8/23/2011 - RegularAugust 23, 2011 479
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 first
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of August 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 Pastor Bryan Ratliff of Clearbrook Baptist
Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
1. Introduction of Doug Blount, Associate Director of Parks,
Recreation and Tourism (Pete Haislip, Director of Parks,
Recreation and Tourism)
B. Clayton Goodman, County Administrator introduced Doug Blount, the
recently appointed Associate Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism. All
Supervisors welcomed Mr. Blount.
August 23, 2011
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
1. The petition of Scott and Debbie George to rezone approximately
5.02 acres from R -1, Low Density Residential, District to AR,
Agricultural /Residential, District, located at 4211 Harborwood
Road, Catawba Magisterial District
Chairman Church moved to approve the first reading and scheduled the
second reading and public hearing for September 27, 2011. There was no discussion.
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance to accept the conveyance of thirteen (13) parcels of
unimproved real estate for the extension of Alcoa Road to the
Board of Supervisors and to authorize the addition thereof to the
State Secondary System of Highways, Vinton Magisterial District
(Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development)
Mr. Covey outlined the ordinance and explained this is a rural addition
project. Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the first reading and scheduled the
second reading and public hearing for September 13, 2011.
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. 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 advised the first reading of this ordinance was held on July
26, 2011, and there had been no changes from the first reading. Mr. Mahoney
explained this ordinance is to allow Roanoke County to parallel the State code.
ORDINANCE 082311 -1 AMENDING CHAPTER 13 —
"OFFENSES- MISCELLANEOUS" ARTICLE I — "IN GENERAL"
OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO PROVIDE FOR
REGULATION OF PNEUMATIC GUNS IN ROANOKE COUNTY
WHEREAS, the 2011 session of the Virginia General Assembly adopted SB757
which bans any locality from adopting an ordinance that prohibits the shooting of
pneumatic guns on private property, with permission of the owner of the property, if
August 23, 2011 481
reasonable care is taken to prevent a projectile from crossing the bounds of the
property; and
WHEREAS, this legislation also invalidates any local ordinances that conflict with
it; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend the Roanoke County Code in order to bring
it into compliance with this mandate from the General Assembly; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 26, 2011; and the
second reading was held on August 9, 2011.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That Chapter 13 — "Offenses- Miscellaneous" Article 1 — "In General" be
amended to read and provide as follows:
Sec. 13 -4. - Discharge of firearms or any similar gun or device, generally.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to shoot or discharge any firearm, or
any other similar gun or device within the limits of the county, except when lawfully
hunting in accordance with the fish and game laws of the state or when safely engaged
in target practice or when lawfully and safely engaged in shooting upon a range or
gallery which has been properly licensed or approved or when shooting in a match
conducted in accord with article III of chapter 4 of this Code.
(b) Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
In addition, the court in which the case is prosecuted may, in its discretion, confiscate
the firearm, gun or device in question.
(c) This section shall not apply to federal, state or local law- enforcement
officers in the performance of their duties.
2. That a new Section 13 -4.1. — "Pneumatic guns" be adopted to read and
provide as follows:
Sec. 13 -4.1. - Pneumatic guns.
(a) As used in this section, "pneumatic gun" means any implement, designed
as a gun that will expel a BB or a pellet by action of pneumatic pressure. "Pneumatic
gun" includes a paintball gun that expels by action of pneumatic pressure plastic balls
filled with paint for the purpose of marking the point of impact.
(b) Pneumatic guns may be used at facilities approved for shooting ranges, or
on or within private property with permission of the owner or legal possessor. Use
thereof must be conducted with reasonable care to prevent a projectile from crossing
the bounds of the property. "Reasonable care" means that the gun is being discharged
so that the projectile will be contained on the property by a backstop, earthen
embankment, or fence. The discharge of projectiles across or over the bounds of the
property shall create the rebuttable presumption that the use of the pneumatic gun was
not conducted with reasonable care. Minors may use such implements only under the
following conditions:
482 August 23, 2011
(1) Minors under the age of 16 must be supervised by a parent,
guardian, or other adult supervisor approved by a parent or guardian and shall be
responsible for obeying all laws, regulations, and restrictions governing the use thereof.
(2) Minors 16 years of age and older must have the written consent of
a parent or guardian and shall be responsible for obeying all laws, regulations and
restrictions governing the use thereof.
(3) Training of minors in the use of pneumatic guns shall be done only
under direct supervision of a parent, guardian, junior reserve officers training corps
instructor, or a certified instructor. Training of minors above the age of 16 may also be
done without direct supervision if approved by the minor's instructor, with the permission
of and under the responsibility of a parent or guardian, and in compliance with all
requirements of this section. Ranges and instructors may be certified by the National
Rifle Association, a state or federal agency that has developed a certification program,
any service of the Department of Defense and similar groups approved by the chief of
police, or any person authorized by these authorities to certify ranges and instructors.
(4) Commercial or private areas designated for use of pneumatic
paintball guns may be established and operated for recreational use in areas where
such facilities are permitted by the county's zoning ordinance. Equipment designed to
protect the face and ears shall be provided to participants at such recreational areas,
and signs must be posted to warn against entry into the paintball area by persons who
are unprotected or unaware that paintball guns are in use.
(c) A violation of this section shall constitute class 3 misdemeanor.
3. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
1. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee (appointed
by District)
Supervisor Elswick appointed James Gray to represent the Windsor Hills
Magisterial District to a one -year term that will expire August 31, 2012. Supervisor
Moore reappointed Gene Marrano to represent the Cave Spring Magisterial District for
an additional one -year term that will expire August 31, 2012.
2. Clean Valley Council
August 23, 2011 483
Supervisor Moore has reappointed Adam Cohen as the County appointee
for an additional two -year term that will expire June 30, 2013. Confirmation has been
added to the Consent Agenda.
3. Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission (appointed
by District)
Chairman Church and Supervisor Flora appointed Deborah George as the
At -Large representative for a three -year term that will expire on June 30, 2014.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 082311 -2 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 August 23,
2011, designated as Item I - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 12 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of Minutes — 07 -12 -2011; 07 -26 -2011
2. Request from the Fire and Rescue Department to accept and appropriate
funds in the amount of $130,000 for grant number WV- CO1/06 -11 from the
Virginia Department of Health
3. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Joy A. Jenkins, Eligibility Worker — Social Services upon
her retirement after five years of service
4. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Anne L. Wagner, Assistant Registrar, upon her retirement
after more than seventeen (17) years of service
5. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Harold (Huck) W. Ewers, Police Lieutenant — Vice Unit,
upon his retirement after more than twenty -six (26) years of service
6. Request to appropriate funds in the amount of $474 to the Roanoke County
Public Schools
7. Confirmation of appointments to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Review Committee (appointed by District); Clean Valley Council; Parks,
Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission; Virginia's First Regional
Industrial Facility Authority
484 August 23, 2011
8. Request to accept and appropriate $91,700.25 in contributions from The
Town of Vinton toward the shared purchase of a replacement ambulance
9. Request to accept and appropriate $1,617,760 from the City of Roanoke for
radio reimbursement
10. Resolution requesting restoration of State funding for Aid to Localities
11. Resolution amending Resolution 102610 -5 appointing the Authority Board
Members for the South Peak Community Development authority
12. Request to accept and appropriate a donation in the amount of $5,000 for the
Roanoke County Public Library
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
I_lffll* *1(i `6�1
RESOLUTION 082311 -2.b EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO JOY A. JENKINS, ELIGIBILITY WORKER — SOCIAL
SERVICES, UPON HER RETIREMENT AFTER FIVE YEARS OF
SERVICE
WHEREAS, Joy A. Jenkins was hired on July 10, 2006 in the Social Service
Department as an Eligibility Worker; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Jenkins retired on August 1, 2011, after five years of devoted,
faithful and expert service with the County; and
WHEREAS, during her time serving Roanoke County's Social Services
Department, Ms. Jenkins functioned as a policy resource for the eligibility unit and was
known throughout the State for her profound knowledge of the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program. She was instrumental in developing numerous case management
tools that contributed to the department successfully meeting the State and Federal
timeliness and accuracy goals for the processing of benefit program applications. She
was a wonderful mentor to those around her and set the standard for all eligibility
workers to follow; and
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 JOY A. JENKINS for five years of capable, loyal and
dedicated service to Roanoke County; and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy
and productive retirement.
August 23, 2011 485
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
RESOLUTION 082311 -2.c EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO ANNE L. WAGNER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, UPON HER
RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN SEVENTEEN YEARS OF
SERVICE
WHEREAS, Anne L. Wagner, was hired on July 5, 1994, as a Permits Clerk in
the Engineering Department and held positions as Treasurer Clerk I and Treasurer
Clerk II in the Treasurer's office and was promoted to Assistant Registrar on May 20,
2002; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Wagner retired on August 1, 2011, as the Assistant Registrar
in the Registrar's Office after seventeen years and one month of devoted, faithful and
expert service with the County; and
WHEREAS, during her time serving Roanoke County as Assistant Registrar, the
number of registered voters in Roanoke County grew from 58,834 to 66,522; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Wagner served in the Elections department though many
changes, including institution of new touch screen voting equipment in 2003, a
tremendous advancement in the voting process, and institution of electronic pollbooks in
2010, expediting the voter check -in process.
WHEREAS, during her time serving Roanoke County as Assistant Registrar, Ms.
Wagner completed courses through The Election Center, Houston, Texas, and the
Voter Registrars Association of Virginia, and attained the certification of Virginia
Registered Election Official.
She is the recipient of the "Extra Mile Club" award for providing outstanding
customer service to the employees and citizens of Roanoke County; and
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 ANNE L. WAGNER for more than seventeen years
of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy
and productive retirement.
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
486 August 23, 2011
RESOLUTION 082311 -2.d EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO HAROLD "HUCK" W. EWERS, POLICE LIEUTENANT — VICE
UNIT, UPON HIS RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN TWENTY -
SIX YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Harold "Huck" W. Ewers was employed by Roanoke County on
December 11, 1984, as a Deputy Sheriff in the Sheriff's Office; and
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Ewers continued his law enforcement service by
transferring to the newly established Police Department in 1990 where he served as
Police Officer, Criminal Investigator, Police Officer - Sergeant in the Uniform Patrol
Division, Criminal Investigation Unit, and the Vice Unit, and Police Officer - Lieutenant in
the Vice Unit; and
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Ewers retired on June 1, 2011, from the Police
Department after twenty -six years and five months of dutiful, faithful, and expert service
with the County; and
WHEREAS, during his time serving Roanoke County, Lieutenant Ewers
performed a crucial role in protecting the life and property of citizens by honorably
serving as a Police Officer; and
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Ewers, through his employment with Roanoke County,
has been instrumental in improving the quality of life for its citizens
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 HAROLD "HUCK" EWERS for more than twenty -six
years of capable, loyal, and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy
and productive retirement.
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- 082311 -2.e
A- 082311 -2.f
A- 082311 -2.g
A-082311-2.1h
August 23, 2011 487
RESOLUTION 082311 -2.i REQUESTING RESTORATION OF
STATE FUNDING FOR AID TO LOCALITIES
WHEREAS, state financial assistance for mandated and high priority programs,
including public education, health and human services, public safety and constitutional
officers, is $800 million less in fiscal year 2012 than in fiscal year 2009; and
WHEREAS, cities and counties must balance their budgets during a time in
which future state assistance is unreliable, federal stimulus dollars are dwindling, and
real estate assessments are declining; and
WHEREAS, the Appropriation Act contains $60 million in across - the -board cuts
to cities and counties for both fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012, under which
localities are required to either elect to take reductions in particular state aid programs,
or to send the State a check for the amounts determined by the Department of Planning
and Budget ( "Local Aid to the State "); and
WHEREAS, the reductions are applied to essential services, including law
enforcement, jail administration, foster care and child protection services, election
administration and social services; and
WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke does not have the authority to unilaterally
decide to discontinue providing services such as election administration or to refuse to
house and care for State prisoners in local and regional jails; and
WHEREAS, the state budget cuts are not accompanied by any reductions in
state - imposed mandates, standards and service requirements, nor do they provide any
administrative flexibility for local agencies; and
WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke remitted $569,796 in fiscal year 2011 and
will be required to remit another $556,580 in fiscal year 2012; and
WHEREAS, cities and counties will have provided the State with $220 million by
the close of fiscal year 2012 for this "Local Aid to the State" program; and
WHEREAS, these reductions shift State costs to local taxpayers and artificially
increases the amount of state surplus revenue; and
WHEREAS, State revenues have begun to recover and the State is expecting to
have a revenue surplus for the second year in a row; and
WHEREAS, revenue collections for the County of Roanoke continue to reflect the
struggling housing market; and
WHEREAS, the State should not shift its share of the costs for mandates and
responsibilities to local governments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County asks Governor Bob McDonnell to submit a budget amendment to the
2012 session of the General Assembly to reverse the $60 million -a -year reduction for
the current year, fiscal year 2012, and to eliminate the aid to localities reduction in the
budget submitted for fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014; and
FURTHER, be it resolved, that the members of the General Assembly support a
budget amendment to the 2012 session of the General Assembly to reverse the $60
488 August 23, 2011
million -a -year reduction for the current year, fiscal year 2012, and to eliminate the aid to
localities reduction in the budget submitted for fiscal year 2013 and fiscal year 2014.
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
RESOLUTION 082311 -2.i AMENDING RESOLUTION 102610 -5
APPOINTING THE AUTHORITY BOARD MEMBERS FOR THE
SOUTH PEAK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, Resolution 102610 -5 adopted by the Board of Supervisors on
October 26, 2010, appointed five individuals to serve on the authority board for the
South Peak Community Development Authority; and
WHEREAS, since the appointment one of the appointees, Doug Chittum, has
retired from his position at Roanoke County and has indicated he will withdraw from
serving on this board; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors may remove at any time, without cause,
any member appointed by it and may appoint a successor member to fill the unexpired
portion of the removed member's term.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County that this Board hereby appoints the following member to the South Peak
Community Development Authority to replace Doug Chittum for the remainder of a four
(4) year term expiring on October 25, 2014:
B. Clayton Goodman III
BE IT FURTHER resolved that the Clerk to the Board be, and hereby is, directed
to send a copy of this resolution to the individual named herein and the other members
of the South Peak Community Development Authority.
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-082311-2.k
August 23, 2011
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 July 31, 2011
5. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances for the month ended July 31, 2011
6. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues for the
month ended July 31, 2011
7. Accounts paid — July 2011
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 3:15 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 Discussion
concerning the appointments to the Virginia Western Community College Board. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
The closed session was held from 3:33 p.m. until 3:43 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 6:00 p.m., Chairman Church moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution.
490 August 23, 2011
RESOLUTION 082311 -3 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING
WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2 -3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies; and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
Chairman Church reminded the audience of certain guidelines regarding
speaking and the light system and the three (3) minute deadline that were unanimously
agreed to by the Board of Supervisors. Chairman Church then stated based on the
number of speakers, there will probably be at least three and one half hours of citizens
speakers. Mr. Church then made a change to the order of speakers and advised any
person that needs assistance will be moved to the front to speak. Mr. Church indicated
he would call out the speakers approximately three (3) at a time in case there are
speakers located upstairs. There are three seats reserved on the front row for the
speakers getting ready to speak. A ten - minute break will be taken hopefully once an
hour, for continuity it will be done approximately ten minutes before the hour and expect
to be back and begin on the hour. Chairman Church explained that in the event of any
aftershocks from the earthquake that took place this afternoon, the building would be
immediately evacuated. He explained depending on the time of the last speaker for the
public hearing and the closing of the public hearing, the Board may continue this
ordinance to the September 13, 2011, meeting at 7:00 p.m. There will not be another
public hearing on September 13, 2011, if the public hearing has been closed.
August 23, 2011 491
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 (Philip Thompson, Deputy
Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the petition is to remove the fourteen (14)
proffered conditions from the original 1990 special use permit. He explained the other
properties in the area with similar proffered conditions have been removed.
Supervisor Altizer stated many of these conditions no longer pertain
anymore. There were no objections.
Chairman Church opened and closed the public hearing and there were
no citizens to speak on this matter.
ORDINANCE 082311 -4 REMOVING THE PROFFERED
CONDITIONS ON APPROXIMATELY 59.13 ACRES OF REAL
ESTATE ZONED I -1C, LOW INTENSITY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT,
LOCATED IN VALLEY GATEWAY PARK AT 4022 & 4050
INTEGRITY DRIVE (TAX MAP NOS. 50.01 -01 -5.07 AND 50.01-
01- 5.00), VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on February 27, 1990, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance
#22790 -6 changing the zoning classification of approximately 105 acres of real estate
located between Route 11/460 and Carson Road (now known as Valley Gateway Park)
from RE, Residential Estates, to M -1 C, Manufacturing with conditions, upon the
application of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant, the Roanoke County Economic Development
Authority, and the Property Owners, Roanoke Gateway, LLC and Integrity Windows,
Inc., have petitioned the Board to remove the proffered conditions from the 1990
rezoning on the remaining approximately 59.13 acres; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
June 7, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 26, 2011, and the
second reading and public hearing was held on August 23, 2011; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows
1. That the following proffered conditions on that certain tract of real estate
containing approximately 59.13 acres located at the 4022 and 4050 Integrity Drive (Tax
492 August 23, 2011
Map Nos. 50.01 -01 -5.07 and 50.01 -01- 5.00), Vinton Magisterial District, are hereby
REMOVED
a. The property will not include permitted uses for:
i. Manufacture of pottery and figurines or other similar ceramic
products
ii. Veterinary hospital and commercial kennels with exterior runs and
yards
iii. Outside flea markets, unless a special exception has been granted
by the Board of Supervisors
b. That all locational signage [Sec. 21- 93(D)] will be aesthetically pleasing
and be no more than forty (40) square feet in sign face and no more than
eight (8) feet in height. Outdoor advertising signs (billboards) will be
prohibited.
C. That all utilities will be underground.
d. That there will be no on- street parking.
e. That there will be sufficient truck loading spaces designed for each
building site, as necessary.
f. That the Petitioner will evaluate the drainage situation for the subject
tracts and implement a design for drainage facilities to either retain or
detail the two (2) year storm (as required by Roanoke County) and the
retention or detention for a ten (10) year storm.
g. That primary access to the property will be limited to Route 460.
h. Building placement and parking will be designed to not impede the future
widening of one additional land along routes 460 and 758.
i. Should out - parcels be subdivided along Route 460 frontage (Parcel A),
access will be provided via an internal road network plan utilizing the
existing median cut on Route 460.
j. Type E (Option 2) buffer and screening requirements will be provided
between Parcel "A" and single family residences. All Roanoke County
screening and buffering requirements will be implemented as specific
development occurs.
k. Existing oak trees on Parcel "A" will be preserved to the extent allowing for
feasible development of the subject parcel.
I. All internal thoroughfares will be designed and constructed to VDOT
standards for future dedication.
M. Dust mitigation controls will be implemented during site excavation
activities.
n. The developer will cooperate with the Roanoke County Utility Department
to provide necessary utility easement(s) for a sanitary sewer submain
along Route 758 (Carson Road) at a mutually agreed upon location.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of the Roanoke County
Economic Development Authority, Roanoke Gateway, LLC and Integrity Windows, Inc.
August 23, 2011 493
3. That said real estate contains approximately 59.13 acres and is located in
Valley Gateway Park and is further described as Tax Map Nos. 50.01 -01 -5.07 and
50.01 -01 -5.00.
4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty days after its final
passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The zoning administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors 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 (Philip
Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the petition and advised the amendment to the
proffered conditions were for a better use for the facility to the community. Mr.
Thompson introduced Mr. David Helshire, attorney for the Roanoke Council of Garden
Clubs. Mr. Helshire advised he and members of the Garden Club were available to
answer any questions.
Supervisor Moore advised this building has been in existance for seven
years and always well maintained and the citizens were in agreement. There was no
discussion.
Chairman Church opened and closed the public hearing and there were
no citizens to speak on this agenda item.
ORDINANCE 082311 -5 AMENDING THE PROFFERED
CONDITIONS ON APPROXIMATELY 2.6 ACRES OF REAL
ESTATE ZONED C -1C, COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH
CONDITIONS, AND OBTAINING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR
RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY, LOCATED AT 3640 COLONIAL
AVENUE (TAX MAP NO. 77.18- 03 -15), CAVE SPRING
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on October 26, 2004, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance
#102604 -5 changing the zoning classification of approximately 2.37 acres and .28 acre
494 August 23, 2011
of real estate located at 3640 Colonial Drive and 3612 Parkwood Drive, respectively, to
C -1 C, Commercial District with conditions upon the application of the Roanoke Council
of Garden Clubs, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant, the Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc. has
petitioned the Board to amend the proffered conditions from the 2004 rezoning on the
2.6 acres of real estate; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
August 2, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July 26, 2011, and the
second reading and public hearing was held on August 23, 2011; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows
1. That the proffered conditions on that certain tract of real estate containing
approximately 2.6 acres located at the 3640 Colonial Avenue (Tax Map No. 77.18 -03-
15), Cave Spring Magisterial District, are hereby amended to read and provide as
follows
1.) The subject property ha s
with the concept plan dated January 14,
dated January 30, 2004, prepared by Rife &
been developed in substantial conformity
2004, and with the architectural rendering
1TWT ...ITTI R 0 t r: M
2.) Use of the property is limited to activities of or sponsored by the
Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc. including their offices, meetings as well as
rentals of the building for special events and meetings including wedding receptions,
parties and similar private gatherings that are compatible with the facility
3.) Applicable Colonial Avenue Corridor Design Guidelines shall be in
effect with the word "shall' replacing the word "should" as determined during the site
plan review process.
4.) The proposed building shall be limited to 6,000 square feet of gross
floor area and twenty -six (26) feet in height.
5.) Exterior building materials are brick and wood.
6.) Total parking including rear and building -side drop -off shall not exceed
seventy -seven (77) spaces and no parking shall be constructed in front of the building.
7.) Monument -style signage at the entrance of the property shall not
exceed thirty -Six (36) square feet. Total site signage shall not exceed seventy (70)
square feet. Temporary signage shall be limited to activities directly related to the
Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc.
2. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to the
Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs, Inc. for religious assembly on approximately 2.6
acres located at 3640 Colonial Avenue (Tax Map No. 77.18- 03 -15) in the Cave Spring
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,
August 23, 2011 495
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.
3. That this action is taken upon the application of the Roanoke Council of
Garden Clubs, Inc.
4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The zoning administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
3. 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 explained this is the second reading of this ordinance and
related to the property located adjacent to the Roanoke County Administration Center.
This property is limited in potential uses and will be used for overflow parking and
alternative egress. There were no changes from the first reading.
Chairman Church opened and closed the public hearing and there were
no citizens to speak on this item. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 082311 -6 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
WHEREAS, on June 22, 2010, Roanoke County entered into a right of first
refusal agreement with Appalachian Power Company (APCo), a Virginia corporation, a
unit of American Electric Power, for the purchase of approximately 0.454 acre of real
estate adjacent to the Roanoke County Administration Center in the Cave Spring
Magisterial District; and
496 August 23, 2011
WHEREAS, APCo and the County now wish to complete the transfer of this real
estate to the County for the purchase price of $40,000; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the
first reading of this ordinance was held on July 26, 2011, and the second reading and
public hearing was held on August 23, 2011; and
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the acquisition from Franklin Real Estate Company (a subsidiary
corporation of American Electric Power) of 0.454 acre of real estate (Tax Map No.
87.07 -3 -7) located adjacent to the Roanoke County Administration Center for the
purchase price of $40,000 is hereby approved.
2. That the sum of $40,000 is available in the Minor Capital Fund to pay all of
the costs of this acquisition, and is hereby appropriated for this purpose. This amount is
for the purchase price of this real estate.
3. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator are
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of
Roanoke County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this
real estate, all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
4. 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 outlined the ordinance and explained the first reading was
held on July 26, 2011. Mr. Mahoney explained this ordinance has been a long process,
it has been going on for almost two years. He noted the Planning Commission and
Development staff have been analyzing this issue and have submitted to the Board for
their consideration a draft ordinance. This ordinance is a culmination of about two years
worth of work and many citizen comments at the Planning Commission level, many
work sessions, not only by the Planning Commission but by the Board of Supervisors.
This ordinance consists of essentially three elements. Changes in definitions, some
district regulations essentially where those district regulations are calling for a special
August 23, 2011 497
use permit for these kinds of uses in a variety of the zoning districts under the County's
zoning ordinance and the final is the most important element of this ordinance. This
third part sets out use and design standards. This ordinance is not an ordinance that is
voting on a specific application, or a specific use of property, rather it is attempting to
establish the ground rules if in the future an application is made to the County to site
either a wind farm with windmills or if a situation with an industrial user and the industrial
user wants to erect a single windmill or a single alternate energy source so it attempts
to cover a broad range of possible activities. These use and design standards also
accomplish a very important goal of establishing an application process. He advised
currently under the Roanoke County Code for utility services, major there are
approximately eight (8) criteria that an applicant would have to follow. Of those eight (8)
criteria, two of which would probably be irrelevant in many situations because they deal
with water and sewer activities. This draft ordinance attempts to identify about sixteen
or seventeen (16 -17) criteria that any applicant coming forward to Roanoke County
would have to provide information to the Board and to the citizens of this County before
that application could be addressed, debated, discussed, considered and voted upon.
These criteria attempt to address, what staff and the Planning Commission have
identified as the critical elements of such an application, i.e. setbacks, noise, shadow
and flickering, electromagnetic communications interference, speed controls, land
clearing, erosion and sediment control, monitoring, maintenance, decommissioning. All
of these factors are an attempt to set the ground rules for future application and also for
purposes of transparency let any applicant know what they would need to do in terms of
presenting studies, reports, information to the Board of Supervisors and to the
community before any kind of final determination is made. This is not an ordinance that
approves a specific use in a specific location. There is no application pending before
the County, rather it is attempting to set out future ground rules for future decisions if or
when such an application is submitted. Mr. Mahoney advised Mr. Thompson, Deputy
Director of Planning, is also here to answer any questions that the Board may have.
Chairman Church opened the public hearing. The following citizens spoke
on this matter:
Sue Karr of 8011 Poor Mountain Road, Bent Mountain who stated she
was speaking on behalf of her friend and neighbor, Genesis Chapman who presently
lives in Richmond but frequently spends time at his cabin on Bent Mountain just down
the road from her house. Genesis Chapman is an environmental artist who life and
experiences on this mountain inform his work. His work is critically well received and
has been shown in numerous shows and exhibits around the United States. Folks here
may recognize Genesis as one of the founders of the show "Stick to your Guns," which
aired for five (5) years in Roanoke drawing forty (40) contemporary artists, many of
whom settled here. This is Genesis letter. "I have grown up and lived on Bent
Mountain for most of my life. My family moved here when I was four years old. I will
soon be forty -one. Although I
498 August 23, 2011
have been living in Richmond for the past few years to attend Virginia Commonwealth
University (VCU) and receive my Masters degree in Fine Arts, I still keep my cabin at
the foot of Poor Mountain and consider this mountain my home. I have hiked, explored
and hunted this area since I was a child, and this experience has not only defined who I
am, but Bent Mountain has shaped, influenced and inspired me as an environmental
artist. My daughter was born 3 and half years ago and it has been a priority for me to
share with her, and pass on this the beauty, nature, community, farms, forests and
fields on this mountain. It has been my pleasure to see my love of this place reflected in
her eyes. Every time we drive home, she asks which one is "her" mountain, and when
will it be that we can live there for good? Since we were married, my wife and I have
been planning to return, settle down, build a house and raise our daughter there. The
reason for returning to Bent Mountain is that since I was a child, it has remained a quiet,
secluded, rural community that is surrounded by natural beauty. This is where we want
to live and raise our family! If you do go ahead and allow this industrial turbine wind
farm to be built, it would directly impact and change forever the very nature of Bent
Mountain, destroying the natural beauty and rural nature of my beloved home
community, making it a less desirable place to live. If this does happen, I will not settle
my family there.
Adam Cohen of 7139 Starlight Lane, Boones Mills, Virginia stated he
wanted to address the Board directly. He advised that he is really glad the Board has
decided to address the concept of utility scale wind, but is disappointed by the
misinformation, pseudo- science and straw man strategy that has been adopted by folks
in this community. This ordinance is an opportunity to say that we as a community want
to embrace the new century and the new economy rather than cling to dying and
outmoded ways of making energy. He stated he wanted to address several points head
on. First, this is not a decision about any potential project. This ordinance although
instigated by a potential Poor Mountain project should absolutely not be based on
whether or not this project happens. He advised he is very doubtful that this project will
ever go forward and should it ever get to the stage whether it will go forward in an
official way, there will be plenty of opportunity to voice support or opposition. He stated
he has a real problem with the activities of the company considering the project and he
will ask pointed questions for them if they ever get past the idea stage. So this
ordinance should be considered a conceptual, symbolic and non - specific ordinance. As
a side note, rather than arbitrary set back requirements, he stated he thinks the Board
should be looking at an impact study on any site being considered. Secondly, there is a
specious argument about the environment being made. To understand this, you must
understand that our energy comes from various sources with varying effects on the
environment and just because you cannot see the effect does not mean they do not
happen. If this decision is going to be about the environment, then it should be
considered and understood in the greater context. Most of our power here in this
community is generated by coal and nuclear plants, each of which have a heavy impact
on the environment much greater than a utility -scale wind project. Wind easily wins
August 23, 2011 499
when considering environmental impacts of coal and uranium mining. Third, there is an
argument about health effects. This too must be considered in a complete and holistic
way. There is a huge cost to society both in terms of health and financial that is caused
by unregulated emission of mercury from our power plants. This has made our
community a hot spot for neurological disease. He stated he did not know about
everyone else, but he knows over ten people with Lou Gehrig's disease; many more
than he should know by statistics. At some point decisions need to be made about the
relative weight of health effects versus kilowatt hours and here again, wind wins hands
down over coal. Fourth, some will make a political statement about government
programs that support wind energy. This is a false argument because number one
government support comes at levels above the local. We are not getting any incentives
for industry with this ordinance. Second, many of the same folks making this straw man
argument are the ones that feel corporate welfare for oil, gas and coal companies is a
sacred right that shall not be violated. Hypocritical and misinformed, he stated he feels
sorry for his Tea -Party brethren who have been duped into doing multinational
corporations' dirty work. He concluded by urging the Board to pass this ordinance
without huge setback requirements.
Renee D. Goddard of 2237 Draft Road in Eagle Rock, Virginia stated she
has taught at Hollins University for the last seventeen (17) years as a professor of
biology and she also directs the environmental studies program. She thanked the
Board for the hard work that has been done on this ordinance, it is very important work.
She stated she thinks the ordinance has been well developed, sound with one
exception. She is concerned about the 1 / mile setback limit as it is extreme. It is
greater than any of the other ordinances that exist in other municipalities and may serve
to inhibit the development of wind energy in our region which she feels would be a
terrible mistake. As an ecologist, she has become convinced that need to find sources
of energy other than coal, which as you know is the source used in the valley. From the
beginning to the end, burning coal is destructive. Tops of mountains are blasted off to
get to the coal; valleys are filled in with mine tailings. The leftover slurry from burning
the coal, leaks into groundwater poisoning wells and if a slurry pond breaks, there goes
the river system. Finally, burning coal releases mercury, which is an incredibly potent
neurotoxin. It releases particles and other aerosols, which damage lung tissue and
releases carbon dioxide, which acts as a greenhouse gas contributing to the
destabilization of our climate and more importantly to her and more sounding is there is
so much co2 in the atmosphere it diffuses into the ocean and has actually altered the
chemistry of the ocean. It is more acidic and if you think about it, the ocean is three
quarters of our world. If you look at wind energy, it does not have any of these
problems. There are no pollutants released and land disruption is minimal when
compared to coal. There are legitimate concerns about the impact of turbines that they
may have on local bird and bat populations but if you read the scientific studies there
are ways of managing wind to reduce those impacts involving citing issues as well as
how the wind turbines are handled under low wind conditions. Certainly wind energy is
500 August 23, 2011
much better for our environment than coal. Beyond our environment, she believes that
wind energy in the Roanoke Valley makes sense from a development perspective. As a
college professor, she can tell the Board that the next generation is inspired by
innovation and forward thinking. Young people are looking for iconic images that give
them hope and in her conversations with students, wind turbines are one of these icons.
Progressive companies are looking to settle in communities that offer alternative forms
of energy. They avoid those that do not. She believes we have an opportunity here to
promote sound and safe wind energy development in our valley, keep our best and
brightest children here and employed and be an inspiring leader for our region. She
stated she hopes that the work here will make that happen.
Caleb Amstutz of 2237 Draft Road in Eagle Rock, Virginia and is fourteen
years old. He stated he is a freshman at Roanoke Catholic and appreciates being able
to speak tonight. First, he thanked everyone for the hard work done in developing the
wind ordinance. He hopes the final ordinance will be one of support in the development
of wind energy. He has lived in the Roanoke Valley all of his life. He stated he thinks
he would like to live here when he is grown. He hopes that when he is an adult here in
the Roanoke Valley, he will be able to look out his window and see a wind turbine
spinning. Having wind turbines helps the environment so much more than coal and
other fossil fuels. Wind turbines do not release greenhouse gases, which are causing
changes in our climate. Wind is free, you do not have to dig it up out of the ground or
blow up mountains to find it. Wind turbines will save these beautiful natural areas and
show everyone that Roanoke is a neat place to live. It would also be great to have
turbines for educational field trips. Teacher could show students a wind farm and use
them to explain the laws of physics and environmental issues. Since he is a freshman
this year, he would be able to go on one of these trips. The most important reason he
really hopes that we have wind energy here is to help with air quality. When he was
young, he was diagnosed with asthmatic tendencies. Since he was six (6), he has a
rescue inhaler and a steroid inhaler to help him when his lungs get tight. Wind turbines
do not put any pollutants in the air. Coal puts particles and other pollutants in the
atmosphere that irritate his lungs and make it harder for him to breath. If we cannot find
alternatives for the coal, he may not be able to live here when he is grown. He advised
he wished he could stay for the entire meeting, but he has school in the morning.
Robert Crawford of 6620 Shingle Ridge Road lives with his family in
Roanoke County. He stated he is speaking as a conservationist and advocate of
responsible public energy policy and practice. He wants to express his compliments to
the Board for their good work in developing the proposed zoning regulations for large
wind projects. With the exception of one provision, the turbine setback distance, which
appears to be restrictively large, the proposed regulations provide a sound standard for
the development for this important, clean energy resource. Regarding the one -half mile
turbine setback from the nearest residence on nearby property, this setback distance is
about four times that is provided in the model wind ordinance of the Virginia Association
of Counties, which specifies a setback of one hundred and fifty percent (150 %) of
August 23, 2011 501
turbine height. For a typical large turbine height of about 450 feet, the one hundred and
fifty percent (150 %) setback would be 675 feet, which as noted is about one fourth of
the one half mile distance of 2,640 feet called for by the proposed regulations. Since
the permit granting process provides a mechanism for dealing with any special case a
particular installation might present, the ordinance need not inflate its terms in
anticipation of every circumstance. Mr. Crawford thanked the Board for their diligence.
David Rowland of 3341 Bradshaw Road in Salem, Virginia stated he is in
attendance for the proposed amendment and also has tried in the past to apply with the
John Deere program to actually get a residential wind mill, but has found out Bradshaw
Road is not windy enough. To him, as a contractor for thirty plus years here, it looks
more to be an opportunity to bring more business, more revenues for permits,
construction materials, jobs and such. He advised he came mainly to listen to the
opposition to find out why there is this much concern about it. He is also a volunteer for
the Allegheny Regional Chamber of Commerce doing energy audits for the area
businesses and institutions here, trying to reduce the energy consumption of the valley
and mainly help to lower the energy bills. By reducing their carbon footprint and
reducing the cost, we are helping the environment. If these proposed windmills could
do that and give us either to have the opportunity to bring more houses online and more
families to the valley or just reduce ours. He stated he knows it is hard, yes, bring it into
my backyard, everybody protects their own. Living on Bradshaw Road, we are the
homes that do not. We have a brand new school, things are going well good. He just
hopes it is more of an open minded discussion as it goes forth that this is our general
guidelines to get it started and then as each project develops, more and more people
will be interested in bringing it into their area or working with other parts of the County to
bring this business and these windmills along.
Mark Hanson of 184 Vista Lane in Fincastle, Virginia stated he is with the
Renewable Energy and Electric Vehicles Association. He stated he looks directly at
Poor Mountain from his office window, a couple of miles away in west Salem. Mr.
Hanson thanked the Board for their efforts in working on a new utility wind ordinance in
Roanoke County. When he visited nearby wind farms in West Virginia; Beech Ridge,
Thomas Davis and Mount Storm, the setback was eight hundred and twenty feet (820).
He has provided a DVD to the Board on Beech Ridge with some RG wind turbines.
Since no noise was measured from twin 1.5 megawatt turbines with a DBA meter up to
1,200 feet and a thirty (30) mile an hour wind and the national average is a quarter mile
or less, putting the setback 820 to 1200 feet would be more reasonable than moving it
up to the one -half mile as proposed. The modern 1.5 to 2.5 megawatt wind turbines are
produced at General Electric in Salem, Virginia producing much needed jobs and
maintenance of the turbines will also produce more jobs servicing these majestic
beauties. Wind turbines are the quickest way to a renewable energy future which
consists of utility scale wind power, residence solar and electric cars all working
together. The myths generated by wind groups about birds, property values, noise,
shadow flicker and for sound and aircraft have no basis in scientific fact or actual
502 August 23, 2011
operation and do not hold up to peer review studies. The eight -five percent (85 %) coal -
fired electricity Roanoke receives has increased the childhood asthma rate (his child
has asthma) and increased air pollution in the area as prevailing westerly winds carry
the fruits of nearby western plants to the region; even his doctor tells him not to eat
more than one tuna -fish sandwich per week based on the mercury fallout from local
power plants. His office window is right in front of Poor Mountain, just a few miles north,
and he would love to see these pretty mountain flowers on our ridge tops. Please
support clean, wind power for jobs and our future.
Bill Modica of 15456 Creek Lane in Salem, Virginia stated he is strongly in
favor of allowing wind towers to be developed in our area, specifically in Roanoke
County. He personally has been actively supporting river cleanup events, greenway
development and park improvements in Roanoke County, Roanoke City, Vinton and
Salem. He strongly believes in preserving our natural beauty but he also believes in
finding better ways to support our economy and the American technological lifestyle.
Wind farms will generate tax revenue for other things that need to be paid for at very
little environmental cost. Allowing projects of this type will generate new revenue at little
or no infrastructure cost to the County. He stated he is speaking today as the Chairman
of the Roanoke Group of the Sierra Club, a well -known environmental organization with
over 700 local members. The idea of using wind energy to provide electricity has been
reviewed and debated nationwide. The Sierra Club has established guidelines that are
the result of careful and intense study of the issues involved. They are appropriate for
this situation and they indicate that this is a suitable way to move us closer to a day
when dirty coal is no longer used for power generation. This ordinance is a huge
improvement over the current loosely worded rules that are in effect and will allow the
applicant to know what to expect when a project is being submitted. He urged the
Board to pass it as soon as possible. The current recommendations of the Planning
Commission are well thought out and they make sense. The staff is to be commended
for their diligent research and their careful concern for details. Many of the sections of
this ordinance have been vigorously contested. It establishes standards that are
County -wide and is not just for Bent Mountain. In his opinion, the proposed noise levels
of 60 decibels and one hundred and ten percent (110 %) of tower setback seem
reasonable, however, an inclusion of a one half (1/2) mile distance measurement to the
nearest residence is not supported by any evidence. What is the reason for it? It does
not mirror the rules adopted of any other locality that has such an ordinance. It does not
protect residents from any perceived threat should the towers fail. He proposed that it
either be eliminated completely or reduced to a minimum of one quarter (1/4) mile,
which is much less onerous. He also suggested that the Board of Supervisors should
retain the option to waive or amend the perimeters of the ordinance if the circumstances
indicate it. This flexibility would result in a better result for the specific situations that
may arise. The Sierra Club believes that the numerous agency reviews and approvals
needed for a project to come online will adequately protect against ill- advised projects.
August 23, 2011 503
Nevertheless, landowners have the right to lease or sell their property to generate
revenue and in doing so, they also add to the economic base of the County.
Robert Egbert of 3571 Bradshaw Road in the Mason's Cove section of
Roanoke County stated he is in support of the draft ordinance with the exception of the
one half (1/2) mile setback provision. He asked the Board to support it with the deletion
of that particular specification and there are several reasons for this. He stated he
would like to focus on two reasons. Wind power is renewable and it is local. Fossil fuel
is what it is; they do not make it anymore. The reserves of fossil fuel, coal included are
in decline especially in Appalachia. The estimates of hundreds of years of supply are
way over the mark, way over estimated and mining of coal depends upon oil and oil
reserves are in decline now. So the cost of fossil fuel generated energy is climbing and
is going to climb much more rapidly. The second provision is that it is local. We do not
have to import wind and we do not have to compete against the Chinese or the Indians
for coal that can and is being exported to them. If there should be a unexpected
national disaster, like an earthquake or hurricane that should put down the national
electrical grid where are coal supply would be cut off from West Virginia or wherever,
we would still have a little bit of wind power local and he is sure that it is technology
feasible that this wind power could be redirected towards emergency services in our
area, like operating rooms, police, etc. So in conlusion, he hopes the Board supports
this ordinance, it is extremely important. We are direly dependent on fossil fuel, but the
fossil fuel is not going to last, so we need to start changing now.
Dan Crawford of 2311 Kipling Street in Roanoke, Virginia stated he is the
conservation chair of the Roanoke group of the Sierra Club. He greatly appreciated the
opportunity to speak and the hard work that has yielded an impressive body of
regulation, though, there is one point that begs further consideration, distance from
turbine to nearest residence. All other localities he is aware of have established
distance restrictions well short of one half (1/2) of a mile. The longest that he is aware
of is in New York state and it is one thousand (1,000) feet. There are over five
thousand (5,000) industrial scale wind turbines in this country, but none in Virginia. Our
local folks have not had direct experience and are slow to embrace anything unfamiliar.
In his frequent conversations about turbines, those who have been near them have
found them anything but loud and offensive. Wind farms on distant ridgelines are often
described with words like graceful and beautiful. A recent personal experience of his
consumed many hours over several days, though what he learned was worth every
minute. This story is going to make your job easier and also clear the air with
speculation about those "green signs." They were purchased by the Virginia chapter of
the Sierra Club and the Renewable Energy and Electric Vehicle Association. Few
things make a more stronger, more visible than a yard sign. Realizing this, several of
us pitched in and went door to door, most folks were not home. Among those that were,
he was delighted to hear most folks expressed favor for wind energy in Roanoke
County, though most folks were reluctant to take a public stand with a sign. If you have
ever done this kind of work before, you know that most folks just don't do signs. Also,
504 August 23, 2011
he avoided places with poor visibility, obstructing bushes or vehicles, unworkable
terrain, etc. Considering these factors, he is personally convinced that if every door was
answered and every way was suitable and everyone expressed their position with signs,
the streets he covered would look much different. Most yards would sport those green
and white signs of hope.
Stuart Tousman stated he is a Professor of Psychology at Jefferson
College of Health Sciences and lives at 1852 Elbert Drive in Roanoke County and has
been asked here to talk today about the acoustics of wind turbine syndrome. His
master's degree is in the field of psychoacoustic sound perception and he wanted to
come before the group and let everyone know that there is actually no such thing as
"wind turbine syndrome." The evidence does not support this. At a previous meeting,
the opposition was trying to promote the idea that there was such a thing, however,
there is no evidence base for this and there is no scientific research for this and is
simply a fear -based propaganda routine to try to get people scared about the impact of
wind turbines. There is no such thing as this. He is also the Chair of the Virginia
Asthma Coalition and also had asthma so he would support a positive step taken by the
Board to have good policies such as this ordinance in place.
Chairman Church recessed at 6:52 p.m. and called the meeting back in
session at 7:02 p.m.
Rupert Cutler of 204 S. Jefferson Street in the City of Roanoke stated he
has lived in Roanoke for twenty (20) years. Seven (7) were spent administering Explore
Park in Roanoke County, five (5) serving on the Western Virginia Water Authority board
with Mr. Altizer and six (6) serving on Roanoke City Council. His credentials include a
Ph.D. degree in resource development, six (6) years teaching environmental policy and
planning at Michigan State University, James Madison University, and the University of
Virginia and thirty (30) years administering natural resources agencies and
environmental associations in Washington, D.C. His thoughts on wind energy were
printed in The Roanoke Times on Sunday in its Horizon section. He has provided copies
for the Board. He stated he believes that wind power -a renewable source of alternative
energy - -is a positive opportunity for Roanoke County. It should not be regulated to the
point that it becomes impossible to proceed. Wind energy production is a legitimate
business that can help deal with air quality, water pollution and other environmental
issues. Wind power is the one source that does not require water. All other energy
sources including solar energy need lots of water for energy production, and most
energy production technologies contaminate water sources. Water is the limiting
resource in things we do now and in the future. In the event this ordinance is adopted
and construction of wind turbines and towers is approved, careful monitoring of the
environmental effects of road relocation, site clearing and debris disposal from
construction will be required to prevent watershed and downstream water quality and
aquatic ecosystem damage. Land clearing should be kept to a minimum and he would
prefer that the site re- vegetated with native plant species. The killing of birds and bats
should be minimized, with the turbines turned off at certain times if necessary to effect
August 23, 2011 505
this ecosystem protection. This draft ordinance addresses the critical concerns of
stream sedimentation during construction and the complete removal of construction
material and restoration of the site as a part of site decommissioning. Decommissioning
funds should be guaranteed with a performance bond. He applauds the Roanoke
County Planning Commission and the Board for working long and hard on this complex
issue.
Daniel Gaskel of 6634 Sugar Ridge Drive stated he works at Carillion
Clinic and this past spring he was on a leadership development committee through
Leadership Roanoke Valley which was run by the Roanoke Chamber of Commerce.
We were formed into teams with people from different industries and different
businesses and each team had something to address such as education or economic
development. The team he was on was focused on energy; one of the forms of energy
that was investigated was wind energy. None of us professed to be experts like some
of the people that have spoken here, but we did look into a lot of the considerations and
it was our conclusion that wind energy is a definite option that Roanoke County should
consider. It is not a panacea, it does have its concerns and we have heard many of
them tonight and they can be mitigated like the last speaker talked about. There are
ways you can reduce the wildlife loss, but we felt it was a wise economic development
for Roanoke County as well as for the entire region. He did attend a meeting that the
Board had on this subject earlier this spring and he stated he was impressed by the way
the Board was considerate of all the approaches and concerns and took a very
deliberative approach to it. If you continue to do that in the future, it will allow us to
develop this resource in the fairest way possible. This past summer, he advised he took
a trip to Pennsylvania on Interstate 81 and there was a section near Scranton,
Pennsylvania where you can see windmills and he recalled at the meeting this past
spring, there were people who talked about how they thought the windmills were ugly
and a blight upon the landscape. He also heard people who thought they were
beautiful. He advised he did not think they were either one. He thought they looked like
power lines more than other things that you see on mountains that unfortunately are
needed for an industrial society. Electric usage in the country is only increasing and our
primary source of electricity is coal, which is very dirty and which we suffer from
because of all the coal mining that occurs in West Virginia and all the pollution from
those smokestacks. In conclusion, he stated he was a supporter of wind energy and
thinks if the Board approaches it a calm, careful, rational way we can make it work.
Mark McClain of 907 Greenbrier Court in Salem, Virginia stated he
strongly favors wind energy and he is not going to repeat any of the environmental
commentary that has come before. He stated he agrees with all of it and has been
made by some very talented and committed environmentalist. In addition to spending
thirty (30) years as an environmental advocate, which he has done, he has also spent
over thirty (30) years working in business in corporations in finance and systems of that
matter so he is going to comment on the business side of this. The business scenario is
that wind energy is one of a handful of growth industries in our country. It is clear that
506 August 23, 2011
wind will be part of our energy future, but it is already a significant part of the mix. He
provided the following statistics from the U.S. Department of Energy. Wind energy
production increased twenty -eight percent (28 %) from 2008 to 2009. Sixty -one percent
(61 %) annual increase between 2007 and 2008 and through May of this year, wind
energy production is running about thirty -five percent (35 %) ahead of last year. Please
do not let anyone tell you that wind energy is not real and is not a real part of the future
mix. It is an incredible growth projector. He asked does wind really displace coal in the
mix, yes it does. The use of coal for electricity has gone down, it declined from fifty -one
point seven percent (51.76 %) in 2000 to forty four point nine percent (44.9 %) of the mix
in 2010. During that same time, wind energy rose twenty (20) fold from a near one point
one percent (1.1 %) of the mix to two point three percent (2.3 %). It has already jumped
to three point three percent (3.3 %) of our national energy mix for the first five months of
this year. Those you claim the grid cannot handle wind energy are wrong. It is being
done effectively all over the world. Wind makes sixteen percent (16 %) of the energy in
Spain, eighteen percent (18 %) in Portugal, twenty -one percent (21%) in Denmark. In
the US, many states see a significant penetration such as Iowa at fifteen percent (15 %)
of all electricity generated and Minnesota at ten percent (10 %). On one wonderful day
in 2009, wind energy was providing one half of the electricity to Spain. Wind energy is
good for communities, providing jobs, local tax revenue and investment. He hopes that
Roanoke County will be a community that welcomes this important industry and that it
will pass an ordinance without any arbitrary restrictions, one that encourages and
supports the production of clean, renewable energy from the wind.
Brian Lang of 6752 Quail Place in Roanoke County thanked the Board for
the work that went into studying this issue, noting it was a lot of hours, a lot of thought
and he knows the Planning Commission has done the same. He stated he thinks this is
a good ordinance that is being proposed with one major exception, the setback. He
cannot find any source which indicates that much setback is required, but he does know
that much setback could harm the practicality of citing wind farms in Roanoke County.
When you have to be at least one half of a mile from the structure, suddenly it really
severely limits the number of places where these things could go and when he looks at
what Roanoke County does with other things such as radio towers, you do not have that
setback anywhere close to that and on other things. He encourages the Board to
strongly give consideration to making the setback not anywhere close to that one half
mile, but something that ties into a consideration of where things might go in the future.
We do not know how tall the next generation of wind turbines might be. We do not
know if they will be this height or shorter or taller. If you set the setback at some
percentage of the turbine's height, for example one hundred and fifty percent (150 %)
would be more than enough to ensure that if one should ever topple, it would not
endanger anybody's home and when you look at the fact that we have buildings which
have smaller setback requirements, but still have sixty (60) decibel requirements to
cover the sound, there is no need for a half mile setback to keep people from hearing an
unreasonable level of noise. You have a separate requirement for this, he understands
August 23, 2011 507
at sixty (60) decibels at the property line so the fact that sixty decibels would cover the
sound and one hundred and fifty percent (150 %) would keep anybody from having any
fear of having one of these topple near their home would allow you to move forward with
an ordinance the overwhelming majority of the people here and people in the County
would support. Addressing the subject of how much support there is in the community,
he has seen surveys which indicate the overwhelming majority of people in this region
support wind power and if you make it harder for companies to build successful wind
farms but using an unreasonable setback requirement, you would be acting against the
wishes of your constitutions, of the majority of them. He knows there is a small minority
that is opposed to wind turbines no matter what and they have a right to their opinion.
They do not have the right to their own facts. The fact is if a turbine is cited one
hundred and fifty percent (150 %) from a building, there is no danger of falling over on it.
If the sixty decibel requirement for sound at the property line is enforced, there is no
worry about the noise.
Mr. Eldon Karr of 8011 Poor Mountain Road in Roanoke, Virginia asked
the Clerk to make note of the date and time of his written document (August 23, 2011 at
2:50 p.m.) Mr. Karr stated tonight, he speaks to you each individually, and more
importantly, as one collective entity, our Board of Supervisors. Five individuals, who for
unclear reasons, have chosen to subject themselves to the unrelenting scrutiny of over
100,000 citizens. For that alone, he respects and appreciate the Boards' commitment to
serve our community. He stated he does not wish to make the Board's decision this
evening with regard to the proposed large and utility scale wind ordinance amendment
any more difficult than it already is. He hopes to make the Board's decision this evening
easier with good conscientious, he cannot, and will not praise the quality, of over two
years of work that has been dedicated by our County staff, the Planning Commission
and the Board as a legislative body to investigate, study and craft the amendment in its
present form. He is, frankly, disappointed that the Board has allowed this amendment,
as it stands, to reach this status in our process over that period of time. The proposition
that, we need to do something, anything to immediately accommodate a proposed land
use, that we have never had any personal experience with, or more importantly lived
with, with an urgency based upon a fear that we may lose control over our own destiny
is not the strategy of wise leaders. It is always far harder and far more expensive to fix it
later. Yet, that is where we all in Roanoke County stand with regard to this issue. First is
spot zoning - in accordance with Virginia law to create a new zoning area as is implied
by the current draft. Spot Zoning "Spot Zoning" is the zoning of a small area of land for
a use that does not conform with the zoning comprehensive plan for the area. Second is
decommissioning. The current draft has already relaxed decommissioning costs to a
development in the form of deducting salvage value and allowing a letter of credit or
frankly more ridiculous, a corporate guarantee to put the land in shape. He beseeched
each Board member to understand that when confronted with a three (3) minute
timeframe among a throng of speakers within which to express and persuade your
508 August 23, 2011
leaders to embrace and consider your perspective requires hours and hours of
preparation and study.
Tori Williams stated he was in attendance on behalf of the Roanoke
Regional Chamber of Commerce located at 210 South Jefferson Street in Roanoke. He
thanked the Board, the Planning Commission and County staff for their careful and
thoughtful work on this issue over the last few years. The Roanoke Regional Chamber
supports development of both traditional and renewable sources of energy both to
diversify our energy base and to keep the region economically competitive.
Furthermore, the Chamber supports a regulatory environment that promotes economic
development. Burdensome regulations create a barrier for new investment and
undermine the region's competitiveness. The Chamber believes that the large and utility
wind energy system ordinance should be consistent with other jurisdictions throughout
Virginia and neighboring states. The ordinance should contain reasonable setback
requirements and noise restrictions that both permit the development of wind energy
systems and mitigate adverse impacts on surrounding properties. Overly restrictive
language or other arbitrary requirements not based on sound empirically based sources
could tarnish Roanoke County's representation as a locality that is open for new
business and investment. Again thank you for the Board's leadership on this issue.
Conrad Grundlehner of 2114 River Oak Drive in Salem, Virginia stated
although his address uses a Salem post office, his residence is in Roanoke County. He
stated he firmly believes that if we as a nation are going to make more clean energy
available it will be by private money making the necessary investments to bring this
about. It is government's role to establish a clear, regulatory environment, which will
give investment the certainty they need to supply the risk capital; nothing stifles
investment and job creation more than uncertainty. He stated he is pleased that
Roanoke County is making progress towards establishing a regulatory environment
governing large, wind energy development in Roanoke County. He commended all the
officials and staff who spent so many hours over the past few years taking us to the
point where we are now. His one concern with the proposed wind ordinance is the
proposed one half (1/2) mile setback from the nearest residence. This seems
excessive. The rationale for such a large setback escapes him. Two years ago he and
his wife drove to the Maritime Providences of Canada, while staying at Yarmouth, Nova
Scotia we chanced upon the wind farm at Publico Point nearby. This installation is
owned by Florida Power and Light and produces three point six megawatts of energy.
We were as close as several hundred feet from the nearest turbine, yet all we heard
was the soft whirring of the turbine blades, no smoke, no smells. We came away with
the conviction that wind turbines were an acceptable form of clean energy.
Bill Van Velzer of 393 Cox Road in Troutville, Virginia (otherwise known as
Daleville in Botetourt County) stated he is here because he has as much right as
anyone to appear before this Board of Supervisors and remind everyone here that wind
does not respect political boundaries. As a resident of Roanoke Valley, he says no to
this. Also of the Roanoke Valley, he does not want to make himself into anything bigger
August 23, 2011 509
than he already is and he stated he is not. He and his family have had thirty -five (35)
years of living with wind turbines. Please do not do this. He has heard and he
respects the views of everyone who has appeared here before the Board voicing their
support for wind turbines, for numerous reasons. He also wants to say that we are all
on the same side here. Some of us do not like wind turbines for some very good
reasons, but we are all on the side of the planet, we are all on the side of economic
growth, please do not tell him that simply because I oppose wind turbines that he is
some sort of throw back to nethanderal. He is not. His parents still have property in
Tehachapi, California. He has appeared before the Board and his words have gone into
print as well. He has voiced, although he does not want to belabor the point, sometimes
he feels it is necessary to do so. His parents still have twenty acres in Tehachapi,
California. His mother found these things in 1978 and 1979. She has in her files still
the longhand notes from those meetings and we did not know back then, but we know it
now, that the decision in favor of wind turbines was the then current County Board of
Supervisors despite anything the public had to say. Whatever the public had to say was
a "dog and pony show." He stated he knows that will not be the case here. Once the
Board makes the decision to go ahead with industrial scale wind turbines, the decision
will last longer than we will live. Do you realize this? We all, he hopes realizes there
will not be any turning back. As a student and instructor of history, he has come to sort
of snicker at wind turbines as being in his mind part of a fad. In the early 20 century
and the late 19 century, Americans took pride in oil derricks too. It was a sign of
dynamic, forward- moving America. He stated he hopes we are not making the same
mistake now.
Virginia Weisz of 11588 Bottom Creek Road a resident of Bent Mountain
in Roanoke County and like many of the citizens here, she is just enamored with the
idea of being green, which is why she wore the outfit today. Coming here from Montana
and Colorado where it is a way of life, she loves all things green. She recycles, takes a
bag to the grocery store, does permaculture and keeps these. Recently, she learned it
is patriotic to be green. So, when wind turbines like she known in Montana were
coming, I thought "cool, how green is that." Unfortunately, she is also a doctoral student
at the University of North Carolina- Greensboro and she does health research. What
she has found was similar word "greed." Invenergy met with residents of Bent Mountain
and it sounded good and then she found they put up only fifteen percent (15 %) of their
own money and make no investment in this huge project, really working. Then she
looked into outcomes. The wind industry has been subsidized since 1985 and it is still
in its infancy, why, because it has abysmal results and need for ongoing subsidies.
Then she learned a new phrase, "green window dressing." The environmental
degradation with acres of concrete into our beautiful pristine environment would be
incredible anywhere in Roanoke County and the health effects continue to be studies.
The isolating and annoying low frequency noise that is emitted have produced sleep
disturbances, severe headaches, unsteadiness, etc. She has some references for the
Board from the World Health Organization where they recommend noise management
510 August 23, 2011
includes measures in proper citing of wind farms to avoid locations in close proximity to
sensitive noise receptors that is residences, hospitals and schools. The setbacks need
to be one point five to two point four (1.5 to 2.4) miles to avoid these adverse health
effects and she has references for the Board. Also they recommend no more than thirty
decibels with low frequency components and no more than forty -five decibels at night.
The current proposal does not provide that protection and she thanked the Board for its
judicial planning and the protection of citizens in Bent Mountain and all over Roanoke
County.
Carl Bagby of 9962 Greenhouse Road on top of Bent Mountain stated in
the great scheme of things, trashing the property values on Bent Mountain is a pittance
compared to the tax revenue that Invenergy plans to funnel through Roanoke County,
but consider this, Roanoke is the only metropolitan area that sits astride the Blue Ridge
Parkway that consistently records the highest number of visits in any national park in
this county, about 18,207,000. How many of these folks do you think are going to get
on the parkway to check out these new wind turbines, no matter how beautiful you think
they are. We will lose millions of dollars in lost business revenues and tax dollars and
make no mistake about it Roanoke County will be soon open the flood gates for wind
farms to roll right down the Appalachian plateau. What a legacy for our children. All the
beauty that God has wrought in these special mountains will be replaced by the hubris
of man. Instead of an already failed technology, he asked the Board to table this
ordinance and send it back to the Planning Commission to redo. The Board thinks five
hundred feet of setback protect the property owners from the effects of the turbines?
Do you think 60 decibels protects the good citizens of this County? Where are the
protections to insulate the citizens against the costs involved in anything to do with this
project, the roads, the dismantling, anything. It is not there. It took eighteen (18)
minutes to draw up this ordinance, he stated he thinks the Board could have taken
eighteen (18) minutes and called up Invenergy and asks them for an ordinance they
could live with, because that is what we have. They have cobbled together boilerplate
from other ill investigated and biased ordinances. It is no secret that we as a society
are poisoning this planet just as fast as we can. The carbon emissions are just one
small part of the problem and wind energy is not even a miniscule part of the answer.
Reducing carbon emissions by developing wind energy is like spitting into the ocean in
its effects. Why are countries like Spain and the Netherlands running from the energy?
They realized only belatedly it does not work unless it is heavily subsidized. T. Bone
Pickens make billions off energy investments. He got into wind energy and ran away
from it just as soon as he found out it does not work unless it is heavily subsidized.
Why not invest these billions in the fine minds of this county to develop a new source of
energy that we can all live with instead of lining the pockets of Invenergy, the
carpetbaggers from Chicago who would betray us, destroying forever natural resources
we will never recover, for our own thirty (30) pieces of silver. Yes, this is all about
green, but not green energy, green the color of money. Why else would Invenergy,
whose CEO was a charter member of a Chicago company set up in 2000 to make
August 23, 2011 511
money off the backs of our already strapped American industry come riding into
Roanoke County. You think Invenergy cares about the environment and green energy.
Peter Airey of 846 Austin Avenue stated he is an engineer and he tries to
deal in specifics. He is very concerned the Board has chosen to say that sixty (60)
decibels is acceptable. As the Board should know, sixty (60) decibels is the sound of
his voice three feet from the Board. The Board is saying it is acceptable when you
come home, you get out of your car, "blah, blah blah, he is there." You sit down for a
meal with your family, "blah, blah, blah, blah, he is there." You try and watch the
television, "blah, blah, blah, blah, he is there." You want to go to bed, "blah, blah, blah,
blah, he is there." Just how long must he stay in your house before you tell me to get
"deleted" out, yet you are saying that is acceptable to impose this on the people of Bent
Mountain? He is telling the Board they are creating Roanoke's version of a Tuskegee
experiment, where you subject people to adverse conditions, even a report put out and
funded by the wind energy notes that people have an adverse reaction to wind turbines
directly proportional to the amount of sound they are exposed to although they say this
is not harmful. He questions that. As you may have noticed, Milton in "Paradise Lost"
noted that angels cannot detect sincerity from insincerity. We are fortunate that we can
have that Occam's razor to tell the difference from those that say they support the wind
power in this area, but if they say they support and have air conditioning in their homes
and their business, they are just talking the talk. They are not prepared to walk the
walk. The wind turbines, if you have access the publically available data on Bent
Mountain, would only provide one (1) amp of power during the months of July and
August; that will not run your air conditioning. Furthermore, they will blackout between
fifteen and sixteen (15 and 16) times a day between thirty and forty minutes on a
completely random basis. Yes, you can, and also he would add that most of the power
is generated in the winter. So you will need to store it. It can be stored it but the cost of
doing that with batteries that will last seven to ten years is 10,000 times your monthly
utility bill. So with a $100 utility bill, you are looking at an expenditure of $1,000,000
storage and that needs to be replaced on a ten -year basis. So $100,000 per year for
power supply that now costs you $15,000. He does not think this is good for Roanoke
County, the business in the area or any other person. He stated he has the figures to
back this up and can provide at any time.
Rudy Vietmeier of 460 Bluebell Lane in Roanoke stated he is a member of
the Sierra Club. He stated he is mindful of the effort that went into putting this
ordinance together and the difficult task before the Board. The most recent good news
concerning job creation in Roanoke is building coal cars. Any manufacturing activity
that leads to hiring people is good news and he has to wonder how much better would it
be if we were investing in something other than coal. Generating energy from coal is
nineteenth century technology; we are living the 21 st century. The technology of the 21 st
century offers far more promise, not only in terms of a cleaner, more sustainable
environment but new and creative technology, new and better jobs. Wind energy is one
of the avenues that affords us the opportunity. Lessons of the past tell us that history is
512 August 23, 2011
replete with missed opportunities; do not let this opportunity be missed by saddling it
with unnecessary restrictions.
Karen Vietmeier of 460 Bluebell Lane in Roanoke County, the Hollins
district thanked the Board for allowing the citizens to speak. There is not much new to
say, other have already addressed it very well. She concurs with many others that she
hopes the Board's decision will be to pass this ordinance with modest changes that do
not make it so onerous to future applicants as to be a deterrent to future development of
big wind energy in Roanoke County. She encouraged the Board in its deliberations to
consider the vast amount of work that has been done by the staff and Planning
Commission and to heed to the advice of legal counsel. The Board is being pressed
from all sides and views, moderate and extreme. She encouraged each of the Board
members to embrace their decision as a decision that represents what is in the best
opportunity for the entire Roanoke County and the future development of the area. To
delay further a decision to gather more data is a decision in itself and that is to kick the
ball down the road. She stated she believes that each Board member was elected not
only to represent a particular geographic constituency, but once elected the Board's
responsibility is to use your combined wisdom to make the best decision for the future of
the County. She stated she believes that the Board can arise to that occasion even in
the face of criticism from some of your constituents; knowing that the Board is working
for the great good of the County. She thanked the Board for its time and consideration
and wished them good luck.
Linda LaPrade of 5509 Will Carter Lane in the Cave Spring District of
Roanoke County stated wind energy sounds so good and harmless, and makes you feel
good that you are doing something positive for the environment and bringing in tax
dollars for the county, until you look at information provided to you by other than those
provided by wind energy proponents. It is not efficient and certainly is not harmless to
the environment. It is much windfall to those who produce these turbines and gather
subsidies than an effective contribution to wind use. Electricity costs to the consumers
generally go up when wind farms occur because backup - generating units must be
always available powering up or down dependent upon the wind. When used this way,
they run at less than peak efficiency and generally emit greater CO2. Denmark, an early
pioneer of wind energy, saw the electric bills go up by the equivalent of five (5) cents
per KW hour in one (1) year after wind energy came. Denmark, UK, Texas and
Colorado saw an increase in CO2 as wind farms developed. A study in the UK showed
that the government subsidy for one turbine could insulate the roofs of five hundred
(500) homes and saves in two (2) years the amount of energy that the one turbine
would save in its lifetime (which is about 20 years). You have set a one half ( 1 /) mile as
your setback, but there is a movement is to move setbacks further. Gilman, Illinois is
moving theirs to one mile. The French Academy of Medicine and the UK Noise
Association suggest a one -mile setback. In February 2008, a ten (10) year old turbine
broke in a storm; it did not fall and threw debris more than eight (8) times its height. In
August 23, 2011 513
Scotland one piece of a broken blade went through a window in a house ... eight (8)
miles away. She stated she was most concerned when she went to the Invenergy web
site and saw a page already dedicated to the Poor Mountain Wind Farm and read that
they were working with Roanoke County government to determine tax benefits.
Highland County has been in litigation for years and has cost the county over $300,000
thus far. It is one thing for a company to express an interest, it is quite another for it to
already be working with government officials. As a formal Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request, she would like to know what officials or affiliated NGOs have met with
Invenergy or their representatives, and if Invenergy or their representatives have seen
or indeed made suggestions about this ordinance before tonight. What you decide
tonight affects all of us forever. Countries and states that have had wind power in place
for years need to be studied. There are as many unanswered questions as there are
broken and unused turbines dotting their landscapes.
Bill Gregory of 3312 Pamlico Drive in Roanoke County stated he has been
a resident for nineteen (19) years stated he is a mechanical engineer and one of his
specialties is acoustics, noise control; having been doing that for over fifteen (15) years.
He stated he had worked on HVAC and architectural related noise control solutions
during the design phase and on mediation in post- construction problems. On occasion
he is asked to perform noise control remediation. This occurs when after construction is
completed and the occupants are all present and there are justified noise complaints.
He would go to the site, take the noise measurements, bring them back and remediate.
Remediation is much harder to deal with. Fixing an active noise control problem, post -
construction, is much more expensive and time consuming than having the solution
dealt with during the design or preliminary phase. In addition, the owner and the
occupant are upset and the sense of urgency to fix a problem is all consuming. Section
30- 87 -7b5 of the current ordinance states, "Large wind ordinance systems and utility
wind systems shall not exceed sixty (60) decibels as measured from the closest non-
participating property line." It goes on to state "an analysis prepared by an acoustical
engineer with a professional engineering license in the Commonwealth of Virginia shall
be provided to demonstrate compliance with the noise standard." The criteria requiring
maximum sixty (60) db noise level at the property line is too high for evening and early
morning periods. Modern industrial standard for nighttime noise level at property lines
adjacent to residential areas is typically in the forty -five to fifty (45 -50) decibel range.
Please keep in mind that infrasound is not included in the sixty (60) db criteria. On the
section of setbacks, he asked the Board of Supervisors how those specific setbacks
were arrived by the Planning Commission. He stated he would like to know how they
were arrived at in a FOIA request.
Steven Hanes of 20150 Mill Creek Road in Bent Mountain, Virginia stated
he was going to confine his comments tonight to the ordinance issues because that is
what is being talked about here, but he agrees that the ordinance needs to be amended
in anticipation of an application for larger industrial -scale turbines in this County. The
514 August 23, 2011
ordinance needs to set a reasonable set of standards for any applicant, anywhere in
Roanoke County, not just at Poor Mountain. He understands that, however, he feels
that the current ordinance amendment proposals do not set a reasonable standard for
the protection of citizens of Roanoke County in at least three (3) areas: setbacks, noise
levels and decommissioning process. The proposed articles are far too liberal. Many of
us believe that they are wrongfully slanted in favor of the wind developer. Establishing
a reasonable setback can also mitigate some of the noise issues. So, he asked the
Board to impose a setback minimum of at least one mile. Measurements should be the
tip of the blades at the property line, not from the base of the turbine to the property line.
In Roanoke County even garages are measured from the overhang to the property line,
so the tip of the blade is the closest part of turbine to the property line so let us measure
from the blade not the base. Noise should be measured at no more than thirty -five
decibels at the property line and certainly not as one suggested at the nearest dwelling.
Measuring sounds at the nearest dwelling effectively makes the land between the
dwelling and the turbine valueless, it devaluates it. You can no longer develop it; you
cannot build another house on it because it would fall between those distances that you
have already established. The decommissioning piece should be escrowed or
guaranteed by either a cash bond or performance bond. Corporate guarantees are
useless if the corporation no longer exists, as is the case in California where more than
14,000 turbines today stand idle because there are no funds to take them down.
Relying on salvage value as a major part of the decommissioning process Mr. Hanes
stated was flawed because salvage values fluctuate weekly. He stated it just seems to
him to be common sense in this case you would want the ordinance to deal fairly
conservatively with the issues at hand. Let's set the ordinance standards fairly
restrictive and let the applicants apply through the special use process to show cause
and justification why the ordinance should be modified in some way.
Andrea Krochalis of 9428 Patterson Drive, Bent Mountain stated she was
a bit taken aback by the quip in a recent Roanoke Times editorial that nothing new
could be studied on the industrial scale wind turbine proposal in Roanoke County. There
are several points not really studied by the County. Examples such as the importance of
the turbines not being able to store electricity and the effect on how much actually gets
used or goes to the grid or goes to the ground. It is a much smaller, less significant
number than the RVCCC /invenergy reference to their "cars taken off the road"
metaphor. The County should be able to cite specific measurements for accountability
for such promises made to the taxpaying consumers. Just how is the number set to
declare that the production of electricity is acceptable? How does the County profit from
this project, and who else profits? How will that be reflected in consumer rates, they
skyrocket. A study of wildlife and plant species and of water quality at regular intervals
over time, not just if there is a complaint, should be mandated. Our community worked
for 10 years to have Bottom Creek designated a Tier 111 waterway -a stream that has
unusually high quality water. Is an incidental take permit required here? The area was
just designated a Hawk Migration site. What are the protected species present in this
August 23, 2011 515
site? We know from contractors that we have met on the Mountain that Indiana Bats are
present; these contractors were hired by Invenergy. After the green wash of the feel
good effect of harnessing the wind, there is a learning curve to really be an informed
consumer here. She stated she is glad our supervisors have indicated that they will
struggle through this -like the rest of us have! How soon will turbines WITH batteries be
on the market? Why does the UN/WHO recommend a setback of 1.5 miles? What other
localities are pleased with this sort of installation 2, 3, 5, or 10 years out? How were
property values impacted in those localities at each of those points in time? If you
cannot answer these questions she stated she hopes the Board will study more and
postpone this vote. The big thing that hasn't been discussed is the opening of the gate
for turbines to be installed all the way down the Appalachian Mountains, Floyd Catawba,
Montgomery, Windy Gap, are you ready for this? Even if you don't agree, please
consider how our community relates to the land. "I cannot twist the laws to serve me,
but I can adjust my life to serve the laws. This is the law -1 am here to serve the Earth.
The Earth is not here for me to misuse and abuse." This is a spiritual value of mine that
she is sharing with the Board, but it is also the value of farmers, orchardists, naturalists,
herders and others. We feel a relationship to our life's work of accepting the land from
others to care take and pass on. Please respect that value.
Chairman Church recessed the meeting at 7:52 p.m. and reopened the
meeting at 8:02 p.m.
Mr. Sean McGinnis of 2716 Richelieu Avenue in Roanoke City stated he
had analyzed energy in carbon emissions for Roanoke County and the City of Roanoke
for the past several years. He stated he has a PHD in Material Science and
Engineering and directs the Virginia Tech Reengineering Program. Mr. McGinnis stated
his statements this evening are his own and do not represent Virginia Tech in any way.
This ordinance will determine the future of renewable energy to a large extent in the
County. He stated he wished we could just use conservation to reduce energy use.
Unfortunately, history shows that society is not good at conservation. Energy use and
carbon emission trends continue to rise, even during times of economic downturn.
Many of the issues tonight are subjective, which does not reduce their importance, but
he will focus on more objective and quantifiable issues. How much energy might these
wind turbines generate and as a result how much carbon dioxide would not be omitted
and how much coal would not be combusted. While this ordinance hearing is not
specific to any project, it is important to understand the scale of potential wind energy
production related to this ordinance. He has analyzed the wind energy potential of a
projected wind farm as due diligence for his own decision making process. He stated
he was not paid to do this analysis. To model this accurately, you will need the turbine
power at each wind speed, the distribution of wind speeds preferably close to the hub
height since wind speed increases with altitude. Doubling the wind speed gives roughly
eight (8) times more power so energy generation calculated average wind speeds from
wind maps will significantly underestimate the energy generation. Using public curves
for a GE wind turbine and wind speed data from an independent third party, he has
516 August 23, 2011
estimated a Poor Mountain wind farm could generate more than 100 million kilowatt
hours of electricity annually. This is a conservative estimate as it uses wind speed
measured at fifty -five meters rather than a proposed hub height of eight -five (85)
meters. This electricity is equivalent to that used by 9,000 average Roanoke County
homes, which require 40,000 tons of coal annually and emit more than 100,000 tons of
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere along with mercury and other toxic pollutants. In his
opinion, these quantified benefits are enough to shift the environmental balance in favor
of wind turbines at appropriate sites which require reasonable wind ordinances and
setbacks. It gives serious weight to the potential impact of engineering technology on
the local community, the ecosystems and the wildlife, but all of us make tradeoffs every
day regarding energy and environmental damage. Ultimately, he thinks this ordinance
moves the Roanoke Valley a step toward a more sustainable future.
Elliot S. Wheeler of 831 Hanover Avenue in Roanoke, Virginia stated the
body of his comments have already been distributed to the each of the members of the
Board via email and at this time he wanted to make one simple salient point. For a
given amount of power generation, wind costs one one hundredth of the number of lives
of coal. That means if you generate ten to the 27 exajoules or 1 kilowatt hour, which
costs about 115 lives of coal; it costs a little bit more than one life from wind. This set of
numbers, and the Board has the references, does not include black lung disease or the
environmental degradation associated with burning the coal, just mining it, generating it
and not even getting it to the place where it is burned. It is our friends and neighbors in
West Virginia and in Southern Virginia that suffer from this because that is where we get
our coal. Please keep this in mind when you make your decision.
Jerry Polverino of 11180 Sugar Camp Creek in Bent Mountain stated he is
a domestic and international jet captain, retired. He owns his own small, little puddle
jumpers, twin engine airplanes, those kinds of things. He stated he has flown in and out
of Roanoke most of his life. One of the things that he keeps hearing is that this is going
to cause a problem with the airport. Airplanes do not routinely fly over Poor Mountain,
we fly around it and we fly around the obstacles on Poor Mountain because we really
have to dive to get into runway six (6) to land. We come down Interstate 81 on an offset
approach and make a left run into runway six (6). So, what is put on Poor Mountain is
not going to have a direct impact, especially on the landing minimums at the Roanoke
airport. What is done ten miles away is not going to change how low we can go before
we see the ground when it is cloudy into Roanoke. The minimum altitudes in Roanoke
would be 5200 feet if the turbines are approved. The minimum vectoring altitudes in
other places out west are well over 11 000 and 12,000 feet. It is not a problem where, it
will not be a problem here. Some people have jumped on the word "aviation hazard"
which is the term the FAA uses to describe any tower or object that is sticking up above
a certain amount. Hazard does not mean, hazardous or dangerous. In the airman's
information manual, it tells pilots to watch out, be careful when there is a hazard. Now
that he has said all of this, he also stated the FAA really is not going to listen to him or
any other pilot. They will take his letters and comments, very politely; they will
August 23, 2011 517
completely ignore them and then hand them to their engineering department which will
make the final decision. His next point is that wind power has been around since the
fourth century. He does not think this is a fad that is going to go away all that quickly.
Wind it not meant to be stored, it is meant to reduce the total amount of load on the
electrical grid, that is how it is transferred from one point to another. That is what the
electrical grid does, which is one of the greatest achievements and provides us with all
the luxuries that we have in our homes right now. As far as subsidies, the highest
subsidized energy source is refined coal. There is a guy names Jay Waller that wrote a
book about technophobia and the electricity concerns and scares that people had when
America was first electrified. There were people who were actually afraid to put their
food in electric refrigerators. We can see some of that technophobia here. He hopes
that we try to embrace the future and do what is right for our community and let this
amount of money and American progress be spent here.
Karen Scott of 8443 Poor Mountain Road, Bent Mountain stated to have a
great industrial wind turbine ordinance for Roanoke County, the Board will need much
information on experiences in other states' mountainous and rolling hill counties, due to
Virginia's inexperience in this industry. This is necessary to preserve life and the quality
of life for humans and wildlife. She stated she will address human life tonight: the
Roanoke County citizens. In the Pacific Northwest, the first industrial wind turbine sites
were constructed in 1998 in an Oregon county, Umatilla County; she has provided
information on this. Oregon now has 1200 industrial turbines. Umatilla County has
gained more of these so called farm location since 1998. They previously had a setback
of over 3000 feet. In June, 2011, this year, they changed it to two (2) miles from each
turbine to a rural home. Why? People were getting sick from insufficient sleep from low
frequency, sporadic, pulsating noise generated from turbine blades slicing the air. Why
does this affect people and their sleep? First reason: Low frequency noise affects
people, especially indoors with the windows closed, and especially at night when winds
are higher. This sound resonates in a person's house, and in their sinuses. Noise
travels farther in the mountains due to the temperature gradient, cooler air cooling down
the mountains with nightfall and increased humidity, and extends three to five (3 to 5)
miles from the ridgeline. Second reason: One turbine is like one dog barking
relentlessly, more turbines is like a whole kennel upset. One turbine is like the sound of
an 18- wheeler climbing a mountain, more turbines like a convoy pulling a mountain.
Sound is amplified and intensified with more participants, and especially in echoing
mountains. This is the reason yodelers' yodel in the mountains not on the plains. Third
reason: Populations of people in an area. The map you have been given is from
Roanoke County planning department with the proposed wind turbines located on Poor
Mountain. She stated she has only added one mile and two mile concentric rings. The
two mile ring extends out to the southbound lane of 221 and effects 271 parcels of land,
thousands of acres, hundreds of families and these numbers do not include
Montgomery County. So I plead with you to research the years of experience of other
states' counties and I have the ordinance revision from the Oregon County in your
518 August 23, 2011
information. Mountain topography is different than others, so choose life- preserving
setbacks in your ordinance, please. Roanoke County needs to be seen as progressive,
not ignorant of the truth. Pilate asked Jesus, "What is truth ?" She stated she hopes that
you all will pray that God will lead you to the right answer to this question.
Ed Kinser of 10023 Fortune Ridge Road on Bent Mountain and stated he
is here to represent those who cannot speak -the unique plant communities, the bats,
the eagles, and hawks, and all those that can be affected by ridge top destruction in
Roanoke Co. My degrees are in biology and I spent 33 years teaching people like you
and your children the importance of taking care of the environment and about how all
the parts work together so intricately that if one part is damaged or destroyed, there
sometimes is a chain reaction that upsets the whole system. Our own local Blue Ridge
Mts., running right through Roanoke County, and our Allegheny Mts., such as Catawba
and Fort Lewis Mts., are among the oldest mountains in the world. Our native plants
and animals have called these mountains "HOME" or used them for migration routes for
much longer than recorded history. The situation with bats, eagles, and hawks is
particularly disturbing when referencing wind turbines. Over 3,700 hawks have been
counted riding the updrafts along our County's ridges just in the last two falls. Only in
the last few years has mist - netting shown that bats not only live here but also migrate
through the area, endangered species included. These raptors and bats have no
defense against the blades of 400 - foot -tall turbines. These blades can chop them up or
wound them so severely that they are flightless and doomed. As a concerned naturalist,
he thinks working to reduce bat and bird kills is totally unacceptable, avoiding kills is the
only way to go. We all know that there is NO industry, wind or otherwise, that would
destroy the tops of ridges and ALSO CARE about the environment and native plants
and animals there. If an industry does not care about the native plants and animals in
the environment, what about the residents that live there. Have any of you heard how
Gandhi suggested we can measure a society? He said, "A measure of society can be
how well its people treat its animals." As you work on the ordinance amendments he
hope your results are such that our birds and bats will have unspoiled ridges where they
can be safe. And the same ridges can be used by our citizens, our children and our
grandchildren as a place to relax and commune with nature. He stated he hopes the
Board's final ordinance will be one that will allow our Roanoke County community to
treat our animals, our plants, and our ridge top populations conscientiously. Would you
supervisors PLEASE try to measure up to Gandhi's wisdom?
James Scott of 8443 Poor Mountain Road in Bent Mountain stated he
would like to start by addressing Section 30 -41 -1 (A) of the Zoning Ordinance requires
that prior to any Zoning Amendments, the commission shall determine effects on
surrounding property. The ordinance does not satisfy this requirement. A
comprehensive determination of "effects" on surrounding property needs to be included
in the ordinance. This assessment must include noise and other "effects" of proximity to
industrial turbines. Impact on land use on surrounding land and property values need to
be specifically required. This includes surrounding property appraisals. To determine
August 23, 2011 519
the effects of noise; the noise must be characterized. Currently, only dB -A
considerations are being proposed. All research indicates that the low frequency
impacts are of more significance to public health. Additionally, the design standard
needs to be based relative to background, to determine "effects ". The noise design
standard itself must reflect the County Code -Noise Ordinance" declared to be the
public policy of the County of Roanoke to promote an environment for its citizens free
from excessive noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare or degrades quality of life.."
The proposed sixty (60) decibels (dB) promotes excessive noise, contrary to this
declared policy. The Institute of Environmental Medicine at Stockholm University reports
that sixty (60) dB wakes ninety percent (90 %) of people after they have fallen asleep.
Sixty (60) dB places a noise encumbrance on surrounding properties, thus changing
land use. It is the equivalent of placing a "no build" restriction on surrounding property.
That is the equivalent of taking my sons and daughters homeland inheritance away from
them. The design standard needs to be based on experience from existing wind farms
where we can see how various noise standards actually work. Recently a study of
Europe's wind turbine noise standard concluded that the thirty -five to forty (35 -40) dB
provided "reasonable protections" for most situations. Perhaps that's why they do not
have as many problems: because of responsible noise design standards! Most serious
health problems are occurring at wind farms built with design standards of forty (40) dB
and above. These are the problems we do not want in Roanoke. The design standard
needs to be defendable, and based on current knowledge and experience. The noise
design standard for Roanoke should be thirty -five (35) dB (or 5 dB above background),
to comply with the declared County Noise Policy. Invenergy has already developed wind
farms in Ontario (at forty (40) dB design standard) and in Oregon (thirty -five (35) dB).
We deserve the same levels of health, well being and quality of life, granted to those
citizens. It also proves that a thirty -five (35) dB design standard is very "doable ", and is
not a vote against wind, just a vote for a responsible ordinance, sixty (60) dB
irresponsible and reckless.
Diana Christopulos of 907 Greenbrier Court in Salem stated she is
president of the Roanoke Valley Cool Cities Coalition, a local, all volunteer, non - profit
organization that encourages energy conservation, efficiency and clean renewable
energy. Our affiliates represent over 25,000 citizens and most of them live, work, go to
school or do business in Roanoke County. The topic tonight is a zoning ordinance that
places the County in the position of government regulators; a balancing act between
encouraging personal freedoms and allowing anarchy. Our organization has some
concerns about wind power and most of them have been answered in the draft
ordinance. She stated she would not go through all of the details, as the Board has
heard about a lot of them. She mentioned the sixty (60) decibels on audible noise; it is
at the property line, not at the residence. It is the same as the existing limit on
residential and small wind. So certainly large wind we would not expect to be held to a
higher standard. In fact, the only significant concern we had was the one half mile
setback, which is four to five times further than what is recommended by the Virginia
520 August 23, 2011
Association of Counties and was adopted by Rockingham and Pulaski Counties. It is an
unreasonable regulation with no medical or scientific basis. Some concerns we do not
share with other speakers this evening, though we certainly respect their right to voice
them, include the issue of low frequency sound. The sources for these concerns are
generally unreliable or outdates. For example, the World Health Organization
recommendations in 1999 are based on a technology which has not been in production
for many years. The book, "Wind Turbine Syndrome" does not meet scientific or
medical publishing standards. We are not concerned federal subsidies because they do
not seem relevant; is Roanoke County going to reject businesses because they receive
federal or state subsidies that would be a very long list of rejections. Instead, we urge
to pass the large wind zoning ordinance with a reasonable residential setback.
Compared to the way we get electricity today, over eighty percent (80 %) from coal, wind
power is good for human health and safety. Burning coal makes people sick and it even
kills them. Wind is better for the environment because all the things about coal that
make people sick also harm other living things, animals and plants. They do not use
electricity, but they suffer the consequences of our actions. Happily the use of wind
power can be very good for local economic development. It can enable local land
owners to keep their property in agriculture and in their family. County tax payers
benefit because the developer must pay local property taxes based on the amount of
money invested in the project. The use of wind power would make a symbolic
statement that our region is open for clean and green business. This would be welcome
news to the eighty -six percent (86 %) of Virginians who told pollsters from Roanoke
County in March 2011 that they favored the expanded use of wind energy in our state.
We urge you to pass this ordinance and allow properly cited wind farms.
Michael Scott of 9469 Poor Mountain Road stated his residence happens
to be one of the closest to a proposed wind farm project in Roanoke County;
approximately 2,500 feet. For this reason, it is very difficult for me and my neighbors to
separate this zoning ordinance amendment from the proposed project on Poor
Mountain. Because it was a reaction, it should basically be conservative in order to
allow the zoning ordinance amendment to kick in to allow a site specific ordinance be
developed. He stated his opinion of the setback of one hundred and ten percent
(110 %) of the tower height he feels is not protective of the neighboring residences. The
setback should be a minimum of one (1) mile from any occupied dwelling (preferably
two (2). Setback and noise are directly related to each other. If you increase setback,
you decrease noise potential. The current noise standard of sixty (60) decibels (db) is
too high and will not protect neighboring residences as well. A lower noise limit of thirty
(30) decibels OR an increased setback of one (1) mile from residences would provide
some protection for the neighboring properties, such as mine. Despite this, there is still
evidence that even one (1) mile setbacks can still result in damage to non - participating
property owners, particularly in mountainous terrain such as where the proposed
projects and some other potential sites in Roanoke County are located. Alternatively,
consider having no specific standards and allow the developer to come in and
August 23, 2011 521
demonstrate there are no adverse impact claims. If they cannot demonstrate their
claims of no adverse impact, the project should not be built. Additionally, consider the
stress on local infrastructure such as interference with Emergency Management radio
transmissions. Obviously, if foliage can impact signal, then a four hundred and thirty five
(435) foot tower will obviously do the same. Expect increased demand on Volunteer Fire
Departments due to brush fires and lightning striking on turbines. Additional strain on
local resources such as fire, police and emergency services, especially during
construction, but also in response to post- construction incidents. Remember the closest
fire /rescue is not staffed full time. Additionally, expect damage to roads caused during
the construction phase of a project of this magnitude. If you consider how many forty
plus story structures may end up on Poor Mountain that is more than all of the cities in
southwest Virginia combined.
Carl Smith of 225 Cobble Lane on Bent Mountain stated he also has a
tract of land on Poor Mountain. The Board has heard from a lot of folks this evening by
their addresses they do not have the same "skin" in this that he does. He believes that
people move to Roanoke County for the natural beauty and the lifestyle that is why he
and his family moved here. He believes that the ordinance should be more prohibitive.
He believes if fifty -four (54) wind turbines are constructed on Poor Mountain that
property values will be lowered, there will be a negative impact on the health of the
surrounding residences, it will deter new home building, it will severely impact the
marketability of existing home sales as well as existing undeveloped home sites. It will
have a negative impact on wildlife. He has personally watched hundreds of red - tailed
hawks migrate across the ridge top. He asked the Board if they lived where you would
be looking at fifty -four (54) of these wind turbines, if your property values would be
lowered, if you would have to deal with a massive amount of construction traffic, if this
were proposed in your neighborhood, if you had to listen to 24/7 constant humming
would you still feel this is such a great idea. There is a place for wind energy, there is
no doubt, and he does not think it is in his backyard. He asked that the Board make an
ordinance, one that is more restrictive, reducing the height and increasing the distance
from any existing or possible future home site and he stated he sure does not mean to
be rude, but asked the Board to honestly consider how the Board members would write
the ordinance if your neighborhood was a considered site for these nuisances.
Bruno Duron stated he is fourteen years old and lives at 1975 Poor
Mountain Road and has built some models that have been built to scale to show the
Board. The first model represents the television towers on Poor Mountain, the second
model is a wind turbine built to scale (three (3) inches equal twenty(20 feet), the third
was a house and person that were also made to scale. Each turbine would have
concrete pads that are 50 x 50 x 6 feet, which would take about 500 cubic yards of
concrete. A concrete truck carries seven (7) cubic yards of concrete that would take
seventy -eight (78) truckloads for one turbine. For eighteen turbines, it would take 1,404
concrete trucks. On top of these pads are turbines that are four hundred and forty three
(443) feet tall. They are huge.
522 August 23, 2011
Hunter Smith stated he is also fourteen years old and lives at 225 Cobble
Lane on Bent Mountain where he has lived his whole life. In science class he has
learned how air currents form and how noise travels with the air currents. When the
ground is warmed by the sun in the morning, the air near the ground is also warmed
and rises, and then cold air comes in from below to take its place as warm hair rises.
Warm air rises during the day and carries sound with it. When the warm air hits the
mountains it causes an updraft, goes over the mountain closer to the ground carrying
the sound with it. Bent Mountain in the daytime you can hear the sound of the train
going down the tracks. This sounds travels from about six miles away as the crow files
from Shawsville, Montgomery County. Image how much sound will travel from wind
turbines that are less than a mile away.
George AN stated he is 15 years old and lives at 6613 Siyvan Brook Road
in Roanoke County. He is continuing Hunter's description of what they have learned in
science class about how sound travels in the mountains. At night when the sun goes
down, the cold area comes down. Cold air from the mountains will go down the slopes
causing a down draft and carrying the noise with it. So all is quiet in the mountains,
except for the occasional calls of whippoorwills at night. The wind turbines proposed in
Roanoke County will be built on top of the mountains. The downdrafts at night will then
carry these turbine propellers sounds much further than the sounds that is normally
heard in the quieter terrain. Also, there is a problem of a low frequency sound, which
also sounds like a deep base on a boom box. It comes from the air compression when
the turbine blade passes the bowl of the turbine. He states he sees these as a threat to
people's homes, schools and businesses in the mountain communities. This is
expressing due to the natural air currents in the mountains which carry the sound much
further than it does in flatter areas. Additionally, he stated he cannot imagine how
invasive these structures would be on the scenery that is Bent Mountain.
Glenn Reed of 9175 Poor Mountain Road on Bent Mountain. He stated
he has lived on Bent Mountain all of his life. In 1973, when he graduated from college
he wanted to place a mobile home and work on his father's farm. He was required by
the county to have each adjoining land owner to sign permitting me to place the mobile
home on our land. The reason for this would it might devalue our neighbor's property.
Since then, he has bought the property and has spoken to the Planning folks on several
occasions about starting businesses on my property. He has been told many times that
the agricultural residential zoning will not allow commercial businesses. He stated his
question is if a tax paying resident is not allowed to have a business to make a living,
why is a corporation from Chicago allowed to industrialize the area. He stated he is for
green energy and for wind turbines that will make a profit. If you have ever looked out
an airplane window you can see there are plenty of open areas that wind turbines could
be placed away from residential areas. The enormous size and closeness to our
community will devalue our property. They will change our agricultural resident
community to an industrial community. He stated he would like the Board members to
picture several four hundred and fifty foot (450) foot wind turbines on the closed ridge to
August 23, 2011 523
your home. He stated he thinks wind turbines of this size should not be considered for
Poor Mountain, Sugar Loaf Mountain, Hunting Hills or anywhere in Roanoke County
and asked for a two (2) mile setback on structures this large. Please preserve our
community.
Ed Dodrill of 853 Belgian View Estate Road in Lewisburg, West Virginia
stated he has traveled quite a ways to be here. He stated he worked in the State of
Virginia for thirty plus years and has a great interest in what the Board is doing. He
currently serves the State of Virginia on the Department of Environmental Quality local
stakeholders group. In that capacity, he has reviewed many ordinances across the
Country. He stated he has seen the historical development of those ordinances as they
have moved literally west to east. He has watched that sort of thing and he believes he
represents many citizens who are not able to be present today. He advised he will
provide what he calls an educated point of view, meaning he has been there. In
Greenbrier County, as the Board probably knows, we went through the same processes
that Roanoke County is going through currently. We listened to the debate back and
forth for quite a long while. That wind farm is now in place. He has visited it many,
many times and have taken touring groups actually to visit that site partially in his
capacity with the environmental quality local stakeholders group. He stated he has
stood directly under these monsters and wishes to comment on the Draft Zoning
Ordinance Amendments -large & Utility Wind Energy Systems. He has read it and find it
to be comprehensive and fair. He currently serves on the Department of Environmental
Quality Local Stakeholders Group. In that capacity I have reviewed many ordinances
from across the United States. This one is aligned very well with the most current issues
and resolutions to real and perceived concerns of this emerging field. He stated he has
stood directly underneath these monstrous units that the Board is talking about. He can
talk as freely as he is talking right now. The noise is minor to any extent that he has
experienced noise; having worked in heavy construction, factories and different
situations. In Greenbrier County what was found is the same that he thinks Roanoke
County wants in their community. The company coming in, their name has been
mentioned a couple of times, Invenergy became a great corporate citizen for our area.
They provide guaranteed funds that come into our community that is there no matter
whether they are generating power or not. He stated he thinks conservationists,
forestry management folks should come in to see the footprint after the units are in
place. All of the natural resources of that area have returned. It is quite pretty; he
thinks he has good "curb appeal." This project produces clean, renewable energy. Our
cost for power has not gone up. We had no blackout actually during the high demand
periods. He stated he is here in support of the ordinance and congratulated the Board
for a great job.
Edwin Polverino of 4767 Walton Lane in Roanoke County stated he has
been a physician here in Roanoke for twenty (20) some years and he is currently a
medical professor at Virginia Tech's Medical School. He has heard a lot of good
speakers tonight so he is only going to comment just briefly on what he knows best,
524 August 23, 2011
which are the health effects related to wind turbines. Simply stated, there basically are
no health effects related to wind turbines. There has been no scientific, documented
evidence related to wind turbine disease, wind turbine syndrome in the scientific
literature that is properly peer reviewed. There has been one simple book that was
written that used a lot of pseudo- science and conjecture that was never supported by
the scientific community. So with that, he would ask the Board if those statements are
not enough, he would ask everyone to look towards the huge amount of data that is
available from Europe; Germany, Denmark, etc. and you will find that there is no
evidence of significant health risk to the population in those areas. With that said, he
stated he hopes the Board will give serious consideration to moving forward with the
current project because the option of using poisonous coal which kills our animals, our
environment and people he does not feel is a viable option. The economic impact on
Roanoke County has been well discussed and he wants to simply offer his support in
relation to that as well. In addition, he would be happy to address any members of the
Board as some point in the future if they would like any medical information, literature
that has been properly peer and scientifically reviewed as it relates to health effects
from wind turbines he would be happy to meet and provide the information.
Darrell Branstetter of 6568 Sylvan Brook Roanoke has been a resident
since January 1963 when he was sent here to design the Community Hospital, which
should never have been built there, there are caverns under it and no parking. If we
could have gotten where Tanglewood is for $150,000, later Carter and Steel built the
shopping center there. There is great opposition to the construction of fifty -four, four
hundred feet high wind turbines on Poor Mountain ridges that will be visible in Roanoke
and heard for many miles away; at our house and beyond. We live in a subdivision off
Cotton Hill where the mountain scenery is beautiful and the nights are peacefully quite.
There are thousands of undeveloped acreage with mountain ridges between Cotton Hill
and Bent Mountain. When will this Chicago firm try to entice the Roanoke County Board
of Supervisors to permit construction of many more towers in this area? Wind turbines
will be visible from his property and the property of many others. He stated he just heard
from a politician that they will be able to be seen from the Blue Ridge Parkway for more
than twenty miles away. The noise from the wind turbines will be accelerated by the
prevailing natural wind, day and night. Twenty -five decibels is the maximum noise for
sleep, according to the Architectural Graphic Standards. The Roanoke Planning
Commission is requesting sixty (60) decibels noise as maximum standard at the
property line. Sixty (60) decibels noise would be like trying to sleep at a busy road
intersection. Many professional architects, engineers and scientist have presented
factual information to the inefficiency in productivity of electricity from these wind
turbines. The Roanoke County Attorney and the Roanoke County Planning Commission
appear not to accept facts, but feed to the Board of Supervisors incorrect information.
The Board of Supervisors are also hearing these facts. Last week, a national radio
broadcast that three of the large wind turbine operating electric projects have been
August 23, 2011 525
abandoned, due to lack of efficiency. How can the members of the Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors honestly approve the construction of this project?
Doug McCallum of 4824 Wade Road in Roanoke County, Virginia stated
he wanted to come tonight to thank the Board of Supervisors for their work in putting
together these ordinances and to let the Board know he is in support of wind, pro -wind,
and would like to see this ordinance passed. He would request though that the zoning
setback be reduced and rather than have it be a fixed distance, looking forward to the
future turbine height could grow even larger, so a percentage of height might be a better
way of stating it. He recommended a one hundred and fifty percent (150 %) setback.
Getra Selph from Read Mountain Road in Roanoke stated she and her
husband live in Roanoke and she grew up in Roanoke County. She stated they love
living the region and appreciate having access to the Blue Ridge Parkway and other
various outdoor amenities offered in this community. She advised they have had plans
to purchase property in Roanoke County where her family resides, specifically in Bent
Mountain. She and her husband consider themselves good stewards of the
environment, do they best to be respectful of their neighbors and community and the
environment. She stated she recycles, takes her bags to the grocery store, support local
farmers and commerce and appreciate living in the community. She stated she loves
the great outdoors and consider the view sheds of the Blue Ridge Parkway one of our
region's most treasured assets. At this point, her plans to relocate her business and her
residence have been placed on hold. She advised she would not be able to move to
Roanoke County until this situation is resolved. She stated she has serious concerns
regarding the proposed ordinance and has serious concerns about the threat of the
industrial wind turbines killing the view sheds of the Blue Ridge Mountains, killing the
migratory bird populations and killing real estate property values. The site of
Invenergy's industrial wind turbine project on Poor Mountain is bad news and
disappointing to say the least. There needs to be a great buffer to protect residential
properties from the noisy turbine blades. She does not support industrial wind turbines
on Poor Mountain for a whole host of reasons. At the very least, she stated she
respectfully encourages members of the Board to take responsible action to insure a
minimum of a one mile buffer from blade tip to residential property lines in Roanoke
County.
Jerusalem Walker of 1069 Timberline Road stated she is a registered
nurse and is currently studying for her doctorate as a family nurse practitioner at
Radford University; her children attend a day care and after school program not far from
the proposed citing of the wind turbines on Poor Mountain. She stated she is here
tonight to shed some light on the relationship between environmental factors and
disease. Many of the supporters of the current proposal argue that they are no direct
effects of wind turbines sound environment on humans. Other say the noise caused by
wind turbines are harmless. The logically fallacy here is that if there no direct,
measurable, physiological effect then there is no effect at all. She did want to talk a little
bit about research. In establishing a cause and effect relationship requires research,
526 August 23, 2011
this concern is impossible, it cannot be done. Research can only show that an
association exists. Therefore, we say for example, failure to properly restrain your child
in a car seat increases the risk of severe injury and death or cigarette smoking
increases the risk of lung cancer.etc. We cannot ever prove that one causes the other
because there is always someone out there who says, "my grandma smoked like a
fiend and she lived to be 99 years old." What you have is an interaction between the
individual and the environment and sometimes the disease happens and sometimes it
does not. The truth is that data is coming in. Exposure to even low levels of low
frequency noise, especially the intermittent kind that wind turbines produce, is
associated with a higher risk of difficulty concentrating and fatigue as well as a host of
other health problems. The gentlemen that came up here a little while ago saying that
there were not any health effects, slipped up and said significant health effects. She
pointed out that one little slip that he made, because she thinks it was a Freudian slip.
Another truth is a risk is still a risk, even when it not an overwhelming risk. In fact, if you
put kids in car seats, the risk of severe injury and death is actually quite small, but that
does not mean you do not buckle them up because even if the risk of death is only one
half of one percent, if it happens to your child there will not be one half of one percent
dead, they will be one hundred percent dead, so you buckle them up every time. The
data is still coming in on the effects of wind turbines sound environments in health. Just
a few months ago, when she came to address the Board, there was very little out there,
but there is data that is coming in, actually pouring in, and she urged the Board to
please look at the data that is coming out. Look at the research that is happening now
and take into consideration when you come up with a formula to determine what the
setbacks have to be and what the decibel levels have to go down to before the risks
disappear.
Chip Tarburtton of 917 Brughs Mill Road in Fincastle, Virginia stated he
wanted to make a couple of quick points about the specific language of the bill in front of
you today. On page 5, there are a couple of pieces he wanted to bring up. With regard
to the sixty (60) decibel level limit and the fact that the County will be doing some testing
to make sure that it is sixty (60) decibels or lower. Of course, you will not be able to do
that until after they are built. So, his question to the Board would be what mitigating
factors would you take it was over sixty (60) decibels, you cannot just take them down
they are four hundred (400) feet tall. He thought the Board might want to talk about the
issues there. The other one that he found interesting was on page 5 was the lighting
requirements. There are no lighting requirements unless the FAA requires it. He stated
he does not think there is a serious flight issue as the gentleman spoke to earlier.
There is a possibility the FAA could light those four hundred (400) foot tall windmills and
there is no nuisance provision for the FAA. If they need it for safety, they are not not
going to put the lights on. He also reiterated what a couple of people have said about
the bond issue. He applauds the Board for taking the step of requiring a bond, but the
language, as other people have stated is very, very lax and does not hold these
companies accountable to things that could happen, especially in light of as one
August 23, 2011 527
gentleman said "14,000 decommissioned windmills in California" would speak to the
need to have a very solid bond behind that to make sure the costs of decommission are
taken care of. A couple of other things, discussion occurred about windmills and
obviously the Roanoke Tea Party is opposed to that, but we are also opposed to all
corporate welfare, just to get that on the table, but any company Invenergy is going to
overstate the benefits of what they are going to provide and understate the
environmental issues, that is true of any company trying to sell you something. Will this
lead to the decommissioning of coal plants, no, if you buy into the global warming
scheme that a lot of people are now walking up to that is not true, reducing thirty
percent (30 %) in the Roanoke County is not going to have an impact when China is
taking the coal we pick out of the ground and are putting into their own coal plants. One
question and he has asked this before and am now asking again, peak energy usage
for electricity is in June, July and August of each year when it is hot. The winds do not
blow very hard on Poor Mountain when it is hot in June, July and August. So there are
some real issues here from a practicality standpoint. These ordinances need to be put
into place to protect the citizens whether you are for or against it he urged the County to
keep that in mind as they make these ordinances law.
Chairman Church recessed at 9:00 p.m. and called the meeting back in
session at 9:08 p.m.
Roberta Bondurant of 11577 Bottom Creek Road in Bent Mountain,
Virginia stated she is a fifteen (15) year resident of Bent Mountain, twenty (20) year
resident of the Roanoke Valley. Between her husband, Tom and herself there is a total
of fifty (50) years legal practice in public service in the Roanoke Valley in various
jurisdictions. Presently, she stated she serves as the coordinator to Somali Bantu
refugees who live in Roanoke City and works in the Catawba District on a farm that is
managed by Virginia Tech. They work along the pristine waters of Catawba Creek.
She stated she was going to keep her comments short and sweet tonight and asked the
Board following in the legal tradition the word she would use is continuance. She asked
the Board to consider a continuance of this matter so that the Board and the Planning
Commission can consider several points that have been raised tonight by residents of
Bent Mountain. Before she specified those points, she asked the Board to note that in
terms of the population that is represented here tonight, please do take note in their
considerations that this is the first week of public school in Roanoke County and there
may seriously be families and children from Bent Mountain who are not represented
here tonight. Certainly, they had the opportunity to write something online, but they may
or may not have done that in the rush for school this week. She stated she herself is
delivering a boy to college tomorrow. She asked that the Board reconsider the five
hundred (500) foot setback, the sixty (60) degree decibels and asked the Board to
consider the possible repairs that might be necessary to the turbines and fire issues.
She does not think a lot of people have raised fire issues. She asked the Board to
consider that in their further deliberations and to consider that the people of Bent
Mountain in accordance with Mr. Goodman's comments at one of the last meetings
528 August 23, 2011
would like to work with the Board. They would like to be in good faith in working with
the Board. Pound for pound you have a lot of public servants and a lot of people who
are willing to and have delivered to their community, we would ask for that consideration
from the Board.
Patti C. Hanes of 10250 Mill Creek Road in Bent Mountain, Virginia stated
according to Sec 30 -3, Sub - Section A, of Roanoke County's Zoning Ordinances, the
zoning regulations and districts are for the general purpose of (1) implementing the
comprehensive plan of Roanoke County, and (2) to promote the health, safety, and
general welfare of the public. She asked each of the Board members to insure that the
County has a reasonable ordinance covering large and industrial scale wind turbines so
that the citizens are protected. I know of a confirmed instance where a Bent Mountain
family had a real estate transaction fail simply because of the threat that industrial
turbines might interfere with their quality of life. My husband and I built our retirement
home in Stone Ridge at Bent Mountain, one of the newer developments in Roanoke
County. We're green; we use a geothermal system to heat and cool our home. We are
located within two (2) miles of the site proposed for the Poor Mountain wind farm. Our
development consists of thirty -four (34) lots of three (3) acres or larger, to date ten (10)
homes have been built. Currently, four (4) of the ten (10) homes are for sale. There
have been real estate transactions that have failed because potential buyers were
unwilling to proceed due to the uncertainty of how these large industrial turbines will
affect residents and real estate values. Please ensure that the proposed ordinance
governing large turbines provides the citizens of our County protection by ensuring
reasonable setbacks and limits on noise levels consistent with rural living. Please insist
that the ordinance is designed to protect the health, welfare and safety of the citizens of
Roanoke County rather than the interests of large energy companies. Consider what
Oregon did in establishing a two (2) mile setback. In California, since the 1970's, over
16,000 industrial scale turbines have been erected. Today, about 14,000 of them are
still standing and rusting away because they are inoperable. The companies that
installed them no longer exist and there is no funding to take them down. Please ensure
this ordinance mandates and guarantees that energy companies post cash bonds
sufficient to remove turbines when they fail. I'd like to challenge each of you personally
that when you go home tonight and lay your head on your pillows -have you made the
best decision possible to protect each and every resident that lives in Roanoke County?
Mary McCallum of 4824 Wade Road in Roanoke County, Virginia stated
she has lived there for twenty (20) years. The Planning Commission and staff have
studied large wind turbines for two (2) years. They are very well informed and have
sent the Board a comprehensive ordinance that protects everyone while not completely
discouraging the development of wind technology. She stated she would like to suggest
that the only change the Board would make would be to the one half (1/2) mile setback
from the residence. She suggested that if the Board wanted to be sure to protect
residences that the Board establish the one hundred and fifty percent (150 %) setback
suggested by the Virginia Association of Counties model wind ordinance. She decided
August 23, 2011 529
she could not make an informed decision on supporting large wind turbines without
visiting a site. We visited Mountaineer Wind Farm near Thomas, West Virginia. This is
a tourist area with many ski resorts and state parks. The placement of these turbines
did not distract from the beauty of the area. In fact, they are listed as a tourist attraction
for the area in local brochures. Asking people in the area about how they felt about
wind turbines, we asked gas station clerks, waitresses, rental property personnel all had
a positive feeling about them. We went and stood beneath the turbines and they
sounded like waves gently lapping at the beach. How can it be wrong to make energy
out of thin air without pollution? No, she stated, they are not the answer to all of our
energy problems, but they are a step in the right direction. Everyone keeps bringing up
the subsidy issue, she provided the Board a graph with 2002 to 2008 federal subsidies.
For renewable at 12.2 billion, for gas and coal it is 70.2 billion when you take into effect
the tax breaks they get in coal and gas.
JoAnn Edmunds of 2111 Carter Road in Roanoke City stated she has
lived here for about fifteen (15) years and is on the executive committee of the Roanoke
group of the Sierra Club and that she does not have any more facts or figures to bring
that have not already been brought up today. She stated she is here to give her voice
and her voice to the side of supporting this ordinance for wind energy. Obviously, we
need ground rules when there are developments and the ordinance that is proposed
has very good ground rules to her mind, with excellent criteria for how they should be
developed. She stated she supports the sixty (60) decibels limit at the property line and
also the one hundred and ten percent (110 %) setback from the property line, but as
some other speakers have said, the one half (1/2) mile setback from an occupied
dwelling seems excessive to her and outside of the criteria in many other municipalities
and ask that the Board reduce that to possibly a percentage of the height of the turbine.
Jonathan Miles of 6905 Harvest Farm Lane in Albemarle County in
Crozet, Virginia thanked the Board for investing so much time and energy into this
process. He stated is has been a Professor of Integrated Science of Technology for
fifteen (15) years at James Madison University in Rockingham County. He stated he
also recently took an eighteen (18) month leave and had a tour of duty up at the
Department of Energy in Washington, DC in the wind office there. He is currently
serving as the Director of the Virginia Center for wind energy at JMU and they have
been a group for about ten (10) years and have posted statewide wind symposia dating
back to 2003 and support a variety of state and federally funded projects all in the name
of trying to develop wind energy responsibly here in the Commonwealth. He pointed
out that Virginia was recognized about a dozen years ago by the Department of Energy
as a "high priority state ". We have an excellent wind resource, we have developing
policies, those that are developing in the right direction and also as everybody in the
room knows we are what some might define as the "step" state. We have not got that
going yet; we have potential and we have an opportunity. Over the last ten (10) years,
he has seen a progression of both republican and democratic governors, law makers,
local officials drive Virginia toward a direction that he believes will one day result in large
530 August 23, 2011
scale, utility scale, native clean energy in the Commonwealth and for ten (10) years he
has personally provided guidance to counties and communities throughout Virginia and
the mid - Atlantic region as they develop their own ordinances and many of those cases
passed those ordinances. Most recently he sat on the working group that developed
the Rockingham County ordinance and has followed this process as well in Roanoke
County and see a comparable process that has led to a comprehensive and he thinks
and very appropriate ordinance for the community. Last, he has had the privilege to sit
on the Department of Environmental Quality's regulatory advisory panel that developed
rules for permit by rule process here and now sits on the Department of Environmental
Quality's local stakeholders group developing a model ordinance. Briefly, he stated he
wanted to recognize that wind power is a mature technology, but one that has been
constrained for years in this state and many others by very inconsistent policies at every
level. This constraints the opportunity for a fully diverse energy portfolio to develop in
Virginia and across the county. Despite the fact that the Department of Energy's twenty
percent (20 %) by 2030 vision that published in 2008 has been exceeded in every year
since except for one, we are still not seeing developments yet here in Virginia. He
stated the Board has an excellent ordinance, perhaps with the exception of some
improvements that could be made, most notably with regard to setbacks, but
nonetheless the Board is in a position to make a very progressive statement and very
progressive step forward. This is a tough nut to crack; he has seen it here and in
Rockingham, Pulaski, and other counties. He applauds the Board for the efforts they
are making and encouraged the Board to look very carefully at the facts. There is
misinformation floating about. There is very concrete evidence that there are economic
opportunities to be had here.
Jenny Chapman of 81 Glendale Road on Bent Mountain, Virginia stated
she is not opposed to wind energy; she is however opposed to industrial wind energy on
Poor Mountain. She advised that is because she is opposed to wind energy anywhere
that does not make sense. To her, a person of some logic and reason, it does not make
sense to place wind turbines with the small amount of energy produced does not
warrant the greater amount of destruction and disruption to the environment and
surrounding community. This Board has not been asked to decide the merits of wind
energy, but to decide whether it is appropriate for this place, Roanoke County,
specifically Poor Mountain. She asked the Board to consider that above all else and
encouraged the Board to pursue research for objective sources, not to be swayed by
resources of a large and forceful industry, not to be swaying by inflammatory rhetoric
and not to be swayed by the influence of the powerful. She stated she appreciated the
Board efforts and urged continued diligence and objectivity. She also asked something
of everyone in the room as well and that is to not allow the issue to alienate ourselves
from one another, that we not use divisive language tossing around words like
"patriotism ", glibly or spuriously. Obviously everyone here has come to their
conclusions through effort and research. It benefits us as citizens to listen to one
another respectfully. One of this country's founding principles insures the ability to
August 23, 2011 531
express our thoughts and beliefs, let us honor that in one another; that is what true
patriots would support.
Rob Lawson of 2602 Mallard Drive in Roanoke County stated he moved
here eight (8) years ago from the DC area. His family was looking for better schools
and had heard evidence from friends telling us what a great school system was here in
Roanoke so on a whim drove down Interstate 81 one day looking for more affordable
housing, better schools and was astonished at what we saw, how beautiful it was. One
of the days we came down they drove over the top of Valhalla and came across the
mountain there and said to himself this is just a spectacular community, this is where he
wanted to stay. When his family came down they had a choice between Roanoke or
Charlottesville and they checked them both out. Charlottesville was a little cheaper and
closer to DC, but once they saw the mountains and learned more about Roanoke we
were convinced and never bothered to look at Charlottesville. He stated he
remembered the day he drove over the mountain and saw the ridgelines and in fact how
spectacular it was, had he seen, and this is his personal opinion and many may
disagree, a whole row of wind turbines he would have said let's go to Charlottesville.
On the margin, many people will think like him he is sure and the Sierra Club itself has
guidelines on wind energy and they are strongly in favor and who would not be in favor
of clean, renewable energy. It is a great thing, but they also recognize the importance
of balancing the impact of this great stuff with our natural surroundings. They
specifically state in their guidelines they are opposed to it in areas that have specific or
special scenic, natural or environmental value. So, his questioned to the Board, does
our mountains, do our ridgelines have special scenic value? If so, and he would say
nine (9) out of ten (10) residences would say absolutely, that is our biggest asset, if so,
it seems like a no brainer. Why would you redistrict a residential, rural area that many
people move to under the expectation that the zoning is consistent, while would it even
be on the table to put eighteen (18) structures taller than the Statute of Library on the
tallest peak around. He stated he was really appreciative of Mr. Cutler's heartfelt
change of opinion. Apparently, originally he was against it and he came to the
conclusion that he could live with it and if you think about that language, "I can live with
it" is not exactly a strong endorsement. He also made the point that they should not be
in certain places such as the Blue Ridge Parkway, there is already a road there why not
put them right on the Parkway. Secondly, he is not sure why he does not realize you
can see them from twenty (20) miles away. So, he hopes the people remember the
Commissioner of the Blue Ridge Parkway came up here already, Roanoke is already
the most damaged part of the Blue Ridge Parkway and like western North Carolina we
can hold off and defer decision. He thinks they have put a ridgeline decision into effect
in western North Carolina where they are not considering it.
Bryan DuGrenier of 8733 Plantation Road stated he would just like to
express that he is part of the Dabney Lancaster wind turbine technician program. He is
due to graduate at the end of this year and obviously will have to relocate because there
is nothing to work on in Roanoke County yet. He stated he got the opportunity to go to
532 August 23, 2011
a wind farm in West Virginia, stand right beneath one and strained to hear a sound from
it. He stated he is strongly in favor of Roanoke moving forward with twenty first (21
century technology and he is sure there are plenty of other kids around that are looking
forward to that as well.
Joseph Tamez of 5740 Equestrian Drive stated he is a pediatrician who
helps take care of children with respiratory problems and is an advocate for renewable
energy in of itself. From the standpoint of having the opportunity to potentially reduce
our dependence on fossil fuels for energy sources has impact on the respiratory health
of the children that he serve is one that he strongly advocates for. He stated he thinks
the only way we will begin to do this is to take the first step and thinks this ordinance is
a reasonable and conscience first step.
Kathy Davieds of 1560 Bottom Creek Lane on Bent Mountain, Virginia
sated before attending Virginia Tech veterinary school she obtained a Bachelor's
degree in Environmental Science and looked at the US Fish and Wildlife Service for a
solar energy company and as a planner for a planning commission in Tidewater,
Virginia she is an ardent supporter of alternative, clean energy sources. Tonight, she
has heard a number of people state they are in favor of wind power. Well, nothing
exists in a vacuum and this is kind of like saying one is in favor of surgery; for everyone,
always? Surgery, when indicated, can be a useful thing. Amputating a diseased limb
has positive outcomes, amputating a healthy limb removes forever the use of that
resource. All of the world, not just in this county, people living in proximity to industrial
wind turbines are reporting debilitating, adverse health effects. Injuries to their health
resulting of loss of ability to function normally, sometimes even to work and sometimes
necessitating that they abandon long time family homes. Can this really be a global
conspiracy? Are people of different countries, even different languages all "making this
up" in an effort to destroy wind power? Were there no concerns regarding potential
adverse impacts of the health and quality of life of Roanoke County residents we might
not even be here tonight. She stated she heard one speaker refer to harming the
"practicality of locating wind turbines," but the same speaker gave no mention to the
potential of harming the health of County residents. Responsible ordinances need to err
on the side of caution to insure the protection of the health and well being of area
residents and of as another speaker referred to "this place." She stated she would
leave the Board with the question, if Roanoke County was to benefit from $300,000 in
annual tax revenue from an industrial wind turbine project, but if 600 County residents
were to suffer debilitating health effects from same, that would equate to $500 per head
per County resident. Is this an acceptable price to place on the potential destruction of
lives of County residents?
Virginia Hardin of 3044 Stoneybrook Drive in the County and the Board
can see she is green. She recycles, she carries cloth bags to the grocery store, and
she does not water her lawn just because we are in a dry spell. She stated she cares
about the environment. She stated she would like to live in a passive solar home with
solar collectors on the roof, She might even consider having a small wind mill in her
August 23, 2011 533
backyard if she had a big enough backyard, but she draws the line on having windmills
in this beautiful valley, up on the mountain where we can all see them. She stated
when we were transferred to Roanoke fifty -eight (58) years ago; they deliberately
bought a home in SW Roanoke County because that was as close as they would get to
the Blue Ridge Parkway. They have camped as a family from the Shenandoah Valley
to the Smokey Mountains. They often go up Route 221 to Bent Mountain and head in
either direction just to take a ride on the Parkway or take a picnic lunch. It is cooler up
there. It is quiet. It is beautiful. It is peaceful. She stated she and her family are
against this windmill project. She does not want to see them when they are driving
around the valley. She does not want to hear them when she is on the Parkway.
Virginia has always been a green state to her. It is beautiful; we are blessed with so
much in Virginia, the seashore, lakes, flat land, rolling land, hills, mountains, valleys and
forests. People visit Virginia to enjoy its natural beauty. If the Board approves these
windmills, it is just not our county that will be effected it will be the surrounding counties
as well. If any companies want to build windmills, let them do it where they are located,
in their own backyard. For instance a company out of Chicago, they can put them in
Lake Michigan for all she cares, but please not here. Virginia is for lovers because our
scenery is beyond beautiful and she would like to keep our valley that way. She stated
she is so proud of everyone that came tonight because they disagreed in an agreeable
manner; this is the way we ought to do it.
James Garris of 3108 Honeywood Lane in the Cave Spring Magisterial
District, Ogden Precinct or better known as "downtown Tanglewood ". He stated he
does not have a position tonight on wind power or wind turbines. He stated the Board
needs to cut through those issues to the simple question. Should we put in some
groundwork, some framework for us to work from if an applicant or project comes
forward. As some of the audience individually knows, he has been a citizen activist and
a JC involved with many political organizations over many issues over many years. He
stated from his personal experience when the groundwork is not in place, things quickly
go haywire, you have a lot more trauma, a lot more passions and unfortunately it is kind
of like stepping into something you really do not want to step into like that well used cow
pasture after a three -day hard rain and you have to traverse across it. It is not a
pleasant journey. He hopes the County can avoid that by adopting some sort of
framework of rules of what is expected in terms of information from an applicant to what
the citizens and county can look forward to and the applicant can also know what
process they have to go through. He stated he thinks that will put us on a better course
for whatever project may come up. He stated he knows there are some concerns for
certain language in this. He believes if the staff can work continuously on the
regulations even after they are adopted as new information comes available, the County
can probably work through those issues. So tonight he is encouraging the Board to
vote for this and to enact some ground rules to get us started if an applicant comes
forward. Last, he stated to both sides that if an applicant comes forward with this
process in place, they still get to come forward with their views and there gets to be a
534 August 23, 2011
vote and to those especially who have a "not in my backyard" idea, some of which have
a power substation right next door to us and because of the way the regulations are,
this Board and his supervisor did not get to vote on it. At least there will be a process in
place for you to come back on that individual applicant and that individual project and
then vote on it. That is why avoiding all that mess and having a framework is so
critically important and he encourages the Board to vote for it.
Susan Edwards from 4121 Givens Road in the Catawba Magisterial
District thanked the Board for holding the public hearing. As many as talked to the
Board this evening, a lot of people live in the Roanoke Valley for what is here, for the
beauty that our community enjoys, but a lot of people live in rural areas specifically for
what is not there. This is a beautiful area and the ordinance is a tool that we use in
planning to look at proper citing and in this case you are talking about an industrial
activity in a rural area. Think about the consideration that you would want if you were
going to use a special use process to determine should you put an Asphalt Plant, a
coal -fired power plant there, should you put a nuclear power plant. This is an industrial
activity in a rural area. She stated she wanted to specifically talk to three items. In the
draft ordinance, under the shadow flickering section, she believes it is Article IV, 30-87 -
7b6, under flickering she recommends a change in wording that would be that the
applicant shall demonstrate rather than has the burden of proving. When an industrial
project comes forward, they are used to doing models. There are canned programs
already in place. We need to tell them in our ordinance; you shall demonstrate that the
effect does not have significant adverse effect on neighboring and adjacent uses
through the appropriate citing of the facility. In a previous Planning Commission
meeting, this was suggested but the modeling requires seasonal and time of day
variability in evaluating the shadow flicker effect on adjoining properties. The draft
ordinance goes into a lot of detail regarding airport, FAA requirements. She would like
to have the County include requirements to submit data from any other regulatory
review process so that the Board can consider that information, including the
Department of Environmental Quality Permit by Rule requirement. The Department of
Game and Inland Fishery, The Department of Conservation and Recreation,
Department of Forestry, Department of Historic Resources and the U.S. Department of
Fish and Wildlife Services. The wind industries have to submit these studies to those
bodies, the Board needs to look at those things and if you only ask for the FAA
requirements that is all you will get. The Board needs to include every regulatory
application to be copied. There is another thing that she wanted to bring up but she
does not have time, it was five (5) decibels above background noise on their model for
sound. Have them do a study of the model sound with five (5) decibels.
Tammy Belinsky of 9544 Pine Forest Road in Copper Hill, Virginia stated
she has with her a copy of the existing portion of the Roanoke County zoning ordinance
that is relevant to this proposed amendment to the ordinance. In Section 30 -3
describes the purpose of the exiting ordinance and sets forth all of the criteria for
considering amendments to the ordinance. She stated she is a scientist and an
August 23, 2011 535
attorney so by training she is very methodical. She advised she crafted a freedom of
information act request and sent it to the County specifically asking for the basis for
changing the ordinance as proposed. The change being the classifications or land uses
in the agricultural rural preserve district, the agricultural rural low density district, low
density industrial district, high density industrial district. She stated her request was
focused on or crafted this in any case on why the support for changes to the agricultural
preserve and agricultural district, low density residential district. The information that
came back was a dump of information, so there was no thought or consideration given.
The Board's job, this Freedom of Information Act request represents the path of the
County at this time. Thirty -six (36) pointed questions drawn specifically from the
proposed ordinance and the existing ordinance, that is what your job is and none of
these questions were answered. There has been no work done in two (2) years. She
stated she also has information from the National Weather Service, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration. Their review of the proposed project on Poor
Mountain in Roanoke County is being submitted to the Board for their review. It
includes a curtailment during severe weather events, guidelines, they have been asked
to do that if they build this development. If you take into consideration that curtailment
and the curtailment that is going to be required because of the presence of Indiana bats.
The benefit of this project will not come to fruition, they will not be able to operate as
they will be asked to curtail for nuisance conditions, bats, and interference with national
service radar. It is no telling how many more. The soul of Roanoke County is in the
agricultural preserve district; do not sell the County's soul.
Robert Johnson of 9964 Patterson Drive in Bent Mountain, Virginia stated
her comments of the lack of excavation and grading debris disposal provisions in the
ordinance are on record from the last meeting. Since then she has toured the Mt. Storm
West Virginia Industrial Wind Park on a calm day with little wind, ten (10) miles per hour.
It urged a seemingly benign complacency. Later she realized just why Mt. Storm works
as an industrial wind park, and those are Dominion Electric Power's words, Industrial
Wind Park. Why it works, whereas our steep mountains in Roanoke County would not
work. First of all, Mt. Storm is on the site of a former strip mining operation and is in
view of a coal -fired power plant. The land is more plateau- like than mountainous. It is
sparsely wooded and is mostly pasture and the tailings from that previous mining
operation. There are existing paved roads, probably from that coal -fired power plant
being there and because of that they were able to handle the transport of one hundred
and thirty five (135) foot turbine blades on two tandem flatbed trucks. They are
contemplating one hundred and sixty five (165) foot blades coming up Bent Mountain. It
is hard enough to drive up Bent Mountain. There are broad, flat areas at Mt. Storm for
the assembly that went on of the wind turbines and for the substation. Excavation and
grading debris was used to reclaim strip -mined areas not dumped into mountain
hollows. While there are bat kills there and they admit that, they are trying to lessen
them. There are a few hawk kills. Apparently, Mt. Storm is not in the path of hawk
migration as it is on Poor Mountain in Roanoke County. Roanoke. Mt. Storm is
536 August 23, 2011
appropriate for an industrial wind park, but every wind place on earth is not an
appropriate site for turbines. Roanoke County Mountains are not. These rural preserve
zoning districts are not. These scenic, biodiverse wonders that grace our valley with
their crowns above are not an appropriate site. We have to decide where on earth we
are going to preserve things or there will not be place in preserving them at all. She
advised she was leaving some pictures of Mt. Storm Industrial Wind Park that will
clearly show this is an industrial zone and not a rural preserve.
Chairman Church closed the public meeting and advised as previously
indicated this agenda item will be postponed to September 13, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. for
further discussion by the Board.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Elswick advised he has come across the Smithsonian
Magazine which has an article in it about "The Crooked Road ", Floyd and all those
places along "The Crooked Road" that is very interesting with favorable comments
towards the area and also has an article Finland's remarkable public schools, which
some people might be interested in.
Supervisor Church thanked everyone for participating in today's meeting.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Church adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m.
Submitted by:
Deborah C. fa *s'
Clerk to the Board
Approved by:
2 , 04&
?, g W
Joseph 6. "Butch "" Church
Chairman