" Duff was selected
as Outstanding EMS Administrator. Also in attendance for this recognition were
Jennifer Sexton, Volunteer Recruiter /Marketing/ PIO Director; Dustin Campbell, Division
Chief; Jeff Johnston, Lieutenant; Tim Webster, Firefighter /EMT; Jerry Spradling,
Firefighter /EMT; Jerry Parcell, Captain; Kurt Kipley, Sr., Firefighter /EMT; Josh
Simmons, Paramedic /Firefighter and Rob Loan, Executive Director of the Western
Virginia EMS Council.
Mr. Logan advised he was very appreciative of the support the Board has
given over the years. He explained there are one hundred and five (105) agencies in
the region. He detailed there were eleven (11) categories and the winners advance on
to the State level. These awards are chosen of a committee of peers; winners from
prior years.
All of the Supervisors offered their congratulations and appreciation for
their service.
2. Resolution of Appreciation to Genevieve Henderson of the Back
Creek Civic League for her service to Roanoke County (Eddie
"Ed" Elswick, Supervisor)
Supervisor Elswick read a letter from Mr. Bob Adams who could not be in
attendance. Also speaking on behalf of Ms. Henderson were Teresa Hall, Ronnie Love
and Gerald Holt.
All supervisors stated their appreciation for Ms. Henderson's service.
RESOLUTION 072611 -1 OF APPRECIATION TO GENEVIEVE
HENDERSON OF THE BACK CREEK CIVIC LEAGUE FOR HER
SERVICE TO ROANOKE COUNTY
July 26, 2011 447
WHEREAS, Genevieve Henderson has served on the Back Creek Civic League
for over twenty -four (24) years, holding every office and serving as President for the
past six to seven (6 to 7) years; and
WHEREAS, her unselfish, dedicated and caring service to the Back Creek and
adjoining communities is legendary; and
WHEREAS, her leadership in local and countywide issues is admired and
respected by all; and
WHEREAS, your neighbors appreciate your involvement in matters affecting their
way of life; and
WHEREAS, staff and elected officials greatly appreciate your service and your
knowledgeable input on matters brought before them; and
WHEREAS, if ever there was a characterization of a "model" citizen, they would
look like Genny Henderson.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of
the citizens of Roanoke County to Genevieve Henderson for her many significant
contributions; and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors wishes Ms. Henderson continued success
in all her future endeavors.
On motion of Supervisor Elswick to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Request to purchase three (3) fire vehicles and appropriate
$1,600,000 of future equipment lease proceeds (Richard E.
Burch, Chief of Fire and Rescue; Rebecca Owens, Director of
Finance)
FADY -5 `a
Chief Burch outlined the request and explained the fleet rotation currently
in use; advised the three oldest vehicles will be taken out of service.
Ms. Owens explained the financing component of this request. She
advised all prior loans have been paid and expects to do a future equipment lease in the
spring of 2012 with a five to six (5 -6) year lease.
Supervisor Moore inquired if the funds could be borrowed internally with
Ms. Owens responding there were no additional funds to borrow from, but would look
again in the spring to make sure. She advised Cave Spring, Hollins and Clearbrook
would be receiving the new equipment. She stated she anticipated interest rates from
448 July 26, 2011
two to three point five percent (2- 3.5 %). There was no further discussion.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to approve the staff recommendation, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
2. Request to adopt a resolution declaring intent to reimburse
expenditures for the purchase of three (3) fire vehicles from
future equipment lease proceeds (Rebecca Owens, Director of
Finance)
Ms. Owens outlined the resolution. There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 072611 -3 DECLARING INTENT TO REIMBURSE
RES FOR THE PURCHASE OF THREE (3) FIRE VEHICLES
FROM FUTURE EQUIPMENT LEASE PROCEEDS
The Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the "County ") has
determined that it may be necessary or desirable to advance money to pay the costs
associated with the purchase of three (3) fire vehicles (the "Project ").
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows:
1. The Board of Supervisors adopts this declaration of official intent under
Treasury Regulations Section 1.150 -2.
2. The Board of Supervisors reasonably expects to reimburse advances made or
to be made by the County to pay the costs of purchasing three (3) fire vehicles from the
proceeds of its debt or other financing. The maximum amount of debt or other financing
expected to be issued for the designing, acquiring, constructing and equipping the
project is $1,600,000.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
3. Request to re- appropriate $27,000 for needed improvements and
repairs at Mount Pleasant Library, Vinton Magisterial District
(Diana Rosapepe, Director of Library Services; Diane D. Hyatt,
Assistant County Administrator)
July 26, 2011
A- 072611 -4
Ms. Rosapepe explained the repairs and why they were necessary.
Supervisor Altizer advised these expenses were not a duplication and the funds are
being reappropriated, not adding a new appropriation. There was no further discussion.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to approve the staff recommendation, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
1. The petition of the Roanoke County Economic Development
Authority to remove the proffered conditions on approximately
59.13 acres zoned I -1C, Low Intensity Industrial, District with
conditions, located at 4022 Integrity Drive and 4050 Integrity
Drive, Vinton Magisterial District
Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading and public hearing for August 23, 2011. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
2. The petition of the Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc. to
amend the proffered conditions on approximately 2.6 acres
zoned C -1C, Commercial, District with conditions, and to obtain
a special use permit for religious assembly, located at 3640
Colonial Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District
Supervisor Moore moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading and public hearing for August 23, 2011. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
450 July 26, 2011
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance by
the addition of amendments relating to Large and Utility Wind
Energy Systems, including amendments to Section 30 -29 "Use
Types; Generally," Various Sections In Article III "District
Regulations," and a new Section 30 -87 -7 "Wind Energy System,
Large; and Wind Energy System, Utility" in Article IV. "Use and
Design Standards" (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney explained this is the first reading of the ordinance to amend
the zoning ordinance to allow for large and utility wind energy systems. He advised the
Planning Commission recommended this ordinance on May 17, 2011 and does three
things: alters definitions, district regulations and under use and design standards
recommends certain standard any application would be judged by if an application
came before the Board. These standards include such items as setbacks, noise,
shadowing and flicker, electromagnetic communications interference, speed controls,
land clearing, erosion and sediment control, habitat impacts, monitoring, maintenance,
removal, decommissioning as well as a variety of application requirements involving
various reports and studies that the applicant would have to submit to the Board. Mr.
Philip Thompson was also in attendance to answer any questions. Staff recommended
a second reading and public hearing be scheduled for August 23, 2011.
Supervisor Elswick stated he felt a lot of talking and thinking needs to take
place prior to the second reading and final approval of the ordinance. He indicated
everyone should be allowed to speak as the Board needs input before final approval.
He explained there are ordinances on the books that are designed to protect citizens'
health, safety and natural environment. He advised this is one of the most critical
decisions the Board has been asked to make. At issue is electric power generation,
habitat of birds and animals, some of the cleanest trout streams in Virginia, fly ways and
migration routes of birds, natural mountain beauty and most important, the sustainability
of a rural community as residents desire them to be. Non - residents to the rural area
and areas outside Roanoke County are aggressively advocating a wind farm on Poor
Mountain. Area residents are strongly objecting to the total change of a community's
character. The friendly, neighborly conservative consumers of electricity and slowly
vanishing rural communities all over the state are fearful of the loss of their identity as
the mountains may be asked to harbor giant structures with rotating three hundred (300)
foot wind mill blades. Economically, the sites are a huge attraction for the developers
as federal subsidies sometimes as high as ninety percent (90 %) of the construction
costs. Supervisor Elswick stated these are not his numbers, they are from Larry
Summers to President Obama. Eventually, increased local awareness of impacts and
reduced subsidies will cause wind farms to be placed only in appropriate areas where
the revenues support the investment. An important consideration to County leaders is
July 26, 2011 451
"what will the area be like in the future" and "do today's decisions prepare for that ?"
Look at what Vinton is trying to do in that area and what is happening in Glenvar, and
the people on Bent Mountain are trying to do the same with a relationship with the
Parkway. There are a lot of things going on in Roanoke County that are going to make
it more attractive to developers and to people who might want to move into a natural
area. The natural, cultural, recreational, health and business aspects here will begin to
get greatly increased attention from many diverse individuals and Roanoke County may
very well be on the verge of being discovered. Similar to Gatlinburg, TN and Boone,
North Carolina, Roanoke County is a much better location and the Board needs to make
sure it is managed correctly. He stated he had a few comments on the ordinance itself
and he is bothered by the way it was derived. He advised he knows staff did a great
deal of work on it, people spent a lot of time on it because it is such a new subject to the
Planning Commission, County staff and to the Board. There is so much communication
coming out that you have a hard time grasping all of it. Some of the engineering studies
are difficult to understand, but the one hundred and ten percent (110 %) setback and the
sixty (60) decibels is the same for a small windmill and that makes no sense
whatsoever. He stated he stood at Beech Ridge, which is a fine facility and the kind of
place where large wind mills ought to be. Noise from windmills from thirty six hundred
(3,600) feet away was very apparent. The Planning Commission came back and
recommended four hundred and eighty eight (488) feet from the property line. He
stated he guessed he does not understand what is going on and what the motivation is
behind how the ordinance was derived. He stated there is a lot of work to do; the Board
has a lot of thinking to do, but mainly just think about the people. Furthermore, there is
a group of Bent Mountain people who asked to speak to the Planning Commission and
were refused. He explained people who live near these kinds of things should be
heard. There are some locations where the wind farms have setbacks of one to two
miles, yet the Planning Commission set four hundred and eight -eight (488) feet. He
does not understand. If the County is going to write an ordinance and the mission is to
serve the people of Roanoke County, the ordinance should be conservative and if there
is a choice between thirty (30) feet and two (2) miles, the Board should pick the one that
protects the people, not the one that may be favorable to some other interests. The
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has done some studies and he
stated he thinks the Board can rely on their objective input. The World Health
Organization has done some studies; all of which are a contradiction to the numbers in
the proposed ordinance. He stated he feels there are many aspects of the ordinance
that the Board will be looking at over the next month or so and he encourages everyone
to speak out, the rest of the Board to do a lot of research and make sure it is doing the
right thing and for the second reading of the ordinance, he would like to have presented
to the Board some of the other ordinances that are more stringent than the ones shown
to the Board from which the ordinance was derived. He stated he knows a great deal of
effort went into the ordinance, but he does think the people ought to be able to express
their opinion, they do provide the funds that pay salaries and cover expenses of
452 July 26, 2011
Roanoke County. It is their homes and their communities that would be affected very
much and those are not for sale. Supervisor Elswick stated for an ordinance that is
used in the pursuit of windmills, the Board must show due diligence, elements that the
Board is knowledgeable of and can become quickly educated. It is difficult from looking
at the website and all of the paper the Board receives and can probably be explained by
people who spend a lot of time doing research. There is one such person, Dr. Burdisso
from Virginia Tech. Supervisor Elswick stated he thinks the Board should take
advantage of his knowledge and anyone else that will provide the Board with a credible,
nonbiased input so that the Board can make the right decision on what the ordinance
ought to look at. He stated he thinks the large windmills at Beech Ridge are great; they
would probably work great on mountaintop removal sites. If these are put on Poor
Mountain, a mountaintop would need to be removed and then it would look very much
the same. There are places they can go and there are places they should not go. He
further explained this ordinance should not end up being something that citizens who
are going to have to live near the large turbines, are going to fight their government to
try to get the ordinance revised. Supervisor Elswick stated he apologized for talking
more than normal at a first reading, but felt since he represents the area he would say a
few words.
Chairman Church stated at the public reading and second reading any
and all will be heard. There is a time limitation, but the Board has never turned away
anyone. For those watching from home, everyone will be heard. If assistance is
needed, please contact the Clerk. Chairman Church then advised he would allow the
speakers signed up to speak on this item to speak now.
Mr. Steve Hanes lives at 10250 Mill Creek Road on Bent Mountain stated
when it comes to large scale and industrial turbines, what we have here is a community
divided; some focus on ideology, while others of us deal in reality. These two sides who
are the most vocal are the ones heard at these meetings. He then stated there are also
those in the community who are uninformed or the apathetic. We hope to inform and
motivate many of them as we move forward. What we are considering here today is
how to develop a zoning ordinance, and he agrees, there needs to be a reasonable
zoning ordinance to regulate wind energy. He stated the way he sees the purpose for
developing this ordinance is to establish a reasonable set of standards relevant to the
control and regulation of large or industrial wind turbines in order to make it possible for
citizens of this County to, as it says in the zoning regulation, "peaceably enjoy their
property." The focus here should be on the citizens of Roanoke County; not some
potential future energy company applicant. What the citizens are asking of the Board,
our Supervisors, is for the Board to give what the citizens do not believe they received
from the Planning Commission; specifically, an ordinance that establishes conservative
land use regulations favorable to the protection of the citizens of our County, as
required by the zoning code, rather than liberal regulations favorable to wind energy
companies. The underlying guideline here should be, if you error in this process, error in
favor of our citizens of Roanoke County. He stated for him, the two huge issues in this
July 26, 2011 453
ordinance that need to be addressed are "setbacks" and "noise ": In the current
ordinance proposal, setbacks are insufficient; one hundred and ten percent (110 %) of
the height of the turbine; that kind of setback could be used for static structures like
telephone poles on flat land. Turbines are huge kinetic energy structures on mountain
tops. If they fall, they fall because of some force, they fall down hill propelled by the high
velocity energy that caused them to fall; they will not just "flop over" and lie still; they will
travel as they fall, so one hundred and ten percent (110 %) does not seem reasonable
for that size of structure of kinetic energy that is associated with it. Many other places
look at setbacks should be in the one point five to two (1.5 to 2) mile range. The current
ordinance proposes sixty (60) decibels in the dBA range from the nearest dwelling. It is
an undisputed fact, average ambient rural sound is twenty -five (25) dBA at night, yet
this ordinance proposes sixty (60) dBA at the nearest dwelling that is six point five (6.5)
times louder than ambient sound in a rural community at night. He stated he does not
understand how six point five (6.5) times normal sound in the community could be
construed as erring in favor of the community or the citizens; it seems to him it is
excessive. He hopes that something along the line of thirty (30) decibels at the lot line,
not the nearest home might be more effective. In conclusion, Mr. Hanes suggested
taking a commonsense approach; consider that setbacks and noise are interrelated; if
the Board can fix the setback issue, the noise issue may be solved. He stated he is
asking the Board to take a conservative approach in looking at setbacks and noise
levels because the two are combined in this ordinance. There has been a great deal of
talk heard when he has sat in on the Planning Commission meetings to "let this pass
this way because the special use permit process will take care of." Mr. Hanes stated he
would like to save the special use permit process to do what it was designed to do and
that is to make an exception to the rule, if necessary and push that further down the
road. Accordingly, if the regulation is tightened up in the beginning, the process may
resolve itself.
Mr. Eldon Karr of 8011 Poor Mountain Road, Bent Mountain, Virginia
stated he has provided each Board member a written packet of information from Bent
Mountain or Poor Mountain, the area. This packet can be recognized by the distinctive
cover and there are five (5) sheets that represent what are called "hidden treasures" of
Poor Mountain. With reference to the "large and utility industrial scale wind turbine"
amendment to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance: the amendment in its current
form is not ready to be adopted as a functionally viable element of our zoning
ordinance. It is the charge of the Planning Commission and this Board to protect the
"public interest" by determining the "highest and best use" for land within Roanoke
County. As an architect and a citizen, he has been discouraged by the County Attorney
and planning staff, from focusing his evaluation of a proposed project by Invenergy, LLC
as rational for opposing or accepting the current amendment to the ordinance. The
reason is that NO application has been formally presented to the County. However,
many acknowledge that the proposal by Invenergy, LLC, was a major impetus for the
pursuit of this amendment. To determine "highest and best use" you MUST dedicate
454 July 26, 2011
adequate and appropriate resources to evaluate a "cost- benefit analysis" related to a
proposed land use. We must intend to develop a minimum set of guidelines for such
developments prior to an application for the type of use. By deferring such "appropriate"
decisions to a "to be determined" issue, don't we just procrastinate the complex
decisions to a time when the pressure and the timeframe for decision is even more
contentious and difficult? He proposed it is time for us, on the local level, to make clear
decisions for our future, based upon our unfettered, direct, personal, scientific
evaluation of viable land uses. He stated he has a good understanding of the public
issues the Board faces in their position as Supervisors. He respects the Board members
for the time each dedicates to their community. Mr. Karr then asked the Board to please
thoroughly evaluate the scientific basis for claimed benefits for such a proposed "land
sacrifice ". Further, while the public impact of specific details of all proposals warrant
review, we, as public representatives and advocates retain the responsibility to,
particularly with fair warning, protect the best interest of our constituency, by fully
understanding the minimum standards set forth.
Sue Karr of 8011 Poor Mountain Road in Bent Mountain, Virginia first
introduced her service dog "Daisy." She stated she would like to talk a little bit about the
idea of community when talking about writing an ordinance. We think about the people
and the land, the best and highest use of the land. She advised she would like to share
with the Board some of the things she knows about the Bent Mountain Community.
When she and her husband bought a piece of land and an old log cabin on Bent
Mountain, thirty -five (35) years ago, they were fulfilling their dream of living on a
mountain surrounded by pristine forests and wildlife. Living on the mountain and raising
their children, they soon became part of a community of many other families who
shared the same ideals: love of the land, the wildlife and the peace that permeates such
a place. Her family and her neighbors roamed the mountain, discovering and learning
about the abundant wildlife, the pure streams, and lush plant life. Some of us led
wildflower walks and bird watching treks. All the while, the Bent Mountain Community
bonded with this amazing land and shared stories of rural life, like the time a rare
spotted skunk took up residence under her kitchen sink or when her neighbor found a
huge black snake napping in her dishwasher when she opened it one morning. Over the
years, we've shared the wealth of Bent Mountain with people who've come to hike and
camp out in the beautiful rugged terrain. Poor Mountain has often been the destination
for those of us seeking the experience of the diverse ecosystems on this highest
mountain that overlooks the Roanoke Valley. Recently, on Poor Mountain, three point
two (3.2) miles of trail have been added to the Virginia Birding and Wildlife Trail System,
designated "Poor Mountain Ridgeline Drive ". Between 2009 and 2010, 3,730 migrating
raptors were counted here, including six (6) bald eagles. We are people who cherish
rural living and stand strongly together respecting it. So she asked the Board to
consider her story when they write this ordinance that will affect the citizens of our
community. We have high expectations that the Board will protect our right to the
peaceable enjoyment of our properties.
July 26, 2011 455
Karen Scott of 8443 Poor Mountain Road stated she has resided in
Roanoke County over forty -five (45) years; she is a business owner, home owner and
landowner of over two hundred (200) acres in Roanoke County. She stated she and
her husband have grown children who want to build their homes on this land. She has
had a soil- scientist business here for almost thirty (30) years and is also presently the
administrator of the new private academy on Bent Mountain. She indicated the new
academy draws families and teachers from two (2) other counties and Roanoke City
who spend money in Roanoke County on their way, two (2) families hope to build in
Roanoke County, due to the academy location. Low frequency noise, however,
threatens all this. Everyone has felt it, base music too loud in some other vehicle while
you are at a stop light with your car windows closed. It is not pleasant. In homes,
businesses or schools with windows closed, low frequency noise generated from
industrial wind turbines in mountainous areas penetrate these structures for miles
downwind. This is a documented health hazard to people in structures; up to three to
five (3 to 5) miles from wind turbines in the mountains. In June, she stated she traveled
in Wyoming and Utah and saw established industrial wind sites; only one (1) site had
any houses within miles of them. Four (4) clustered homes in Wyoming were less than
one (1) mile from one site and these houses may have been abandoned. In Umatilla
County, Oregon is the site of the first industrial wind site in the Pacific Northwest. This
was in 1998, in June 2011, just last month, a ruling of the Commissioners in Umatilla
County, Oregon established setbacks from wind turbines to rural homes at two (2) miles
or twenty (20) times the turbine height, whichever is greater. This is not even
mountainous land. This is happening across the nation. These once cutting -edge
counties of the wind turbine novelties have to deal with their previously uninformed
decisions on their ordinances due to overwhelming valid problems. Now, they are
making informed, strict ordinances to protect the citizens as the new turbine sites and
new companies wrangle to get government subsidies in their counties. This proposed
ordinance will change our communities, the new academy location, and loss of land and
house values in sales in area investments. We and many others will have to leave their
homes, our investment of decades and centuries should this wind industrial site
materialize. This involves hundreds of lives and thousands of acres. She asked why is
the Planning Commission supportive or so uninformed on this. She stated her humble
advice to the Board is "don't take candy from strangers, don't try and reinvent the
wheel" and learn from others mistakes. It takes guts to stand up and do what is right, so
she prays the Lord will give the Board his wisdom and his strength to do what is right in
establishing a safe ordinance for all of Roanoke County citizens.
Carl Smith who lives at 225 Cobble Lane on Bent Mountain stated the
folks in attendance are his neighbors and he shares their sentiments and wished he
could speak as well as they did. He told the Board he and his family had owned land in
Roanoke County for twenty (20) years. Two decades ago, he explained he and his wife
took many rides throughout Virginia trying to find a place where they could live and raise
a family. They moved from Virginia Beach and own land on top of Poor Mountain,
456 July 26, 2011
acreage for recreation and live on top of Bent Mountain. He stated he is just hoping that
the Board has had a chance to consider what potentially fifty -four (54) metal giants up
on the mountain ridge are going to look like to the folks that live on Bent Mountain and
Poor Mountain. He cannot imagine that folks would want to build their homes in his
neighborhood, he lives in Stone Ridge, there are forty -two (42) lots, nine (9) have
homes, thirty -three (33) with no homes. The developer is hoping he will be able to sell
to folks who will build some nice homes up there, but not when what they are going to
be looking at are metal wind mills, gigantic metal wind mills. He stated he knows the
purpose is to write an ordinance and he appreciates that the Board is allowing the
citizen to speak, himself especially emotionally about where he lives. He explained
after a long days work, they like to sit on his porch and look up at the mountains. He
does not own those mountains, some elsewhere, but not where the proposed wind mills
are thought of going up and those people have a right to make money with their land, to
make decisions regarding their land, however, this is a decision that will effect a whole
lot more than just those landowners and he respectfully asks that the Board try to wear
his shoes and appreciate what the impact will be to all of us. He apologized for his
voice and stated this was emotional for him. He thanked the Board for the job they do
and it has been stated already, but it is a big job the Supervisors have, and are certainly
not paid for what the Board has to do. He then thanked the Board for looking out for the
citizens.
Supervisor Flora then asked if the Board decides not to adopt any
ordinance, what impact would that have on an application for wind mills on Bent
Mountain. Mr. Mahoney advised he believed an application could still be submitted to
the Board under the existing zoning ordinance. He stated he thinks there is clearly
some opportunity for disagreement with respect to applicability of the existing ordinance
provisions, but as he looks at the existing ordinance and the zoning administrator has
looked at the existing ordinance, it is seen the existing ordinance has only a hand full of
standards, none of which are really addressed as the draft ordinance does and of those
six or eight standards, two of them really deal with water and sewer issues that would
be in many ways irrelevant to an application for large utility energy systems, i.e. wind
mills. He stated his concern would be and his advice to the Board is, leaving aside
some debate or discussion over the merits of different elements or standards in the draft
before the Board, what the Board has in the current ordinance is probably inadequate to
address all of the issues and all of the concerns that many citizens would raise with a
future application. Again, he stated this is speculative as there is no application before
the Board, so it is hard to pinpoint exactly how that would apply. He stated he
understands, there is some expression of interest by Invenergy, but at the same time,
he feels an application could be forthcoming for Tinker, Catawba or Windy Gap and he
thinks staff is trying to develop a uniform approach. So, what is contained in the
existing ordinance has some standards, nowhere near the detail, the breadth, the length
of what this draft has before the Board. He stated he believes the current ordinance
would not give the Board sufficient tools to what he believes would be required or
July 26, 2011 457
demand various reports, studies, analysis on all the topics that are addressed. Again,
leaving aside the merits of what the standards are, he thinks what staff has attempted to
do by looking at other ordinances from other states and other localities identified many
of the key standards that would be applicable to any application. He stated he believes
the Board would be in a stronger position with respect to making a decision because the
Board would be demanding and requiring more and better data, information with respect
to the draft that is before the Board.
Supervisor Flora then asked if this issue is debated and prolonged out
over the next five or six months and nothing is done, and an application comes it during
the interim and then the Board decides to do something quick and immediately adopts
an ordinance. He then asked if the applicant would fall under which of the two
ordinances. Mr. Mahoney stated there is a fairly significant amount of authority that
would state the application should be judged by the ordinance that is in place at the time
the application was made. He hastened to add though there is a minority opinion in
which a local governing body has been able to amend or change its ordinance and that
amended or changed ordinance is what was applied to a pending application. An
example of this is the Town of Blacksburg and the proposed big -box store that was
proposed three (3) years ago. There is a minority opinion that a local governing body
can in effect change the rules of the game and have those changed rules applied to a
new application. He stated he thinks the majority opinion is that if an application is filed,
the application should be judged by the ordinance, the rules and the standards that are
in place at the time the application is made.
Supervisor Flora then asked when staff refers to standards in our
ordinance, are those standards rigid and must be met or are more or less a guideline
and let's use the example of decibels because that seems to have attracted the most
attention. If the applicant was at sixty -two (62) decibels, would that eliminate that
applicant from consideration? Mr. Mahoney responded by stating no, the standards are
more in terms of a guideline saying to any applicant, these are the issues that must be
addressed up front, but the Board still retains the inherent discretionary authority under
the special use permit to tighten or relax those standards based upon the unique
characteristic of that property with that special application and at this point the Board
does not know what that property is or what the application is, but the intent or idea of
the whole special use permit process is to provide a maximum amount of discretionary
authority to a local governing body to adjust those standards based upon the unique
characteristics of the property and the surrounding and neighboring properties that
would be effected by that application.
Supervisor Elswick stated that his impression of an ordinance is that it is a
lot more than a guideline, it is closer to being a law than a guidelines and to the citizen
in a rural area living with an ordinance that says you cannot subdivide unless you have
two hundred and fifty (250) feet of road frontage; it is not a guideline, it is a very definite
law -like ordinance that says that's it. So, he believes any ordinance that is written
should have as much factual data and be as precise as it can be made. Mr. Mahoney
458 July 26, 2011
stated Supervisor Elswick is correct in that County ordinances have very specific hard-
line standards, but the Board, when it creates an opportunity for special exception
permit, attempts to reserve for itself some opportunity to apply some discretion.
Supervisor Elswick reiterated an ordinance is not a guideline; either that or he is
unaware of what they really are.
Chairman Church asked if the two items in question are the setbacks and
the noise and if he is hearing Mr. Mahoney correctly, any application that would come
before the Board with a ten (10) percent or sixty (60) decibels could be easily made to
thirty percent (30 %) and twenty -five (25) decibels at the discretion of the Board. Mr.
Mahoney responded in the affirmative; however he hastened to add the Board's history
with respect to other special exception permits has been to tighten or increase the
standards and not necessarily lessen the standards. Chairman Church stated the
Board can go up or down, lax or more strict. Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative
and stated he would concur with Mr. Hanes comments that the standards that triggered
the most discussion, the noise and the setbacks standards, but would hasten to add
there are other significant standards that should not be overlooked, particularly habitat
protection, electromagnetic communications interference and the entire issue of
maintenance removal and decommissioning. The Board may recall back in February
when the small wind energy was done, there was a tremendous amount of discussion
about the decommissioning elements. He agreed with Mr. Hanes, the noise and
setbacks are very crucial and indeed he thinks as he suggests probably establishes the
key elements of your standards; if you solve one problem the other would probably be
solved by virtue of the other, but there are other elements that can have just a
significant effect.
Supervisor Altizer stated the beauty of the special use permit is that the
Board can tailor it, you can paint with sometimes in certain places a narrow swath, and
you can go wider in some areas. The Board can amend, adopt, change, add to and
take away depending on the property or the area of the County. He stated he was
surprised that Invenergy is looking at other areas based on the article in Sunday's
Roanoke Times. The issue is, with all due respect, he does not know when the next
company is coming to look at Ft. Lewis Mountain, Windy Gap or Catawba or Green
Ridge. This ordinance is about Roanoke County as a whole. Some areas fit better than
other areas, but the defining moment comes in constructing this ordinance and the
Chairman did appropriately schedule this first reading for today and the public hearing a
month later to give everyone time to dig even more in depth as to what the ordinance is
and to answer any questions. He stated he believed Mr. Mahoney would agree with him
if a petitioner were to come and the ordinance was not changed right now with the
current setback and under the section of the code that it comes under is one hundred
(100) feet from a house. He stated he believes everyone in this room and especially the
people in his district if they thought he allowed something to get by, they would probably
"hang" him if he had the opportunity to correct. Currently, nothing has been brought
before the Board; however, everyone knows Invenergy will eventually put forward a
July 26, 2011 459
petition. This ordinance is somewhat law and somewhat guideline, because there are
certain things you can somewhat do and some things the Board can change. He stated
he does not think whether you have fifteen hundred (1,500) feet from a house or two
thousand (2,000) feet from a house is going to make any difference because it is going
to be whatever the Board feels is appropriate. He stated he has not walked the land on
Bent Mountain where this is going to go, but when a petition comes forward he can
guarantee he will. The most important thing the Board needs to do and the Board is
charged with right now is to protect each and every citizen in every district to position
Roanoke County to be in the best possible shape to make the best decision it can. He
stated in order to do so; there must be laws and guidelines, because they all run parallel
with other. Supervisor Altizer explained it is just like when a developer submits a set of
plans, there are things that have been put out there, but there are words, i.e. substantial
conformity, what does that really mean. There are things the Board needs to do, things
to position Roanoke County to be in the best interest of protecting the citizens. He
reiterated there must be guidelines and the Board must act on the petition when one is
effectively presented and it will be judged then. He explained it may be two thousand
(2,000) feet from the house, maybe one thousand (1 000) or five thousand (5,000.) He
stated what he knows in his heart is that Roanoke County has to have an ordinance.
He then asked if the is motion is approved and the second reading for legal advertising
is scheduled for August 23, 2011 it is his suggestion the public hearings be started at
6:00 p.m. instead of the normal 7:00 p.m. based on the number of other hearings.
Chairman Church stated he has already made a note to change the time.
Supervisor Moore stated she would like to reemphasize as Mr. Mahoney
stated, decommissioning, birds, maintenance all of these items that the Board has
heard the concerns and if and when something is brought before the Board, those same
questions will be asked and the Board will try to protect the citizens as much as they
can. She stated she was in agreement guidelines /ordinances need to be put on the
books.
Supervisor Flora stated in his mind there is no question an ordinance is in
the best interest of not just the people on Bent Mountain, but all in Roanoke County.
He thinks the debate is what will be the content of the ordinance and that does not
happen at first reading, the second reading or a subsequent meeting after that. He
emphasized the second reading must be held before the Board can take in the public's
input and come to an agreement as to what the contents will be. He stated at a
previous work session he does not like the one hundred and ten percent (110 %)
setback, he would like to see it further away than that, but this is not the time to do that.
If the ordinance does not get to second reading, what is currently on the books will have
to stand and he does not think that is in anyone's best interest.
Chairman Church stated each Board member recognizes the importance
of protecting the citizens by getting to the second reading.
460 July 26, 2011
Supervisor Elswick moved to approve the first reading and set the second
readings and public hearing for August 23, 2011. The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
2. Ordinance authorizing the purchase of approximately 0.454 acre
of real estate (Tax Map No. 87.07 -3 -7) adjacent to the Roanoke
County Administration Center from Franklin Real Estate
Company, Cave Spring Magisterial District, and appropriating
$40,000 from the Minor Capital Fund (Paul M. Mahoney, County
Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the request for this ordinance and explained staff
intends to use for overflow parking and a secondary access to Penn Forrest Blvd.
Supervisor Moore moved to approve the first reading and schedule the
second reading and public hearing for August 23, 2011. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
3. Ordinance amending Chapter 13 — "Offences- Miscellaneous"
Article I — "In General" of the Roanoke County Code to provide
for regulation of pneumatic guns in Roanoke County (Paul M.
Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney explained the request for ordinance which is required in
order to be in compliance with the Virginia General Assembly.
Supervisor Elswick inquired if air guns were prohibited in the County code
prior to this directive. Mr. Mahoney explained they were prohibited under Section 13 -4
of the County code. The existing County code does have some language that deals
with lawfully and safely being engaged in shooting. He stated he does not believe the
current County code goes as far as the directive from the General Assembly. He
advised when preparing the ordinance he has looked at what other local governments in
the Commonwealth have done to better comply with the General Assembly directive.
Supervisor Elswick stated he would like to remind everyone that some of the new guns
fire a projectile that is thirteen hundred (1,300) feet per second, which makes it just as
dangerous as a 22 rifle and faster than some pistols. He just wants everyone to be
aware of the fact they are not BB guns, they are devices that can be very dangerous.
July 26, 2011 461
Supervisor Flora stated there are high -end pellet guns that are twelve to
thirteen hundred (1200 -1300) feet per second and if research is done on the internet,
these guns are capable of killing up to a two hundred (200) pound boar, imagine what
that would do to the neighbor's dog or cat. To him, there still seems to be a bit of
insanity in the General Assembly and feels this is part of it.
Chairman Church moved to approve the first reading and set the second
reading for August 23, 2011. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
Chairman Church appointed Christina Flippen to represent the Catawba
District for a one -year term on the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review
Committee.
Supervisor Elswick appointed Murray Cook to represent the Windsor Hills
District for a three -year term on the Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory
Commission.
Confirmation of all appointments was added to the Consent Agenda.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 072611 -5 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM I- CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for July 26,
2011, designated as Item Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred
in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 3
inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes — June 28, 2011
2. Request to accept and appropriate $10,000 in additional contributions from
Catawba Volunteer Fire Department toward the Catawba Mini - Pumper
purchase
3. Confirmation of appointments to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Review Committee; Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission;
Roanoke Valley Sustainability Consortium Steering Committee
462
July 26, 2011
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
A- 072611 -5.a
A- 072611 -5.b
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Treasurer's Statement of Accountability per Investment and
Portfolio Policy as of June 30, 2011
5. Accounts Paid —June 2011
6. Report of Claims Activity for the Self- Insurance Program
7. Quarterly End of the Year Report — Community Development
Activities
8. Proclamation signed by the Chairman
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 5:04 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 2.2.3711.A.1.
Discussion concerning the appointments to the Economic Development Authority; South
Peak Community Development Authority; Virginia's First Regional Industrial Facility
Authority; Virginia Western Community College Board and Section 2.2- 3711.A.7.
Consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members pertaining to probable
litigation, namely, options with respect to the renewal of cable television franchise with
Comcast Cable. The work session was held from 5:38 p.m. until 5:53 p.m. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
July 26, 2011 463
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session on the Inmate Work Program (Daniel R. O'Donnell,
Assistant County Administrator, Michael Winston, Sheriff)
In attendance for this work session was Daniel R. O'Donnell, Assistant
County Administrator; Sheriff Michael Winston; Major Charles Poff; Deputy Sheriff Mark
Crouch and Mark Courtright, Assistant Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism.
Sheriff Winston advised the program has been a huge success and
working with Mr. Courtright has been great. Major Poff then went through a PowerPoint
presentation to update the Board. He indicated the program provides a good
environment to get the inmates out of the jail assists Parks and Recreation and has
saved money for the citizens of Roanoke County. A copy of the presentation is on file in
the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
Supervisor Altizer inquired if there was a dollar amount with Major Poff
advising the value of the program to Roanoke County is $68,743.
Major Poff indicated the program was value added and cost efficient.
Mr. Courtright indicated this was a win /win /win program across the board
and indicated quality work is being done. The work session was held from 5:19 p.m.
until 5:37 p.m.
2. Work session on an ordinance amending Chapter 13. — "Offenses -
Miscellaneous" providing for an urban archery deer season in
Roanoke County (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the draft ordinance that has been prepared at the
request of Supervisor Elswick. The original program started back in 2002 with the goal
to reduce or manage deer populations. If Roanoke County wants to take advantage of
this program, the Chairman or County Administrator would need to write a letter to the
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. He indicated action on this item must occur
before April 1, 2012 for the 2012/2013 hunting season. Basically, it expands the
hunting season for bow and arrow and crossbows. He explained it is a permissive
program; the Board does not have to adopt an ordinance. Based on information from
other localities, other localities have adopted a local ordinance to try to place some
restrictions or limitations on the activity. Accordingly, he has drafted an ordinance that
attempts to mimic some of the restrictions already in place while hunting with firearms.
He indicated he did not place in the ordinance a limit or applicability of this urban
archery season to certain areas by zoning districts. He is not recommending as a lot of
citizens do not know what zoning district they are in. A second limitation that some
localities have put in place has to do with a minimum acreage amount. This was not put
in the ordinance. He explained there is some concern that the deer may not die where
it is shot and continue to run into other areas.
Supervisor Elswick inquired if there is an ordinance, could there be a
restriction and limit to larger size lots. Mr. Mahoney inquired if there was any difference
with a crossbow, with Supervisor Elswick responding a crossbow is more accurate. He
advised he is for extending the season.
464 July 26, 2011
Supervisor Moore stated she is in agreement with extending the season
only. She indicated crossbows are just as powerful as a gun and if the hunter is in an
urban area and the target is missed could create a very dangerous situation. She is in
agreement with extending the hunting season.
Supervisor Flora explained the deer are going to run regardless. He
stated he thinks there needs to be protection as to where you can hunt. Mr. Mahoney
asked if he would prefer by acreage or zoning districts. Supervisor Flora stated he is in
agreement that most people do not know where zoning districts begin and end. He
stated if you are shooting with a bow, if you are a true bow hunter, you are not shooting
past 50 yards and that is a long way to shoot. He suggests a limit of distance from the
property line and a distance from any dwellings.
Supervisor Elswick remarked so far, hunters have been very safety
conscious. Supervisor Flora commented that if urban hunting is allowed you will get
more people that normally do not go out hunting.
Supervisor Altizer inquired if the regulations stated you must hunt from a
stand, with Mr. Mahoney responding that is contained in the ordinance.
Supervisor Moore inquired if there was a possibility of increasing the limit.
Supervisor Elswick stated the limit should be increased.
Mr. Mahoney inquired if it was the pleasure of the Board to invite someone
from the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries to discuss this issue. It was the
consensus of the Board for Mr. Mahoney proceed with the invitation. Mr. Goodman
stated he believes this should be done sooner rather than later. The work session was
held from 5:38 p.m. until 5:53 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 7:00 p.m., Chairman Church moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 072611 -6 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING N
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
July 26, 2011 465
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
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 on 1.02 acres, located at 6539 Fairway View Trail,
Windsor Hills Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Deputy
Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the petition for a multiple dog permit and advised
the Planning Commission had approved on July 5, 2011, and limited the number of
dogs to four dogs and imposed a twenty -five (25) pound per dog weight restriction and
made the permit non - transferable. Supervisor Altizer inquired that the requirements
were under the current ordinance with Mr. Thompson responding three dogs with no
limitation on size.
Supervisor Elswick stated the adjoining neighbors are concerned about
excessive barking and Supervisor Moore asked are they kept outside, are they brought
in at night. Mr. Gianni responded the dogs are mainly kept indoors.
Mr. Gianni advised when they moved to Roanoke, they had four dogs and
had to give one to his brother -in -law when they found out they were over the limit. He
explained these are well- behaved dogs that sleep at the foot of their bed. He indicated
there was only one dog at twenty -five (25) pounds, all the others are well below the
limit. He advised they wanted to bring the fourth dog back who is a Yorkshire Terrier
( "yorkie ") and weighs five point five (5.5) pounds. Supervisor Elswick suggested that he
get to know his neighbors and take them a cake.
One citizen spoke in opposition of this petition. Mrs. Barbara Weiserbs of
6538 Fairway View Trail in Roanoke Virginia stated she is not the neighbor that
complained about the barking. She read the request and was at the Planning
Commission meeting and was disappointed the Gianni's were not there, because there
were a lot of questions that probably could have been answered. Her biggest concern
is she understands they do not want to give up their dog, but could they keep it at four
and not five. Why would they request five (5) dogs? Mr. Thompson responded the
petitioner requested five (5) in case they wanted another dog. The Planning
Commission recommended four (4) instead of (5) dogs. Mrs. Weiserbs stated if you
466 July 26, 2011
have four dogs and you love them, that is fine, but the fifth dogs raised a red flag for her
to question if they are into breeding, why five (5) dogs. Are they not happy with four
(4 ?)
Mr. Gianni explained his family had five dogs in Ohio, which is why they
petitioned for five dogs, but does not have an issue with four.
Supervisor Altizer stated he did not have a problem supporting approval of
this, but who is going to monitor twenty -five (25) pounds. Mr. Thompson explained this
will only be investigated if a complaint is received.
ORDINANCE 072611 -7 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
FOR A MULTIPLE DOG PERMIT FOR FOUR (4) DOGS ON 1.02
ACRES LOCATED AT 6539 FAIRWAY VIEW TRAIL, WINDSOR
HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON THE PETITION OF
ANGELO R. GIANNI, JR.
WHEREAS, Angelo R. Gianni, Jr. has filed a petition for a special use permit for
a multiple dog permit for five (5) dogs on 1.02 acres located at 6539 Fairway View Trail
(Tax Map No. 66.04 -1 -29) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
July 5, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on June 28, 2011; the second reading and public hearing on this
matter was held on July 26, 2011.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Angelo R.
Gianni, Jr. for a multiple dog permit on 1.02 acres located at 6539 Fairway View Trail in
the Windsor Hills Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 2005
Community Plan, as amended, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2 -2232 of the
1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and that it shall have a minimum adverse impact
on the surrounding neighborhood or community, and said special use permit is hereby
approved with the following conditions:
a) The Multiple Dog Permit shall be for a maximum of four (4) dogs
not to exceed twenty -five (25) pounds each.
b) The Special Use Permit shall be issued to Angelo R. Gianni, Jr.
only, and shall not be transferable to any other subsequent property
owner. It shall be the responsibility of Mr. Gianni to notify the
Zoning Administrator, in writing, of the transfer of ownership of the
property within thirty (30) days of the transfer.
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
July 26, 2011 467
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 Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The following citizens spoke: Mr. Noah Tickle of 1603 Frosty Lane in
Salem, Virginia and has been a Roanoke County resident since 1956 and a landowner
and taxpayer since 1965. He stated Gro Harlem Brundtland, vice president of The
World Socialist Party, authored and presented a report in 1987, "Our Common Future."
Her report introduced the world to sustainable development. The term was first offered
as Official United Nations Policy in 1992, in a document called "United Nations
Sustainable Development Agenda 21." From this socialist agenda, an organization
called The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, commonly known as
ICLEI, is now part of many local governments, including Roanoke County. Did you say,
"Why should I care?" You should care. We have not cared for too long. Our liberty is
being compromised by these socialist initiatives. Their efforts (one way or another) are
to move homeowners and landowners into close - quartered urban development areas.
Their foundational belief is that human beings are contaminating the earth and can best
be managed their way, in tight - quartered urban development areas. How does that work
in our large cities suffering from crime, housing and traffic, not living the American
dream? How well is this socialist agenda working for European communities with
constant economic and social upheavals? At the last meeting, Representative Altizer
expressed some of these nightmarish results of this anti - American living. No -one, no-
one disagrees with Representative Moore on the value of clean air and water. That is
not it, what it is that we need local governance on our issues. We do not need socialist
Agenda 21 from the United Nations.
Chairman Church reminded Mr. Tickle to address all comments to the
Chairman and to refrain from naming individual names.
Representative Elswick indicated sometimes "we need to say no." That
"no" to him means we have had enough of top -down governments.
Chairman Church reminded Mr. Tickle to address all comments to the
Chairman and to refrain from naming individual names.
468 July 26, 2011
Our founding documents indicate local governance would not be
subordinate to federal rule. Today, that is reversed. The Board needs to continue to
say "no ". By taking steps backward to our constitution where public governance, we
have local talent for governance, Roanoke County does not need anything from the
United Nations (UN) as governance, it is unconstitutional on all levels. "We the people"
have had enough as indicated by the Chair and another representative. Let us say "no"
now, remove ICLEI from Roanoke County, Virginia.
Mr. Donald Koop of 6700 Christopher Drive in Roanoke, Virginia 24018
stated he would like to express his concerns about ICLEI (International Council for Local
Environmental Issues), Roanoke County's membership in the group and the attachment
of the group to the UN's Agenda 21. Agenda 21 was adopted in 1992 as part of a global
plan for what it called "sustainable development." ICLEI was formed in 1990 at the UN
in New York. ICLEI is an international association of local governments, as well as
national and regional local government organizations, who have made a commitment to
sustainable development. A search of its website for the words "climate change"
produced more than 24,000 hits leading to the conclusion that climate change is a
significant part of what ICLEI studies. The UN's feelings about land were first officially
articulated at the UN Conference on Human Settlements in 1976. The Preamble to the
Conference Report says, in part: "Land ... cannot be treated as an ordinary asset,
controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market.
Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration
of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a
major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The
provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be
achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use
is therefore indispensable." As a citizen of a country where ownership of private
property is a guaranteed right, he cannot accept involvement by his local government
with an organization holding such a belief. It seems that Roanoke County has gotten
involved with a UN- sponsored effort to, in part; manage the use of private property in a
way that will reduce the contributions of residents to climate change. Now, it's no secret
that climate change, and particularly the anthropogenic (or man -made) contributions to
it, are exceedingly controversial. Yet, seemingly without sanction by citizens at the local
level or Congress at the federal level, Roanoke County is spending taxpayers' money in
support of sustainable development designed to solve a problem that may not exist:
man -made global warming. On the "Roanoke County Future Land Use Map, his
property is in a "Rural Village" area. Development in these areas will be approved (or
not) using a series of guidelines that encourage "cluster developments that set aside
fifty to seventy percent (50 to 70 %) of the parcel as open space." Who knows what
regulations might befall him from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the US
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding, say, my well or
septic tank? Don't laugh, although milorganite is approved for use as a fertilizer, EPA -
demands for further testing at a cost of one to two (1 -2) million dollars and two (2) years'
July 26, 2011 469
study caused the manufacturer to withdraw plans to market it as a deer repellant. There
is too much to be suspicious of with respect to Agenda 21, ICLEI and the regulatory
agencies of the US government. I endorse Roanoke Tea Party's demand that Roanoke
County sever its relationship with ICLEI.
Mr. Chip Tarbutton of 917 Bruchs Mill Road in Fincastle Virginia stated he
is President of the Roanoke Tea Party and wanted to address a couple of specific
questions relating to the Tea Party's interest in having the County sever ties to the
organization known as ICLEI. First of all, when talking about sustainable development
and he would not belabor the sustainable development information as it is pretty much
the same information the Board has already heard. However, he added there has been
some doubt whether or not ICLEI is related to the United Nations. In a quick "Google"
search of ICLEI and UN, documents will quickly reveal that is absolutely the case. In
Virginia alone there are over sixty (60) communities that have active ICLEI relationships
and if you go across the globe, anywhere from Miami to Malaysia you will find groups
involved in ICLEI. What is suspicious or troubling is they all have the same exact
specific land use formula in all those areas. ICLEI has been designated by the UN as a
special consultative partner for the implementation of Agenda 21 and this was
reaffirmed by the General Secretary of the UN just last month. So now you have heard
about what it is and it is easier to describe what it is not. There are a lot of documents
out there where the UN has defined what is not sustainable. Maurice Strong, Secretary -
General of the UN Rio Earth Summit, said "current life styles and consumer patterns of
the affluent middle class involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances,
home and work air conditioning and suburban housing are not sustainable." Mr.
Tarbutton stated he does want his air conditioning rights now, and does not know about
everyone else. Does ICLEI have an impact on County decision making? It is unclear
how much direct impact ICLEI has, but there are a few things that are clear. Four (4)
members of the current Board of Supervisors on February 24, 2009, signed an
agreement to reduce carbon dioxide omissions in Roanoke County for all County
residents by thirty percent (30 %) by 2020, which begs a question, what direct actions
can the County Board of Supervisors do to hit that goal. As Donald Koop mentioned
before, there is a lot of talk in the current comprehensive plan about cluster
developments, which is really the goal of the ICLEI group. There are eight (8) different
places where they are encouraging cluster development and this is also a quote from
the current comprehensive plan, "recognizing that our national systems are vital for
providing both economic means and quality of life for all citizens" sustainable
development has been incorporated into the County's planning. So, no one argues with
the need to protect the environment as the County's biggest draws is its gorgeous,
natural settings. Perhaps the Board did not understand exactly what sustainable
development is really about when they signed on the document in 2009, but he begs the
questions what kind of things will the County do to get that thirty percent (30 %)
reduction. Will the Board sanction giant, noisy windmills that have a nasty habit of
catching fire, along Poor Mountain's ridgeline? Will you be forcing or encouraging
470 July 26, 2011
people to go into cluster development through taxes and fees as advocated by ICLEI
doctrine. The Board of Supervisors have demonstrated they won't be bullied by the
State and the bad zoning regulations, Mr. Tarbutton asked that the Board take the same
courageous steps with ICLEI and severe the relationship with the UN as a Spartanburg,
SC, Carroll County, MD and Albemarle County, Virginia have done.
Ms. Linda LaPrade lives at 5509 Will Carter Lane in Roanoke, Virginia
24014 stated like all of you, she wants to preserve this area for future generations. She
believes that we can do this while preserving the Board's right to enact proper
ordinances for this locality and our rights as property owners without membership in
ICLEI. This quote is from what is received with ICLEI membership dues. "Upon receipt
of membership fees and resolutions to join, your jurisdiction will be considered a full
ICLEI member. All ICLEI council members are governed by the ICLEI charter." In other
words, when the Board chose to join ICLEI, they accepted for us all of the ICLEI
mandates that are present and that will come. We, the voters, had no voice in this
decision. The information I give to you now is from the ICLEI website. Their Secretary
General states that they must become "more radical, and must focus on urban
sustainability, and must connect local government to UN and other international bodies."
They go on to state the end result should be a local action plan, which will contain a
menu of policies, programs, and measures to be followed. They also say that local
authorities should modify codes and administrative approvals for new construction and
existing buildings to support their goals. Local investment capital in roads, streets, etc.
should be available for compact communities. Where does that leave the rest of us who
choose not to live in compact communities? They would also like to protect ten percent
(10 %) of undeveloped land and to discourage any use of prime agricultural land except
to grow crops. Chapter one states, "The use and tenure of land should be subject to
public control." ICLEI does not care about Roanoke County and its beauty or
preserving its beauty. ICLEI wants to gradually and with words that play into our
environmental concern take control and the Board is going along with this. Look at the
goals of RCCLEAR and look at ICLEI mandates, they are exactly the same. The more
she learns, the more sure she is the Board is unknowingly giving them your power. She
advised she is concerned that the Board, through the decision to be a part of this
organization, is also giving them our rights as landowners and citizens, all without our
consent. What reason could you possibly have for staying in this organization? Any
money that is received could only be used to implement their goals. The Board and its
citizens, not the UN and not its tentacles, are stewards of the area. The citizens trusted
the Board with their votes to make the right decisions for us. Please do what is right for
everyone and get out of this organization.
Roberta Johnson of 9964 Patterson Drive, Bent Mountain VA 24059
stated she is here to address a proposed zoning ordinance change. As written, the
proposed zoning amendment regarding large and utility wind turbines will cause
incompatible industrial use of "Land Use Areas" designated as Agricultural, Rural
July 26, 2011 471
Preserve Districts -- degrading the important scenic and biodiverse natural comers of
our county. The Comprehensive Plan, the Future Land Use guidelines, the 2010 Vision
Statements, and the Zoning Ordinance commission you (as our representatives) to
"protect and preserve the inherent environmental and natural resources within the
County." The Zoning Ordinance itself states that its purpose is to "provide for the
preservation of agricultural and forestal lands" and to "protect surface and groundwater
resources." Construction of massive four hundred to five hundred (400 -500) ft. industrial
wind turbines on our ridgelines is counter to all of these directives. Even in the case of a
proposed Poor Mountain 18 -tower installation which, contrary to popular belief, is NOT
on the same ridgeline as existing communication towers, two (2) undeveloped forested
ridges will be cleared and graded and most likely, a pristine spring branch cove between
those mountain tops will be filled with the grading and excavation debris. Picture the
debris from foundations that are each potentially 2,500 sq. ft. on the surface and ten to
forty (10 -40) ft or more into bedrock. This is an industrial site, not an agricultural or rural
scene. Therefore, she stated she would like to point out two specific weaknesses.
First, these amendments have no provision for disposal of debris from road and site
grading, or from blasting and digging the turbine platform foundations. In
Agricultural /Rural Preserve Districts all excavated materials should be hauled away and
not dumped "over the hill" to fill in spring branch coves. On Poor Mountain, for example,
the spring fed depressions between the ridges are the source of Big Laurel and Bottom
Creeks -- two creeks of the "highest quality water" in Virginia. These, in turn, are the
headwaters for an EPA Tier III stream and the Roanoke River. Furthermore, the plant
and animal populations would be obliterated. We need to know which of these unique
plants and animals are threatened by such construction and disposal projects before
installation is completed. Therefore, my second and last concern is that while there are
at least four (4) references in the amendments to the "pre- existing natural site
conditions," it is inappropriate that it is the applicant who is to provide this information
during the permitting process. "The fox watching the henhouse ?" This could yield a very
biased site analysis. Such facts need to be determined by scientific survey methods,
and not by parties with vested interests. The ordinance should state that "unbiased third
party scientists and professionals approved by the County or the State" will be the
sources of this information.
Mr. Bill Gregory of 3312 Pamlico Drive in Roanoke, Virginia stated he has
been a resident of Roanoke County for eighteen (18) years. He advised the presence
of ICLEI in Roanoke County seems harmless enough on the surface. ICLEI through the
County organization called RCCLEAR is implementing a carbon - dioxide reduction
project. They used the term green -house gas emissions, but what they are really
referring to is carbon dioxide. This is evident in Roanoke County's website and ICLEI's
website. One of the problems he sees with the County's involvement with ICLEI, the
term "man- made" global warming has been replaced with climate change by both the
UN and ICLEI. They have changed this terminology because they have been
embarrassed into admitting there was no science behind their assertions that carbon
472 July 26, 2011
dioxide was destroying the planet. The notion that climate change has been caused by
man is the same red herring as "man- made" global warming. The scandals that plague
the UN International Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, are ample proof of this
assertion, which brings up his next problem with the County being a member of ICLEI.
If the basis of Roanoke County initially becoming a member of ICLEI was based on a
theory then why would you consider remaining a member of this organization? Mr.
Gregory states he also has a copy of a survey sent out by local AGENDA 21 that is
called LA21, sent out by ICLEI that he has provided to the clerk. On the survey, the
definition of local Agenda 21 as follows: "A participatory, multispectral process to
achieve the goals of Agenda 21 at the local level through the preparation and
implementation of a long -term, strategic action plan that addresses priority local
sustainable development concerns." He stated he would like to know if any of the
County employees or Board of Supervisor members have received this survey and
whether it has been returned. This is an official request to the Chairman of the Board.
Chairman Church advised Mr. Goodman to handle the request at a later
time.
Lawrence Aldridge lives at 3408 Wedgewood Road, SW and stated as a
Roanoke County resident, he is here to protest the County's membership in ICLEI -
Local Governments for Sustainability. He is aware that the annual dues to ICLEI are
$1200 a year and would like to know if the County has provided any other funds to
ICLEI or the County approved organization called RCCLEAR, which is tasked with
carrying out the carbon dioxide reduction program mandated by ICLEI. He stated he
would appreciate an answer in writing to his address provided with his comments.
Consider this a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Even if the only funds
provided to ICLEI have only been $1200 a year, he objects to using any taxpayer funds
to support the U.N. backed "Agenda 21" group. The Board is the steward of taxpayer
money and has the responsibility to see that it is spent wisely. He does not see where
wise stewardship is at hand spending County residents' money on a UN initiated
program based on the questionable "man- made" global warming theory. He stated he
strongly objects to his local governmental officials engaging in a contract with any
organization that is pursuing this dubious agenda and that can dictate to the County
Board of Supervisors. Do not doubt that the Board is being dictated to by ICLEI. By
engaging with this U.N. affiliated organization, the Board is buying into a directed, and
now fast becoming politically correct, form of environmentalism that has no basis in fact.
Furthermore, he hopes the Board understands its role in protecting citizen rights. Please
read paragraph two of the Declaration of Independence. Among other things it explains
the primary role as government is to protect our rights. The policies the Board has put in
place with the help of ICLEI have taken away rights, not protected them. The Board is
allowing the camel's nose under the tent. Therefore, he formally asks the Board to
withdraw membership from ICLEI now.
Mr. Stan Seymour of 5942 Coleman Road stated he came to the meeting
to talk about ICLEI. He stated he is philosophically opposed to anybody outside this
July 26, 2011 473
country outlining how he should use something that he owns and pays taxes on. He is
just philosophically opposed to another country telling him what to do with something he
owns.
Ms. Robert Hardin of 3044 Stoneybrook Drive in the Windsor Hills
Magisterial District stated she received a letter today which will be provided to the Clerk.
Americans for Prosperity was asking that we tell the EPA and the Army Corps of
Engineers how we felt about private property rights. If time permits, she will read the
letter. "Dear Robert, President Obama wants to control all the land and all the water in
the United States. Legislation that would have deleted the word "navigable" from the
federal Clean Water Act and given the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction
over every drop of moisture in the country crashed and burned last Congress, ending
the 36 -year congressional career of its lead sponsor, Jim Oberstar, in the process. But
Obama's EPA as usual, won't take no for an answer, and is now attempting to ignore
two Supreme Court decisions, commonsense, and the American people and vastly
expand federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction via a guidance document. A bipartisan
group of 170 members of Congress told them not to, but they are doing it anyway. If the
EPA and Army Corps succeed, they can exercise effective control over all land and
water in the United States. The green groups are fired up and pouring comments into
the docket supporting this outrageous power grab, and we need to fight back. Click here
to tell the EPA and the Army Corps to STOP their back door assault on private property
rights. The docket closes on July 31st; there is no time to spare. Please take action
today! Sincerely, Phil Kerpen Vice President, Policy Americans for Prosperity." My
answer to the EPA and the army engineers was something like this: Subject: The EPA
and Army Corps of Engineers and We the People's Water Congress spoke. Period. End
of debate. The Constitution does not give the president legislative powers; nor does it
give such powers to unelected officials. Back off. She stated she uses this as an
example of how crazy things are becoming. She does not consider many of the goals
of ICLEI to be constitutional either and thinks they are fighting against her personal
property rights. She stated she thinks it is time for common sense and the rule of law to
be applied. She came tonight to request that the Board withdraw from ICLEI as soon as
possible and thanked the Board for considering her request.
Mr. Richardo Moreira who lives at 3790 Fairburn Drive stated he has lived
in Roanoke County for about eleven (11) years. First, he thanked the Board for
standing up against the UDA mandate and stated he was very proud to be a member of
the group here in Roanoke County. He stated he is concerned with ICLEI. People talk
about the United Nations, but seems nobody wants to talk about where it was created.
The United Nations was created on the Bohemian Grove, which is a well known fact.
The Bohemian Grove is a club where the most wealthy, richest men in California and
the decision to move to the United Nations is not in the best interests of the people, but
the interests of big business and corporations. He stated he does not think they care
about green, nature or about life; they care about control. Agenda 21 pushes to take
away our God -given rights, our natural rights, private ownership, water properties, etc.
474 July 26, 2011
He stated what is interesting is the document that created this country is the Declaration
of Independence and the document is very clear. When government is taught to
recognize natural rights it is time for the people to replace it. So with this in mind, he
appreciates the Board vote against the UDA, but does not understand is why the Board
cannot go ahead and stop the ICLEI thing and stop the support for ICLEI. Is there a
reason citizens should know about? Please consider that.
Mr. Neal Ward of 5325 Flagler Drive in the Hollins District stated he is not
going to belabor the Board with any more facts and figures, what he would like the
Board to consider is the principal of freedom. Freedom is something that he does not
take lightly. This country, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the
United States, the Constitution of Virginia were all written by great men like Patrick
Henry and Thomas Jefferson. These are things that men were willing to live, fight and
die for; give their all. George Washington fought from Virginia past Fort Ticonderoga in
New York with his men with no shoes in the middle of winter. What was the reason,
what was the very thing that these men fought for? It was the idea of freedom, not
liberty. Liberties are given to us by governments. Freedom is our inalienable right.
This is what concerns him this evening. Those men in the war for independence, the
War Between the States all the way to the wars now in Iraq, Afghanistan. What are
these people fighting for? They are fighting for the principles of freedom. So the United
States, the greatest country that has ever been known to man was made great by the
greatest document ever known to man. If we take our marching orders from the UN,
from any other group but the constitution of the United States or the constitution of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, written by those great men, we have done a disservice to
every man and woman in uniform, a disservice to every citizen and a disservice to every
hard - working American in the country. We take our marching orders from the
constitution, not from the UN and he would like the Board to consider that and think
about what freedom means to the Board members as individuals, because it is
something he is willing to give himself for himself, his family, the Board and everyone
here. These things are important and we do not hold onto them, we will lose and are
losing our freedoms. He would like the Board to reconsider ICLEI and any involvement
with it. Roanoke County has been around since he thinks 1838 and has done it on its
own and it can still be done in the future. The citizens and this Board can decide for
themselves what is best for this county and he does not think they need any help from
an outside group; not from Europe, not from New York. We can do it right here in
Roanoke County.
Mr. Bill Vanvelser of 393 Cox Road in Troutville, Virginia stated he is here
in reference to pending regulations regarding industrial scale wind turbines at Poor
Mountain. He is opposed to industrial scale wind turbines, not just in his backyard, but
really in anyone's backyard. He stated he is not an enemy of humanity any more than
the wind energy companies altruistic environmentally. Tehachapi, where he is from, is
now the home to over 5,000 industrial scale wind turbines. In Tehachapi, big wind sold
the citizens down the river by promising jobs, tax revenue and the "feel good" about
July 26, 2011 475
saving the planet. Only the latter remains, the first two never played out in anything like
the numbers promised by the wind farm developers. This issue was as derisive in
Tehachapi as it promises to be here and now in Roanoke County. Without generous
state and federal subsidies this discussion would not be held because wind turbines
cannot begin to be cost effective anywhere at any time without substantial tax payer
support. He stated he was not always so opposed to industrial scale wind turbines. He
remembered a time when his opinion of them was benign, if he had an opinion at all. It
was the way in which the wind turbine companies conducted business that began to
turn him against them. That and the appearance of wind farms near his parents' twenty
(20) acre parcel in Tehachapi. Their property value has been adversely affected as a
result. There was no question about that. There will be no compensation for that. His
parents are not by any means the only ones. As stated earlier, there are now over
5,000 wind turbines and more are on the way, built by seventeen (17), by last count,
separate wind turbine developers all operating countless numbers (he has lost count) of
wind farms there now and it all started just like this. As recently as February 2011, the
Tehachapi News reported a typical standing -room only meeting in the Sand Canyon
area. The concerns there should provide Roanoke County and all area residents an
opportunity to pause and reflect upon the thoughts of a community that has as much
experience with wind farms as anyone. The issues do not go away. Their concerns
were and remain: flying blades from wind turbine failures caused by improper
maintenance. This happens on a regular basis; fire danger from overheated turbines
and the failure of their braking systems and in a recent Tehachapi fire last year there
was grave concern over the approach by aircraft attacking that fire, which burned
somewhere in the neighborhood of eleven to fourteen hundred (1,000- 1,400) acres.
There were some days when the aircraft could not approach that fire and could not be
used on that fire because of the presence of wind turbines; the blocking of "beautiful
views by seventeen (17) massive four hundred and seventy (470) foot turbines; noise
and finally strobe lights. There are serious negative implications to building four
hundred to five hundred (400 -500) foot high wind turbines that will likely be in place for
the rest of our lifetimes. Once they are up, the wind energy corporations are not going
to take them down. So the decision made here and now by Roanoke County will be
decisions that the residents of the entire valley will have to live with for generations.
Mr. Xavier Scott of 8443 Poor Mount Road, Bent Mountain, Virginia stated
he has lived on his family farm on Bent Mountain for all of his life. He is also speaking
on behalf of his brother and sisters who were unable to attend this meeting. They hold
in our inheritanance over one hundred (100) acres on Bent Mountain adjoining the
proposed wind farm. They have been raised knowing they would always have the
option of building our future homes on this land. My brother and his wife had already
planned to build a house on the land, unfortunately based on evidence from existing
wind farms, the proposed ordinance will allow turbines too close to be able to build a
home and live on the family farm. This data is reinforced by the most comprehensive
turbine noise study to date conducted by Dr. Robert Thorn, who recommended no
476 July 26, 2011
dwelling be within one and one quarter (1 Y4) mile of any industrial turbine complex.
This distance must be to the property line to protect his family's future building plans.
He stated he believes all County residents, including those holding developed
properties adjoining turbines sites be afforded equal protection as declared in the noise
ordinance. As he continues toward my commission in the United State Navy to defend
the liberty of each and every American including those in Roanoke County, the County
in his absence is proposing to take his liberty of building on his own land from him. He
is asking the Board to do their duty and protect his property as he goes forward to
protect ours.
Mr. James Scott of 8442 Poor Mountain Road, Bent Mountain, Virginia
stated he has a master's degree in environmental engineering from Virginia Tech so he
is speaking as an engineer and researcher. Since March 2010, when he sent his first
letter to the Board expressing his concerns regarding these large wind turbines and this
ordinance, he has continued to study the turbine noise issue. He has recently spent
several hours with Dr. Burdisso at Virginia Tech, who is an acoustical expert and he has
confirmed his fear that the sixty (60) decibels that is being proposed is too high and is in
fact reckless, especially as related to the Poor Mountain site. He would like to frame his
comments under Section 30- 14 -1(a) of the zoning ordinance that requires prior to any
amendments that the Commissioner shall determine and this should have happened
with the Planning Commission, the zoning ordinance reads that the Commissioner shall
determine the effect on surrounding property. This has not been done. The ordinance
cannot be adopted as written because no one from the Planning Commission has even
talked to him about his future plans for his property and has never been on the property.
All the noise and shadow flicker analysis that is required in this ordinance must be
conducted on all surroundings property per the zoning ordinance requirement. The
language in the ordinance only requires the noise compliance to be certified at the
property line, this does not constitute an evaluation of an effect to surrounding
properties. The noise analysis should read similar to the way the shadow flicker
analysis reads, and evaluates the effect on surrounding properties in terms of land use.
So, how will this sixty (60) decibels impact our property? There are worldwide,
documented reports of health problems from turbines from people living near turbines
that we sited with much lower noise limits. For example, in May 2009 the Minnesota
Department of Health, which he has given the full report twice to the Planning
Commission, the legislature demanded that they conduct a study because of the
problems they are having in Minnesota at fifty (50) decibels. They found that fifty (50)
decibels is too high for low frequency noise. He asked why does the Planning
Commission and why does the Board propose to adopt an ordinance that is ten (10)
times higher than what they already know to be a problem. In Europe, they use a
standard of thirty -five to forty (35 -40) decibels for design and this has proven to provide
reasonable protections to people. The Planning Commission recognized these noise
problems by requiring a one half (1/2) mile setback from existing dwellings, but most of
our land is undeveloped and you just heard from my son who plans to build there. What
July 26, 2011 477
is that other than essentially the County placing an easement on our property where we
cannot build, because nobody can build close to these turbines, which is what the
ordinance proposes? A more logical and certainly more responsible approach to
establishing these limits, would be to look at what is and what is not working. We have
seen from Minnesota that fifty (50) is too high, that thirty -five to forty (35 -40) works in
Europe, so he proposes that the Board adopt a thirty -five (35) decibel limit as a starting
point rather than what is the world's highest noise limit, with the exception of one county
in California that he is aware of that is a wind district, where there are no residences
allowed. Thomas Jefferson did state succinctly, the purpose of government is to
prevent men from injuring one another. This principal of non - injury maximizes general
liberty for all rather than enhancing the well -being of some at the expense of others.
This zoning amendment proposed by the County, maximized financial gains of the
County, but it also maximized property value loss for nearby residents. As he brought
up in his letter, he has heard there were some concerns about not having an ordinance
in place that is why over a year ago he recommended that the Board consider a
temporary moratorium to allow for proper and responsible development in this County.
RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Elswick commented on the letter recently in the newspaper
talking about access for handicapped people throughout the area. He applauded the
paper for running the article because he had worked with a lady who had some trouble
getting into the Kroger store. He called the Kroger home office and even though they
did not call him back, they fixed the problem in no time at all. Those of us who can walk
and talk and see normally should appreciate that and do everything we can to help
those who cannot.
Supervisor Moore thanked everyone that came today to talk about ICLEI
and RCCLEAR. RCCLEAR is a community based program. It is a committee for
citizens made up of citizens of Roanoke County and we want to preserve our
environment. She stated you may not believe in climate change or greenhouse gas,
which is carbon dioxide, which we are trying to reduce. We do believe if we do not
preserve and sustain what we have here today, we will not be able to leave clean air,
water, and a non - polluted valley. We live in our valley, this is our valley and some of us
have lived here all of our lives, including herself. We can learn on the local level on
things that we can do and things that we do every day in the smallest way do make a
difference.
Chairman Church thanked everyone for attending and commented they
have a county government that you can come anytime you want to speak under citizen
comments. The Board values their input and participation. Chairman Church
announced the August 23, 2011, meeting will begin at 6:00 p.m. and anyone that wants
to sign up to speak will be heard. The Board has cancelled the August 9, 2011 as there
are no agenda items to be brought forth.
• W
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
July 26, 2011
Chairman Church adjourned the meeting at 8:11 p.m. until the August 23,
2011, meeting.
Submitted by:
4 Dorah C. Jack
Clerk to the Board
Approved by:
i! ( it C
oseph B. "Butch" Church
Chairman