11/15/2011 - RegularNovember 15, 2011 681
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 third Tuesday and the only
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of November 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 Associate Pastor Reverend David Vaughan
from Thrasher Memorial United Methodist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was
recited by all present.
IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
Chairman Church asked Bill Greeves, Director of Communications and
Information Technology, to provide a "public service announcement."
Mr. Greeves announced there would be a Career and Qualification Day on
Saturday, November 19, 2011, at 8:00 a.m. at the Public Safety Center. He advised
there is a nationwide issue with attracting and retaining communications agents and this
all -day event is geared towards this goal.
682 November 15, 2011
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County to James Ray Lavinder, Chief of
Police, upon his retirement after more than thirty -two years of
service
In attendance for this recognition were James R. Lavinder; B. Clayton
Goodman III, County Administrator; Terrell Holbrook, Acting Chief of Police and Chuck
Mason, Deputy Chief. All Supervisors offered their congratulations and thanks for an
outstanding job.
RESOLUTION 111511 -1 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO
JAMES RAY LAVINDER, CHIEF OF POLICE, UPON HIS
RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN THIRTY -TWO YEARS OF
SERVICE
WHEREAS, James R. Lavinder was hired by the Roanoke County Sheriff's
Office on September 1, 1979, and served such positions as Detective and Lieutenant;
and
WHEREAS, upon formation of the Roanoke County Police Department, he was
promoted to the rank of Captain and in June 1997 was selected as Chief of the
Department; and
WHEREAS, Chief Lavinder retired on November 1, 2011, after more than thirty -
two years of devoted, faithful and expert service with the County; and
WHEREAS, during his time serving Roanoke County's Police Department, Chief
Lavinder and his staff achieved the following:
• Construction of the firearms range and driver training center near Dixie Caverns;
• Established the Roanoke County Criminal Justice Academy, the first independent
training academy in Virginia in nearly 30 years;
• Earned and maintained national accreditation from the Commission on
Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA);
• Created Roanoke County's school resource officer program;
• Developed one of the best Animal Control programs in Virginia;
• Promoted programs to better address cases involving the mentally ill including
implementation of the first Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) program in Virginia;
and
WHEREAS, Chief Lavinder is well -known and respected for his professionalism,
leadership and dedication to the law enforcement profession; and
November 15, 2011 683
WHEREAS, that professionalism was evident in December 2010 when Chief
Lavinder became the public face in the nationwide search for a missing 12- year -old girl;
and
WHEREAS, under Chief Lavender's capable guidance the missing child and her
abductor were located in California and safely returned to Virginia; and
WHEREAS, Chief Lavinder is one of the longest serving police chiefs in Virginia
and will be remembered for his many accomplishments and contributions.
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 JAMES RAY LAVINDER for more than thirty -two
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 Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
2. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County to Michael C. Goff, Solid Waste
Equipment Operator, upon his retirement after more than thirty -
two years of service
In attendance for this recognition were Mr. and Mrs. Michael C. Goff; Anne
Marie Green, Director of General Services and Nancy Duvall, Solid Waste Manager. All
Supervisors offered their congratulations and thanks for a job well done.
RESOLUTION 111511 -2 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO
MICHAEL C. GOFF, SOLID WASTE EQUIPMENT OPERATOR,
UPON HIS RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN THIRTY -TWO
YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Michael C. Goff was hired on April 1, 1979, and has served as a
Laborer, Refuse Collector, Motor Equipment Operator and finally as Solid Waste
Equipment Operator; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Goff retired on November 1, 2011, after thirty -two years and
seven months of devoted, faithful and expert service with the County; and
WHEREAS, during his time working for Roanoke County, Mr. Goff served
countless citizens by providing a variety of solid waste services, including most recently
delivering the Freeloader, a trailer used by residents for large, clean -up operations; and
684 November 15, 2011
WHEREAS, many citizens specifically requested that Mr. Goff deliver the
Freeloader to their homes because of his driving skill and knowledge of the area; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Goff consistently performed his duties in a pleasant, helpful and
always courteous manner; which will be missed by citizens and staff alike.
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 MICHAEL C. GOFF for more than thirty -two 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
3. Proclamation declaring November 2011 as National Adoption
Month in the County of Roanoke (Patience O'Brien, Assistant
Director of Social Services)
Patience O'Brien introduced Dawn Espelage, Social Work Supervisor who
explained the history behind National Adoption Month.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Presentation of results of operations for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2011 and request to appropriate $894,302 (Rebecca
Owens, Director of Finance)
A- 111511 -3
Ms. Owens provided a financial summary for fiscal year ended June 30,
2011. Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the staff recommendation to appropriate
$775,622 to the Major County Capital Reserve and $118,680 to Fire and Rescue
Capital for future use. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
2. Request to adopt a resolution authorizing an amendment to the
2001A Lease Revenue Bond (Rebecca Owens, Director of
Finance)
November 15, 2011 685
Ms. Owens outlined the request. There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 111511 -4 OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA APPROVING THE
AMENDMENT FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY LEASE REVENUE BOND (COUNTY OFFICE
BUILDING PROJECT), SERIES 2001A
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia
formerly the Industrial Development Authority of Roanoke County, Virginia ( "Authority "),
at the request of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the
"County ") has previously issued its Lease Revenue Bond (County Office Building
Project) Series 2001A (the "2001A Bond ") and its Taxable Lease Revenue Bond
(County Office Building Project) Series 2001B to finance certain capital improvements
for the County, including the acquisition, renovation and equipping of an office building,
a portion of which is used by the County's Department of Social Services (the "Project ").
WHEREAS, the Note is secured by a Lease Agreement dated as of May 1, 2001,
between the County of Roanoke, Virginia (the "County ") and the Authority (the "Lease
Agreement ") pursuant to which the County agreed to pay principal of and interest on the
2001 A Bond, subject to appropriation by the Board of Supervisors.
WHEREAS, the County and the Authority propose to change the annual interest
rate and amortization schedule of the 2001 A Bond.
WHEREAS, the amendment will be executed pursuant to the following
documents: (i) First Amendment to Lease Revenue Bond dated as of December 1,
2011, among the County, the Authority and SunTrust Bank, as bondholder (the "Bank ")
and (ii) Modification Agreement dated as of December 1, 2011, between the County, the
Authority, the Bank and one or more deed of trust trustees. Both of the documents
listed above are referred to in this Resolution as the "Amending Documents."
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA:
1. Amendment of Bond The Board of Supervisors approves the amendment
of the Bond pursuant to a First Amendment to Lease Revenue Bond, provided the
annual interest rate on the 2001A Bond shall not exceed three percent (3.0 %), the
outstanding principal amount thereof shall not be increased and the maturity date
thereof shall not be extended (collectively, the "Parameters ").
2. Authorization of Amending Documents The execution and delivery of and
performance by the County of its obligations under the Amending Documents to which it
is a party are authorized. The Amending Documents, and an amended and restated
2001A Bond if deemed necessary or desirable, shall be in such form and contain such
provisions as the County Administrator and the Chairman of the Board, or either of
them, shall approve such approval to be evidenced conclusively by the execution and
delivery of the Amending Documents consistent with the Parameters.
686 November 15, 2011
3. Execution of Documents The Chairman of the Board and the County
Administrator, or either of them, are authorized to execute on behalf of the County the
Amending Documents and, if required, to affix or to cause to be affixed the seal of the
County to the Amending Documents and to attest such seal. Such Officers or their
designees are authorized to execute and deliver on behalf of the County such
instruments, documents or certificates, and to do and perform such things and acts, as
they shall deem necessary or appropriate to carry out the transactions authorized by
this Resolution or contemplated by the Amending Documents; and all of the foregoing,
previously done or performed by such officers or agents of the County, are in all
respects approved, ratified and confirmed.
4. Nature of Obligations Nothing in this Resolution, the Bond or the
Amending Documents shall constitute a debt of the County and the Authority shall not
be obligated to make any payments under the Bond or the Basic Documents except
from payments made by or on behalf of the County under the Lease Agreement. The
County's obligations to make payments pursuant to the Lease Agreement shall be
subject to and dependent upon annual appropriations being made from time to time by
the Board for such purpose. Nothing in this Resolution, the Bonds or the Amending
Documents shall constitute a pledge of the full faith and credit of the County beyond the
constitutionally permitted annual appropriations.
Effective Date This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
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
3. Resolution adopting the Roanoke County Emergency Operations
Plan, 2011 Update (Richard E. Burch, Jr., Chief of Fire and
Rescue)
Chief Burch explained the 2011 Operations Plan update. He advised this
action was mandated by the State to be brought before the Board of Supervisors every
four (4) years. There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 111511 -5 ADOPTING THE ROANOKE COUNTY
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN, 2011 UPDATE
WHEREAS the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors of Roanoke Virginia
recognizes the need to prepare for, respond to and recover from natural and manmade
disasters; and
WHEREAS Roanoke County has a responsibility to provide for the safety and
well being of its citizens, businesses and visitors; and
November 15, 2011 687
WHEREAS Roanoke County has established and appointed the County
Administrator as Director of Emergency Management and assigned the Coordinator of
Emergency Management position in the Fire and Rescue Department; and,
WHEREAS the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors has received training on
October 25, 2011, which included an overview of the National Incident Management
System which has previously been adopted as the practice to be used in Roanoke
County and reviewed the 2011 Emergency Operations Plan including the Basic Plan
and the Emergency Support Functions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke Virginia, this Emergency Operations Plan as revised is officially
adopted, and
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Director of Emergency
Management is tasked and authorized to maintain and revise as necessary this
document over the next four (4) year period and at such time be ordered to come before
this board for review.
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
4. Request for authorization to execute a performance agreement
between the County of Roanoke, the Roanoke County Economic
Development Authority, and Varsity Landscaping & Grounds,
LLC /Anderson Properties of Virginia, LLC, Cave Spring
Magisterial District (Jill Loope, Acting Director of Economic
Development)
A- 111511 -6
Ms. Loope outlined the performance agreement and advised the Board
the agreement had been approved by the Economic Development Authority (EDA).
Supervisor Moore thanked Mr. Anderson of Varsity Landscaping for not only his
willingness to protect his business, but the fact this will allow other businesses in the
future to connect to this line. There was no discussion. Supervisor Moore moved to
approve the staff recommendation to execute a performance agreement. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
688 November 15, 2011
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance amending Chapter 13. — "Offenses- Miscellaneous"
providing for an urban archery deer season in Roanoke County
(Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined this ordinance and explained basically all this
ordinance does is extend the hunting season. Additionally, based on a conversation
with Supervisor Moore he would suggest tightening the language in subsection B to
incorporate some additional limitations; to mirror the restrictions regarding firearms.
This will not go into effect until the hunting season in 2012.
Supervisor Moore thanked Mr. Mahoney for his clarification and explained
that she felt sometimes with the designation of urban it was perceived as moving some
boundary line. She then asked Mr. Mahoney if he would recommend any additional
language with regard to the State hunting code. Mr. Mahoney explained this has
already been added to the ordinance.
Supervisor Elswick commented this issue was brought to his attention by
Mark Taylor, writer for the Roanoke Times. He stated he agreed with this ordinance
and inquired as to the date when the State would need to be notified with Mr. Mahoney
responding prior to April 1 st
Supervisor Moore moved to approve the first reading and scheduled the
second reading for December 13, 2011, to include the limitations outlined by Mr.
Mahoney. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
2. Ordinance declaring 5915 Garner Road, Roanoke, Virginia (Tax
Map Number 86.20 -02- 05.00) as blighted, authorizing spot blight
abatement and appropriation of $10,000, Cave Spring Magisterial
District (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney explained Roanoke County had previously adopted a spot,
blight abatement policy to address problems with structures, etc. that have deteriorated
to such an extent it poses a detriment to the neighborhood. Mr. Joel Baker is in
attendance to answer any questions with regard to this ordinance. Supervisor Moore
thanked Mr. Baker for working with the citizen. She further stated this is a prime
example of why staff needs to look at building maintenance codes so properties will not
get into this condition and the County can help the property owner before it gets to this
point. Supervisor Moore moved to approve the first reading and scheduled the second
reading and public hearing for December 13, 2011.The motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
November 15, 2011 689
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
3. Ordinance approving the new Intergovernmental Agreement
between the City and County of Roanoke for joint use of the 800
MHZ Radio System (Bill Greeves, Director of Communications
and Information Technology)
Mr. Greeves outlined the ordinance and advised since 1997 an agreement
has been in place for management and cost sharing for public safety operations. This
agreement is expiring in 2012. Since the original agreement, many changes have taken
place and the terminology is outdated. The new agreement would be in effect for fifteen
(15) years. Chairman Church moved to approve the first reading and scheduled the
second reading for December 13, 2011. The motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
4. Ordinance authorizing conveyance of a variable width water and
sanitary sewer line easement to the Western Virginia Water
Authority to be located within a public right -of -way known as
Green Tree Lane, said right -of -way having been dedicated to the
Board of Supervisors, Catawba Magisterial District (Joe
Obenshain, Senior Assistant County Attorney)
Mr. Obenshain explained the proposed ordinance and commented this
was a routine easement. Chairman Church moved to approve the first reading and
scheduled the second reading for December 13, 2011. The motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
5. Ordinance establishing a special assessment for the South Peak
Community Development Authority regarding the financing of
certain public infrastructure improvements (Paul Mahoney,
County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the need for the ordinance and explained this
ordinance will need to be in place before the Board can approve the issuance of the
690 November 15, 2011
bonds. The South Peak Community Development Authority will need to review the
documents and make a recommendation to the Board. In attendance from Smith
Packett were Craig Penny, Gene Whitesell, Dustin Akers and from Hunton & Williams,
Mr. John O'Neill, Jr.
A representative from Municap, Inc., Mr. Faizan Habib, Senior Associate
explained the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Assessments (RMA)
information that was provided to the Board in the agenda packet. Mr. Penny and Mr.
Weisel went through a PowerPoint Presentation, a copy of which is on file in Clerk's
office to bring the Board up -to -date on the current status.
Supervisor Altizer stated in looking at the first phase with what is going to
go in, is there any assessment yet on whether a special assessment will have to be
used? Mr. Habib responded they are working with the developer to identify the Phase
1 and are in the process of estimating future tax revenues, but the purpose of the RMA
is to set the maximum assessments on the property. It has been mentioned the
maximum amount would be $16 million, but the first phase is about $7 million. He
explained they are in the process of looking at Phase 1 and see if the debt service will
be fully covered by the tax revenues that will be needed to levy special assessments.
This is to make sure that they accept the maximum assessments on the property, but
when moving forward with the bonds it will definitely depend on the interest rate. Mr.
Penny advised sizing on this first issue is based on attempting to hit an amount where
there will not be the need for a special assessment. They anticipate what the
incremental taxes are going to be and then size the amount of the first issuance so
there will not be the need for the special assessment; Municap is helping them
determine the projection of the incremental taxes. Rather than putting a "square hole in
a round circle" they do not want to take the $11 million and then say Municap come up
with a justification. The process is the reverse, they see what they think is going to be
there, take into account market conditions, etc. and that is why they have come back
and said $7 million is the number that we think is a good number that will not require a
special assessment. Everyone wants to avoid having a special assessment.
Supervisor Altizer inquired if this information will be available at the December meeting
with Mr. Mahoney responding in the affirmative.
Supervisor Elswick stated he is looking at schedule 2, public
improvements where it shows series A and B and he assumes that means bonds and
asked how that relates to the $7 million bond issuance. Mr. Penney advised these are
hard costs and then there are soft costs involved also. He advised initially, the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) allowed up to $16 million of total bonds and the
delta between the $11 and the $16 is for capitalized interest, issuance costs and paying
all the advisors, i.e. the CDA attorney and CDA advisors who review the building plans.
He explained this will kind of operate somewhat like a construction loan once the bonds
are sold there is a requisition process whereby they have to prove to the CDA that they
have done the work, it complies and has been built to proper standards so there is a fair
amount of administrative costs going forward and that is what the delta is. Initially, it
November 15, 2011 691
was going to be $16 million with $11 of hard costs and now it is $5.3 million of hard
costs and $7 million total. Supervisor Elswick then asked if they have a feel yet for
what the interest rate will be on the bonds with Mr. Penny advising it is very hard to
compare this to other bond issuances because there has only been one of these done
in the last several years and the interest rate is always somewhat of a negotiation
between the market, whether that be a large market or a small market. Mr. Habib
stated for purposes of the RMA, eight percent (8 %) was used in order to be
conservative because the market will drive what the rate is going to be, but they are
pretty confident that the rate will be less than eight percent (8 %). The one that was
done earlier this year was 6.87 %. He added in order to establish the maximum they
have used an eight percent (8 %) coupon rate for the $16 million principal amount.
Supervisor Elswick then asked if the interest rate is non - taxable on the bonds with Mr.
Habib responding in the affirmative.
Supervisor Moore asked Mr. Whitesell if the parking garage will be
underground and asked him to briefly explain the stormwater collection system. Mr.
Whitesell replied the parking garage, given the slope, will act as a retaining wall for the
back slope, so it will be partially underground. It will be a four -story garage, but
probably half of it will not be seen because it will be set back into the hillside. He
responded to the stormwater collection by advising they have been working closely with
the County community planning staff, their engineering department. Looking at making
sure, which is the reason we are working on this master plan with the County, and using
full build out to determine the stormwater as it goes in. This first phase that has already
gone in was approved by the County based on numbers that it more than be adequate
for storms over the entire site at build out. We have impervious surfaces there that they
are able to collect and keep everything where it needs to be on site.
Supervisor Elswick stated it may not be appropriate yet, but do they have
a commitment for a hotel with Mr. Whitesell advising they do not have a commitment
yet, but are in discussions. Supervisor Elswick responded so it is looking pretty good
with Mr. Whitesell commenting in the affirmative.
Supervisor Moore moved to approve the first reading and scheduled the
second reading for December 13, 201. The motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance amending Article III. "Real Estate Taxes" of Chapter 21.
"Taxation of the Roanoke County Code by the adoption of a new
Section 21 -42. entitled "Establishing deadlines for filing
applications to the Board of Equalization for relief" (Paul M.
692 November 15, 2011
Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney explained this is the second reading and there have been no
changes since the first reading on October 25, 2011. He indicated Mr. Billy Driver,
Director of Real Estate Assessment was in attendance to answer any questions. There
was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 111511 -7 AMENDING ARTICLE III. "REAL
ESTATE TAXES" OF CHAPTER 21. "TAXATION" OF THE
ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BY THE ADOPTION OF A NEW
SECTION 21 -42. ENTITLED "ESTABLISHING DEADLINES FOR
FILING APPLICATIONS TO THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
FOR RELIEF"
WHEREAS, Section 58.1 -3378 of the Code of Virginia authorizes the governing
body of any county or city to adopt an ordinance establishing the date by which
applications must be made to local boards of equalization by property owners or
lessees for relief from real estate tax assessments; and
WHEREAS, the 2011 session of the Virginia General Assembly adopted several
amendments to the State Code concerning hearing complaints and equalizing
assessments; and
WHEREAS, these amendments to the State Code established criteria for hearing
dates for taxpayer appeals; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance brings the County Code into conformance with State
Code requirements; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 25, 2011; and
the second reading was held on November 15, 2011.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County as follows:
1. That Article III. "Real Estate Taxes" of Chapter 21. "Taxation" be amended
by the addition of the following new section:
Sec. 21 -42. Establishing deadlines for filing applications to the Board of Equalization for
relief.
All applications by property owners or lessees to adjust and equalize real estate
assessments to the board of equalization shall be made no later than the second Friday
in September in any annual real estate reassessment year. If no application for relief is
received by such date then the board of equalization shall be deemed to discharge its
duties. All applications must be finally disposed of by the board of equalization no later
than the first Friday in November in the year of any annual real estate reassessment.
2. That this ordinance shall be effective from and after January 1, 2012.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
November 15, 2011 693
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
1. Roanoke County Community Leaders Environmental Action
Roundtable (RCCLEAR) (appointed by District)
Supervisor Elswick has reappointed Suzie Fortenberry to represent the
Windsor Hills Magisterial District for an additional three -year term to expire on August
31, 2014. This appointment has been placed on the Consent Agenda.
Supervisor Moore has appointed Misty Gregg to represent the Cave
Spring Magisterial District for a three -year term to expire on August 31, 2014. This
appointment has been placed on the Consent Agenda.
Chairman Church has reappointed Tracy Garland to represent the
Catawba Magisterial District for a three -year term to expire on August 31, 2014. This
appointment was placed on the Consent Agenda.
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 111511 -8 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM J- CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for November
15, 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 6 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes — October 11, 2011
2. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Paul E. Nester, Recreation Programmer, upon his
retirement after thirty (30) years of service
3. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Vicky H. Huff, Deputy Sheriff -Civil Division, upon her
retirement after twenty -seven (27) years of service
4. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Marcha K. Spencer Powell, Senior Buyer, upon her
retirement after seven (7) years of service
November 15, 2011
5. Request to accept and appropriate funds in the amount of $1,000 to the
Roanoke County Public Schools from the Allstate Foundation
6. Confirmation of appointment to the Roanoke County Community Leaders
Environmental Action Roundtable (RCCLEAR) (appointed by District)
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 111511 -8.a EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO PAUL NESTER, RECREATION PROGRAMMER, UPON HIS
RETIREMENT AFTER THIRTY (30) YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Paul E. Nester was hired on October 1, 1981 and has held positions
of Center Leader, Recreation Leader, Assistant Recreation Supervisor and Recreation
Programmer; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Nester retired on October 1, 2011, from the Parks, Recreation
and Tourism Department after thirty (30) years of dutiful, faithful and expert service with
the County; and
WHEREAS, during his time serving Roanoke County, Mr. Nester made a positive
impact on the lives of countless Roanoke County citizens both young and old.
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 PAUL E. NESTER for thirty (30) 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
RESOLUTION 111511 -8.b EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO VICKY H. HUFF, DEPUTY SHERIFF — CIVIL DIVISION, UPON
HER RETIREMENT AFTER TWENTY -SEVEN (27) YEARS OF
SERVICE
November 15, 2011 695
WHEREAS, Vicky H. Huff was hired on November 1, 1984, as a Clerk Typist II
in the Sheriff's Office, served as Secretary from 1985 until 1988, Corrections Computer
Coordinator from 1988 until 1990, Corrections /Civil Data System Tech in 1990 and
promoted to Deputy Sheriff in the Civil Division in 1990 until her retirement; and
WHEREAS, Deputy Huff retired on November 1, 2011, after twenty -seven (27)
years of devoted, faithful and expert service with the County; and
WHEREAS, during her time serving Roanoke County, Deputy Huff held a Master
Deputy Status with the Commonwealth of Virginia on November 5, 1997; and
WHEREAS, Over many years, Vicky participated in the MDA, in an effort to raise
money for the Muscular Dystrophy Association. Vicky's years of experience as a Civil
Process Deputy, she was ideal for training new Deputies. She not only shared her
knowledge, but worked very close with her co- workers in the area of Civil Process.
Vicky was committed to her duties, as she was very dependable and reliable; and
WHEREAS, Deputy Huff has always been fair, treating each issue in an ethical
manner and in accordance with County values, policies and procedures.
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 VICKY H. HUFF for twenty -seven (27) 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
RESOLUTION 111511 -8.c EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO MARCHA K. SPENCER POWELL, SENIOR BUYER, UPON
HER RETIREMENT AFTER SEVEN (7) YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Marcha K. Spencer Powell was hired on October 28, 2004, as a
Buyer and was later promoted to Senior Buyer; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Powell retired on November 1, 2011, after seven (7) years of
devoted, faithful and expert service with the County; and
WHEREAS, during her time serving Roanoke County, Ms. Powell was an integral
part in providing professional direction, management and customer service for the
County's purchasing needs in accordance with the Code of Virginia and Roanoke
County policies and procedures.
696 November 15, 2011
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 MARCHA K. SPENCER POWELL for seven (7)
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- 111511 -8.d
A- 111511 -8.e
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Linda LaPradd from 5509 Will Carter Lane in Roanoke, Virginia stated for
several months now we have been hearing from some of you and from RCCLEAR that
ICLEI is merely a source of information and has nothing to do with the UN or Agenda
21. You have before you the resolution Permission to Join Local Governments for
Sustainability ( ICLEI) signed on August 12, 2007, by the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors. Let me read a few phrases to you: "whereas the Urban Environmental
Accords adopted during UN World Environment Day 2005" "Pledged under the United
National Framework Convention on Climate Change" It continues that the County of
Roanoke "pledges to take a leadership role in promoting public awareness about the
causes and impacts of climate change." This must be difficult since reputable scientists
can't agree on the causes of climate change or whether it is a natural pattern. Over
31,000 scientists including 9000 with PhDs have signed a petition that they do not agree
with the scandal ridden IPCCC climate change report. Yet, you pledge that we will
promote this. The resolution ends by requesting assistance from ICLEI as the goals
progress. Now, what kind of assistance are they going to provide? Objective science?
don't think so. Ways that each area can develop their own appropriate studies? No. The
assistance they provide is all the same leading to "sustainable development" for all
people. Sign the ICLEI agreement and you become exactly what ICLEI wants you to be:
a mouthpiece that sounds good and follows directions from an international NGO. We
are all concerned about the VDOT Devolution of Highways. It might interest you to know
that the VDOT Program Manager tasked with the study of highway devolution has a
history of employment with "Smart Growth" and " Sustainability". He is a member of
Planners without Borders, an international group encouraging "planning processes
governing land use" and Planners' Network which states: "We serve as a voice for
November 15, 2011 697
social, economic, and environmental justice through planning." That is directly from
Agenda 21. 1 provide you with his resume. Do you think highway devolution might be a
way to discourage rural living and implement Agenda 21 /ICLEI goals? It looks like
another piece of the puzzle to me. Ronald Regan stated: "Government's first duty is to
protect the people, not run their lives." It is your job to do just that. Edmund Burke said
in 1899, "The true danger is when Liberty is being nibbled away." Remember these two
quotes. You have allowed the nibbling to begin. Take the first step in stopping it by
cutting ties with ICLEI now.
Bill Gregory of 3312 Pamlico Drive and a County resident for 19 years
stated in ICLEI's resource guide called Outreach and Communications he found a few
interesting excerpts. On page 12 of 39 under the title Identifying and Reaching your
Target Audience there is a target audience called "municipal employees." "Municipal
employees can be extremely influential in effecting local government change." Then
there is the target audience called "youth" on page 20. Here it states "children can also
influence their parents consumer choices and can advocate for their future by getting
their parents interested in buying alternative energy, etc." One of his favorites is on
disseminating the word is on page 28 where it states "have a political /professor or
someone well known in your community meet with the editorial board of the local paper
and do not be afraid to take individuals out to coffee to chat about the issues at hand as
this will allow for a more relaxed and personal conversation." As you can see, ICLEI
would like to come at localities in various bottom up formats. He would like the Board to
consider why ICLEI suggests targeting local government municipal employees, children
and newspaper editorial boards to spread the word of their agenda.
Ernie Ragland of 555 N. Dry Wells Road in Natural Bridge, Virginia
congratulated Chairman Church and Vice Chairman Moore on their reelection. Mr.
Ragland stated in his last presentation on October 25 at this Board meeting he made
certain recommendations that preceded the recent vote last week where the Senate has
now changed and has gone from Democratic controlled Senate, which killed several
measure the Urban Development Area optional concept, House Bill 1721, making it
optional. They were not heard outside of committee and considered by the full Senate
and he urged the Board to consider that for the Roanoke County legislative package.
Also, he had another discussion on exempting residential homes in Virginia from
proposed Federal cap and trade legislation. That too was passed by the House, by
nearly two - thirds of a vote, but killed in committee by the Democratic controlled
committee, but with a 20/20 makeup he thinks it will be heard by the full Senate so he
encouraged the Board to look at, House Bill 1387. Today he is back to bring to the
Board, a very troubling planned Maryland Concept. On October 31, 2011, he was
watching online a discussion in Carroll County, Maryland, a proposal by the Governor of
Maryland, a Democratic governor, Mr. O'Malley, who is through executive order and
regulation circumventing his own state, Democratic controlled legislature. He is trying to
mandate from central Maryland from Annapolis effecting rural counties a ban on septic
698 November 15, 2011
fields altogether. He advised that will have an adverse effect on development in
Maryland, rural counties in Maryland, western Maryland and on the eastern shore of
Maryland and eventually he feels there is a possibility that proposal will become
possibly a federal mandate and if it becomes a federal mandate for those jurisdictions
taking ICLEI related money, sustainable development money, this could have great
adverse consequences to Virginia, to development in rural Virginia. Also, it would affect
Roanoke County and your taxing authority here, because if that is implemented where
there is a ban on septic fields with rural development that will affect materially the value
of undeveloped land in his estimation. The last speaker spoke on ICLEI, he advised he
strongly supports their position for the Board to withdraw your membership in order to
protect and preserve private property rights in this Commonwealth.
Ernest Meier of 6734 Oleander Circle in Hollins stated he is new to the area and
living in Hollins he did not realize you still wore coat and ties which is why he showed up
without them. He stated ever since he came to this country, he was aware of the lack of
planning advised he is totally confused about the government system here in Virginia.
He advised he realized more and more why there is such a dislocation between the
government and the people in Virginia. Down here it seems the Republican hates the
Democrats and the Democrats hate the Republicans. When you see so many
mismatched areas in the country and when they showed him the thing about ICLEI,
which he did not know anything about it. He heard about it when he went to meetings
around here with the Tea Party and has spent hours and days reading about it and
thinks that is what we need. We need to be more prepared for the future, we need to
plan better and probably the most important thing the Board are doing is planning for
the future. That is when we are going to find out, forty or fifty years from now whether
the Board was right or not. He stated he thinks ICLEI is one of the things which
important to see, like Europe, they are a lot farther ahead on those particular things,
especially when it comes to cleaning the air and cleaning the water and sewage
treatment plants. Every time he goes back there, he is wondering why we cannot do it
when they can do it. It seems to him that demigods are trying to run the county here
and not putting any plans on how it should be done. If you want to complain about
something, then you should have a plan. In his opinion, he is proud of the Board for
adopting ICLEI and he hopes they are not getting away from it and not getting
intimidated by the demigods running around trying to do whatever they want. We all
know what liberty is, the country selected a negative liberty and that means we have a
government which makes the decisions and not the individuals themselves. He stated
he hopes the Board continues to do the great work they are doing.
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Altizer requested that the Comparative Statement of Budgeted
and Actual Revenues as of October 31, 2011, be pulled for questions. He then asked
Ms. Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance with regard to the revenue, stating one is a
November 15, 2011 699
good thing and one looks like it could be a bad thing. On the Communications Sales
Tax, he advised he knows it is somewhat sporadic, but staff raised this year's budget for
this line item of a revenue projection up $300,000 over last year and are down $407,000
year to date. Does staff know of anything, is there something sporadic there, can Ms.
Owens check this number? He further added he is never confident in that line that the
revenues are coming to Roanoke County like they are supposed to. Ms. Owens
advised this also peaked her interest because when looking at the variance is telling.
She advised there is a misposting; the communications tax for the month of October
actually was posted to taxes on recordation and wills so that one looks like it is trending
a little bit above budget where the communication sales tax is trending below. Mr.
Altizer advised that was his second question that the recordation taxes were up almost
one half a million dollars and thought the homes are really selling well in Roanoke
County this year. Ms. Owens responded about $400,000 of that is attributed to that, but
will look at both of those revenue line items and see if there is anything else going on.
Supervisor Altizer then asked Ms. Owens to look at the expenditure lines, and asked
Ms. Owens to research because there are a couple of departments and it could be
timing, their budget is less than last year and some of them are $200,000 to $300,000
overspent compared to the same time last year. Ms. Owens responded she would look
at and advise the Board.
Supervisor Altizer then 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. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of
October 31, 2011
5. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of October 31, 2011
6. Accounts Paid — October 31, 2011
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
700 November 15, 2011
At 4:54 p.m., Chairman Church moved to go into closed meeting following
the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2 -3711 A. 1. Personnel,
namely discussion concerning appointments to the Economic Development Authority.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
The closed meeting was held from 6:25 p.m. until 6:33 p.m.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
At 4:55 p.m. Chairman Church recessed to the fourth (4 floor for work
session and closed meeting.
1. Work session to discuss "Proposed changes to Chapter 9 of
County Code for amendments to Statewide Fire Code" (Richard E.
Burch, Chief of Fire and Rescue; Gary Huffman, Fire Marshall)
In attendance for this work session were Richard E. Burch, Chief of Fire
and Rescue; Gary Huffman, Fire Marshal; Todd Maxey, Division Chief; B. Clayton
Goodman III, County Administrator; Paul Mahoney, County Attorney and Arnold Covey,
Director of Community Development. Chief Burch explained this is on a three -year
rotation. The version today is the 2009 version that was approved and went to the
Commonwealth of Virginia and approved in March of 2011. He outlined a series of
meetings were held with staff to review the changes.
Supervisor Altizer referenced the fees on page 2. He stated when he
looks at the fees, and understands that these have not been raised in 15 years, but
wants to know how staff justifies those types of percentage increases. Chief Burch
advised it has been fifteen (15) years so the cost of those inspections, fuel and salaries
have gone up. He used the last pit fire as an example, advising the fire marshals went
on scene at least a dozen times. The bottom -line is these fees do not come back to the
fire department; they go into the general fund. This is a recommendation based on not
changing in 15 years, the cost of doing business and in line with other fees for the State.
Chairman Church commented that the "cost of doing business" has
increased and staff has been working in arrears for some time.
Supervisor Flora inquired if they based on any empirical data and what
they actually cost the County and have they been compared to other localities? Gary
Huffman responded in the affirmative and advised they are in line with Roanoke City;
biggest increase is in fireworks and is based on the State rates. The State will only do it
at Virginia Tech. The jurisdictions would handle others and would not have to pay both.
Supervisor Altizer inquired if the department spent more time with
November 15, 2011 701
fireworks inside or outside fires. Mr. Huffman responded the State changed a lot of the
rules on fireworks; it is a more extensive program. Additionally, he added they also put
a fire marshal on site of the display versus a permit.
Supervisor Moore inquired if this is just for commercial or does this include
residential. Chief Burch responded residential fireworks are illegal. Mr. Huffman
responded if it is the legal fireworks that citizens can buy at the store, then there is no
regulation or permit. She advised Mr. Altizer that she felt the $65.00 fee seems to be a
low amount if a commercial person had to haul everything to the landfill and pay the
landfill fees not considering the pollution and air.
Supervisor Altizer advised he felt the fees were probably warranted all the
way down the line, but he would like to see something go up $10.00 a year rather than
going up four hundred to eight hundred percent (400 - 800 %.) Chief Burch responded it
is like the ambulance fees, staff comes back to the Board every couple of years with
those adjustments so it is not what you see here in ten years.
Supervisor Altizer remarked he understands things are going up, and
knows staff is never going to recover all of the costs, but is a little hard to digest four
hundred to eight hundred percent (400 - 800 %.) He feels it should be adjusted when it
actually goes up. Some of these fees should go back directly to the Fire Department.
He advised he would feel better if some of these fees went back to the citizens.
Supervisor Flora stated the Board is adopting these fees by ordinance,
which is a cumbersome process and can it be done by resolution or does the State
code require an ordinance. Mr. Mahoney explained from his experience localities have
done in two ways and it is the discretion of the Board because the Board wanted to set
this by ordinance. Supervisor Flora responded the Board can set them, but they can do
it by resolution and public hearings would not have to be held and the expense of
advertising an ordinance. He added just because you are going to change the fees and
you could keep them current and review annually to make sure all the fees are covering
the expenses. Supervisor Altizer stated he thought the citizens would be more
receptive. Mr. Huffman advised last year these fees amounted to $5,775.00.
Supervisor Altizer then stated he does not understand number six on page
three. Gary stated they are proposing the deletion of this section, because it is covered
in the State code. Mr. Huffman read the State code section that this pertained to.
Supervisor Altizer stated he wanted to make sure if staff offers or does staff let people
know there is that ability and there are other alternatives. Chief Burch responded from
time to time that staff will come to him and advise they are working with an owner who
might not have the exact gallons per minute, etc. Mr. Huffman responded this will come
up fairly often when a residential area has been changed to a business, which requires
a higher fire flow. It all goes into a formula and will be passed.
Supervisor Altizer then inquired on the same page, under paragraph 5, to
add a subsection; has this always been in the code with Mr. Huffman responding this is
not something that is being proposed new, it has been an amendment to the Code in
the County for some time and they are changing the code sections where it is
702 November 15, 2011
referenced.
Supervisor Altizer then asked on page 4, paragraph 8; is this something
new with Mr. Huffman responding this has been in the County amendments for some
time and is now referenced in the State code under a different code section. Mr.
Goodman inquired if the County code is more restrictive with Mr. Huffman advising only
in the half hour time limit.
Supervisor Altizer inquired on page 4, regarding private roads and fire
lanes and how does this relate to private roads and a minimum width of 18 feet. He
advised the County just adopted new private roads standards. Mr. Huffman explained
the new section is 20 feet and was addressed in the new, private road standards.
Supervisor Altizer then questioned are private roads pretty much 20 feet to 20 feet (curb
and gutter) and anything less there is no on- street parking and posted as such. Mr.
Huffman advised technically there is not supposed to be any parking if it is 20 feet wide
with Supervisor Altizer responding is that anything existing, but anything back before we
adopted the new private road standards. In other words, there are some roads now that
are not 18 feet wide or 20 feet wide, are we going back and making those fire lanes on
those streets, but only on the new subdivision plants. Mr. Huffman responded in the
affirmative and stated that is still an item that has been tagged because they have not
been able to figure out how to mark or enforce the parking on those private streets.
Enforcement has not been addressed. Supervisor Altizer then asked Mr. Mahoney if
this pertains to things already out there; i.e. Villages at Stone Creek. Mr. Mahoney
responded the intent was to look at it for future development, however, he thinks you
could have an opportunity to attempt to go back and enforce it now. This is going to be
problematic because it is not just the Villages at Stone Creek; there are a lot of private
roads and developments that do not come close to this. Staff would come back to the
Board before they undertook any enforcement action with respect to existing
developments. Supervisor Altizer asked Chief Burch to take a look at this because he
thinks the Board should know how everybody would be treated. Chief Burch responded
the big issue here would be the 20 feet, other than making sure that it is right when put
in, but actually going out and checking would not be done due to staffing concerns.
Supervisor Altizer suggested taking the enforcement part out of it. He advised the code
states the Fire official shall designate fire lanes on public streets and on private
property, this puts it back on the Fire Department and further in the code he will have
another question where it talks about fire lane signs, etc. becomes the responsibility of
the property owner to pay for and install. He stated he is stating that he is seeing things
that can cause the Board a lot of problems and would like to address now and think
about before something is adopted that is going to get us in trouble. Mr. Huffman stated
that under commercial properties, i.e. shopping malls, strip malls, colleges there has not
been any issues. Private roads being so narrow will be an issue for marking and
enforcing. Supervisor Altizer stated that is why he is bringing this up because the Board
needs to think about it and how they are going to rectify the situation. He stated he also
knows of another issue is on- street parking, The people in the Village of Stone Creek
November 15, 2011 703
are going to say there should not be any parking out here in accordance with the fire
code. In addition, there will be people there that want to park on the street. Roanoke
County will be caught in the middle and he is trying to foresee some problems that
might come up and figure out a way to address. Chief Burch responded staff would take
an additional look at this section.
Supervisor Altizer inquired of Section 13 and the need for property owners
to supply signs, etc. He stated he understands in a commercial area, but the way he
reads this code; this does not take out the normal, everyday property owner who might
live on a private road. Mr. Huffman responded that section 13 will be deleted because it
is in the new State code, but does not designate who is responsible.
Supervisor Altizer then inquired with regard to rural subdivisions; at one
time under rural fire protection you had to have water at so many gallons a minute for
thirty minutes. He stated he is totally lost, does not know how this pertains to rural
subdivisions. He has heard that if somebody planned three houses in a rural
subdivision they did not have to furnish fire protection, but if a fourth house was added,
fire protection must be added. He stated he wants someone to tell him for rural
development, what is the standard that has to be met for fire protection where there is
no public water. Chief Burch responded the fire code establishes the flow and gives the
alternative of going to the International Land Interface Code and this provides options
for the rural areas, such as a pond. If staff does not do that then the fire code applies
and it comes back to fire hydrants and water mains. Mr. Huffman advises the code
does not apply until it becomes four or more, which classifies it as a subdivision. He
further explained the fire code does not make any difference between rural or public. In
2008, staff added this section to the County amendment because another section within
that same section of the fire code tells you to create a document, which was done and
says a subdivision is four or more houses and what staff is proposing to do with these
changes is include the option of using the interface code in those rural areas where
there is no public water supply and would be covered under Section 4. Supervisor
Altizer stated he just wanted to make sure that the Board was not inhibiting the ability to
develop rural land whether it is family that owns ten acres and they want to build three
other houses and they would have to put in an expensive water system for fire
protection. Mr. Huffman stated they would only address when there are four or more
houses. Chief Burch stated it is really when community development terms it a
subdivision. Supervisor Altizer asked if this would be a subdivision with Mr. Covey
responding there is a major and a minor and what they are talking about is a minor
subdivision, which is four or less. So this process would not be gone through with Mr.
Jones giving some land to his son. Mr. Mahoney advised but if Mr. Jones has five
children and wants to build five houses, then it will fall into a major subdivision category
and then you have different issues. The key point is the interface code provides an
alternative for the fire marshal when reviewing these kinds of developments.
Supervisor Elswick stated as far as he knows, and he lives in a rural area
and if there is a fire it is whatever water is in the pumper truck is going to fight the fire.
704 November 15, 2011
There are no hydrants, there are no ponds near most houses, and it is whatever water
is in the truck. Chief Burch responded for the initial attack that is correct, but this is
something the average homeowner does not know. If they ride by a fire station, and
they live a mile down the road, they have an assumption that if they have a fire the
station can put it out. The trucks carry enough water that if it is a room or two that is
burning or maybe a garage, it can more than likely be put out. However, if the whole
second floor is on fire and is getting ready to set the house on fire next door, that is
whole different ball game. He added that is why in a subdivision typically houses are
closer together and they need a water supply to make that attack on the initial fire as
well as exposures. Supervisor Elswick asked what are the requirements on Bent
Mountain where there are eight houses, with Chief Burch stating if they were
grandfathered there were none. Mr. Goodman asked but what if it was a new
subdivision on Bent Mountain with ten lots what would be expected with Mr. Huffman
stating they could utilize the interface code, which could be a pond. Supervisor Elswick
asked but what are the requirements. Mr. Huffman responded it depended on the
structure sizes and whether they are commercial or one or two family dwellings, etc. as
there are different standards for each one; 1,000 gallons per minute available water at a
draft site for one or two family dwellings and it is going to be double that for commercial.
Supervisor Elswick then asked where they get the water from, is it still just back to
whatever is on the tanker truck. Chief Burch stated if this status applies then they would
have to have a pond or a stream that happens to run through the property.
Supervisor Flora then stated if that is the case, if someone wants to put in
a ten -lot subdivision on Bent Mountain as a part of that subdivision it would have to
include a pond that would have enough water in it that you could draft 1,000 gallons a
minute to put out a fire. That is the requirement; access and be able to draft. Mr.
Mahoney explained if you were the developer, community development would deny
your plan unless you came up with some alternative method to supply that quantify of
water for that size development. Supervisor Flora stated it does put a burden on rural
areas for any kind of development.
Chief Burch stated he has heard people say, let the house burn, there is
insurance, however, if it is 3 o'clock in the morning and that house fire comes in and
there are children or someone trapped upstairs he can guarantee his people are going
to do anything humanly possible to go inside that structure and try to save those lives.
They are relying on what water is on that truck and if they get halfway in and the truck
runs out of water, not only are the citizens at harm way but the firemen are in danger as
well. He stated this happens in other jurisdictions also. Some places will not fight the
fire and fire departments are adopting these tactics that if there is a certain amount of
fire, they are not going to take a chance. Supervisor Elswick asked if this should be in
the ordinance. Chief Burch stated that would not prevent people from suing.
The work session was held from 5:09 p.m. until 5:56 p.m.
November 15, 2011 705
2. Work Session on Roanoke County Community Leaders
Environmental Action Roundtable (RCCLEAR) Activities (Anne
Marie Green, Director of General Services)
In attendance for this work session were Anne Marie Green, Director of
General Services; Nell Boyle, Chairman of CLEAR; Janet Schied, RCCLEAR Vinton
Magisterial District; Jim Vodnik, Assistant Director of General Services; Sean
McGinness, PhD, LEEDS AP, Director — VT Green Engineering Program and Roanoke
Citizens for Clean & Green Committee. Ms. Green and Ms. Boyle provided a
PowerPoint presentation to include background and what is the local action Plan. She
explained they have spent some time planning on reaching out to the communities.
First market was residential, 60 kits, 40 kits for commercial and value of the audits. She
advised they are targeting residential areas with community events, the Green Living
and Energy Expo (CFL light bulbs and night lights), weather packages, free audits and
lots of tip sheets. She indicated they have been to the homebuilders show, worked
extensively with student advisory councils and are looking at integrating into programs.
There have also been presentations to civic groups. The most recent effort is if every
household saves a ton of gas /year, the goal of savings 100,000 tons would be easily
achieved as well as saving a ton of money. Unfortunately, this originated as the same
time the economy was tanking. You will begin to see the "save a ton" literature. The
Website will eventually have a carbon and cost calculator. The Regional Commission
will eventually take over the "Save a Ton" program. This is a regional program; City of
Salem; Town of Blacksburg; City of Roanoke. There is a billboard up on Route 460
East.
Supervisor Elswick asked why CFL's versus LED's with Ms. Boyle
responding they are expensive and the quality of their life is not good yet. Supervisor
Elswick stated he has a real problem with mercury and forty years from now people are
going to say how did that mercury get in our landfills. Ms. Boyle responded there are
recycling programs at Home Depot and other places. Supervisor Elswick responded he
was aware of that but, that does not amount to much. Ms. Boyle responded that she
takes hers. Supervisor Elswick stated but she is conscientious and the average
homeowner is going to dump it in the trash can and it is going to go to the landfill. Ms.
Green responded there are a lot of bad things in the landfills, which is why we have the
triple liners, etc. She stated that is why they are moving away from CFL's.
Ms. Boyle stated they would continue outreach, working with schools,
increase involvement with businesses; work with green ribbon week and will be working
with ride solutions, for example a park and ride with Bent Mountain. She indicated they
will be collecting data and ICLEI is being used to measure the data and how they find out
where this is successful. The next step is to reach out to Virginia Association of
Counties (VACo) or the Virginia Municipal League (VML).
Supervisor Elswick advised there needs to be a large impact, for example
people in their cars and the children are crucial. If you can get the children educated
706 November 15, 2011
they are going to go home and ask their parents.
schools educating the parents who pick up their c
would like to come to the next RCCLEAR meeting
calculation on the 60 energy audits. He then asked
were publicized so people can see for themselves
Ms. Green responded it had not been done yet, but
If you can get signs put up at the
iildren every day. He advised he
because he would like to see the
if the results of the sixty (60) audits
if those houses saved any energy.
thinks it is a great idea. Ms. Boyle
advised they hope to go back the following year to the people and collect some data.
The work session was held from 5:56 p.m. until 6:15 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 7:00 p.m., Chairman Church moved to return to open session and
adopted the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 111511 -9 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
1. The petition of Glenn Reed to rezone approximately 13.7 acres
from AR, Agricultural /Residential District to AV, Agricultural
November 15, 2011 707
Village District and to obtain a special use permit for the purpose
of a gas station /convenience store located at 9651 Bent Mountain
Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Deputy
Director of Planning)
This agenda item was postponed until December 13, 201, at the request
of the petitioner.
2. Ordinance to exempt 0.23 acre of property owned by the
Advancement Foundation (Tax Map No. 60.15- 07 -40) from real
property taxes, said real property, assessed at $226,000, Vinton
Magisterial District (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney explained this was the second reading of this ordinance and
there have been no changes from the first reading on October 25, 2011. He advised
the Town of Vinton does not have any problems with this petition. There were no
citizens to speak on this issue. Supervisor Altizer commented the loss revenue to
Roanoke County is approximately $2,463 and the service fee is twenty percent (20 %) of
that number, which is the normal procedure for non - profit organizations. There was no
further discussion.
ORDINANCE TO 111511 -10 EXEMPT 0.23 ACRE OF PROPERTY
OWNED BY THE ADVANCEMENT FOUNDATION (TAX MAP NO.
60.15- 07 -41) FROM REAL ESTATE TAXES, SAID PROPERTY,
ASSESSED AT $226,000 IS LOCATED IN THE VINTON
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, The Advancement Foundation ( "Petitioner") has petitioned this
Board for an exemption for certain of its property from taxation pursuant to Article X,
Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia ; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Code §58.1 -3651 (A) sets forth the process and procedure
by which a locality may designate property as tax exempt; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Code §58.1 - 3651(8) establishes certain requirements for
notifying the public of a hearing regarding the proposed adoption of an ordinance
exempting property and sets forth questions to be considered by the local governing
body before adopting such an ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on October 25, 2011, and
the public hearing and second reading of this ordinance was held on November 15,
2011 ; and
708 November 15, 2011
WHEREAS, the Town of Vinton has no objections to the Board granting the
Petitioner the exemption from taxation for its real property, which is located in the Town
of Vinton.
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors, after due notice and public hearing, has
considered the questions set forth in Virginia Code §58.1 - 3651(8) and, upon
consideration of those questions, has determined that the application for the proposed
exemption from taxation should be granted.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows
1. That, in accordance with Section 58.1- 3651(A) of the 1950 Code of
Virginia, as amended, the Board grants an exemption from taxation under Article X,
Section 6 (a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia of property owned and used by The
Advancement Foundation for charitable, religious, patriotic, historical, benevolent,
cultural, or public park and playground purposes. This ordinance is adopted by the
Board after holding a public hearing with respect hereto as to which public notice was
given and at which citizens had an opportunity to be heard. In adopting this ordinance,
the Board has examined and considered the provisions of §58.1 - 3651(8) of the 1950
Code of Virginia, as amended. The total assessed value of the real property owned by
The Advancement Foundation is $226,000.00 and the real property tax is $2463.40 per
year for Roanoke County and $67.80 per year for the Town of Vinton. The Tax Parcel
No. of the property is 060.15 -07- 41.00 -0000 and said parcel consists of 0.23 acres and
is located at 301 South Pollard Street, Vinton, Virginia 24179.
2. That pursuant to §58.1 -3605 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended,
The Advancement Foundation shall file triennially an application with the County's
assessing officer as a requirement for retention of the exempt status of the property.
Such application shall show the ownership and usage of such property and shall be filed
within the next sixty days preceding the tax year for which such exemption, or the
retention thereof, is sought.
3. That The Advancement Foundation has agreed to enter into a Service
Agreement with Roanoke County providing for the payment of an annual service fee in
the amount of twenty percent (20 %) of the County's real estate levies, were The
Advancement Foundation not exempt from local taxation, for so long as Petitioner is
exempted from state and local taxation. This service fee shall commence July 1, 2011,
and shall continue for succeeding years so long as Petitioner is exempted from state
and local taxation. The County Administrator is authorized to execute the Service
Agreement on behalf of the County.
4. That the property owned by The Advancement Foundation be, and is
hereby designated as exempt from property taxes of the County based upon The
Advancement Foundation's exclusive use of said property for religious, charitable,
patriotic, historical, benevolent, cultural, or public park and playground purposes.
November 15, 2011 709
5. That the clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this ordinance to
the Commissioner of the Revenue and the Treasurer for Roanoke County, and to The
Advancement Foundation.
6. That the continuance of this exemption shall be conditioned upon the
continuous use of this property in accordance with the purpose for which this
organization has been designated; and
7. That the effective date of this Ordinance is January 1, 2012.
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
3. The petition of Peter Lundy to obtain a Special Use Permit in a C-
2, General Commercial, District for the operation of a used
automobile dealership on 0.665 acre, located at 3119 Brambleton
Avenue, Windsor Hills Magisterial District (Philip Thompson,
Deputy Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the petition of Peter Lundy. He advised the
Planning Commission recommended approval with a vote of five to zero with three
conditions. There were no citizens who spoke on this petition. Chairman Church
inquired of Mr. Lundy if he was agreeable with the three conditions with Mr. Lundy
responding in the affirmative. There was no further discussion.
ORDINANCE 111511 -11 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
TO OPERATE A USED AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP ON 0.665
ACRE LOCATED AT 3115 & 3119 BRAMBLETON AVENUE
(TAX MAP NO. 077.10 -08- 02.00) WINDSOR HILLS
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON THE PETITION OF PETER
LUNDY
WHEREAS, Peter Lundy has filed a petition for a special use permit to operate a
used automobile dealership on a 0.665 acre parcel located at 3115 and 3119
Brambleton Avenue (Tax Map No. 077.10 -08- 02.00) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial
District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
November 1, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on October 25, 2011; the second reading and public hearing on
this matter was held on November 15, 2011.
710 November 15, 2011
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Peter
Lundy for the operation of a used automobile dealership on 0.665 acre located at 3115
and 3119 Brambleton Avenue in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District is substantially in
accord with the adopted 2005 Community Plan, as amended, pursuant to the provisions
of Section 15.2 -2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and that it shall have a
minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood or community, and said
special use permit is hereby approved with the following conditions:
a) The site shall be developed in general conformance with the concept plan
entitled Brambleton Alignment 3115/3119 Brambleton Avenue dated
September 2, 2011.
b) There shall be no more than twenty (20) vehicles on display for sale on
site.
c) Display areas for the used automobile dealership shall be limited to the
paved areas west of Metal Garage #2 (as shown on the concept plan).
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The provisions of this special use
permit are not severable. Invalidation of any word, phrase, clause, sentence or
paragraph shall invalidate the remainder. The Zoning Administrator is directed to
amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Elswick to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Noah Tickle of 1603 Frosty Lane in Salem, Virginia RC resident since
1956 stated one of the best kept secrets in the global warming debate is that the plant
life of planet Earth would benefit greatly from a higher level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in
the atmosphere. You read that correctly flowers, trees and food crops love carbon
dioxide and the more they get of it, the more they love it. Carbon dioxide is the basic
raw material that plants use in photosynthesis to convert solar energy into food, fiber
and other forms of bio -mass. Voluminous scientific evidence shows that if Carbon
dioxide were to rise above its current ambient level of 360 parts per million, most plants
would grow faster because of more efficient photosynthesis and a reduction in water
loss. There would also be many other benefits for plants, among them greater
resistance to temperature extremes and other forms of stress "better growth at low light
November 15, 2011 711
intensities ", improved root /top ratio, less injury from air pollutants and more nutrients in
the soil as a result of more extensive nitrogen fixation. This good news about carbon
dioxide has been all but ignored in alarmist discussions about global climate changes.
Carbon dioxide related benefits were barely mentioned at the Earth Summit in Rio de
Janeiro where the rising level of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were
decried as the world's greatest environmental threat. The Rio Summit ended with the
United States and over 150 other nations signing a framework convention on climate
change. Committing themselves to stabilizing emissions of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases at 1990 levels. From the green environmental socialist the
conventional wisdom is that carbon dioxide is a terrible pollutant that threatens the fate
of the Earth, and yet for over 100 years, nurserymen have been adding carbon dioxide
to their greenhouses to raise the yields of vegetables, flowers and ornamental plants.
For decades it has been well known among botanist, biochemist, agriculturalist and
foresters that a shortage of carbon dioxide is the most common limiting factor
preventing food crops from proceeding more efficiently. So where is the common sense
in any of this? One would think that ICLEI would have picked a better deception, a
better Trojan horse to ride in. Now that we know what ICLEI is up to ICLEI must GO.
Polly Branch of 6928 Crowell Gap Road in Roanoke, Virginia thanked the
Board for the opportunity to speak tonight about mining uranium in Virginia and the
potential dangers it causes lives, not just near a mine, but down wind and downstream.
She stated she is speaking not only for a particular group, which there are many, the
Sierra Club, Environmental Conservation Network, but for many of the individuals that
she knows that are just as afraid and want to inform themselves about this potential
danger in the community, if the ban is lifted. We have had a ban in Virginia for thirty
years and hopes that the Board would consider passing an appropriate resolution at the
appropriate time and would like the Board to advise her on how to proceed with that
concerning the concerns of the citizens in this area and in support of keeping the ban in
place which other communities around Virginia have also already done to the Virginia
General Assembly will take note when they go to vote in the new year. It is a company
in Canada that wants the rights to mine uranium in Virginia and they have been lobbying
the General Assembly for some time now. When she spoke with a State senator
recently and asked him what we should do on a local community about our concerns,
she was advised that this was the highest thing they could do; ask for a resolution
amongst the City Councils and Board of Supervisors. The ban that has been in place
has been effective and accepted for almost thirty years and she thinks we should keep it
rather than risk the health of our drinking water, our air, our personal health, farmland,
etc. She is concerned about the known ratioactive waste that is generated from such a
mining process and recorded. The containment of such waste cannot be guaranteed
and the climate in Virginia is much different than that in the dry, west where most of the
mining is done now. Exposure to uranium has been linked to increases in leukemia and
kidney disease. So there are many cities in Virginia, Charlottesville, Chesapeake,
Creedmore, North Carolina, Henderson, North Carolina, Virginia Beach, Floyd County,
712 November 15, 2011
Halifax, Greenville County, North Carolina, Orange County, Patrick County,
Rappahannock, Town of Butt, North Carolina, etc. who have also passed resolutions in
order to give a little more of a voice for those of us who have concerns to give to the
Virginia Assembly. She asked the Board for next steps and to pass a resolution.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Altizer stated this Board last year had legislation carried from
the Valley from our legislators on what was known as a substitute cannabis called K2 or
"Spice" and it was a change in the State legislature that really took account the chemical
compound of that. Now, the chemists have changed the chemical process to put this
dangerous drug back on the market and have circumvented the law that was created
and the way the law was written so therefore it is on our streets again. There have
been some multiple items in the Roanoke Times and nationally where this is now
causing young people heart attacks and is becoming more wide - spread and this Board
unanimously with vigor supported this. It is his hope to go back to some of the local
General Assembly members to see if they can change it again. This is very dangerous,
it is dangerous for our young people, and it is dangerous to everyone that is buying this.
The Board needs to pursue this and be vigilant and keep them on their toes. He
advised at the appropriate time over the next month or so, he hopes to have some
legislators from the Senate and the House that will carry something that maybe will not
be as easy the next go round to circumvent. He had found some businesses in his
district that are selling it again with the new formulation, which is legal and our young
people are buying it and there is not a thing that can be done. He stated he would like
to try to add this to our legislative agenda to try to do something about this and get it out
of the tobacco stores that are selling this to our young people.
Supervisor Flora congratulated his two colleges on their reelection
success last Tuesday; it was a good race and he commends them for the way they
handled it. He then stated he attended the VACo Conference and one of the legislative
priorities deals with uranium mining. Their recommendation is to continue the ban on
uranium mining.
Supervisor Elswick stated he agrees with Supervisor Altizer about the
drug thing, he is from a part of the country where more values, work ethics are very high
and very commendable as a young person and now that whole area in inundated with
drugs. It is not just the people who take the drugs, but it affects everybody in the
community. The Board needs to do anything it can to fight the drug epidemic.
He stated his comments tonight are that there have been a number of
articles in the paper lately about the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and the
impression being the Board is dysfunctional; that is not true at all. Some of us have
different opinions about things, but we are a very well functioning Board, we do what is
right for the citizens and think that is demonstrated by the kind of projects that Roanoke
County has taken on. The one thing that was recently in the paper on Wednesday,
L
L
November 15, 2011 713
November 9 Supervisor Elswick quoted, "In two years, independents Moore, Church
and Supervisor Ed Elswick have pushed through controversial plans including a
development plan for South Peak and the Green Ridge Recreational Center." He
advised they did vote for South Peak, but in terms of the Green Ridge Recreational
Center, both he and Ms. Moore campaigned against it and he could not have possibly
pushed the Green Ridge Recreational Center through; he was not even on the Board.
So, one thing he would like to ask because the paper can say anything they like about
anybody, that is their prerogative, but in the future, he would ask they would be factual
in their reports.
Supervisor Moore congratulated Read Mountain Fire and Rescue on their
20 anniversary. These men and women work very hard to protect our citizens.
Supervisor Church congratulated Glenvar High School, principle Joe
Haffey and football coach Kevin Clifford, stating they reached a milestone of the playoffs
and had a very successful year. Also, the Northside High School Vikings, and Principal
Frank Dent and his staff and Coach Bert Torrance and his staff as they are undefeated
at 10 and 0 and they will face Robert E. Lee in Stanton this Friday night and perhaps
could end up with another State championship, maybe two out of the last three years.
Lastly, the Glenvar Community Comprehensive Planning Session was held last night at
the Glenvar Middle School, everything went smooth, there was good citizen input from
months prior and it was unanimously passed and on its way to next step to the Board of
Supervisors.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Church adjourned the meeting at 7:23 p.m.
Ll
Submitted
lx"r Ab�
Deborah k
Clerk t o the :•. •
Approved by:
seph Ef. "Butch" Church
Chairman
714 November 15, 2011
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY
1