HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/11/2012 - RegularDecember 11, 2012
675
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the second Tuesday and the only
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of December 2012. 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 Flora called the meeting to order at 3:07 p.m. The roll call was
taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Richard C. Flora; Supervisors Michael W. Altizer,
Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Eddie "Ed" Elswick and Charlotte
A. Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; Daniel R.
O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Paul M.
Mahoney, County Attorney and Deborah C. Jacks, Clerk to
the Board
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
The invocation was given by Pastor Mike Hewitt, Chaplain for the
Roanoke County Police Department. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all
present.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County to Dr. Carol M. Gilbert,
Operational Medical Director, upon her retirement after twenty -
seven (27) years of volunteer service (Richard E. Burch, Jr., Chief
of Fire and Rescue)
In attendance for this recognition were Dr. Carol M. Gilbert, Operational
Medical Director; Rob Logan, ED of Western Virginia EMS Council; Billy Duff, Battalion
Chief; Steve Simons, Division Chief; Dustin Campbell, Division Chief; Barry Hurley,
Battalion Chief and Richard E. Burch Jr., Chief of Fire and Rescue.
All Supervisors offered their congratulations and thanks.
676 December 11, 2012
RESOLUTION 121112 -1 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO
DR. CAROL M. GILBERT, OPERATIONAL MEDICAL DIRECTOR
UPON HER RETIREMENT AFTER TWENTY -SEVEN (27) YEARS
OF VOLUNTEERSERVICE
WHEREAS, Dr. Gilbert was first consulted as the new Operational Medical
Director in December 1985, and continued in the volunteer position leading the EMS
Division through countless changes during her tenure with Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Dr. Gilbert retired from her volunteer position with the Fire /Rescue
Department on December 1, 2012, after twenty -eight (27) years of devoted, faithful and
expert service with the County; and
WHEREAS, during her time serving Roanoke County, Dr. Gilbert oversaw the
creation of the EMS Division of the Fire /Rescue Department by providing guidance to
County staff on pertinent emergency medical issues; and
WHEREAS, Dr, Gilbert spent a tremendous amount of her time in providing
required medical oversight to all Department employees on the care they rendered to
patients they treated; and
WHEREAS, Dr. Gilbert was an integral part of the Department establishing one
of the only paramedic refresher programs in the Commonwealth of Virginia and that
program has been used as a model for other jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, Dr. Gilbert served as the State Medical Director for many years and
was able to provide leadership not only to Roanoke County but to the entire
Commonwealth of Virginia on EMS issues; and
WHERAS, Dr. Gilbert has been a strong advocate for the Department's
Technical Response Team and would regularly train with them.
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 Dr. Carol M. Gilbert, 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 Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
December 11, 2012 677
2. Recognition of the Roanoke County Police Department and
Emergency Communications Center for receiving re- accreditation
through the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement
Agencies, Inc. (CALEA) (Howard B. Hall, Chief of Police)
In attendance for this recognition were Officer Adam Grubb, Lieutenant
David McMillan, Officer Shannon Dillon, Chief Howard Hall, Bill Hunter, Assistant
Director of Communications; Kristine Torbert, CALE Accreditation Manager and Pat
Shumate, Chief Communications Officer.
All Supervisors offered their congratulations and thanks.
3. Recognition of General Services, Parks, Recreation and Tourism,
Police, Public Information and Roanoke Valley Television staff
and partners for honors received in the Blue Ridge Public
Relations Society of America annual Summit Awards
competition (Teresa H. Hall, Director of Public Information)
In attendance for this recognition were Scott Ramsburg, Business and
Information Manager; Gray Craig, Web Content Manager; Elaine Bays- Murphy, Director
of Cable Access; Maureen Wilson, Recreation Marketing Assistant; Preston Seaman,
Television Producer; Thomas Becker, Save A Ton Campaign and Officer Tim Wyatt.
Anne Marie Green gave a PowerPoint presentation and a video of "What
will it Take." A copy of both is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of
Supervisors.
All Supervisors offered their congratulations and thanks.
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
1. Briefing on the results of the 2013 General Reassessment (Billy
Driver, Director of Real Estate Valuation)
Mr. Driver gave a briefing on the reassessment results, gave dates for
citizen appeals and explained the tax relief for the elderly and the land use assessment
for agriculture.
Supervisor Moore asked Mr. Driver to explain to the viewing audience how
neighborhoods are reassessed. Mr. Driver explained the basis is the historical (sales)
data in the particular neighborhood and will make an adjustment to come up with the
market value, for the land and building as well. All data is driven from 2011 sales
through the first few months of 2012.
Chairman Flora remarked that Roanoke County lags behind the rest of the
678 December 11, 2012
county; go in later and recover later.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution requesting the General Assembly of Virginia to
maintain the moratorium on mining uranium during the 2013
General Assembly Session (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the resolution and advised this was requested by
Supervisor Moore. He explained that basically he used the same resolution from last
year. This resolution asks the General Assembly to continue the moratorium and if they
lift, base it on scientific study that would not affect natural resources or public health.
There was no discussion.
Chairman Flora allowed Mike Bailey to speak on this issue.
Mike Bailey of 7526 Deer Branch Road stated he is from the Hollins area
and would like to address the Board regarding their recommendation to continue the
moratorium on the mining of uranium in Virginia. He stated he did not recall much
community discussion on this subject so it surprised him that the Board would call upon
itself to offer such a resolution without representation from the people. The moratorium
was started some twenty (20) years ago. The resolution is asking for a guarantee in
safety before even considering uranium mining. If we had such a moratorium on coal
twenty (20) years ago he does not think the industry would be at the safe level that it is
at this point. This nation is in need of jobs and energy now. When you read the
resolution and you think about its wording, asking for definite guarantees and continuing
an indefinite moratorium on mining as stated in the resolution is akin to intellectual
closed- mindedness in his opinion. Therefore, he asked the Board to please reconsider
the resolution, think about the way it is worded.
Supervisor Moore commented she thinks a definite guarantee for our
health is always a good thing.
RESOLUTION 121112 -2 REQUESTING THE GENERAL
ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA TO MAINTAIN THE MORATORIUM
ON MINING URANIUM DURING THE 2013 GENERAL
ASSEMBLY SESSION
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, recognizes
that clean water, clean air and a healthful environment are critically important resources
of the County and its surrounding region;
WHEREAS, the future economic development of our County and region are
closely related to this region's healthy and pollution -free environment and natural beauty
that currently make it so desirable as a destination for visitors and new residents;
December 11, 2012 679
WHEREAS, in 1983 the potential for mining uranium in the Virginia counties of
Pittsylvania and Orange was proposed whereby the Virginia Assembly issued a
moratorium on the mining and milling of uranium, which remains in effect today, until the
industry could prove that it is capable of performing such activities without hazardous
impacts to the natural resources and public health of the Commonwealth; and
WHEREAS, a company known as Virginia Uranium, Inc., has proposed mining
and milling the uranium ore at the Coles Hill Deposit in Pittsylvania County, Virginia,
stating to its investors that it will seek legislation to repeal the moratorium in the 2013
session of the Virginia General Assembly; and
WHEREAS, the mining operations proposed by Virginia Uranium, Inc. could
result in large quantities of airborne radioactive dust and in highly mobile radioactive mill
tailings which must be stored as sludge in ponds and eventually in dewatered tailings
piles that can retain 85 percent of their original radioactivity for thousands of years; and
WHEREAS, it is possible that these sludge ponds and tailings pile confinement
structures could fail, resulting in the release of radioactive materials into surface waters
and the surrounding environment; and
WHEREAS, unlike almost all uranium mining operations in North America that
are currently located in arid regions or in areas remote from population, the Coles Hill
site is in the Roanoke River basin, which serves as a drinking water source for over one
million people in Virginia and North Carolina including several military bases, a source
that would face increased risks associated with uranium mining and milling and storage
of radioactive wastes; and
WHEREAS, numerous communities, agencies and organizations throughout the
region have gone on record as being opposed to the lifting of the moratorium on
uranium mining until it can be shown it can be done without hazardous impacts to
natural resources and public health; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2012, this Board adopted a Resolution requesting
the General Assembly to maintain this moratorium during its 2013 session.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia,
1. That the Virginia General Assembly maintain the moratorium on mining
uranium indefinitely or until the industry provides proof through an independent scientific
study that it is capable of performing such activities without hazardous impacts to the
natural resources and public health of the Commonwealth.
2. The scientific study must be provided by a person or persons that are not
affiliated with, employed by, or hired by Virginia Uranium Incorporated, its agents or
employees, or any person or company that is involved in uranium mining or milling.
3. That the Clerk to the Board is directed to send a copy of this resolution to
each member of the County's legislative delegation, the Virginia Association of
Counties, the Virginia Municipal League and to all groups currently studying uranium
mining in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
680 December 11, 2012
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
2. Explore Park request for State of Virginia Funding (B. Clayton
Goodman III, County Administrator)
Mr. Goodman explained the request for support of the $300,000 State
funding for this project and advised staff recommends this support.
Supervisor Altizer commented it is about time the State gets serious about
Explore Park; giving it something so that it has a fighting chance. He stated he is of the
opinion if the Board can do something that helps nudge the State to do something then
we should do it.
Supervisor Church advised he concurs with Supervisor Altizer. He
indicated the County had put in approximately $7.5 million and the State has to step
forward. The Board is out of money and we have a valuable asset that needs
supporting.
Supervisor Elswick stated a lot of us feel a lot of money has been wasted.
The building of such assets, i.e. the Taubman are financed by individuals and
volunteers. He stated he is a definite proponent of Explore Park being developed, but
thinks it should be developed by volunteers and local people who are willing to donate
money so they have a sense of ownership. He does not like the idea of State
involvement and we ought to be able to manage it ourselves; we have enough capable
people in this County to do so. In this case, because the facility is already there and the
$300,000 is being asked for to maintain, except for the Brugh Tavern. Why should we
worry about the Brugh Tavern, it is not open. He will support the resolution, but on the
other hand he would really love to see a plan from the VFRA as to how we are going to
go about developing Explore Park and how we are going to involve people in the area
and how are we going to motivate even more volunteers in addition to the good ones
that are already there. What are our plans as to where we are going to go with it, what
we are going to build there and how are we going to make it an attractive asset for the
area. Along with the Convention and Visitors Bureau, we need a major attraction in the
area and Explore Park is about the only opportunity we have.
Mr. Goodman advised he would be glad to meet with the staff and
volunteers and the Board with regard to Explore Park. He stated he thinks they would
be glad to come at a future work session and discuss the alternative plans submitted to
the General Assembly.
December 11, 2012 681
RESOLUTION 121112 -3 SUPPORTING THE VIRGINIA
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY SEEKING STATE OF
VIRGINIA FUNDING TOTALING $300,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR
2013 -2014
WHEREAS, Roanoke County has supported the Virginia's Recreational Facilities
Authority in its pursuit of the development of the Explore Park; and
WHEREAS, Explore Park remains a vital State of Virginia Asset located in
Roanoke and Bedford Counties which with its new vision of providing outdoor
recreation opportunities, becoming a tourist destination in western Virginia, providing
stewardship of this region's heritage, and environmental education and conservation for
the enjoyment, education and inspiration of present and future generations; and
WHEREAS, The new vision will assist in protecting the natural and historical
assets of the Explore Park site while remaining a positive investment opportunity for the
private sector; and
WHEREAS, VRFA's Chairman K. C. Bratton, has petitioned the Governor for
State funding totaling $300,000; and
WHEREAS, the funding will be divided $100,000 for operations to operate the
Explore Park at a basic level while the VRFA seeks public /private partnerships and
implements revenue producing areas of the Explore Park; seeks $150,000 for capital
improvements to make the Park development ready, to maintain the infrastructure,
protect assets and to encourage private development of the Explore Park and $50,000
for economic development support and other service expenses to support the
development of Explore Park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors does hereby endorse and support VRFA's State of Virginia request for
fiscal year 2013 -2014 funding in the amount of $300,000; and
FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
is directed to send an attested copy of this resolution to Governor McDonnell, Senator
John S. Edwards, Senator Ralph Smith, Delegate Greg Habeeb, Delegate Onzlee
Ware, Stephanie Moon, Roanoke City Clerk; Members of the Roanoke City Council;
Kevin S. Boggess, Clerk for Salem City Council members of the Salem City Council;
Clerk for the Town of Vinton; Members of the Vinton Town Council and the Virginia
Recreational Facilities Authority Chairman.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
3. Vinton War Memorial Monument (B. Clayton Goodman III, County
Administrator)
682 December 11, 2012
A- 121112 -4
Mr. Goodman explained the request, which was requested by Supervisor
Altizer, is for an additional funding of $5,000 from the Board Contingency Fund. He
added that the Town of Vinton will also be considering an additional $5,000.
Supervisor Altizer stated this amount will get very close to what they need
to retire the debt. Additionally, there are some more brinks and would encourage
people to see them if you have a veterans to be honored.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the staff recommendation to
appropriate $5,000, and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
1. Philip M. Argabright to rezone approximately 12.9 acres from R -1,
Low Density Residential, District to AG -3, Agricultural /Rural
Preserve, District, located at 5032 Stanley Farm Road in the
Glenvar area, Catawba Magisterial District
There was no discussion. Chairman Flora moved to approve the first
reading and to schedule the second reading and public hearing for the second meeting
in January 2013.The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
2. Friendship Health and Rehab Center South, Inc. and Friendship
Health and Rehab Center, Inc. to rezone approximately 10.27
acres from R -1, Low Density Residential, District to C -2, General
Commercial, District and to obtain a special use permit for a
nursing home on property located at 5647 Starkey Road, Cave
Spring Magisterial District
There was no discussion. Chairman Flora moved to approve the first
reading and to schedule the second reading and public hearing for the second meeting
in January 2013.The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
December 11, 2012 683
NAYS: None
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance authorizing the granting of a ten (10) -foot utility
easement to Verizon Virginia, Inc. on property owned by the
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors (Tax Map No. 055.13 -01-
02.02) for the purpose of an underground utility line to the
Glenvar Library at 3917 Daugherty Road, Glenvar Magisterial
District (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the ordinance and made one change in the first
whereas clause from internet service to telephone service. There was no discussion.
Supervisor Church moved to approve the first reading and to schedule the second
reading and public hearing for January 8, 2013 with the recommended change. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
2. Ordinance approving an Intergovernmental Agreement to
establish and operate a regional animal shelter (Due to time
constraints, it is requested that, upon a four - fifths vote of the
Board, the second reading be waived and the ordinance adopted
as an emergency measure.) (B. Clayton Goodman III, County
Administrator; Paul Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Goodman explained the need for the ordinance and the operation of
the "pound." The shelter and the pound have been operating on behalf of the four
localities. Recently, it has become important to separate the two. The agreement is
needed to proceed with hiring staff and an executive director. He indicated this is the
first of several agreements to come before the Board. The localities want to have an
Executive Director by March 1, 2012. The fiscal agent has been left blank depending
on who is hired as Executive Director and will be either the City of Roanoke or Roanoke
County.
Mr. Mahoney advised he would like the Boar's concurrence to "tweak" the
language if necessary; no substantial changes. This is a critical need with respect to
the animals.
Supervisor Church noted this is a very complex issue; and very important.
684 December 11, 2012
ORDINANCE 121112 -5 APPROVING AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH AND
OPERATE A REGIONAL ANIMAL SHELTER
WHEREAS, §3.2 -6546 of the Code of Virginia requires the governing body of
each county or city to maintain or cause a "pound" to be maintained; and
WHEREAS, §3.2 -6546 of the Code of Virginia allows one or more local
governing bodies to operate a single "pound" in conjunction with one another; and
WHEREAS, the governing bodies of Roanoke City, Vinton, Roanoke County, and
Botetourt have determined that it is in the best interest of all four jurisdictions to operate
a single animal shelter; and
WHEREAS, §15.2 -1300 of the Code of Virginia requires that agreements for the
joint exercise of powers by political subdivisions be approved by ordinance, and,
WHEREAS, that the first reading of this ordinance was held on December 11,
2012, and that the second reading of this ordinance was waived as an emergency
measure pursuant to §18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY as follows:
1. That the Board hereby approves the Regional Pound Agreement with
Roanoke City, Town of Vinton, County of Botetourt and County of Roanoke
for the establishment and operation of a regional animal shelter.
2. That an agreement to lease with an option to purchase the kennel located at
1340 Baldwin Avenue located in the City of Roanoke from the Roanoke
Valley Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Inc. ( "SPCA ") is
hereby authorized and approved.
3. That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrators, either
of whom may act, are authorized to execute and deliver the Regional Pound
Agreement and a lease with an option to purchase agreement with the SPCA.
The form of the Regional Pound Agreement presented to the Board is hereby
approved with such completions, omissions, insertions and changes as the
County Administrator may approve, whose approval shall be evidenced
conclusively by the execution and delivery thereof.
4. The County Administrator, or any such other Assistant County Administrators,
are hereby authorized and directed to execute, deliver and record, as
necessary, all other agreements, contracts, leases, and documents on behalf
of the County and to take all such further action as any of them may deem
necessary or desirable in connection with the establishment and operation of
a regional animal shelter.
5. That this ordinance shall be effective from and after the date of its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
December 11, 2012 685
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance amending Chapter 12 — Motor Vehicles and Traffic of
the Roanoke County Code by the addition of Article VII. Mopeds
(Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney indicated there was no change from the first reading. There
was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 121112 -6 AMENDING CHAPTER 12 — MOTOR
VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE
BY THE ADDITION OF ARTICLE VII. MOPEDS
WHEREAS, Section 46.2 -915.2 allows local governing bodies to adopt an
ordinance to require certain safety equipment for persons operating mopeds on public
streets; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, finds that
more citizens are operating mopeds due to increased fuel and operating costs; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County finds that public safety
will be enhanced and serious head injuries will be reduced by the adoption of this
ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 13, 2012
and the second reading was held on December 11, 2012.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That Chapter 12 — Motor Vehicles and Traffic be amended by the addition
of Article VII. Mopeds to read and provide as follows:
Article VII. Mopeds
Sec. 12 -135. — Definition.
"Moped" means every vehicle that travels on not more than three wheels in contact with
the ground that has (i) a seat that is no less than twenty -four (24) inches in height,
measured from the middle of the seat perpendicular to the ground and (ii) a gasoline,
electric, or hybrid motor that displaces less than fifty (50) cubic centimeters. For
purposes of this title, a moped shall be a motorcycle when operated at speeds in excess
of thirty -five (35) miles per hour. For purposes of Chapter 8 (§ 46.2 -800 et seq.), a
moped shall be a vehicle while operated on a highway.
Sec. 12 -136. — Safety equipment for mopeds.
Every person operating a moped on a public street or highway in the county shall wear
a face shield, safety glasses, or goggles of a type approved by the Superintendent of
686 December 11, 2012
the Virginia State Police or have his moped equipped with safety glass or a windshield
at all times while operating such vehicle, and operators and passengers thereon, if any,
shall wear protective helmets of a type approved by the Superintendent.
Sec. 12 -137. — Penalties for violation.
Any person who knowingly violates any such ordinance shall be guilty of a traffic
infraction and be subject to a fine of not more than fifty dollars.
2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance authorizing the lease to Bent Mountain Center, Inc. for
one year (plus option to extend for additional one -year periods) of
the Bent Mountain Elementary School (B. Clayton Goodman III,
County Administrator)
Mr. Goodman outlined the changes from the first meeting and advised
Annie Krochalis was present to answer any questions. The sections changed were
section three, removed the second paragraph concerning clarification of $32,000;
section four, a prohibition to sublease and section seven, clarification of the $32,000 for
the first year appropriation and second and subsequent years appropriations would be
$15,000; section ten was clarified to define small versus large maintenance items and
finally information has been received from the Bent Mountain Center's attorney
regarding minor changes, etc. The biggest change occurred in section nine regarding
any donated items would have County authorization. Ms. Krochalis thanked Mr.
Goodman, Mr. Mahoney and the Board for all the work done on this lease.
Chairman Flora opened and closed the public hearing; there were no
citizens signed up to speak.
Mr. Mahoney explained the Board had been provided with an updated
lease based on conversations with the Center's attorney yesterday afternoon. There
were no substantive changes from the first lease.
ORDINANCE 121112 -7 AUTHORIZING THE LEASE TO BENT
MOUNTAIN CENTER INC. FOR ONE YEAR (PLUS OPTION TO
EXTEND FOR ADDITIONAL ONE -YEAR PERIODS) OF THE
BENT MOUNTAIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS
December 11, 2012 687
WHEREAS, at their meeting on November 10, 2011, the County School Board
declared the Bent Mountain Elementary School, a 9.15 acre parcel of real estate, to be
surplus property; and
WHEREAS, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 011012 -8 the Board accepted the
conveyance of this property to the County, and the deed conveying the school property
to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County was recorded in February of 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Bent Mountain Center, Inc. has submitted a proposal to lease a
portion of the Bent Mountain Elementary School property the Board of Supervisors; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that leasing a portion of the Bent
Mountain Elementary School to the Bent Mountain Center, Inc., a 501C organization
consisting of residents of the Bent Mountain community who are interested in
preserving this structure as a community center will benefit the community; and
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of
Roanoke County, a first reading concerning the disposition of the herein - described real
estate was held on November 13, 2012; the second reading and public hearing was
held on December 11, 2012; and
2. That the lease of a portion of the Bent Mountain Elementary School
consisting of approximately 6,000 square feet and the adjoining parking area located
at 10148 Tinsley Lane, Bent Mountain, Virginia is hereby authorized and approved; and
3. That it is in the County's best interests to lease this property to Bent
Mountain Center, Inc. for one year with additional one -year lease terms. This lease is
subject to the provisions of Section 2.03 and 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter. The
annual rental for this property is One Dollar ($1.00); and
4. That the rental income will be appropriated to an account for expenses
related to the maintenance of this property. Funds in the amount of fifteen thousand
dollars ($15,000) are hereby appropriated from the June 30, 2012, year -end balance for
first year operating expenses, and that the County will pay up to fifteen thousand dollars
($15,000) of future year's operating expenses if this lease term is extended.
5. That the County Administrator, or his designee, is authorized to execute
such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary
to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be upon a form approved by the County
Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Elswick to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
688 December 11, 2012
2. Ordinance authorizing the vacation of an existing twenty (20) -foot
Stormwater Management Easement as shown on the plat of
Kingston Estates, recorded in Plat Book 26, page 16 in the
Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's Office, said Stormwater
Management Easement located off Cambridge Court Road
between Lots 58 and 59 and the acceptance of a new variable
width Stormwater Management Easement located off Cambridge
Court Road between Lots 59 and 60, Vinton Magisterial District
(Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development)
Mr. Covey explained the ordinance and advised the only change is that
the effected property owners have recorded the document.
Chairman Flora opened and closed the public meeting as there were no
citizens signed up to speak. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 121112 -9 AUTHORIZING THE GRANTING OF AN
ELECTRIC UTILITY EASEMENT TO APPALACHIAN POWER ON
PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS (TAX MAP NO. 055.13 -01- 02.02) FOR THE
PURPOSE OF AN UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC POWER LINE
TO THE GLENVAR LIBRARY LOCATED AT 3917 DAUGHERTY
ROAD, CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Appalachian Power Company (AEP) requires a permanent utility
easement for purpose of providing electrical service to the newly constructed Glenvar
Library from an existing overhead electric line; and
WHEREAS, granting this utility easement for an underground electric line is
necessary for the operation of the Glenvar Library; and
WHEREAS, the proposed utility easement to the Glenvar Library will serve the
interests of the public and is necessary for the public health, safety and welfare of the
citizens of Roanoke County.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County
Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by
ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on November 13, 2012, and the
second reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on December 11, 2012.
2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County
Charter, the interest in real estate to be conveyed is hereby declared to be surplus, and
is hereby made available for other public uses by conveyance to Appalachian Power
Company for a utility easement.
December 11, 2012 689
3. That donation to Appalachian Power Company of a utility easement for
purpose of an underground electric line, as shown on a plat titled "Proposed Right of
Way on Property of Roanoke County Board of Supervisors ", prepared by Appalachian
Power Company and dated 10/24/12, is hereby authorized and approved.
4. That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrator, is
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such further actions as may be
necessary to accomplish this conveyance, all of which shall be on form approved by the
County Attorney.
5. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: APPOINTMENTS
1. Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors
During the closed meeting on November 13, 2012, the Board of
Supervisors recommended the appointment of Jessica Webb, Roanoke County's CSA
Coordinator for a three -year term. Ms. Webb has agreed to serve.
The Executive Director of Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare has
recommended Daniel E. Karnes be reappointed as a member of the Board of Directors
for a second three -year term beginning January 1, 2010.
2. Social Services Advisory Board
Supervisor Elswick has recommended the appointment of Gwen Vieth to
represent the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. This is a four -year term and will expire
July 31, 2016.
3. Western Virginia Regional Jail Authority
During their closed meeting on November 13, 2012, the Board of
Supervisors recommended the reappointment of the following for an additional one -year
term to expire on December 31, 2013.
B. Clayton Goodman as the Alternate Administrative Official for Roanoke
County
Rebecca Owens as the Administrative Official for Roanoke County
Michael W. Altizer as the Elected Official for Roanoke County
690 December 11, 2012
County
Joseph B. "Butch" Church as the Alternate Elected Official for Roanoke
Sheriff Mike Winston as the Sheriff
Major Charles Poff, Chief Deputy as alternate Sheriff position
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 121112 -10 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM K- 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 December
11, 2012, designated as Item K Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 10 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes — November 13, 2012
2. Confirmation of appointment to the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board
of Directors, Social Services Advisory Board and the Western Virginia
Regional Jail Authority
3. Resolution establishing a meeting schedule for the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County for calendar year 2013
4. Request to accept and appropriate $61,470.61 to Roanoke County Schools
5. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Patricia A. Artz, Deputy Sheriff - Lieutenant (Sheriff's
Office), upon her retirement after more than twenty (20) years of service
6. Request to accept and appropriate funds in the amount of $2,477 to the
Sheriff's Office from State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP),
approved by the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance
7. Resolution accepting a portion of Glenmary Drive and Corporate Circle into
the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Secondary System
8. Resolution accepting River Ridge Court, River Oaks Drive and a portion of
Millwheel Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Secondary System
9. Resolution accepting High Gate Lane, Foxfield Circle and a portion of
Millwood Drive into the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Secondary System
10. Resolution recognizing the retirement of Michael J. Fosbre, Probation Officer
with the Drug Court, Twenty -Third Judicial Circuit Court, upon his retirement
after seventeen (17) years of service
December 11, 2012 691
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
A- 121112 -10.a
RESOLUTION 121112 -10.b ESTABLISHING A MEETING
SCHEDULE FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ROANOKE COUNTY FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2013
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That for calendar year 2013, the regular meetings of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, are set forth below with public hearings
scheduled for 7:00 p.m. unless otherwise advertised.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013 at 3 pm
Tuesday, January 22, 2013 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 3 pm
Tuesday, February 26, 2013 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, March 12, 2013 at 3 pm
Tuesday, March 26, 2013 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, April 9, 2013 at 3 pm
Tuesday, April 23, 2013 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, May 14, 2013 at 3 pm
Tuesday, May 28, 2013 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, June 11, 2013 at 3 pm
Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, July 9, 2013 at 3 pm
Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, August 13, 2013 at 3 pm
Tuesday, August 27, 2013 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, September 10, 2013 at 3 pm
Tuesday, September 24, 2013 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, October 8, 2013 at 3 pm
Tuesday, October 22, 2012 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, November 12, 2013 at 3 pm and 7 pm
Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 3 pm
2. That the organizational meeting for 2014 shall be held on Tuesday,
January 14, 2014, at 2:00 p.m.
692 December 11, 2012
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
A- 121112 -10.c
RESOLUTION 121112 -10.d EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO PATRICIA A. ARTZ, DEPUTY SHERIFF — LIEUTENANT
(SHERIFF'S OFFICE), UPON HER RETIREMENT AFTER MORE
THAN TWENTY (20) YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Patricia A. Artz was hired on April 13, 1992, and has worked as a
Deputy Sheriff - Sergeant, Deputy Sheriff — Court Bailiff, Deputy Sheriff — Classification,
Deputy Sheriff — Master Deputy, Deputy Sheriff, Deputy Sheriff - Master Deputy and
Deputy Sheriff — Lieutenant (Sheriff's Office) during her tenure with Roanoke County;
and
WHEREAS, Ms. Artz retired on November 1, 2012, after twenty (20) years and
seven (7) months of devoted, faithful and expert service with the County; and
WHEREAS, during her time serving Roanoke County, Ms. Artz embraced
education and earned her certification as an instructor for the Departmental of Criminal
Justice Services and earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Criminal Justice from
Bluefield College;
WHEREAS, Lieutenant Artz 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 PATRICIA A. ARTZ for twenty (20) years and seven
(7) months 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 roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
Fill PA``PZ[11M
December 11, 2012 693
RESOLUTION 121112 -10.f ACCEPTING A PORTION OF
GLENMARY DRIVE AND CORPORATE CIRCLE INTO THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (VDOT)
SECONDARY SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached VDOT Form AM -4.3, fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, the representative for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised this Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Virginia
Department of Transportation's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have
entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999, for comprehensive stormwater detention,
which applies to this request for addition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to add the street(s) described on the attached Additions
Form AM -4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1 -229, Code
of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, after receiving a
copy of this resolution and all outstanding fees and documents required of the County,
whichever occurs last in time; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board hereby guarantees the performance of
the street(s) requested herein to become a part of the State maintained secondary
system of state highways for a period of one year from the date of the acceptance of the
referenced streets by VDOT into the secondary system of state highways. This Board
will reimburse all costs incurred by VDOT up to and including the amount of $24,000 to
repair faults in the referenced street(s) and related drainage facilities associated with
workmanship or materials as determined exclusively by VDOT; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right -of -way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 121112 -10.g ACCEPTING RIVER RIDGE COURT,
RIVER OAKS DRIVE AND A PORTION OF MILLWHEEL DRIVE
INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SECONDARY SYSTEM
694 December 11, 2012
WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached VDOT Form AM -4.3, fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, and
WHEREAS, the representative for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised this Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Virginia
Department of Transportation's Subdivision Street Requirements, and
WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have
entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999, for comprehensive stormwater detention,
which applies to this request for addition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to add the street(s) described on the attached Additions
Form AM -4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1 -229, Code
of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, after receiving a
copy of this resolution and all outstanding fees and documents required of the
developer, whichever occurs last in time; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right -of -way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following roll
call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 121112 -10.h ACCEPTING HIGH GATE LANE,
FOXFIELD CIRCLE AND A PORTION OF MILLWOOD DRIVE
INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(VDOT) SECONDARY SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the streets described on the attached VDOT Form AM -4.3, fully
incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, the representative for the Virginia Department of Transportation has
advised this Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Virginia
Department of Transportation's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have
entered into an agreement on March 9, 1999, for comprehensive stormwater detention,
which applies to this request for addition.
December 11, 2012 695
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Board requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to add the street(s) described on the attached Additions
Form AM -4.3 to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1 -229, Code
of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements, after receiving a
copy of this resolution and all outstanding fees and documents required of the
developer, whichever occurs last in time; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, this Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted
right -of -way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Residency Administrator for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 121112 -10.i RECOGNIZING THE RETIREMENT
OF MICHAEL J. FOSBRE, PROBATION OFFICER WITH THE
DRUG COURT, TWENTY -THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT,
UPON HIS RETIREMENT AFTER SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS OF
SERVICE
WHEREAS Governor Robert F. McDonnell has recognized September 2012 as
Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month in the Commonwealth of Virginia; and
WHEREAS the Twenty -Third Judicial Circuit Drug Court is the first Drug Court in
Virginia, having started in 1995; and
WHEREAS Michael J. Fosbre has been a Probation Officer with that Drug Court
since its inception, and is the only person who has remained continuously and actively
involved with that Drug Court since its inception; and
WHEREAS, consequently, Michael J. Fosbre is presently the longest serving
person with a Drug Court in the history of the Commonwealth; and
WHEREAS Michael J. Fosbre has served the Twenty -Third Judicial Circuit with
the utmost skill, compassion and dedication for seventeen (17) years; and
WHEREAS Michael J. Fosbre has rendered an invaluable service to all
participants in the Drug Court Program, including over seven hundred who have
graduated with increased productivity and sobriety, regained custody, paid court costs
and reduced recidivism.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County does hereby recognize the honorable service of Michael J. Fosbre
upon his retirement.
696 December 11, 2012
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 roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The following citizens spoke:
Linda LaPrade of 5509 Will Carter Lane in Roanoke, Virginia stated in a
recent Roanoke Times editorial by a member of this Board of Supervisors, ICLEI was
again praised and she quoted from the article, "It is NOT about the conspiracy theories
embraced by a small group, but about the real opportunities we share as a community."
Let's set the record straight on a number of issues. Using the term "conspiracy theorists
in a pejorative manner only embarrasses the user of the term when no other argument
can be made in the face of the facts that have been presented to the Board for over a
year now. To imply that any who disagree (those conspiracy theorists) are anti -
environmental is simply not true. What you are faced with is a group of concerned
citizens who are aware of what ICLEI is, and what the United Nations Agenda 21 is,
what the Green movement really is and question why you support these socialist
programs. Now it is time for us to talk about these "real opportunities we share as a
community." We, the people of Roanoke County, value our rights and our freedoms.
We recognize that we are a part of our community and I dare say most of us do more to
recycle, save energy and keep our area beautiful than do many of those who would
label us as "fringe elements." What we recognize is our right to protection of private
property is vital. True local government without interference or influence from special
interest NGO's is vital. Many areas of the country have already been implementing
regionalism like the Partnership for a Livable Roanoke Valley. She stated she has
spoken with one of the critics of the San Francisco Bay Area Plan. They are several
years ahead of us in implementation and are seeing an erosion of local government
authority and property rights to an unelected regional authority; another NGO. Private
property rights in Roanoke County must be protected. The Board has said, "I know
there have been people who have said thank you for protecting those rights." "We've
been elected... the five of us have been elected to make those decisions ourselves."
Now is your time to do what you said you would do: protect those rights. She advised
she has a resolution recently passed by Albemarle County protecting property rights of
all citizens. She urged the Board to read it and pass such a resolution. She added this
would show us the Board's true intentions; assuring our rights or listening to NGO's
subtly telling you what to do.
December 11, 2012 697
Judith Rauchle of 231 Cabas Mountain Road stated she is here
representing the nonthethists community of Roanoke County. She advised she was
speaking today in opposition to the alleged non - sectarian prayer policy which this Board
adopted at its November 13, 2013, meeting. The Board's decision to adopt a policy that
is supported by Christian legal groups in favor of sectarian prayer is flawed and remains
a liability for the Board. While the policy requires sending an invitation to clergy that
includes wording from the North Carolina Joiner versus Forsythe decision, which the
Board used as a template, does not include a formal prohibition against sectarian
prayers. In fact, the policy appears to expressly allow for sectarian prayers as it states,
"no guidelines or limitations shall be issued regarding an invocation's content except
that the Board shall request by the language of this policy that invocations in the form of
prayer when considered collectively should avoid having sectarian references become
too frequent." This allows an individual prayer officiant to offer a sectarian invocation.
The policy only addresses prayers collectively and gives a green light for continuing to
deliver sectarian prayers, which the 4 Circuit Court of Appeals is found to advance
ones faith or belief. Citizens have a right to attend meetings without having to obtain
sectarian prayers or any prayers for that matter, contrary to the opinions of some
religious right groups, the Board may explicitly limit invocations to those that are truly
nonsectarian. In Turner vs. Fredericksburg, the 4 Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a
policy excluding sectarian prayers did not violate a Council member's first amendment
rights. Board invocations are government speech, no matter who delivers them and as
such remains subject to the establishment clause. There is no legal requirement for the
Board to host devotionals at all. Especially unfortunate is the fact that the Board took
action that is an affront to all non - religious U.S. citizens; exasperating rather than curing
the violation brought to your attention by the Freedom from Religion Foundation. You
voted to exclude a reference in the policy draft permitting non - religious citizens to
participate in the invocations, an act which would have barred Virginia's most famous
statesman, Thomas Jefferson, from opening your meetings. The County attorney
indicated that he based this recommendation on the advice of attorneys from the
Alliance Defending Freedom who just as soon that a nontheist would mock rather than
affirm. So the Board may acknowledge nontheists as private citizens, but this insulting
action blatantly says, "We don't trust you, we don't understand you and we do not
welcome your participation." In conclusion, the Board must treat all citizens equally;
non - religious citizens are being singled out and excluded by this amendment. The
Board is flagrantly indulging not only an establishment in favoritism of religious, but
censorship and exclusion of minorities. This is basically the government associating a
set of religious beliefs with the states and identifying non - religious citizens as outsiders.
This is clearly unconstitutional; and urged the Board to rescind this discriminatory policy.
Doug Fowley of 5803 Bighorn Drive, SW stated he has lived in Roanoke
County for over twenty -five years and is a member of the Secular Humanists of
Roanoke and the Southern Virginia Atheists. He advised he was speaking this
afternoon in opposition to the prayer policy that the Board adopted at its November 13,
698 December 11, 2012
2013, meeting. He stated the following excerpt from the Freedom from Religious
Foundation's response to the policy (you can find the entire response on the
Foundation's website at www.ffrf.org "The resolution claims "the Founders" attribute
our civil rights to a "creator:, thereby conflating the Declaration of Independence, a
historic document declaring colonial independence from Britain, with the U.S.
Constitution, our republic's foundational and living document of governance. The U.S.
Constitution is an expressly godless document whose only references to religion are
exclusionary, such as that there shall be no religious test for public office. There is no
reference to deity, prayer, Jesus or the Ten Commandments in this secular document
that County Supervisors have taken an oath to uphold. The intent of "the
Founders" (those who wrote and signed the Constitution) was explicitly not to mingle
religion and government, evidenced by the fact that during the four -month Constitutional
Convention, no prayers were recited; in fact a call to prayer was ignored. If our
founders did not need to pray over adoption of the U.S. Constitution, why then does a
County Board need to pray over resolutions, budgets and variances? Jefferson, who
wrote the Declaration of Independence, which the Board's policy distorts to endorse
theocratic religion, was clear on his views that church and state are a dangerous mix.
He preferred as president to issue days of prayer or thanksgiving, famously noting that
U.S. officials had "no authority to direct the religious exercises of its constituents." This
came from a letter to Reverend Mr. Samuel Miller in January of 1808. It is of course to
Virginia's most famous statesman that our country owes the phrase that explains the
meaning of the Establishment Clause, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act
of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus
building a wall of separation between church and state." This was in a letter to the
Danbury Baptist in January of 1902. His landmark Virginia Statute of Religious
Freedom was so important to Jefferson that he gave instruction that his authorship be
engraved on his tombstone. Its preamble is a sweeping indictment of state - dictated
religion. The heart of the statute is that no citizen shall be compelled to frequent or
support any "religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever." This wording remains in
Article I, Section 16 of the Virginia Bill of Rights and should be sufficient to protect
citizens from being exhorted to pray as the price of attending their own County's public
government meetings. Mr. Fowley urged the Board to resend this flayed and poorly
formulated policy.
Cindy Pasternak of 2606 Highland Road in Roanoke, Virginia stated she is
here representing the Riverdale- Grandview Heights Neighborhood Watch area (District
3). The purpose for being here is to make the Board aware of a proposed pipeline that
is being surveyed to run through our neighborhood. The pipeline has been surveyed
from the landfill on Rutrough Road, up Highland, up into the neighborhood, up a
mountain and goes over to Riverdale and then pipe down to the water treatment facility
on Bennington. The community has many concerns. One is construction damage as it
takes place; driveways being ripped up, mature trees that have been there for a long
December 11, 2012 699
time that are not replaceable, horse fencing, some people have wells that are quite
close to where the proposed pipeline is being surveyed. Other issues are landscaping,
which she knows is aesthetic, but some people have valuable landscaping they are
concerned about. Also, there is a concern that eventually, they may be forced to switch
from well water to the city water and sewer system, which no one wants; they are happy
with what they have and find it to be beneficial to them. Another is the toxicity level of
the leachate that is being piped up from the landfill and would like to read a few
paragraphs from an article that was written by Stephanie Klein -Davis for the Roanoke
Times, May 14, 2007, "Flames spew in the night near the Roanoke River and Blue
Ridge Parkway. Strange septic tank trucks rumble out of the woods. And now and then,
a rotten -egg odor hits fishermen angling for brown trout. It sounds like a Hardy Boys
mystery novel, but the reality is far more mundane. The Roanoke Valley's old Rutrough
Road landfill closed in 1994, but the dump's legacy lives on underground, a volatile mix
of explosive gases and contaminated fluids that requires daily maintenance. The
problems will continue for decades and cost taxpayers millions to control, local and
state authorities say. The landfill, which is owned and operated by the Roanoke Valley
Resource Authority, generates about 1 million cubic feet of methane and carbon dioxide
a day and more than 1 million gallons of Ieachate a year. Methane and carbon dioxide
are major greenhouse gases, and Ieachate, or groundwater that filters through buried
garbage, contains hazardous chemicals found in paint thinners, cleaning solvents and
petroleum fuels.... EQ and authority officials say they periodically test the groundwater,
springs, nearby drinking water wells and river water. They said the Ieachate, which
sometimes is no dirtier than storm water runoff, hasn't reached the river, but they said
it's impossible to contain all Ieachate given the dump's lack of a liner and its location on
a steep bluff draining down to the river." The community is also concerned about pipe
and equipment failure just because it has to be pumped up a mountain, there are going
to be extra pump stations, she advised she is not sure if that is the official word for it,
but to them one leak, one failure is one too many, especially when they have animals
grazing and drinking water from ponds and well water. Also, there is intermittent
monitoring at this point with that and other others. She advised they will keep the Board
updated as to Ieachate toxin reports as they are received. Also the pipeline history and
safety reports and any involvement of environmental groups such as the Blue Ridge
Environmental Defense League and feedback from them and any possible media
intervention that might come along.
E. A. Galvin of 5260 Crossbow Circle stated he has been a Roanoke
resident for some time. He advised he is speaking tonight in opposition to the alleged
non - sectarian prayer policy that the Board adopted at the November 13, 2013, meeting.
By adopting a policy drafted by representatatives of a Christian rights organization, the
Board has also adopted various misstatements of fact and law from that policy. He
stated he would like to focus on a few examples. For example, the enacting language
says, "WHEREAS, the Supreme Court also famously observed in Zorach v. Clauson,
343 U.S. 306 (1952), "We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a
700 December 11, 2012
Supreme Being." In context and as Justice Douglas later explained in his dissent in
Magalla v. Maryland in 1961. This is in reference to his view of a Puritan influence in
shaping our Constitution and common law. As Justice Douglas said, which was
omitted, "We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We have made room
for a wide variety of beliefs and creeds as a spiritual belief of man deem necessary."
Given the context, Justice Douglas was not espousing a declaration that our
government supports a belief in God. Justice Douglas explained this statement in
McCollum, "if a religious leaven is to be worked into the affairs of our people, it is to be
done by individuals and groups, not by the government. This necessarily means first
that the dogma, Greek scruples, the practice of no religious group or sect is to be
preferred over that of any others. The First Amendment commands government to
have no interest in theology or ritual. It admonishes government be interested in
allowing religious freedom to flourish. Whether the result is to produce Catholics, Jews
or Protestant, or turn the people toward the path of Buddha or in a predominately
Muslim nature or to produce in the long run atheists or agnostics. Mappers of this kind
must remain neutral. He urged the Board to rescind this policy.
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Church moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
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 October 31, 2012
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 4:58 p.m., Chairman Flora moved to go into closed meeting following
the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2 -3711 A 5 Discussion
concerning a prospective business or industry where no previous announcement has
been made of the business' or industry's interest in locating their facilities in Roanoke
County.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
December 11, 2012 701
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Altizer, Church, Elswick, Flora
NAYS: None
The closed session was held from 6:22 p.m. until 6:26 p.m.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session — Large & Utility Wind Energy Systems, Roanoke
County Zoning Ordinance (B. Clayton Goodman III, County
Administrator)
Chairman Flora stated as an introduction to this he and Mr. Elswick met
with Clay and Paul back approximately six months ago. We asked for more
independent studies. Studies that were conducted not by someone who is pro or con
on the issue of the windmills. There were two or three studies that were submitted to
us; one of which got his attention. There is a study that showed the actual decibels of
windmills at different distances under different conditions and under topography, the
whole nine yards. He stated what got his attention was it looked like and hopes he can
find the study. Rather than quoting from memory would like to point out. What he saw
appeared that the Board had set the decibel level higher than the windmills make. It
seemed to him the worst case scenario was maybe 56 or 57 decibels and it ran all the
way up to the 40's. For his own conscience, he wants to makes sure that what the
Board did was the right thing and we did not set something unrealistic. Chairman Flora
asked Mr. Goodman and Mr. Mahoney to point the Board in the direction of the study he
is referring to. There were three charts and he will recognize it when he sees it. Mr.
Goodman found the study and is having copies made for the Board (a copy is on file in
the office to the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.)
Chairman Flora asked if the study is based on wind speed and the higher
the wind gets; it gets up around 57 decibels, which is the worst case scenario. He
stated the question is should the Board revisit that one issue; he is not suggesting the
whole ordinance be revisited because that would open up a whole new ballgame; just
the issue with the decibels. If what he is reading is true, and the Board has set the
standard at 60, and the highest maximum is 57 then a standard has be set that
guarantees no one can fail and does not think that was his intention when he adopted it.
Did the Board make a mistake? Does the Board want to leave it the same? Does the
Board was to revisit and take a look at it without actually opening it up? Does the Board
want to do further research and get more clarification? Before the Board does anything,
they need to know exactly what they are doing and he thinks they may have missed the
ball on that one issue.
Supervisor Elswick commented it should be objective.
Chairman Flora stated he knows that it is only a standard and it can be
changed and should be based on what an independent study reflects, but when you set
a standard, it can become more than just a standard. It is a recommendation. It can go
from being a recommendation to a standard. If he has misread it, he would like
someone to tell him he has misinterpreted what is there. Even these studies pretty
702 December 11, 2012
much support what that says and these studies were done by independent research,
some by NASA, and some by the Institute of Acoustics. Mr. Goodman explained he
spoke with representatives from NASA.
Supervisor Elswick stated you have to believe there is a lot of objectivity to
what they did and what we have seen in a number of cases is subjective. He stated he
thinks the Board ought to rely as much as they can on objective data. The farm is still in
West Virginia. It is pretty easy to go there and take some measurements as to what the
sound levels are at various distances. The Planning Commission went, but there was
no record kept of what the decibel levels were at certain distances and the people who
lived nearby were not talked to. The newspaper did speak with them. He stated he
thinks we can do more of that kind of thing without spending money, people would
volunteer to collect data for us in an objective manner, so that the Board ends up being
satisfied that it has done the best they can in terms of what criteria we put into the
ordinance.
Supervisor Moore stated she knows the planning commission worked on
this for two years and looking at the ordinance for home occupation at sixty (60)
decibels and looking at manufacturing companies like Mennell Milling and some of their
properties is at sixty (60) decibels and that is pretty much an urban area, too. She
advised she would personally rather; her fear is that if the Board takes something lower
and put in it as a decibel for the wind ordinance, which we really have none of yet; is
going to open up all of those questions. She advised she would rather see taking the
decibels out and when and if we get someone comes just make a decision at that time
rather than setting it at something less or more.
Chairman Flora inquired if Supervisor Moore was saying not even setting
a standard for decibels? He added but at some point you have to. You have to have
that as a criteria for issuing conditions for a use permit, but not set a recommended
level, which would mean then you would have to do an independent study of each
individual situation to determine whether or not the level at some point or another.
Supervisor Church stated if we do not have a number are we not wide
open for suggestion and asked Mr. Mahoney to respond. He stated that is what Mr.
Mahoney stressed to the Board from the beginning. Mr. Mahoney stated the concern is
in a couple of areas. Number one let us keep track of the fact that we are really talking
two different things here. We are talking about a utility wind energy system; where
somebody comes in and puts 20, 30 50 or 100 windmills versus a large wind energy
system. He advised he is not picking on Mennel Mill as they put up one as a test
system. There are a couple of different elements there. Next, if somebody was coming
in and wanted to put 50 or 100 windmills in Roanoke County, under the County
ordinance right now, we are going to require that person, that applicant to come in and
provide a whole laundry list of scientific data and information; environmental issues, as
well as sound engineers, acoustic engineers. The third element is currently in your
zoning ordinance nowhere else do you have a wind standard, except for home
occupation, which is in a residential district or in a very specific approach or specific use
as you have, Mr. Church you will recall with the special use permit for the asphalt plant
out in Glenvar. He advised he was unsure of the decibels, but thinks it is 75 or 80
decibels. Again, nowhere else in your ordinance do you have any kind of standard. He
stated he thinks what the Board tried to do with the ordinance you have before you is to
December 11, 2012 703
place the burden on any applicant coming in to provide you with that data as well as all
sorts of other information; what do you do with birds, wildlife or how do you protect the
environment, what do you do with stormwater, there are 15 -18 different standards that
an applicant would have to address if that applicant wanted to come in and establish one
of those systems. A final point is it is easy to draft something, but you also have to think
about how you are going to enforce it and he is try to think when our zoning enforcement
staff is out there, how are they going to do this? Are they going to have a decibel meter?
He advised a couple of years ago, the County had some citizen complaints around
Mennel Mill and we borrowed a decibel meter from a Professor at Virginia Western and
we took readings all around the mill, different times of day, different locations. The
highest reading we ever had was a day when Mennel Mill was not operating. He can
challenge that if he is the property owner. When was the last time you calibrated that,
what is the training you had for those people. Realistically, he is trying to think how this
could be enforced. He stated what the Board attempted to do was to place the burden
on the applicant to give an acoustic study, but a second element was, as you see from a
lot of those reports and no matter how the authors of those reports (whether they were
biased for these systems or against these systems) every one of them talks about how
you use distance; distance from property lines, distance from occupied dwellings, the
setback, as a rough rule of thumb way of minimized adverse impacts of noise, of sound.
To answer Supervisor Church's question, he likes to have standards because it is a good
place to start from, but if the standard poses a problem and you can read all these
studies and from reading the studies, which the Planning Commission looked at
thousands of pages, you can go from forty -five (45) decibels up to seventy (70) decibels.
You use NASA, the World Health Organization, you can do what California, Oregon or
Massachusetts did. Wherever you fall on that spectrum, you are going to say, that
person is biased against it if you set it at forty -five (45) and biased in favor if you set it at
seventy (70). He advised he is sympathcizing with the Planning Commission, because if
you send it back to the commission, he would recommend being somewhat narrow in
terms of what you want the commission to do. Do you want them to look at thousands of
pages again?
Supervisor Church stated his question was, "Did you recommend we set
some kind of standards ?" Mr. Mahoney responded that he liked standards. Supervisor
Church asked Mr. Mahoney to say what is good or bad.
Supervisor Altizer inquired if this was considered a major change and
would have to go back to the Planning Commission with Mr. Mahoney advising any
amendment to the ordinance is going to have to go back to the Planning Commission
and leads him to the process.
Supervisor Church stated in the Board Report it says a request for two
issues; setback and decibel readings. Mr. Mahoney stated of all the pages of the draft
ordinance that was adopted by the Board, those were the only two issues that anyone
complained about and if that is the direction of the Board to refer it back to the Planning
Commission, he would recommend you give the Planning Commission some guidance.
He feels sorry because there will probably be a new member from Windsor Hills, who
will have to read thousands of pages of "stuff' and go back to square one and start all
over again.
704 December 11, 2012
Supervisor Elswick stated the Planning Commission sent the Board the
ordinance; it recommends 2,400 feet from the nearest dwelling. The Board changed it
to 1,000 feet and just sending it back to the Planning Commission could maybe do
something in terms of reconciling why they said 2,400 and why the Board said 1,000.
Supervisor Elswick stated Mr. Mahoney referenced other standards. Well, you have to
ignore all those because most of them were heavily influenced by the wind industry and
a matter of fact our own staff recommended large windmills be located within a 110
percent of their height to the nearest residence and sixty (60) decibels, that is where the
sixty (60) decibels came from; they copied somebody else. Those are the same criteria
that we used for a one hundred foot tall cell phone tower. Obviously, the influence is
out there for any ordinances that are written anywhere, but NASA and other people who
do scientific evaluations, they really approach the subject with the idea of making the
correct determination and he thinks from a standpoint of us doing the right thing by the
citizens of the County because this is a huge issue. At risk is a mountain and at risk is a
neighborhood's way of life and is so important that if we were to send it back to the
Planning Commission and debate it back in forth for another year, it would still be a
worthwhile endeavor because there is so much at risk. He stated he would just like for
them one more time to make sure they have considered not what was recommended to
them by County staff and not what they may have heard from people who have not
done a lot of research, but their evaluation of what the standard should be is based on
what scientific evidence we do have and maybe another visit to the systems in West
Virginia with some good documentation of what was observed while they were there or
ask some other volunteers to do that. He thinks it is too critical an issue for us not to
take another look at it. Mr. Mahoney advised he did not have a problem with taking
another look at it, he is trying to think of what you want the Planning Commission to do,
what you want staff to do, how much time you want to spend, how many resources you
want to allocate to it. The big elephant standing in the corner of the room is that there is
litigation against Roanoke County. Historically, this Board has never amended its
ordinance when you had a pending lawsuit. The only time the Board did that was when
a judge ordered you to change your ordinance. He stated he thinks this is a very
complex issue. The Planning Commission spent a lot of time on it; they looked at a lot
of documents. Do you want to have them do that all of that again? If you do, that is
fine, but in the past the Planning Commission spent two years on it. Supervisor Elswick
stated they do not have to do it again, they have already done it. Why should they look
at what they have already read and have already absorbed and are already aware of
articles they have already read? They do not have to do it again. There is a much
shorter period of time for another evaluation. They might take a different approach.
They might say let's go back to West Virginia and this time when we go, let's talk to the
six (6) people who live within one half of a mile, which we have never done, the
newspaper did and when we go, let's record what the noise levels were at various
distances when we stopped to listen to the turbines. They could take a fresh approach
to it without spending as much time as they did the first time around. It is not going to
take any of the County's personnel time whatsoever.
Supervisor Altizer stated he is looking at whether or the Board made an
error or not, does not know if it is fifty -five (55) or sixty (60). He does not know what the
right number is, but to go through that process again, he thought the Board all sort of
December 11, 2012 705
agreed maybe not about the certain numbers when we went through and did windmills
that the special use permit is the safety net that is there to take that up to make the
developer do certain things. He stated from his experience, the place in West Virginia
and he did go there, twice, there are some parts about it that he thinks fits in that area.
There are some parts that he does not think fits on Bent Mountain. That is the thing in
his mind, no matter what ordinance you craft, whether it is fifty (50) decibels and one
thousand (1,000) feet or fifty -five (55) decibels and two thousand (2,000) feet whether it
is property line or to the house, each site is unique. If we are going to be completely
honest, and certainly he thinks everyone is and is going to look at it with open eyes,
there are some sites in Roanoke County where it just won't work. He stated he thinks
there may be some areas that it might work; there might not be any houses within four
or five miles of where it is put. This is just one Board member speaking, he has always
thought for him the safety net has been the special use permit, because whenever quite
frankly he has a feeling that the credits are probably going to go away; maybe, maybe
not, nobody knows what is going on. Whether they do or they don't, it is going to be
different, whether the site was on Windy Gap Mountain, Ft. Lewis Mountain or Vinton
Mountain, quite frankly part of Ft. Lewis on the far side, there is probably no houses for
5 miles depending how they want to put it. Does that mean it fits up there, probably
better than some other place, but he always thought the special use permit was our
safety net; no matter if the Board goes back and change from 1,500 or 2,000. Let us
say they come and they petition, then we know exactly where we are going and we are
afforded the opportunity to get on top of that mountain and walk and see how close it is.
It is sort of hard to visualize in your mind where certain things are going to go and where
they are not going to go and how close they are. Until you know definite, the Board can
go through and do all the studies in the world and that does not mean that even if we
came up with fifty -five (55). He stated he does not know if fifty -five (55) is right or wrong
or sixty (60) is right or wrong, he is like Supervisor Flora in that he wants to get it as
close to right as we can, but he thought that is what we always looked at the special use
permit to do. Because he can tell you what is going to happen, if you go in there and
look at one thing, you are going to look at the whole ordinance all over again. He does
not think we can end up just looking at one. He stated he does not have a problem
looking to see if we have the decibels too high or whatever, he does not mind taking a
look at that; seeing what the studies say.
Mr. Mahoney stated he agreed and hopes we are all saying the same
thing, is that if an applicant comes in and applies, that applicant is going to have to
provide all kinds of information to the Board, including a sound and acoustic study. His
recommendation and where the Planning Commission was coming from was you set it
at some decibel, sixty (60), but the Board can modify it in the special use process, up or
down, in order to mitigate adverse impacts, but if you do not use a specific decibel
rating, he would still recommend then as a substitute for that, the Board come up with
some factors. If you are not going to use a decibel rating, what factors is the Board
going to use to make a decision, if or when that application comes to you. His
recommendation is at least try to come up with some neutral objective factors so that
when that application comes to you and you make a decision you tie it to those neutral
objective factors or else you just pull a number out of the air. The sixty (60) decibels
was just an attempt to set a standard that you had to start with, but then it would be
706 December 11, 2012
adjusted up or down based on the unique application for a particular location in the
County.
Supervisor Elswick stated at the time the Board had the discussion, he
asked Mr. Mahoney if there is something in our ordinance, and we were saying we were
obviously going to go to court no matter what and he asked him point blank, if there is
something in our ordinance does that prejudice the court because it already has a
number in it and to go from sixty (60) or thirty (30) or thirty -five (35), which appears to
be a normal level on Bent Mountain and is three times higher than normal. But the goal
then when the Board uses the special use permit to go from sixty (60) to thirty -five (35),
one company is going to have a really good case as to why would you do that. So, if we
are going to put something in the ordinance, we can go without anything and simply say
when someone asks us we will do a special use permit and then we evaluate it; that
would be one way. The other way is to do something that protects the citizens of the
area and establish what a normal decibel level is for the area and say to anybody that
wants to put windmills there, fine, but you cannot harm our citizens.
Supervisor Church asked Mr. Mahoney when you talked about numbers,
what happens under a special use application and we say no we are going to decide on
2,600 feet and thirty -five (35). Does that put us in jeopardy, legally? If you even
hesitate then we have a problem.
Mr. Mahoney states no, what he comes back to are what the factors that
led the Board to make that determination.
Supervisor Elswick questioned the one thousand (1 000) feet versus
twenty -six hundred (2,600) feet.
Mr. Mahoney advised whatever the number is and if you are challenged
and what is the rational, objective basis for that.
Supervisor Church stated he would suggest that any of the five (5) Board
members are an expert in setback or decibel. This is his whole point; it is subjective
and if we are going to vary on a special use permit from sixty (60) to thirty (30) and a
thousand (1 000) feet in there, which he did not agree with either one of those two
numbers. Where do we set down that post and how do we back it up, because we feel
good about it. Supervisor Elswick is not doing anything anybody would not do if it was
in their neighborhood. He can guarantee he would be doing the same; an industrial
system in his neighborhood. Supervisor Altizer would not want on Rutrough Road; it is
just common sense. You have to protect the people. We are not talking about a
system in somebody's back yard, you are talking about a forty -five (45) story building,
eighteen (18) of them, it is a big, big difference here.
Supervisor Moore stated it is all subjective, suppose we get a special use
permit that someone just wants to put one or two, but not like what West Virginia had
(sixty -eight (68). It is all subjective.
Mr. Mahoney stated yes it is subjective, but at the same time you have a
range of what appears to be a consensus. If I take a spectrum of all the different
reports and studies, you throw the extremes out on either end. What do you have in the
middle; you are going to have NASA, Dr. Stuart, people who are saying anywhere from
forty -five (45) to fifty -five (55) maybe sixty (60) trying to tweak it. You do a different level
at nighttime versus a different level during the daytime. He stated he thinks we have
seen that in some situations. You have seen what other jurisdictions have done. So,
December 11, 2012 707
he stated he thinks you are number one in that range for sound. For setbacks,
historically what have you looked at for setback; does that tower fall over and will it hit
me or a neighbor. The Board did not like that; they wanted a greater setback. The
greater setback was based on visual aesthetics, what Mr. Carr has indicated if I have
this tower on top of a ridgeline and it falls down, you cannot do just one hundred and ten
(110) percent of the tower high because of the torque, the spinning of the blade it is
going to act like a motorboat go downhill and maybe hit a neighboring house; which is
why he thinks the Board established a greater setback. However, historically setbacks
have been what happens if the house falls down, what happens if the building falls
down. Traditionally, that is the kind of mindset and factors the governing body has
used.
Supervisor Church stated that is correct, the Board has never dealt with a
forty -five (45) story building going up, ever. In his mind, one thousand (1 000) feet is
not close to being enough. We are not talking about a building at a commercial site.
Mr. Mahoney stated historically that is what setbacks have been based on.
Supervisor Church stated he understands, but this is a one of a kind for Roanoke
County; first time.
Mr. Mahoney stated again what you are trying to do is establish some
ground rules so when somebody comes in and makes an application, what is the kind of
information that applicant has to give you. The applicant has to give you information,
i.e. sound and acoustic studies, environmental studies. All of that aimed towards
mitigating adverse impacts on neighbors, protecting the neighbors; that is what you
want to see in that application.
Supervisor Church stated the five Board members needed to get
engineering degrees. How do we make that decision ourselves and be sure? You
cannot.
Chairman Flora stated it was a gut decision that you have to make based
upon what information you have in front of you. Mr. Mahoney stated but you do it every
day with other rezoning, the only difference is you have always seen gas stations, office
buildings.
Supervisor Church stated that is his point.
Supervisor Altizer stated that is why with this being the first and not even
having a place to go out. It is easy when you go to West Virginia; you see it there and
you see where the houses are located and how it is going to be. If it was only tower
anywhere close to the two (2) houses
Supervisor Elswick noted there were five (5) more houses, approximately
one half mile away.
Mr. Mahoney stated he would wonder if that county in West Virginia had
any zoning or if they imposed any noise limitations on the placement of those sixty (60)
or seventy (70) some towers.
Supervisor Altizer stated but no matter where in Roanoke County if you
have a petition, it is going to be a lot on gut feeling and Supervisor Church is right you
need engineering degrees because we cannot sit here and visualize. When a
developer knows where they are going to go, it comes back to his automotive
experience, "rub it, touch it and feel it." You have to go out and see where it is going to
go. You have one sitting here and it is only fifty (50) yards from the side of a cliff that
708 December 11, 2012
goes straight down and there is a house down at the bottom of the valley, then that
windmill should not go there; it should go way back further up. That is the only way he
thinks you can realistically take an approach.
Supervisor Elswick stated that is a good point, but that has not been done.
Supervisor Altizer stated when you have it there and you know where it is
going to be, then you are in a better decision making to see what works.
Mr. Mahoney commented but he thinks we already know where it is
probably going to be. The Commonwealth of Virginia has done a study and they have
ranked on different categories, 1 -7, what they think is good wind.
Supervisor Elswick stated what they did not realize is the wind up there.
Supervisor Altizer stated it is the lay of the land, you may put a thousand
(1 000) foot setback. It might work somewhere on the spot, but he goes back to maybe
it does not work when it is forty -five (45) stories tall and you going to fall over into an
eight hundred (800) foot cliff and somebody's house is at the bottom; that thousand
(1 000) does not make any sense there. So when you know and go out and see a stake
and it will be probably more legwork than any Board member has ever done on a
project in Roanoke County just because everything can be visualized. This is going to
be a first and the key element is that it is going to take the Board more time to get a lay
of the land and see where it is; that is where the best practice of a setback, for that
individual site, comes in.
Mr. Mahoney stated he thinks where Supervisor Elswick is coming from
when Mr. Goodman and himself were talking before was let's eliminate that standard,
address it when you have a unique application come it and make a decision at that time.
Supervisor Elswick stated that would be one way to do it and tie in with
what Supervisor Altizer said and at the time you get a special use permit, potentially say
we are going to get a good objective study made of the area where it is proposed and
any other aspect, i.e. other studies that people have done. We are going to have
somebody look at it and advise us as to what the correct number ought to be because
the numbers in there have no basis, zero. The Planning Commission said twenty -six
hundred (2,600); the Board changed to one thousand (1 000) for no reason.
Mr. Mahoney stated he disagreed.
Supervisor Elswick inquired what was the reason.
Supervisor Church asked Mr. Mahoney to clarify his statement.
Mr. Mahoney stated he disagreed with saying that any of the standards
set in the ordinance have no basis in fact.
Supervisor Church stated he thought he was referring to one thousand
(1 000) feet.
Mr. Mahoney stated there is page after page of facts; what other
jurisdictions and other states have done with respect to distances and setbacks. We
may disagree with them, but there is fact here.
Supervisor Elswick stated he was looking for the facts between twenty -six
(2,600) and one thousand (1 000) feet; what was that justification.
Mr. Mahoney stated any number they wanted.
Chairman Flora stated it was a gut feeling.
Mr. Mahoney stated if you look at four hundred and fifty foot tall building
and multiple times two (2) is a thousand feet.
December 11, 2012 709
Supervisor Elswick stated he did not see that recorded in the minutes of
our meeting.
Mr. Mahoney then asked where does the Board want to go; refer it back to
the Planning Commission and if so, he would hope that the Board would limit the scope
of what the Planning Commission looks at as opposed to opening the whole thing up.
Chairman Flora stated he has no interest in opening the whole thing up; it
was painful enough the first time.
Supervisor Elswick agreed.
Mr. Mahoney then asked how quickly do you want the Planning
Commission to come back and report to the Board. Again, if you have a new Planning
Commission member and if you look at some studies.
Chairman Flora stated he does not think the Board should set a deadline.
If we choose to refer it back, they can take whatever time they need. We have an
ordinance in place until we amend it. He stated he does not have a problem with the
setback because it is a minimum of one thousand (1 000) and could end up being three
thousand (3,000) feet; if that what the condition warrants. The only reason he brought it
up is he wants to make sure that the Board did not set the recommendation of sixty (60)
decibels. Is that an appropriate amount that is his question. If you think it is an
appropriate amount, then leave it where it is. If you have questions, then let's ask them
to look at it. We definitely do not want them to look at the whole ordinance.
Supervisor Elswick inquired if the Board could send it back to them and
say we would like you to revise this section of the ordinance to remove any specific
criteria and in the interim in case we need an ordinance say that we will determine the
criteria and do evaluations at the time of the special use permit and we will await further
evaluation by the Planning Commission as to what specific limitations and requirements
should go into the ordinance.
Mr. Mahoney advised yes.
Supervisor Moore stated her opinion is that she thinks the Planning
Commission worked two (2) years on this, they got all the studies, we can up or down
the decibels or the setback if and when we get a special use permit and that is what
Supervisor Altizer said; our safety net. If it is fifty -seven (57), which a lot of these
studies are, but you don't know the background noises for Bent Mountain or Windy Gap
or wherever. When we get the special use permit, at that time we can look at where it is
proposed to be and go from there. In the meantime, the Planning Commission could be
studying this more and if we do have one they will be more informed. We do not have
anything to go by; a lot of these charts were in other states: California, Wisconsin, not
here. We have different wind; background noises just a variable of things. She stated
she personally thinks everybody worked really hard on it and studied it and the Board
looked at it and she thinks it is a fair ordinance to go by. We can always go down if
somebody brings us something and whether it is 50, 40 or whatever, we can look at it at
that time.
Supervisor Church stated in no particular order: litigation is a problem, he
agreed. We have subjective numbers, he agreed. We can let this thing stay as it is, we
know for a fact that the Board is going change next year. Supervisor Altizer just got
through saying the credits are gone, we may never see an application if the credits go.
We may be talking about something that is a mute point. "Follow the money." If people
710 December 11, 2012
do not have $60 million, they are not going to put their own in their pocket. How can it
hurt, if we are going to make the decision up or down, decibel, setback.
Chairman Flora stated he is getting a sense there is not that strong a
support to send it back for anything.
Supervisor Altizer stated he does not want to send it back.
Supervisor Elswick stated he definitely thinks it should go back; why don't
we have a show of hands.
Supervisor Altizer stated he did not think it should go back. He stated he
does not believe the Board set the standards at a, in his opinion, pro or con either way.
If you look at this study, fifty -five (55), fifty -seven (57) by NASA, we are at sixty (60).
What are we off, three percent (3 %)?
Supervisor Elswick said no. Mr. Mahoney explained it was a ten based
system and when you go from fifty (50) to sixty (60) it is like increasing it ten (10) times,
so it is not a linear.
Supervisor Altizer stated so it is five (5) if you go to fifty -five (55) as that is
the middle. From looking at the charts Mr. Goodman gave the Board, it is showing fifty -
five (55) to fifty -seven (57) decibels, correct.
Chairman Flora stated it was maxed out at fifty seven (57).
Supervisor Altizer stated he just goes back to if something is going to
happen or not, it is a crap shoot. Secondly, he has to believe that every Board member
here, if a special use permit comes in for Bent Mountain, the Board is going to make the
appropriate decision based on that site. He stated he thinks that is our safety net. He
stated he thinks some parts of what is in the ordinance will be a little bit more restrictive
depending on what the Board sees when they go out there as far as where the tower
locations are based on where people's home are and where their property lines are and
how it lays and where the drop offs are. When you can sit there and look at where it is
going to be built and what it is going to be relative to other people's homes, that is when
you make a definitive judgment for that site. Again, he does not want to send it back; he
thinks we have a safety net and is not so sure the credits will be there and even become
an issue, but we always have the safety net there and if they come in February or
March, then we will deal with it. It isn't going to make any difference then. Let's play it
out and see what happens. We always know we have the safety net of the special use
permit. If we did not have that under a special use permit, then maybe it would warrant
going back, but we have always said we have a second look. Even if we go back and
run it through the Planning Commission, we are going to go up there and find out that
some things are too low. If you get down to thirty -five decibels it might work all right
further away at fifty -five (55).
Supervisor Elswick stated but depending on the special use permit means
that we ought to take numbers out of the ordinance then because we have committed
ourselves when we put numbers in there and it puts the Board at a disadvantage if we
go to court. The Board probably would make a good decision and visit the site if a
special use permit came up, but let me give you an example of how people are
prejudiced and how, for some reason, they make decisions that are different than what
they actually experience. When we went to West Virginia, he stood by a Planning
Commissioner and the windmills were very noisy at thirty -six hundred (3,600) hundred
feet away and he can prove that. Doug Chittum was there, the windmill company
December 11, 2012 711
representative was there. That Planning Commissioner came back and said make
them four hundred and forty (440) feet for the people on Bent Mountain. So, he agees
that the Board in total would probably make a good decision if a special use permit
comes up, but there are people who are prejudiced for whatever reason and whoever
their friends are to punish people without even thinking about it. He stated if we are
going to rely on the special use permit, then let's just take the numbers out.
Supervisor Altizer stated he thinks they are more at a disadvantage if
there are no numbers. He stated he can just visualize we have no setback and then all
of a sudden, Board members start saying this one over here needs to be three
thousand (3,000) feet; from zero (0) to three thousand (2,000) feet is a long way. He
stated he cannot address what the Planning Commissioner said, but all he can say that
the Planning Commission are recommendations and the buck stops here. We will make
the decision and thinks they will make the right decision. By having it a special use
permit, the safety net is in there because he thinks all of the Board members deep down
knew that they would be making a best guessed change based on some of the stuff we
heard from the Planning Commission. We will get a bite at that apple again, but we will
be able to look at that apple a whole lot better under the special use permit than we will
here at a piece of property that we cannot even say exactly where it is going to go. We
will get a better chance to make a better decision.
Supervisor Elswick stated he thinks we should send it back because the
way it is written now invites windmill companies to come in because it is very close to
the numbers they like. He thinks the numbers in there either ought to not exist at all or
numbers that are favorable to our people, not people from Chicago.
Chairman Flora stated he thinks Mr. Mahoney made a good point when he
said we are in litigation right now and it would be smart not to do anything until after it is
resolved. If we start changing it may have an adverse effect. He stated he does not
know that the sixty (60) is wrong; he just needs to be convinced that he has misread
what he is looking at.
Supervisor Church stated he is not sure if sixty (60) is good or not, he had
no idea when he recommended during the Board meeting, thirty -five (35). The majority
of the Board thought it should be a different level. He personally thinks that one
thousand (1 000) feet is too small; that is his opinion. However, we need a consensus
on the Board to reach that decision to either change it or not, the majority of this Board
has said one thousand (1 000) feet and sixty decibels and thinks that is where we stand
whether he agrees with it or not; unless you have enough votes,
Supervisor Elswick asked Supervisor Church if he does not think it should
be sent back with Supervisor Church saying you have to have consensus of the Board
to send it back.
Supervisor Elswick stated there are three votes.
Chairman Flora said he does not think it should go back until we resolve
our litigation issues. We probably should not even be debating it.
Supervisor Elswick stated he is concerned. He wants the people to be
protected, that is our job. We have no allegiance to people who pretend to be green
and they are really not. If you take a mountaintop and you destroy the trees, wherever
these go, and if you go to West Virginia you can get a feel for how many trees are going
to be lost, what kind of roads have to be built. The CO2 that those trees would have
712 December 11, 2012
absorbed could very well exceed the CO2 not generated by coal fired utilities that the
windmills displace. We do not know that. There are other things we do not know and to
him for a thousand (1,000) megawatt plant on top of Bent Mountain will sacrifice some
of the ways of life of the people on Bent Mountain or any other mountain in our
neighborhoods, if it were a thousand (1,000) megawatt plant. This is probably enough
energy coming from there, depending on who you ask, some say two thousand (2,000)
homes and some say ten (10) and some say thirty (30), but it is easy to get that number
to because it is available from West Virginia. So, there are just too many portions to this
ordinance that were not based on scientific evidence and have obviously been
challenged and will be challenged in court and he believes our job is to protect our
people and our job is to make ordinances that have some credibility. Every number that
we put in there, if we put a number in there, ought to have credibility. There ought to be
a basis for it and just because some other location has an ordinance is not credibility;
that just means they got snowed by the wind company too. Credibility comes from
people like NASA and those who have the tools, equipment and expertise. Some of
those NASA guys have been studying wind noise for twenty to thirty (20 -30) years and
does it professionally for airlines, airports and other people who need to know what the
noise levels are. Those people who wrote those ordinances in that paper know nothing
about noise and he would like to see Roanoke County have more credibility. He would
like to see us do everything we can to protect the people who would have to live near
them; and that is not going to stop, but if he is outnumbered, he is outnumbered and will
move on until something changes. Things are going to change.
The work session was held from 5:20 p.m. until 6:15 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 6:26 p.m., Chairman Flora moved to return to open session and adopt
the certification resolution.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Church thanked all the employees and all departments for their
efforts this year; we have had to do more with less. He appreciates everyone joining
together and recognizing the job ahead. It is going to be a little bit tougher next year.
Thank you and God bless you and your family; Merry Christmas to everyone.
Supervisor Elswick stated he wanted to tell a little story. As most of you
know, he lives off the road about a half mile into the woods. A week or so ago, he woke
up at 3:30 in the morning with a glow outside his window and he thought it was typically
somebody trespassing, but there must have been a lot of them. He looked out and no
more than one hundred yards away, there are probably one hundred trees lying on the
ground and not just burning, these were trees AEP cut and piled beside the right -of -way
when they built a new power line. They were not just smoking, they were red hot,
probably a hundred large oak and pine and other kinds of trees and he thought well his
December 11, 2012 713
house was gone because the wind was blowing thirty miles an hour and no more than
one hundred yards away. So, he quickly decided he did not have time to get anything
out of the house and ran down. The Forestry people and our Fire and Rescue people
were there and said they have it under control, which really surprised him because he
did not see how they could possibly do it with the way the wind was blowing. He stated
he wanted to commend those and tell you that sometimes they question the amount of
money that we put into some of our County departments, but if you go through that kind
of experience you really appreciate it.
Supervisor Moore stated she would like to recommend some energy
saving ideas for you to save some money over the winter months. If you unplug your
cell phone chargers while you are not using them you will be able to save money. If you
feel air coming through your windows, doors or your electrical outlets and you cannot
weather strip, just put a towel under the door or window to keep the cold air out. You
may want to consider using LED decorative lighting that costs a little bit more upfront,
but they will save money in the long run. She would also like to encourage everyone to
go to the Save A Ton website; there are lots of great ideas on there. Thomas Becker
just received several awards for the website; it is a great website. She also stated she
would like to wish the staff, all County employees and all citizens a very happy holiday
season and a very Merry Christmas.
Supervisor Flora advised this was the last meeting for 2012 and also
wants to wish everyone a happy holiday season, if you are like most of us and
celebrating Christmas, which comes in about two weeks and not the day after
Thanksgiving, which the merchants would have us believe or if you happen to be one of
our Jewish friends and are celebrating Hanukkah, which started this past weekend and
goes through next weekend or if you do not celebrate anything at all, celebrate the
holidays.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Flora adjourned the meeting at 6:27 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
I � FA W //
065 �� OTC
2
e orah C JJa Richard C Flora
Clerk t the :•; • Chairman
714 December 11, 2012
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY