10/25/2011 - RegularOctober 25, 2011 653
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of October 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 Sam Belisle of the Celebration Church
of God. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Proclamation commemorating the 90th Anniversary of AmRhein's
and proclaiming November 5, 2011, as AmRhein's Day in Roanoke
County (Jill Loope, Acting Director of Economic Development)
In attendance for this recognition were Russell Amrhein, grandson of Fred
C. Amrhein and President of AmRhein's and Winery Viticulturist; Paula Amrhein,
Vice President of AmRhein's and Fine Jewelry Consultant; Chad Amrhein, great-
654 October 25, 2011
grandson of Fred C. Amrhein and General Manager of AmRhein's Fine Jewelry; Beckie
Spaid, married to Chad and AmRhein's Director of Marketing; Jill Loope, Acting Director
of Economic Development and Melinda Cox, Economic Development Specialist. All
Supervisors offered their congratulations and a wall hanging was presented.
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
1. 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
There was no discussion. Supervisor Elswick moved to approve the first
reading and schedule the second reading and public hearing for November 15, 2011.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance to exempt 0.23 acre of property owned by the
Advancement Foundation (Tax Map No. 60.15- 07 -40) from real
property tax, said real property, assessed at $226,000.00, is
located in the Vinton Magisterial District (Paul M. Mahoney,
County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the ordinance. Supervisor Altizer inquired if the
eight components listed in the ordinance have been verified with Mr. Mahoney
responding in the affirmative. Chairman Church asked what the twenty percent (20 %)
would equate to with Mr. Mahoney responding $400. Supervisor Altizer commented as
in the past, the County will take a hit on revenue, but what is given back is just as
important. There was no further discussion. Supervisor Altizer moved to approve the
first reading and scheduled the second reading and public hearing for November 15,
2011. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
October 25, 2011 655
2. Ordinance repealing and readopting Section 30 -87 -7 (b) 5 of the
Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, which established general
standards for noise for large and utility wind energy systems (Paul
M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the ordinance explaining this was brought before
the Board at the request of Supervisor Elswick.
Supervisor Elswick stated at the meeting where the ordinance was
discussed there were a lot of aspects of the ordinance that had to be evaluated and
voted on. This was one; the decibel level that would be permitted by the utility and
industrial type large windmills and he thought to single out specifically as one that the
Board could spend a little more time on, think about and get additional input on would
be beneficial. He advised there are a lot of citizens that could potentially be living near
large wind turbines in our rural areas and their concerns and the expert advice of people
who study these things ought to be taken further into consideration and with the
potential to revise the allowable decibel limit.
Supervisor Flora stated this ordinance is the subject of current litigation. Is it
appropriate to change it and suggested leaving it as is until the lawsuit runs its course
and at the resolution if we need to readdress something, do it at that time. He advised if
the Board repeals it, the lawsuit will end, however, it will not resolve the major issue.
Chairman Church asked Mr. Mahoney to comment on Mr. Flora's statement
about the pending lawsuit. Mr. Mahoney explained several weeks ago a complaint was
filed by a group of citizens on Bent Mountain challenging the Board's adoption of the
large and utility wind energy system ordinance. To date, he has not yet been served
with a copy of the complaint, although staff has secured from the Clerk's office a copy of
the complaint. What the complaint does is challenge the entire ordinance, not just the
noise provisions. A response is due within twenty -one days of receipt. Mr. Mahoney
advised he will defend the adoption of the ordinance on behalf of the County upon
receipt.
Chairman Church asked Mr. Mahoney as legal counsel if the Board were to
approve this reading, would it have any effect on the pending lawsuit. Mr. Mahoney
advised he did not think so in the sense that the ordinance as adopted by the Board in
September would still remain in effect. If the Board wanted to go forward with this
amendment and adopt the ordinance at first reading and then refer it back to the
Planning Commission as indicated, the Planning Commission would have ninety (90)
days to report back to the Board and then the Board would consider it again having
another round of notices and public hearings, which could well stretch out until
sometime in the spring of 2012. The arguments with respect to the pending lawsuit
would also be heard in March or April of 2012, so they will run parallel.
Supervisor Elswick stated obviously there are some people in one of our
rural areas that are very concerned about elements of the ordinance and if the Board
656 October 25, 2011
discusses further and went through the process of sending it back to the Planning
Commission and made revisions to the ordinance that satisfied the residents of the area
who initiated the lawsuit, it could very well mean the Board can save the taxpayers a lot
of money, if in fact residents were satisfied and dropped the lawsuit. There are a
number of things to consider as the Board decides whether or not to do this.
Supervisor Altizer stated in part of your notes, Mr. Mahoney it said if the
draft ordinance deletes the sixty (60) decibels standard in the adopted ordinance and if
the Board deletes this standard then it could replace it with a higher or lower standard or
in the alternative it could delete the noise standard in its entirety so that the Board could
establish a noise standard in any special use permit based upon any future application.
In any special use permit, whether the noise level is zero (0) or sixty (60), it can be
changed during the special use permit based on the application. Mr. Mahoney stated it
is his understanding and it was the staff recommendation to the Board that the Board
would look at any application and make a determination based upon the unique
circumstances of that application's location, its proximity to other neighboring properties
and then based upon that the Board would make a determination. Supervisor Altizer
inquired in simple terms, no matter what is in the ordinance it is always subject to
change up or down during a specific special use permit application. Mr. Mahoney
responded in the affirmative.
Chairman Church then asked Mr. Mahoney should a petitioner come
forward and possibly satisfy everything, can the Board still change, approve or deny that
application. Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative. Chairman Church then
reiterated there is nothing in the ordinance providing a stamp of approval to any pending
or potential application with Mr. Mahoney responding in the affirmative.
Chairman Church advised on September 13 he remembered
commenting that he was looking for a possible thirty -five (35) decibels. He has not
made a decision. Obviously, he does not think any Board member has up or down on
any potential or possible applicable because the Board will deal with that when it
comes. He stated he was under the impression and the feeling with the numerous
people that came before the Board, acoustical people, and engineers and there were
many, many people that stated when standing directly below at the base of the blades
that could not hear a sound. He added that in the research that he has done that is the
least opportune place to ever stand, directly below the blades. According to "so- called"
experts in the field you are going to hear the sound as it goes out through potential trees
and obstructions, etc. He stated with respect to Mr. Elswick, he has not seen any
inclination to change the ordinance; he is firmly of the belief that the Board will have to
look at any potential or possible application, if brought before the Board and weight it on
its owns merits as to site location, etc.
Supervisor Elswick stated the thing about the sixty (60) decibels is it is the
noise level more common around Route 419 traffic and in industrial areas. People who
live in rural areas are accustomed to extreme quiet conditions, which is why they live
there. He stated if the Board leaves the sixty (60) decibel allowable limit in the
October 25, 2011 657
ordinance he believes that it signals to anybody that is interested in Roanoke County
whether a developer, tourists or people that want to move here, the Board will take the
County's beautiful rural areas and convert them into industrial areas with industrial -type
noise. There was no further discussion.
Supervisor Elswick moved to approve the first reading. The motion was
denied by the following recorded vote and comments as indicated:
AYES: Supervisor Elswick
NAYS: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Church
Supervisor Moore commented she agreed with other Board members.
She thinks that Roanoke County staff, the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors have worked over two years on an ordinance that was adopted that she
feels was a fair ordinance and takes into consideration if someone in a more urban area
wants to put one windmill or wind turbine up, that ordinance allows them to do so.
Supervisor Altizer commented with all due respect to the gentleman from
Windsor Hills, on the comment that the ordinance sends a message that the Board does
not care about noise, or the quietness, he totally disagrees. He reiterated again this is
an ordinance that sets a base and a foundation from which to work; to say these are the
conditions that minimally or maximally should be in the special use permit. He added
his no vote is that nothing changes, the Board could change the wind ordinance to zero
(0) decibels or the Board could have put seventy -five (75) decibels, but it all does not
matter because it is an ordinance. When a petition comes, the approval or denial will
be done on its merits as to where it is located, etc. He stated he knows many citizens
from Bent Mountain know a lot about where the potential site is going to go or where it
is not going to go, he does not and does not think any Board member here knows; that
is why you have a special use permit process and a hearing when you have a specific
site. He added to send back to Planning Commission again accomplishes nothing
because even if something different came out of the Commission, their
recommendation, higher or lower, the fact still remains that when a petition does come it
is based on that petition on where it is, where it is located, where the houses are and
sixty (60) decibels may or may not be the right number depending on where the petition
comes from. He stated that is why he cannot support sending it back to the Planning
Commission.
Supervisor Flora commented he is voting no, not because he supports
windmills anywhere. This vote has no support for windmills; windmills have a place
because they are a way to produce energy. Further, that place might be on Bent
Mountain is merely up for question, but it does set at least a minimum standard and he
concurs with Supervisor Altizer, it is a guideline, it is not an ordinance that dictates how
anything is going to end up. If the people of Bent Mountain have assumed because of
the approval of this ordinance automatically approved windmills for Bent Mountain they
have made a horribly bad assumption.
658 October 25, 2011
Supervisor Elswick commented he agreed with what the other members
have said and he thinks though the Board can show citizens that the Board wants to get
as much information as it can and thoroughly discuss something that could have a
tremendous impact on a rural area. Additionally, he added if the ordinance is irrelevant
and a special use permit will really be what the Board decides what it is going do;
therefore, instead of putting sixty (60) decibels in the ordinance why not put zero (0).
3. 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.
Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the ordinance explaining Roanoke County has
never had a deadline and the changes are a result of amendment adopted by the
General Assembly. Mr. Mahoney further noted the deadlines will be printed on the
notice of assessments. There was no discussion. Chairman Church moved to approve
the first reading and scheduled the second reading and public hearing for November 15,
2011. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
1. Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors
The three -year term of Larry Cadd will expire on December 31, 2011. Tim
Steller, Executive Director of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare has requested the
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors ratify the reappointment of Mr. Cadd for his
second term, which will expire on December 31, 2014. Confirmation has been added to
the Consent Agenda.
2. Economic Development Authority
Supervisor Flora has reappointed Gregory Apostolou to represent the
Hollins Magisterial District for an additional four -year term. His new term will expire on
September 26, 2015. Confirmation has been added to the Consent Agenda.
Chairman Church has appointed Kirtesh Patel to represent the Catawba
Magisterial District for an additional four -year term which will expire on September 26,
2015. Confirmation has been added to the Consent Agenda.
October 25, 2011 659
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
Supervisor Flora requested that the request to approve the donation of a
Fire and Rescue ambulance to the County of Craig be pulled from the consent agenda
for separate vote.
RESOLUTION 102511 -1 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 October
25, 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 7 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes — September 27, 2011
2. Request to accept and appropriate a Walmart donation in the amount of
$1,000
3. Request to accept and appropriate funds in the amount of $8,986.50 to the
Sheriff's Office from the Bullet Proof Vest Partnership, approved under United
States Department of Justice
4. Resolution approving the Catawba Sustainability Center and Catawba
Greenway Memorandum of Understanding
5. Re quest to approve donation of Ciro and ReSG i� a m bu l a n TGe to the Count of
f`
6. Request acceptance of a grant administered by the U. S. Department of
Justice's Bulletproof Vest Partnership in the amount of $19,488
7. Confirmation of appointment to Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of
Directors; Economic Development Authority
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
A- 102511 -1.a
A- 102511 -1.b
660 October 25, 2011
RESOLUTION 102511 -1.c APPROVING CATAWBA
SUSTAINABILITY CENTER AND CATAWBA GREENWAY
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITH VIRGINIA TECH
WHEREAS, the essential pastoral nature of the Catawba community of Roanoke
County is anchored by a 377 acre farm now owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia
and formerly an important component of the Catawba Hospital (formerly Catawba
Sanitarium). This farm is now managed by the Office of Outreach and International
Affairs at Virginia Tech under the title of the Catawba Sustainability Center (CSC); and,
WHEREAS, the CSC is envisioned as a working farm producing an income
stream, services, training and special events in a community setting which will serve as
a model for productive, sustainable and self- supporting farm enterprises throughout
Virginia and the surrounding region; and
WHEREAS, the CSC has introduced several successful cooperative programs in
the Catawba community including the Farmers Market, the annual Celebrate Catawba
event and several gardening /farmers workshops with the participation and support of
Catawba community residents; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Administrator and its Departments of Economic
Development, Community Development and Parks, Recreation and Tourism have been
in negotiations with Virginia Tech officials to develop a partnership to support the
ongoing programs and growth of the CSC through County funding for its operational
support as well as with in -kind services; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Tech has agreed to grant Roanoke County a twenty -five
(25) year lease crossing a portion of the CSC in order to construct, maintain and
manage a trail connection between the Appalachian Trail (AT), the CSC and the
Catawba Community; this trail to be known as the "Blue Blaze Trail' with the objective to
bring AT hikers into the Catawba Community and to support the proposed hostel at the
CSC to be constructed by VirginiaTech.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows:
1. That the proposed Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) between the County of
Roanoke, Virginia and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech)
providing for funding and in -kind services to the Catawba Sustainability Center (CSC),
subject to future budget appropriations approved by the Board of Supervisors, is
approved on behalf of the County of Roanoke, Virginia.
2. That the County Administrator, or his designee, is authorized to execute the
proposed Memorandum of Agreement with Virginia Tech, all upon such form as may be
approved by the County Attorney. This resolution shall be effective as of the date of its
adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
October 25, 2011 661
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
A- 102511 -1.d
5. Request to approve donation of Fire and Rescue ambulance to
the County of Craig
A- 102511 -2
There was no discussion. Supervisor Moore moved to approve the staff
recommendation which was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Supervisor Flora
IN RE: REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS
Supervisor Elswick requested a work session be held to review the work of
RCCLEAR and to bring the Board up to date as to what projects are pending and to
discuss whether it is to our advantage to remain with ICLEI.
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Erie Ragland stated he is from Natural Bridge, Virginia and is a former
resident of Arlington County, former President of the Boston Civic Association. Mr.
Ragland advised he is a retired federal auditor and also a Certified Internal Auditor and
recipient of the Journal Cup Award and the Patrick Henry Award by Governor Gilmore in
September of 2001. He stated the reason that he is here today is to bring to the
Board's attention several legislative initiatives that were brought forward to the General
Assembly in 2011 and were passed by indefinitely. The first one concerns the proposed
house joint resolution to study the feasibility of establishing a state -owned bank,
comparable to the State Bank of North Dakota, which has been a successful bank in
that state since 1919 and provides local services, financial services to small business
and farmers and has been very successful over the years. A proposed study went
forward, but did not move out of committee during the past two general assemblies and
he is providing the Board documentation, a three -page analysis of the proposal for the
Board's consideration later including a number of details. Also, he stated he would like
to bring the Board's attention to the proposed Virginia Urban Development Area
Legislative Initiative. This bill was House Bill 17 -21 and it passed the House, 61 to 38
and unfortunately the State Senate, controlled by the Democratic Party would not allow
662 October 25, 2011
this bill to go on the floor for a full vote by the Senate. This bill would allow jurisdictions
to do unlike Arlington County, an urban county from where he is from, which has
adopted this urban development area authority which is consistent with UN Agenda 21.
He stated he believes this makes perfect sense for Northern Virginia, but is not for rural
counties in Southwest Virginia and he suggested this may be made flexible and
dependent upon each county or Board of Supervisors. Also, he advised that he was
brining to the attention of the Board another bill, House Bill 13 -97 that bill provides for
exempting the State from proposed federal cap and trade legislation. This bill was
passed 68 to 30 in the House, but was not allowed to be voted upon in the full Senate.
He advised he is suggesting if we have approved federal and cap trade legislation later,
there would be new standards for housing, and residential homes from where he is from
in Arlington County most homes are on average over fifty years of age. To retrofit those
houses would be very costly and not cost effective and what this proposed federal
legislation is attempting to do, which was passed by the House of Representatives in
2009, would change the rules of the game and provide for certification requirement and
you would have to make certain improvements and what this bill does is exempt the
State from that federal cap and trade mandate. Lastly, he recommends that the Board
of Supervisors not go forward or withdraw from ICLEI, an organization that is related to
Agenda 21 and he believes that it undermines private property rights, promotes
increased control by government and is not a good thing for leaving the existing rural
counties and potentially changing that whole structure and he thinks the Board needs to
withdraw from that concept altogether or at least consider it.
Sandra Bradley of 3244 Pineland Avenue, SW in Roanoke, Virginia and is
not one of Roanoke County constituents, but is right on the border. She advised she is
here for her grandchildren. She stated many of the decisions the Board makes not only
effect me, but future generations. She advised she knows the Board is human and
make mistakes, but would like to point out that many mistakes can be corrected and it is
the Board's job to correct them when they see them. So, she stated she would like to
make the point that this Board has seemingly bought into the idea of the man -made
global warming theory as a fact and has allowed an outside group to influence the
County policy based on that theory that outside group is ICLEI and that is a mistake the
Board can easily correct. She stated the Board has elected to make decisions for the
betterment of the County residents and she cannot see where promoting an unproven
theory is in the best interests of Roanoke County residents and certainly does not see
any sense in paying some outsider $1,200 a year to help. It should be an easy decision
for the Board to make.
Eldon Karr of 8011 Poor Mountain Road in Roanoke Virginia stated on
Bent Mountain, we are pleased that you have given time to reconsider the minimum
decibel readings permitted at a non - participating property line. We remain, however,
disappointed and disillusioned by the process you engaged in to adopt the large and
utility scale wind turbine amendment to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. The
minimum setback requirements the Board has put into place will not sufficiently protect
October 25, 2011 663
neighboring property owners in any site -based application of the ordinance in Roanoke
County. The decommissioning section of the amendment is very weak in its protection
of Roanoke County's interests. The amendment you have adopted allows for financial
protection for the County in the form of letters of credit and corporate guarantees or
promises. The amendment itself clearly accommodates the taking of land from adjacent
property owners with the inadequate distance of one thousand (1,000) feet from an
occupied dwelling. We must continue to respectfully ask that you revisit the entire
amendment and revise the manner in which in which you would revise it for this highly
complex and technical land use. This is not a land use in the Blue Ridge of Virginia that
should ever be judged solely on the basis of uninformed public opinion. Regretfully, our
government on all levels has become corrupted by financial greed and media
manipulation. A recent example can be found in a recent article regarding a Roanoke
County personnel issue that is being inappropriately used as a political manipulation.
He has provided copies to the Board for their consideration some excerpts from
"Politicians Don't Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic
Responsiveness (Studies in Communication, Media and Public Opinion) by Lawrence
R. Jacks and Robert Y Shapiro. He would appreciate if the Board could read these
excerpts and consider those elements. He advised citizens are looking for statesmen
not politicians and further he added a comment in regard to the minimum standards that
have been set forth. Although the Board has a special use permit process, the Board
does establish these minimum standards and they should apply in every area of the
County and if it has taken two years for staff, the Planning Commission and this Board
to come up with what appears to be a lack of understanding of what the minimums
actually should be. He stated he thinks the Board still has a lot of work to do and he
does not think the special use permit process will allow you the extra time to educate
yourselves. Please reconsider the amendment.
Roberta Bondurant of 11577 Bottom Creek Road in Bent Mountain,
Virginia stated she would like to follow -up on Mr. Karr's comments. She stated she
appreciates efforts to reach consensus with the group at the last hearing in deciding on
the ordinance provisions. She stated she appreciated that the Board found that
provisions with regard to the sound as something that you might reach consensus. She
advised she is sorry the Board did not reach that. She stated she would like to follow -
up what Mr. Karr said and address what Ms. Moore states is a fair ordinance. She
respectfully objects to that, it is not fair and she advised it is not fair because the Board
has been called upon to set minimum standards. This is a "go -by" and this is a
standard a community in the Blue Ridge Mountains and for all of your communities; Ft.
Mason, Windy Gap Mountain, Catawba, Read Mountain, Poor Mountain and Bent
Mountain and each has citizens to answer to who live there. So, with regard to sound
and distance when you are adding provisions or writing provisions, they are exactly
what the wind industry asked for. The Board is placing the burden in that ordinance and
she advised she knows Mr. Mahoney knows where she is coming from, you are placing
the burden on the community members to challenge that and that is what they have
664 October 25, 2011
done. Why would you not take this softball and go with it. She advised her sense is
that Mr. Mahoney could guide, her sense is that Mr. Church is interested in what Mr.
Elswick proposed and she genuinely appreciates his being here on her behalf. Mr.
Elswick got up and walked out and is symbolic of the sense that the people of Bent
Mountain have. But Mr. Flora and Mr. Altizer have been disingenuous in asserting that
"we don't even know there is even going to be an application." Chairman Church
reminded Ms. Bondurant not to name names and direct all comments to the Chair. Ms.
Bondurant continued by stating the Board has suggested they do not know there will be
an application; you know there will be an application. This company has been in the
neighborhood for over five (5) years. First, with the proposal for fifty (50) and now with
a proposal for eighteen (18). Please seriously consider that. With that again, she
asked the Board in the context of the Board's own rules of order, can you please
reconsider Mr. Elswick's request today and bring it back to the Planning Commission at
least on the matter regarding sound.
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 September 30, 2011
5. Proclamations signed by the Chairman
6. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of
September 30, 2011
7. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of September 30, 2011
8. Accounts Paid — September 2011
October 25, 2011 665
9. Quarterly Report — Community Development Activities
10. Report of Claims Activity for the Self- Insurance Program
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
At 4:10 p.m. Chairman Church recessed to the fourth floor for work
session.
1. Work session to provide the Board of Supervisors with training as
part of the Roanoke County Emergency Operating Plan (Joey
Stump, Division Chief, Fire and Rescue)
The work session was held from 4:30 p.m. until 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Stump reviewed a PowerPoint presentation with the Board members
to go over the draft emergency operating plan and provide the necessary training
required by the plan. A copy of this PowerPoint presentation is on file in the office to the
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. It was the consensus of the Board to bring this item
to the next Board Meeting on November 15, 2011.
At 7:00 p.m., Chairman Church called the evening session to order.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
1. Resolution requesting the Commonwealth Transportation Board
establish an enhancement project for Plantation Road in Roanoke
County, Virginia (Megan G. Cronise, Principal Planner)
Ms. Cronise outlined the resolution. The following citizen spoke.
Wendy Jones advised she is the Executive Director of the Williamson
Road Business Association located at 4804 Williamson Road. She current resides in
Fincastle. She advised she is here to express the Williamson Road Business
Association's Board's unanimous support of this project; not only are they interested in
making the safety a number one priority in such a densely populated area with the
sidewalks in the area, but they are so in tune with this project that they have partnered
with Friendship Manor to actually achieve the landscaping at the corner of Williamson
and Plantation next spring. Accordingly that part of the project will be accomplished for
the County. She stated this is a very important project; they believe it is going to bring
the safety to the area that greatly needs it. (if you ever watch any of those people cross
the road, it is scary.) She further stated the Association supports this project one
hundred percent (100 %.)
666 October 25, 2011
Supervisor Flora stated this has been tried before, but staff would like to
submit again to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and hopefully receive
funding for it. If traveling from the north, it is the first entrance into the valley and to
Roanoke County. It really does need a bit of improvement. There are a lot of
employees along that stretch and for those you do not want to get out and drive their car
a quarter of a mile down the road at least they could walk to the restaurants.
Supervisor Moore and Supervisor Elswick both expressed their support for
this project. There was no further discussion.
RESOLUTION 102511 -3 REQUESTING THE COMMONWEALTH
TRANSPORTATION BOARD ESTABLISH AN ENHANCEMENT
PROJECT FOR PLANTATION ROAD IN ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Commonwealth Transportation Board
construction allocation procedures, it is necessary that a request by resolution be
received from the local government or state agency in order that the Virginia
Department of Transportation program an enhancement project in Roanoke County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors requests the Commonwealth Transportation Board to establish a project for
the improvement of Plantation Road in the form of pedestrian and bicycle
accommodations as well as streetscape improvements.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
hereby agrees to provide a minimum twenty percent (20 %) of the total cost for planning
and design, right of way and construction of this project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
hereby agrees to enter into an agreement with the Virginia Department of
Transportation to provide oversight that ensures the project is developed in accordance
with all state and federal requirements for design, right of way acquisition, and
construction of a federally funded transportation project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will
be responsible for maintenance, upkeep and operating costs of any facility constructed
with Enhancement Program funds.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT if the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
subsequently elects to cancel this project the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
hereby agrees to reimburse the Virginia Department of Transportation for the total
amount of costs expended by the Department through the date the Department is
notified of such cancellation. The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors also agrees to
repay any funds previously reimbursed that are later deemed ineligible by the Federal
Highway Administration.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
October 25, 2011 667
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
2. Resolution approving the allocation of revenue sharing funds for
fiscal year 2012 -2013 (David Holladay, Planning Administrator)
Mr. Holladay explained the resolution. Mr. Goodman outlined that any
matching funds have not yet been appropriated. There was no discussion and no
citizens spoke on this item.
RESOLUTION 102511 -4 REQUESTING APPROVAL AND
ADOPTION OF THE REVENUE SHARING PROJECTS AND
FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 -2013
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors at work sessions on September 27, 2011,
and October 11, 2011, reviewed the projects identified in Roanoke County Revenue
Sharing Program for Fiscal Year 2012 -2013; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors desires to submit an application for an
allocation of funds of up to $500,000 through the Virginia Department of Transportation
Fiscal Year 2012 -2013, Revenue Sharing Program; and
WHEREAS, $500,000 of these funds are requested to fund the projects identified
in Roanoke County Revenue Sharing Program for Fiscal Year 2012 -2013.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors hereby approves the Revenue Sharing Project list for Fiscal Year 2012-
2013 and supports this application for an allocation of $500,000 through the Virginia
Department of Transportation Revenue Sharing Program.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator is authorized to
sign the Letter of Intent and defer appropriation of the funds ($500,000) until July 1,
2012.
On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
668 October 25, 2011
3. Request to apply for a fiscal year 2012 -2013 Virginia Department
of Transportation (VDOT) Transportation Enhancement Grant for
the Eastern Section of the Roanoke River Greenway - Roanoke
City to Blue Ridge Parkway (Lindsay Blankenship, Greenway
Planner)
Ms. Blankenship explained the request. Supervisor Altizer stated as it
relates to East County, this is pretty much getting into the final design up to Explore
Park, at least the entrance there. It is the greenway along the Roanoke River from
Wasena all the way across to the treatment plant and is heavily used now and he is
sure will be used even more once this design is complete. He advised the County has a
long way to go, but have a little over one half of a million dollars, which leaves $4 million
to receive grants for through the years to get this done. It will be a great asset along the
river all the way until you get to the Parkway bridge. He certainly supports this grant
and the $75,000 match will be used a lot from what he understands from donations of
land and right -of -ways and will go toward the County match of $75,000. There were no
citizens to speak on this agenda item. There was no further discussion.
RESOLUTION 102511 -5 OF SUPPORT TO SUBMIT A GRANT
APPLICATION TO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 -2013
TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM TO HELP
FINANCE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EASTERN SECTION
OF THE ROANOKE RIVER GREENWAY PROPOSED BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ROANOKE AND THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY IN
THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, in accordance with Commonwealth Transportation Board
construction allocation procedures, it is necessary that a request by resolution be
received from the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County in order that the Virginia
Department of Transportation program an enhancement project in Roanoke County,
and
WHEREAS, the 2007 update to the Roanoke Valley Conceptual Greenway Plan,
adopted by Roanoke County, recommends that focus be placed on completing the
Roanoke River Greenway in the next five years, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, requests the Commonwealth Transportation Board to program a
project for the development and construction of approximately 2.7 miles of the Eastern
Section of the Roanoke River Greenway between the City of Roanoke and the Blue
Ridge Parkway.
October 25, 2011 669
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the total project costs associated with the first
phase of the project (which will address project design, engineering and permitting, and
private land acquisition along the proposed greenway corridor) are estimated to be
$904,275. Roanoke County is requesting grant funding in the amount of $302,420,
which is eighty percent (80 %) of the total unfunded cost of the first phase of this project.
Roanoke County hereby agrees to pay matching funds of $75,605, which is twenty
percent (20 %) percent of the total unfunded cost of the first phase of this project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if Roanoke County subsequently elects to
cancel this project the County hereby agrees to reimburse the Virginia Department of
Transportation for the total amount of costs, expended by the Department through the
date the Department is notified of such cancellation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Roanoke County will be responsible for
maintenance, upkeep and operating costs of any facility constructed with Enhancement
Program funds.
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
4. Resolution approving the Roanoke Valley Alleghany Regional
Commission (RVARC) Regional Water Supply Plan (David
Holladay, Planning Administrator)
Mr. Holladay explained the resolution and advised Mr. Gary Robertson,
Executive Director, Water Operations with the Western Virginia Water Authority was in
attendance to answer any questions. There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 102511 -6 APPROVING THE ROANOKE VALLEY
ALLEGHANY REGIONAL COMMISSION (RVARC) REGIONAL
WATER SUPPLY PLAN
WHEREAS, Virginia State Water Control Board Regulation 9 VAC 25 -780, Local
and Regional Water Supply Planning, requires all counties, cities and towns in the
Commonwealth of Virginia to prepare and submit a water supply plan to the Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ); and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County is a participant in the Roanoke Valley Alleghany
Regional Commission (RVARC) Regional Water Supply Planning Group as reported to
DEQ by letter before the November 2, 2008, deadline; and
WHEREAS, on October 25, 2011, Roanoke County held a public hearing to
accept public comment on the Regional Water Supply Plan; and
WHEREAS, the adopted Regional Water Supply Plan will be submitted to the
DEQ on or before November 2, 2011.
670 October 25, 2011
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby adopts the RVARC Regional Water Supply Plan as it
pertains to Roanoke County. Approval and adoption of this regional plan indicates
support for and general agreement with the regional planning approach, but does not
indicate approval or disapproval of conclusions and recommendations presented in the
plan as they pertain to other localities. Roanoke County reserves the right to comment
on specific water supply alternatives in the future even though such alternatives may be
recommended in this adopted plan. Roanoke County will not be limited to specific water
supply alternatives in this adopted plan and reserves the right to recommend additional
alternatives for consideration in the future.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County
intends that the Regional Water Supply Plan shall be revised to reflect changes in
relevant data at least once every five years and resubmitted to DEQ every ten (10)
years in accordance with the regulation and sound planning practice.
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
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 November 15, 2011.
2. The petition of Skyway Towers to obtain a special use permit for a
broadcasting tower (199') in an AG -3 district on 17.12 acres,
located at 3557 Jae Valley Road, Vinton Magisterial District (Philip
Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the petition and explained this tower has the
potential to be highly visible from the Blue Ridge Parkway and is not consistent with the
Mt. Pleasant Community plan due to this visibility factor. A community meeting was
held on September 22, 2011, at Mt. Pleasant Elementary School and there were
nineteen (19) citizens in attendance. Their concerns centered on how the broadcasting
tower fits within the communication system of AT &T; how the site was selected and the
October 25, 2011 671
impact it may have on property values. The Planning Commission held a public hearing
on October 4, 2011; there was one citizen who spoke on the petition inquiring about the
amount of radiation from the tower and its potential impact on surrounding property
values. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
request with two conditions. One correction needs to be made to the resolution; the
date of the letter should be changed to October 7, 2011.
Lindsay Ritter with Skyway Towers was in attendance to answer any
questions and advised Skyway will comply with all the conditions of the Blue Ridge
Parkway.
Supervisor Altizer advised this Board had approved a special use permit
four to five years ago, which was right next to the Franklin County line. He inquired if
that tower in any way fits; is capacity there for AT &T on that pole with Ms. Ritter
responding there are existing towers in the County that AT &T will be utilizing for co-
locations. The site that Skyway will be building for AT &T is in a location where there are
no other co- location opportunities. She added without knowing the exact location of the
tower, she is unable to determine if it is in the network. Supervisor Altizer responded it
is the one all the way at the top of Windy Gap Mountain probably two to two and 1 /
miles away from Franklin County. Ms. Ritter responded if it is two and '/ miles away, it
is probably a connecting site and in this type of terrain the towers are typically one and
3 / to two miles apart. Supervisor Altizer then asked Ms. Ritter to explain to him why it is
important to have the cell tower at this location. Ms. Ritter explained the AT &T
engineers who design the network produce the propagation maps and take the AT &T
sites that are on -air and show coverage and where coverage is weak; along Jae Valley
Road AT &T is lacking coverage. Accordingly, the AT &T engineers hired Skyway
Towers to do the property and zoning research to build a site. It is never the carrier's
first option to have a tower built if there is a co- location opportunity. Supervisor Altizer
asked Ms. Ritter if they were able to co- locate four other companies with Ms. Ritter
responding in the affirmative; a total of five carriers. Supervisor Altizer then stated the
location of this tower sits actually down below the level of the road from the property;
with Ms. Ritter responding in the affirmative and stated from the road there is an existing
driveway entrance and the driveway will go up the hill and just right over the hill.
Supervisor Altizer reiterated if he understands the drawings Skyway will go down below
that level that embankment that does up and over and is not sitting right level on the
road and going up. Ms. Ritter stated Supervisor Altizer was correct; there is a patch of
trees that almost make a U shape and the tower will be located in the center of those
trees.
No citizens spoke on this matter. There was no further discussion.
ORDINANCE 102511 -7 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
FOR A BROADCASTING TOWER IN AN AG -3 DISTRICT ON
17.12 ACRES LOCATED AT 3557 JAE VALLEY ROAD (TAX
MAP NOS. 89.00 -02 -06.00 AND 89.00 -02 -7.00) VINTON
672 October 25, 2011
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON THE PETITION OF SKYWAY
TOWERS
WHEREAS, Skyway Towers has filed a petition for a special use permit for an
approximately 199 -foot broadcasting tower in an AG -3, Agricultural /Rural Preserve,
District on 17.12 acres located at 3557 Jae Valley Road (Tax Map Nos. 89.00 -02 -06.00
and 89.00 -02 -7.00) in the Vinton Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
October 4, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on September 27, 2011; the second reading and public hearing
on this matter was held on October 25, 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 Skyway
Towers for an approximately 199 -foot broadcasting tower in an AG -3, Agricultural /Rural
Preserve, District on 17.12 acres located at 3557 Jae Valley Road (Tax Map Nos.
89.00 -02 -06.00 and 89.00 -02 -7.00) in the Vinton 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 the site plan prepared
by Morrison Hershfield, dated June 13, 2011
b) The broadcasting tower shall comply with the recommendations of the
National Park Service /Blue Ridge Parkway as indicated in the formal
correspondence from Philip A. Francis, Jr., Superintendent, dated October
7, 2011
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 Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Flora, Elswick, Church
NAYS: None
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
October 25, 2011 673
The following citizens spoke:
Mr. Noah Tickle of 1603 Frost Lane in Salem, Virginia stated he has been
a Roanoke County resident since 1956. He asked is it any wonder that our Board of
Supervisors struggle under governance? That's why he is now encouraging all
residents to be involved at Board of Supervisor meetings. It seems it would be like atlas
holding up the world considering there are lobbyist and "NGOs" coming at them from
every direction. The same is happening at the state and federal levels. These "NGO's"
non - government organizations" all attempt to hijack governance; shove elected
representatives aside to have their way with "we the people." In their writings "and" self -
constructed, high moral playground ICLEI speaks of "their" governance when indicating
governments as if, "all" governments are theirs to use. It is "unbelievable ", the
arrogance of thought that elected representatives are their puppets. In a very recent
article by one of their officials" a German" whines about ICLEI being labeled as an
"NGO" and how it makes ICLEI sound, "so bad." The fact that he mentions that "says a
lot." He writes an entire lengthy article about how he wants ICLEI relabeled as an
"LGO ", "local government organization ". He did not mention a recent label of theirs
"sustainable development," because everyone uses ICLEI... That's what's happening
with ICLEI." twisting and turning and trying to better groom themselves ", putting on
more sugar coating ", when one reads their stuff', it is as plain as the nose on one's
face, it comes in a cloud of CO2 /global warming , chicken little the sky is falling" to
"eliminate" living the American dream "; no private home "; no private land; all to institute
a socialist government in America as it exists in European communities and other parts
of the world. ICLEI, "the new Trojan horse ", do not be deceived folks, "it is real ". The
"United Nations" "NGOs" are real; approximately 44,000 NGOs worldwide." Russia has
near one million ", India has over three million. They are lobbyists out to govern in the
place of "our elected representatives ", hijacking governments ", and "for real they are
doing just that already. We do not like lobbyists; ICLEI is just that. Their intent ", in
effect ", is to destroy our liberty. Let's eliminate ICLEI now. ICLEI must go.
Ms. Linda LaPradd from Will Carter Lane in the Cave Spring district stated
once again she asked the Board to sever ties with ICLEI. We have given you many
reasons and shown what is really in these plans if you take the time to research them.
ICLEI mandates are totally based on global warming which is, at best, an unproven
theory and at worst data manipulation to achieve the goals this organization wants. Dr.
Stephen Schneider who led many of the IPCC (ICLEI) reports on global warming states:
"We have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and
make little mention of any doubts." Timothy Worth of the UN Foundation stated, "We've
got to ride the global warming theory, even if it is wrong." Proponents of ICLEI state that
it only provides software and information. It does. It provides software and ALL
information to support their goals, and this information is not impartial or well
investigated and no facts that do not fit their ideas are allowed. The "mandates" they
674 October 25, 2011
request are the same for Roanoke County, New York City, Paris, or any city who buys
into their view of what our world should be like. By signing a membership, you agreed to
follow their mandates, and we are following them. Now I have some questions for you,
and I would like each of you to fully think about how you would answer them. 1) Did you
research both sides of the "global warming theory" or simply accept what you were told
by someone who presented to you the information ICLEI provided to them? 2) When
you signed the membership, did you read it fully and understand that you agreed to
follow their "mandates "? They have five now. Look at RCCLEAR's goals and you will
see them. In 2012, there will be a convention and 81 mandates will be presented. Are
you prepared to blindly accept these? As a member, you automatically agree to them.
3) Did you fully read ICLEI's own website and the sites it references and realize the
impact this could have on rural areas since they recommend funding and resource
allocation to "cluster cities" and "villages" at the expense of rural living? In wanting to
preserve the environment for future generations, as we all do, did you look deeper into
the meanings this could have for residents of Roanoke County, especially those who
like rural living? 4) Do you believe that the same goals are right for every city worldwide
who chooses to be a member? Do you see us with the same environmental needs as a
large metropolitan area? 5) Do you intend to allow an international NGO to dictate
Roanoke County's environmental policy? In her opinion if you, personally, answer no to
any of these questions, you have only one choice: sever ties with ICLEI now.
Bill Gregory of 3312 Pamlico Drive in Roanoke and has been resident for
19 years. At the last Board of Supervisors Meeting, he requested information on how
future land use designations found in the County's current comprehensive plan were
arrived at. Designations such as rural village, village center that have a distinct,
collectivist feel to them have been around for quite a while in Roanoke County's
comprehensive plan. He received a CD entitled the 1985 Community Plan. He stated
he read through this plan and noticed the future land use terms likely came from the
American Planning Association's EPA Guidebook entitled, "The Language of Zoning,
Glossary, Awards and Freesas." The EPA and ICLEI go back as partners and allies in
the sustainability development agenda. Both are heavily dipped in the social justice
component of land development. Why must there be a social justice component to land
use planning; sounds sort of socialist to him. He stated he has a copy of a presentation
that someone from the EPA did entitled, "Public Participation and Social Justice," which
also mean social justice icons like Saul Ilensky are mentioned in the presentation as
pioneers of citizen participation and advocacy planning. A quote in the presentation
from Norman Crumholtz, "With the AAIP ethics as a guide, we deemphasize many of
our concerns with the zoning land use and urban design to alter the traditional posture
of the planner as an apolitical technician serving a unitary public interest instead we
devoted ourselves to providing more choices to those who have few if any choices.
Carol Willoughby of 6130 Hidden Valley Drive in Roanoke, Virginia stated
she is here representing herself and her views and no other person or organization
October 25, 2011 675
asked me to come here. She stated no one knows that she is going to say except her
service dog Midas and he is not telling. She stated she is here today because she feels
that an injustice has been done to someone that she cares greatly about, that person is
our Chairman, Mr. "Joe Butch" Church, she stated she felt like someone needed to
come and speak up and present a different point of view than was portrayed in the
Roanoke Times in the Sunday front -page article this past weekend. I found it very
disappointing. She stated she would also like to say she has a wonderful history with
the Times, appreciated them greatly and would not be here today and would not have
been able to found the St. Francis Service Dogs or many other accomplishments over
the years without the positive support that she received from Roanoke Times or other
media. I understand the great influence such an institution can have on our citizens.
She advised she benefited greatly and as a result, many other people have benefitted
greatly. She also understands at times it is necessary to have articles that are not so
pleasant to read and she expects balanced, fair journalism. The article that appeared
on Sunday is simply not true, it was not fair, and she is not sure how it slipped by and
got onto the front page. She noted she believes that investigative reporting should be
investigated by the Roanoke Times, but that is their business and that is their problem,
not mine. Her problem is if this type of reporting continues as a citizen who cares about
her community and wants honest reporting on what is going on, do I want to continue to
read Roanoke Times and read such unfair allegations and outright untruths presented in
a way that is in her opinion, destined to cast people in a very negative light and this
happens to have happened to a gentlemen running for reelection two weeks prior to the
election. Not to say that the employment situation that came to light in this article was
nothing new; occurred over a year ago and it is not the first time it has come up. It
came up in June of this past year by Mr. Church's opponent, Mr. Turner, whose name
she would not even want to bring up, except there is another opponent and she
certainly does not want to say anything about him. So, for what reason, perhaps the
Supervisors know the reason and that it was brought up in June and is just now coming
to light two weeks before an election. She stated she is just an ordinary citizen looking
at this and asking questions. She stated she knows it is unfair and she knows if she
was reading the paper with her past experience with the Roanoke Times being so
positive and she did not personally know the people and understand that the person
being written about is one of the most honest men that she has ever met, of the highest
integrity. There are a lot of people who know this, but the fact that anyone would read
this and not know it and think another politician. What is happening in our Roanoke
County? I have never seen anything like this before. It seems that what is happening in
this country, what is happening in Washington, DC unfortunately is filtering down to her
hometown that she has loved and lived in, raised her sons and she is extremely
saddened by it. She further advised she just wanted to make that point and ask anyone
listening to reevaluate anything they might have thought in reading that article and she
does hope that people will look into it further, because this is simply not right.
Kirtesh Patel of 2126 River Oaks Drive in Salem, Virginia stated he has
676 October 25, 2011
been a resident of Salem for a long time now. He advised he has a couple of things
that he would like to ask the Board. He asked all the gentlemen and lady to work on
creating some more jobs and encouraging small business. At the time, as a couple of
ladies and gentlemen spoke, he thinks the Board should be careful signing anything
about the environment because one key does not fit all the locks and hopefully the
Board will fit our community and create jobs so there is less unemployment. Another
thing he would like to say is he would like to commend the Board for doing a great job
on balancing the budget, job creation, a school system and not firing any teachers. Also
regarding the unfair article to Mr. Butch Church, he asks the Board to be positive, run
your course of campaign and do not get into dirty politics. People know your records,
they have seen you working, a lot of the community has seen you working, and he has
seen the Board members coming to the Small Business honors with Mr. Clay Goodman
and work nights and weekends to help do whatever it takes to build a community. So,
there is nothing he can do as a citizen to the Roanoke Times, as I am not sure it is fair
or not as that is a different story. The main thing is that Chairman Church stays the
course and does what is right. We really need people like you to run the County at least
at this time so he hopes that citizens understand something in the Roanoke Times is not
based on the entire county and everyone sees your past records and the promises you
made and the promises you make.
Roy Thomas of 19 Windsor Avenue in Roanoke, Virginia and has been a
lifelong resident of Roanoke; grew up on the mighty banks of Peters Creek, attended
Southview High School and graduated from Northside High School in 1965. He stated
he is proud of this valley and wants to see it continue to be the best place to live that he
has ever seen. He commended the Board for their service and thanked them, he has
his own political views which might not and probably not agree with your views but
would like to voice his views anyway. He is here today to voice his concern and distain
for the organization ICLEI. He stated he worked 33 years for a large multibillion dollar
corporation and propose a disclaimer for that corporation right now and to a situation in
the City that he worked for with that corporation and encountered his first encounter with
ICLEI, several years ago as he has been retired for five years. There was a national
disaster in this County and he was dispatched to a large, southern city where a
hurricane completely decimated the largest oil terminal in the United States. There are
five major railroads that terminate in that city. The city was out of business for years.
His job was to protect our interest there and help get our company back up and running;
we were the first to get back up and running. He had to provide housing for all of our
employees; we put temporary housing on our property and in the meantime, we made
an attempt to put house trailers in this area. We ran into withering opposition from the
local government through building zones, codes and ordinance and for the first time in
his life heard word in the background "sustainable," "21". This area had not yet adopted
these programs but they were following their guidelines anyway. They would not let us
temporarily put house trailers for any residents of that time. His company was
responsible for moving probably three or four thousand house trailers to this area. They
October 25, 2011 677
sat in a field and rotted because the local government would not let us install them. Be
real careful about overreaching, intrusive local government. In your relationship with
ICLEI, he sees and understands that the Board has concerns about global warming.
His issue is not whether it is man -made, cyclical or whatever the cause. The science is
not finished on that subject. He submits an article to the Board from NASA. It seems
like creation and the heavens opened up and let most of the global warming go, it looks
like creation trumps science again. It always does. Please read the article and make
your decisions in the future with jobs in mind.
Paul Maki of 3812 Praline Place in Bonsack stated he was here to talk
about ICLEI as well. He stated he came to Roanoke eight and 1 / years ago from San
Diego and Roanoke is a lovely place, he advised he likes the ruralness, it seems to be
open and is run well, the Board has done a good job. He advised he is concerned as
well and the Board needs to look a little deeper into this; and not follow a lot of these
programs because what he has read about Agenda 21 scares him and does not want to
go in that direction. He further commented he would like to encourage the Board to
keep Roanoke a beautiful city and not ruin it; keep all of this in mind.
Max Beyer of 2402 Coachman Drive in Roanoke, Virginia stated he had
not intended to speak this evening but with two people using this platform for political
statements and must rise in protest. He does not agree with what the Roanoke Times
says very often, but he does not come to this Board to rectify them or to challenge them
or do anything else. It has no place at this platform. He commented he does not think
Mr. Patel and Mrs. Willoughby's comments should have been entertained by the Board
and he just thinks that political statements should not be made especially in a campaign
at this platform. He knows the Chairman and the Board are very lenient and he
certainly respects that in addressing citizen's issues but he thinks it is wrong for the
Board to allow people to stand at this platform and comment on political matters in a
political campaign.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Moore thanked VDOT for installing the turn lanes on Rt. 220 at
Back Creek Road; that will help save a lot of lives. Supervisor Moore then invited
everyone listening and everyone in the audience to attend the second annual Veterans
Day parade in downtown Roanoke City on November 5, 2011, at 11:00 a.m. Please
come and help honor our veterans.
Supervisor Altizer stated he did not have any comments.
Supervisor Flora advised Mr. Goodman that he had brought this before
this Board approximately ten years ago and it did not go anywhere with the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT), but there is a traffic signal at the intersection of
Florist and Williamson Road that is tied in sequence with the traffic signal at Williamson
Road and Brookside. One of the cycles has red in every direction for a whole cycle; he
would like have VDOT take a look at. At least traffic should move somewhere during
678 October 25, 2011
that period of time because it stops the traffic on Williamson and Florist and no one can
go anywhere. VDOT should take a look and see if it can be changed to at least allow
some left turn off Williamson Road or Florist. Mr. Goodman advised he would consult
with VDOT and advise.
Supervisor Elswick stated he has a subject that needs to be addressed
because it could happen to any Board Member and he does not consider it to be a
political thing at all. The feature article in last Sunday's Roanoke Times was about
Chairman Butch Church and his approach to the responsibilities of the Chairman and
the termination of the Clerk to the Board. It was not a paper's endorsement or non -
endorsement of anybody, but simply what appeared to be a slam against Mr. Butch. He
advised he did not think any of the Board should be subject to that and that is why he is
commenting tonight. Chairman Church is portrayed as being overly involved in County
business. He should be applauded for that; citizens benefit from his involvement. It is
our job to the extent that the Board has time, most of the Board gets involved, and it is
what people expect us to do. Butch's approach is very enthusiastic; some might think
that is aggressive, but he has learned that it is simply because he loves the job and
wants to be involved; he really enjoys what he does. Supervisor Elswick stated he has
been pleased with a number of recent articles in the paper where they interview people;
common, everyday citizens and they tell us what they do and keeps everyone informed
about the area and thinks it is a good direction to go. He thinks that can encourage and
increase paper circulation, which he has heard is a problem. Certainly, political
endorsements are the prerogative of any publication; all of them do so and they are
entitled to do so. But, this story about Mr. Church and the Clerk to the Supervisors is an
insidious, tabloid -type way to influence readers. It is old news and bringing it up two
weeks before the election shows the true intent of the paper. He has suggested to the
management of the Roanoke Times that future articles include both positive and
negative comments from those interviewed. He also suggested that if you really want to
know who the Board is, ask our neighbors; you don't have to go dreaming things up and
showing one -sided opinions. Much of the article is also about Chairman Church and the
terminated Clerk to the Board. Inferences that Mr. Church had a personal vendetta to
remove her from the position were made. She was removed by consensus of the Board
because she was not doing the job. During her tenure Board meeting minutes were up
to a year in arrears, a year behind. The new appointed Clerk worked long hours on her
own time and the minutes were current within a month after her appointment and there
were three people working in the Clerk's office. Taxpayers should know that there is
only one person working in the Clerk's office now so the Board saved two positions and
did not spend $50,000 on new software to help keep the minutes up -to -date. There can
only be one reason for this article and is purely political; to him it is disgraceful that our
paper would allow this to happen unless of course all of the Board was subjected to the
same scrutiny; to single out one member for a negative article is prejudiced and
irresponsible. Finally, Supervisor Elswick reminded everyone that the 419 Library will
be closing December 16 and the South County Library will open on January 3, 2011.
October 25, 2011 679
Chairman Church then attempted to adjourn the meeting stating the Board
had made their comments. Supervisor Altizer refused stating he is going to make his
comments. It was allowed to go on and he told the Chairman what he wanted to say
and he tried to cut me off. Supervisor Altizer stated the Board does not sit behind the
dais and talk about prior employees no matter what and talk about their work
performance. "You do not talk in public about personnel matters. Mr. Chairman, I am
sorry, you tried to cut me off and you knew what my comments are and he is done."
Chairman Church responded he did not know the comments and
adjourned the meeting.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Church adjourned the meeting at 8:04 p.m.
Su,b4�itted by: Approved by:
cc
/4 Deb 4 orah �: C. a s o . "Butch" Church
Clerk to the Board Chairman
L
680 October 25, 2011
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY