Loading...
8/27/2013 - Regular August 27, 2013 347 Roanoke County Administration Center 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24018 The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day atthe Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of August 2013. 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: OPENING CEREMONIES Before the meeting was called to order a reflective moment of silence was observed. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Altizer called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Michael W. Altizer; Supervisors Joseph B. “Butch” Church, Eddie “Ed” Elswick, Richard C. Flora and Charlotte A. Moore MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator;Daniel R. O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Richard Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Ruth Ellen Kuhnel, Senior Assistant County Attorney; and Deborah C. Jacks, Clerk to the Board IN RE: BRIEFINGS 1. Briefing on the selection of AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. as the consultant to assist with Roanoke County’s Stormwater Management Program Study (Tarek Moneir, Deputy Director of Development) Mr. Moneir provided a briefing to the Board regarding the hiring of the consultant to assist with the Stormwater Program Study. August 27, 2013 348 Supervisor Church inquired if citizens can attend these meeting when they are held. Mr. Moneir responded in the affirmative and advised these meetings will be publicized and will be open to the public. Participation will be limited and presentations will be given. Chairman Altizer requested that they schedule a meeting in each of the five districts and the rest in South County; make is easily accessible. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Confirmation of the recommended appointments to the Roanoke County Stormwater Advisory Committee (RCSWAC) to assist with evaluating Roanoke County’s Stormwater Management Programs in relation to new state requirements (Tarek Moneir, Deputy Director of Development) A-082713-1 Mr. Moneir presented the recommendations for appointment to the Stormwater Advisory Committee and outlined the need of the committee to provide feedback, etc. on key issues. Meetings will start in September of 2013. Supervisor Flora moved to approve the staff recommendation to execute the performance agreement. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None 2. Resolution approving an agreement with Craig County regarding Building Code Board of Appeals Services (B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator) Mr. Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development, outlined the request for the agreement. Supervisor Church asked for the number of appeals with Mr. Covey responding very seldom. RESOLUTION 082713-2 APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH CRAIG COUNTY REGARDING BUILDING CODE BOARD OF APPEALS SERVICES WHEREAS, Roanoke County has an established Building Code Board of Appeals, which is composed of a five (5) members with each member being appointed from each magisterial district, the purpose of which is to hear appeals from anyone that August 27, 2013 349 may be aggrieved by the local building official’s application of the Uniform Statewide Building Code or the refusal by the building official to grant a modification to the provisions of the Uniform Statewide Building Code; and WHEREAS, Section 36-105 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, provides that a local governing body may enter into an agreement with the local governing body of another county or municipality for the enforcement of and appeals from the Building Code; and WHEREAS, Craig County does not presently have a Building Code Board of Appeals capable of hearing and deciding appeals from decisions of its Chief Building Official and has requested that it be allowed to utilize Roanoke County’s Building Code Board of Appeals; and WHEREAS, staff has drafted an agreement providing for Craig County to utilize Roanoke County’s Building Code Board of Appeals, upon certain terms and conditions; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Agreement providing that Craig County may utilize Roanoke County’s Building Code Board of Appeals is hereby approved (Exhibit A). 2. That the County Administrator, or his designee, is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement and any other necessary documents to accomplish this action, all to be upon a form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Supervisor Flora IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA 1. The petition of Brambleton Baptist Church to obtain a Special Use Permit in a C-1, Office, District for the operation of a religious assembly on approximately 0.58 acre, located at 4313 Old Cave Spring Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District Supervisor Elswick moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading and another public hearing for September 24, 2013. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: August 27, 2013 350 AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None 2. The petition of 3 B Properties LLC, to amend the proffered conditions on property approximately 0.343 acre in size and zoned C-2C, General Commercial, District with conditions, located at 4345 Brambleton Avenue, Windsor Hills Magisterial District Supervisor Elswick moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading and another public hearing for September 24, 2013. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinances approving termination of existing lease between Roanoke County and StellarOne at 220 East Main Street, Salem, Virginia and authorizing a new lease for a night deposit and ATM at the same location (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.) (Richard Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Ruth Ellen Kuhnel, Senior Assistant County Attorney) Mr. Caywood outlined the ordinances. The first lease is to amend the existing lease for early termination, which will help the County with space for social services. Secondly, StellarOne wants to keep the night deposit and ATM at the same location. Additionally, they have agreed to add five additional spaces. Supervisor Church inquired if all the principals involved know about the roof renovation with Mr. Caywood responding in the affirmative. There was no additional discussion. ORDINANCE 082713-3 AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 031312-4 AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE WITH STELLARONE BANK TO PROVIDE FOR AN EARLY LEASE TERMINATION BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: August 27, 2013 351 1. That on March 13, 2012, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 031312-4, which approved a one (1)-year lease with StellarOne for 5,190 square feet of space on the first floor of the building located at 220 E. Main Street in Salem, Virginia; said lease to renew on a year-to-year basis and which was renewed by StellarOne on March 1, 2013, to expire on February 28, 2014. 2. That Stellar One has subsequently requested early termination effective August 31, 2013, of the lease as a result of consolidation of their facilities; said early termination also benefitting the County due to a need for additional office space at that location for use by the Department of Social Services. 3. That pursuant to the provisions of § 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading of an ordinance terminating this lease was held on August 27, 2013; the second reading of this ordinance has been dispensed with since an emergency exists, upon a 4/5ths vote of the members of the Board. 4. That the early termination of the lease by StellarOne of 5,190 square feet of space on the first floor of the building located at 220 E. Main Street in Salem, Virginia, is hereby authorized and approved. 5. That the County Administrator, or Assistant County Administrator, is authorized to execute such document and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance as an emergency measure, and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None ORDINANCE 082713-4 APPROVING A LEASE BETWEEN ROANOKE COUNTY AND STELLARONE AT 220 EAST MAIN STREET, SALEM, VIRGINIA FOR THE LOCATION OF A NIGHT DEPOSIT AND ATM MACHINE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That StellarOne has requested that the County enter into a lease of approximately one hundred (100) square feet of space for the location of a night deposit and ATM machine, which are currently located in the building located at 220 E. Main Street, Salem, Virginia. 2. That County staff has negotiated a lease for the location of a night deposit and ATM machine, for an initial three (3)-year term with two (2) five (5)-year renewals at a rent of $20 per square feet. 3. That pursuant to the provisions of § 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading of an ordinance terminating this lease was held on August 27, August 27, 2013 352 2013; the second reading of this ordinance has been dispensed with since an emergency exists, upon a 4/5ths vote of the members of the Board. 4. That the lease of approximately one hundred (100) square feet of space to StellarOne for the location of a night deposit and ATM machine located on the first floor of the building located at 220 E. Main Street in Salem, Virginia, is hereby authorized and approved. 5. That the County Administrator, or Assistant County Administrator, is authorized to execute such document and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance as an emergency measure, and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None 2. Ordinance accepting and appropriating $56,087 to the Roanoke County Public Schools for various grants (Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance) Ms. Owens outlined the request for an ordinance to accept various grants for Roanoke County Public Schools. There was no discussion. Supervisor Moore moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for September 24, 2013. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance appropriating $10,000 to General Services from the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries for fiscal year 2013/2014 for the purchase of bear resistant garbage containers, (Jim Vodnik, Assistant Director of General Services) Mr. Vodnik outlined the ordinance to appropriate funds for the bear resistant garbage containers. This is the second reading of this ordinance; first reading was held August 13, 2013. There have been no changes since the first reading. There was no discussion. August 27, 2013 353 ORDINANCE 082713-4 APPROVING A LEASE BETWEEN ROANOKE COUNTY AND STELLARONE AT 220 EAST MAIN STREET, SALEM, VIRGINIA FOR THE LOCATION OF A NIGHT DEPOSIT AND ATM MACHINE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That StellarOne has requested that the County enter into a lease of approximately one hundred (100) square feet of space for the location of a night deposit and ATM machine, which are currently located in the building located at 220 E. Main Street, Salem, Virginia. 2. That County staff has negotiated a lease for the location of a night deposit and ATM machine, for an initial three (3)-year term with two (2) five (5)-year renewals at a rent of $20 per square feet. 3. That pursuant to the provisions of § 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading of an ordinance terminating this lease was held on August 27, 2013; the second reading of this ordinance has been dispensed with since an emergency exists, upon a 4/5ths vote of the members of the Board. 4. That the lease of approximately one hundred (100) square feet of space to StellarOne for the location of a night deposit and ATM machine located on the first floor of the building located at 220 E. Main Street in Salem, Virginia, is hereby authorized and approved. 5. That the County Administrator, or Assistant County Administrator, is authorized to execute such document and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance as an emergency measure, and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None 2. Ordinance approving a Telecommunications and Facilities Licensing Agreement with Lumos Networks at the Social Services Building, 220 East Main Street, Salem, VA and appropriating $900 annually in lease proceeds to the Salem Bank and Trust Building Account (Jim Vodnik, Assistant Director of General Services Mr. Vodnik outlined the ordinance and the agreement. He advised there was one minor change, paragraph 9 adding some additional language. No major change. The first reading was held on August 13, 2013. Supervisor Church reiterated Roanoke County is to be held harmless due to August 27, 2013 354 renovations. Mr. Vodnik affirmed. There was no further discussion. ORDINANCE 082713-6 APPROVING A TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND FACILITIES LICENSING AGREEMENT WITH LUMOS NETWORKS AT THE SOCIAL SERVICES BUILDING, 220 EAST MAIN STREET, SALEM, VIRGINIA AND APPROPRIATING $900 ANNUALLY IN LEASE PROCEEDS TO THE SALEM BANK AND TRUST BUILDING ACCOUNT WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County in regular session approved a telecommunications and facilities licensing agreement with Lumos Networks at the Social Services Building, 220 East Main Street, Salem, Virginia; and WHEREAS, Lumos Networks will be paying a licensing fee in the amount of $900 annually to the County, which will be placed in the General Fund; and WHEREAS, all lease proceeds from that building are placed in the Salem Bank and Trust Account for maintenance and upkeep; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be appropriated by ordinance; and WHEREAS, first reading of this ordinance was held on August 13, 2013, and the second reading was held on August 27, 2013. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the telecommunications and licensing agreement with Lumos Networks is hereby authorized and approved. 2. That the lease proceeds of $900 annually are hereby appropriated from the sources and for the purposes as stated above. 3. That the County Administrator, or Assistant County Administrator, is authorized to execute such document and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish this transaction, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. 4. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None August 27, 2013 355 3. Ordinance appropriating $9,583.15 to the Social Services budget for fiscal year 2013-2014 for additional State funds to be used for training as a result of exceptional departmental performance (Joyce Earl, Director of Social Services; W. Brent Robertson, Director of Management and Budget) Ms. Earl outlined the ordinance and advised this is the second reading to appropriate additional State Funds. The first reading was held on August 13, 2013 and there have been no changes from the first reading. Supervisors Elswick and Church thanked Ms. Earl for the hard work. There was no discussion. ORDINANCE 082713-7 APPROPRIATING $9,583.15 TO THE SOCIAL SERVICES BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013-2014 FOR ADDITIONAL STATE FUNDS TO BE USED FOR TRAINING AS A RESULT OF EXCEPTIONAL DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE WHEREAS, the Department of Social Services has received a one-time allocation of $9,583.15 to be used for training purposes as a result of exceptional departmental performance; and WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be appropriated by ordinance; and WHEREAS, first reading of this ordinance was held on August 13, 2013, and the second reading was held on August 27, 2013. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the sum of $9,583.15 is hereby appropriated from the sources and for the purposes as follows: staff training and education (601000-5540) and to appropriate the same revenues from the State. 2. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None IN RE: APPOINTMENTS 1. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee (appointed by District) August 27, 2013 356 Chairman Michael W. Altizer recommended the reappointment of Paul St. Clair to represent the Vinton Magisterial District. This is a one-year term and will expire August 31, 2014. Confirmation of this appointment has been placed on the Consent Agenda. 2. Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission (appointed by District) Chairman Michael W. Altizer recommended the appointment of Richard W. Tomlinson to represent the Vinton Magisterial District. This is a three-year term and will expire June 30, 2015. Confirmation of this appointment has been added to the Consent Agenda. 3. Roanoke County Stormwater Advisory Committee (RCSWAC) (appointed by District) Chairman Michael W. Altizer recommended the appointment of James R. Nelson to represent the Vinton Magisterial District. There is no term limit on this appointment. Confirmation has been added to the Consent Agenda. Supervisor Richard Flora recommended the appointment of Steve Rossi to represent the Hollins Magisterial District. There is no term limit on this appointment. Confirmation has been added to the Consent Agenda. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA RESOLUTION 082713-8 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J- CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for August 27, 2013, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 2 inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of minutes – July 23, 2013 2. Confirmation of appointment to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review Committee (appointed by District); Parks, Recreation and Tourism Advisory Commission (appointed by District) and Roanoke County Stormwater Advisory Committee (RSCWAC) (appointed by District) August 27, 2013 357 On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None A-082713-8.a IN RE: REPORTS Supervisor Flora moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None 1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. Capital Reserves 3. Reserve for Board Contingency 4. Treasurer’s Statement of Accountability per Investment and Portfolio Policy as of July 31, 2013 5. Virginia Resources Authority 2013 Bond Sale Results 6. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of July 31, 2013 7. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and Encumbrances as of July 31, 2013 8. Accounts Paid – July 2013 9. Report on charges for fees adopted by Roanoke Valley Regional Pound for fiscal year 2013-2014 th At 3:37 p.m. Chairman Altizer recessed to the 4 floor for work sessions and closed meeting. IN RE: CLOSED MEETING At 3:35 p.m., Supervisor Altizer moved to go into closed meeting following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A 3, Discuss or consider the acquisition of real property, namely acquisition of property for use as public park and recreation purposes, where discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the County; Section 2.2- 3711.A.7. Consultation with legal counsel and briefings by staff members pertaining to probable litigation, namely, G&H Construction, where such consultation or briefing in August 27, 2013 358 open meeting would adversely affect the negotiating or litigating posture of the public body and Section 2.2-3711.A.29. Discussion of the award of a public contract involving the expenditure of public funds and discussion of the terms or scope of such contract, namely, a proposal for a project under the Public-Private Educational Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002 for a criminal justice training facility, where discussion in open session would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the County. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: YES: Supervisors Moore, Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None The closed meeting was held from 3:47 p.m. until 4:37 p.m. Supervisor Moore was not in attendance for the remainder of the meeting. IN RE: WORK SESSIONS 1. Work session on proposed amendments to the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning) In attendance for this work session were: Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning; John Murphy, Zoning Administrator; Arnold Covey, Director of Community Development; B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; Richard Caywood, Assistant County Administrator. Mr. Thompson went through a PowerPoint presentation outlining the proposed amendments. A copy of this presentation is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. Chairman Altizer inquired if the Planning Commission had approved with Mr. Thompson responding in the affirmative with one change. Supervisor Altizer inquired in order to have religious assembly under the code in an AB district that can be done by right? Mr. Thompson advised that is correct under this proposal; currently they would need a special use permit. Supervisor Altizer inquired what if you have a street that is zoned R1 on one side and AV on the other and have all residential houses on the AV side and someone wants to start a church, at their house, and then all of a sudden you have 30-40 cars on that street on Sunday. Mr. Thompson advised when dealing with religious assembly, you also have to deal with the use and design standards. August 27, 2013 359 So if there are any setbacks, and with that many homes there will be site plan requirements. There are other standards in the zoning ordinance that would limit the ability of somebody doing a church. There will be setback requirements for maximum building coverage, lot coverage, etc. We discussed this with the Planning Commission. There is nothing that can stop them if they want to go through that process. Supervisor Altizer stated he guessed his concern and it is his own neighborhood and does not know how this happened, but there is a street in his neighborhood and it is AV on one side and the whole rest of the neighborhood is R1. There are houses that their back lots backup to Rt. 116. They elected not to cut down trees for about a six to eight foot buffer from Rt. 116. He just wants to make sure that we understand or do we know how many of those situations we have. Agricultural Village is a different designation from R1, which is right across the street and there is a minimum width street in that neighborhood. Do we know everywhere in the County we may have those AV districts. Mr. Thompson advised there is a map that can be looked at. Supervisor Altizer stated it just happened that religious assembly is the first one to come up, but he just wants to make sure that there are neighborhoods that are strictly in the minds of those people, R-1 and a neighborhood, yet one side of the street is R1 and the other side of the street is AV. He just wants to make sure staff is looking at this and there are not some unintended consequences that come after that. Mr. Thompson responded, what side does the Board want to error on, allow more uses or to be more protective? That is really a philosophical decision for the Board and the Planning Commission. The intent was in looking at R2, R3 and R4, there are houses on both sides, but allow a church by right in R2. Staff is trying to compare across the spectrum as to where we allow it and don’t allow it. The AG districts fall into that category. Supervisor Altizer stated if you buy a house in R1 and across the street is R2 or R3 and you have apartments there is a different perception in people’s minds. Supervisor Flora inquired if there was a minimum lot size for religious assembly use. Mr. Murphy responded there is no minimum and the other items pulled in to play would be building coverage percentage, buffers, and minimum parking spaces, etc. Supervisor Elswick stated under AV, it says you can have a commercial stable under a special use permit and by right you can have a private stable in an AV, but in Mike’s example where it is R1 on the other side of the street, is it okay to have a stable across the street from an R1. Mr. Thompson advised when it comes to providing stable in R1, you would have to look at the design and use standards, and on lots more than 5 acres, it is allowed, less than 5 acres it is not. Supervisor Elswick stated but he is talking about being across the street from an AV. Mr. Thompson responded stables are allowed by right. Supervisor Elswick inquired if they could have four or five horses across the street from a residential house with Mr. Thompson responding in the affirmative. Supervisor Altizer asked if there was a minimum acreage amount with Mr. Thompson responding two (2) acres. There are standards associated with a stable. August 27, 2013 360 Mr. Goodman advised when he was discussing this with Philip when we started this process, we had some zoning requests that he thought should not have to go through the process. He stated he asked Mr. Thompson to look at changing to make it easier to do business. This is what was taken to the planning commission and he had some specific items that were included. If the Board wants to be more protective then we need to review and address the Board’s concerns and make it more restrictive or more requirements for special use. Mr. Thompson advised he understands there are some concerns and should have regulations for those appropriate concerns. Supervisor Elswick stated he thinks it is a good idea to make it less restrictive; does not want to be more protective but on the other hand he needs to understand if you are in R1, you can actually have a horse, i.e. in Hunting Hills. Mr. Goodman advised yes, if you have five (5) acres. Mr. Thompson responded less than five acres you would need to go through the special use process. Supervisor Altizer stated if the item holds an asterisk and there are use and design standards, there may be some things in those standards that would not allow it. He advised he thinks it would have been good to do a sheet, and have a definition of what the design standards are. It would help him. Mr. Thompson advised there were two other things they looked at with the use and design standards. This may be an issue that comes up as well, should we allow the expansion of an existing facility. Currently, there are certain criteria that have to be met to see if a special use permit is required. Please refer to page 5. Supervisor Elswick asked if a lot of the information that is lined out was put back in somewhere else with Mr. Thompson advising in the affirmative. Mr. Thompson stated for religious assembly, should an existing church be able to expand just like any other use in that district within the parameters of that zoning district. Staff and the Planning Commission thought that should be allowed. Mr. Caywood stated he thinks a key issue is eliminating the number of activities that require a special use permit, i.e. a church expansion where you have made it more complicated and added three or four months. Mr. Thompson advised the cost is also a factor; approximately $2,500. Supervisor Church stated in his opinion this would be an unnecessary burden. Mr. Goodman stated staff felt we should make it easier to do things in the County, especially on those permits that have been approved all the time. Supervisor Elswick inquired if everything is less restrictive with Mr. Thompson responding in the affirmative. Mr. Goodman stated Mr. Altizer had a comment regarding the unintended consequences. Staff cannot name them all, but there may be some out there, however, staff would recommend that we go forward. Supervisor Church stated those should be dealt with as they come up. August 27, 2013 361 Supervisor Altizer stated he is just concerned about AV because of the neighborhood thing. He just wants to make sure that everything that is being made by right and if there are design standards that make it to where it does not make sense to do something in AV will be okay. He knows we have a lot of sporadic change where we have regular R1 and it does not make sense to him that one side of the street is AV. It just does not make sense from a zoning standpoint and he just wants to make sure that with AV’s when we start adding things to that by right. Should we just go back to the people and say you really need to be zoned R1 or leave it as is. AV is probably the most vulnerable of any changes. He does want to make it less restrictive, less restrictive does not mean doing it everywhere. He just wants to get a comfort level with AV. Mr. Goodman suggested that the Board hold another work session on September 10, 2013 and look at the AV in a little greater detail. Supervisor Altizer stated he agreed; he just wanted to see a correlation of AV, where it is, etc. Supervisor Elswick stated should there be have another category, not a special use requirement but have people look at it; a third category requirement. Supervisor Altizer stated he did not want to add more layers of bureaucracy. He just thinks AV is more vulnerable in all these classifications and may have some unintended consequences just because of where they are located. He just wants to make sure staff is taking that into consideration. Mr. Thompson advised staff had made maps for each of the districts and the conversation was when going through the table look at the districts and where they are located in your specific district because if there are conflicts staff would like to know about them. If you think in your district a particular use may be appropriate that is currently allowed maybe there should be a process for them to go through, which is the special use permit process. This is the conversation we had with the Planning Commission to make sure they are comfortable with these uses. Supervisor Altizer stated he has looked at a lot of this and AV seems to be the most vulnerable out there depending on where some of those locations are. Next, Mr. Thompson reviewed the changes for the commercially zoned areas with focus on AV and C1. C1 only had seven uses that were allowed by right or by special use; accordingly staff felt that C1 was underutilized. AV is really the commercial area, crossroads area in the agricultural areas. There is also a recommendation to rename some of the districts. Supervisor Elswick asked on the last page, under site development standards, frontage on public road, no utilities, AG3 200 feet, AG1 150 feet, AR 110, etc. How did staff come up with and what is the justification for 200, 150 feet, etc. Why and what initiated and caused us to come up with that standard. August 27, 2013 362 Mr. Thompson advised that someone before his time drafted an ordinance that had those in there. Generally, the larger the lot, the bigger the road front requirement. He guessed that it probably came from surrounding communities. Supervisor Elswick stated there may have been some motive behind it that we are not aware of. Mr. Thompson stated typically if you have a larger lot frontage, it may reduce the amount of development that takes place in AG areas. Supervisor Elswick asked where does the Board get the authority to limit development in a rural area. Who gives us that authority; why should we even exercise it? Why should we be able to tell a farmer who needs money, that he cannot sell a part of his property because there is not enough road frontage? Can that person come in and ask for exception to this? Mr. Goodman stated he thinks the reason we use that authority is based on trying to protect what rural areas we have left. People could be under duress, but if it is an AG3 the worst thing that could happen is someone selling off small lots then it is no longer AG. The whole area would change in nature. Supervisor Elswick stated but you are making a decision that whoever owns that land can no longer exercise control over it, the Board does. To him that just is not right. Supervisor Flora stated but he does have an option. He can subdivide the property; he may have to put a fifty foot street in and build to State standards so the frontage is there, but he can do it with the Board’s approval. Supervisor Elswick stated but what if he just wants to sell one lot to friend of his? Supervisor Flora stated he can sell it to a family member without having to go through all this. Mr. Goodman stated the answer is in AG3; just subdivide it with a three-acre minimum. Mr. Thompson stated it is either existing road frontage or build a public road. If you wanted to do a subdivision, you can do it; you just have to build a State road. Supervisor Elswick stated historically and currently in that area, houses have just been built and driveways go out to the main road. This proposed lot that the neighbor would like to put a house on would be just like the rest of them. It would all be consistent and given that it is the nature of that community, we are saying you cannot do that; you have to build a State road before you can sell one lot to your neighbor. Supervisor Flora stated if it is an adjoining neighbor it can be a boundary adjustment, but if you allowed people to just subdivide hodgepodge with roads going here and there you have created a nightmare for future owners of those properties. Supervisor Elswick asked if it was that way in Craig County. Supervisor Flora responded you can build without a State maintained road, but you have to have a fifty (50) foot access right-of-way to get to that property. In Craig County, there is a five- acre minimum, with 250 feet of frontage on a fifty-foot right-of-way. Mr. Covey, Director of Community Development commented it becomes a problem with maintaining the roads. August 27, 2013 363 Supervisor Flora asked with regard to manufactured homes, the same thing as mobile homes; General Assembly changed the name. The houses manufactured in a plant are called modular homes. Supervisor Flora inquired if the County allows mobile homes in an R1 district? Mr. Murphy responded in the use and design standards, it would have to be a doublewide outside of a platted subdivision. Supervisor Flora commented philosophically when a person builds a home to live in, it is the largest single investment they will make in their lifetime. Somebody ought to be responsible for protecting that person’s property so that something cannot happen next door to them that causes that value to go down and that is the Board’s responsibility, to set standards so that you cannot go into a neighborhood and do whatever you wish and have a person’s house that was worth $250,000 now become $125,000 because he has a pig farm next door. He has a problem with making residential areas too liberal. At least special use permits give you the opportunity to determine whether or not it is a good use for that neighborhood. Churches, we have never turned one down since he has been on the Board for twelve years; they have all been an improvement for a commercial district. Mr. Thompson reminded Supervisor Flora that we are still requiring a special use permit in R1. Supervisor Elswick stated he agreed as long as the judgments we make are to protect that individual’s investment and the same kind of judgments that the people who currently live in that area. Supervisor Flora stated we have to balance both sides. Supervisor Elswick commented the one thing we have to stay away from is people who live in urban areas making decisions effecting people who live in rural areas. The people in rural areas are not telling the urban people how to live their lives and they do not put restrictions on the urban areas like the people who live in the urban areas do on the people in rural areas. He advised he is the only rural person that has been on the Board. Supervisor Flora commented he grew up on a farm and has a farm in Craig County and probably has the most conservative philosophy of everyone sitting here about what people ought to be able to do. It was the consensus of the Board to come back for another work session on September 10, 2013. The work session was held from 4:45 p.m. until 5:40 p.m. 2. Work session for discussion of proposed Western Virginia Regional Industrial Facilities Authority (B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator) The work session was held from 5:40 p.m. until 5:59 p.m. Mr. Goodman provided the Board with the applicable State law. He indicated it is their intention to include Franklin County, Roanoke City, Roanoke County, City of Salem, Town of Vinton and Montgomery County. This group would be able to August 27, 2013 364 identify industrial sites and the partnership would help us to move forward. Charge dues if necessary; but would need to be unanimous. The authority cannot agree to incur debt unless unanimous. He further stated they can form participation committees in which all are in agreement. Additionally, they can contribute funds, in-kind resources and share in the revenue. Partnership would be ex-officio officers, two members appointed to the board and alternates. The main purposes is to identify new industrial sites and plan and work together to develop these assets. Mr. Goodman stated he feels this is important for the valley. Supervisor Flora stated he personally thinks it is a good idea as long as we remember the lessons from the past in joint ventures. It really makes sense, some can benefit greater than others. Everybody benefits from the jobs created. He added his recommendation to proceed cautiously and judiciously. Chairman Altizer stated the importance of this is to be positioned for the next growth. If we are not ready and positioned, prospects are going to go somewhere else, but we need to step up to the plate and take a swing. We have to focus on jobs and investment. It is all about investment, growth, getting people here and positioned. Three of the four governments can afford to develop and put in infrastructure where only one municipality can afford. This will split the expense and revenues. It was the consensus of the Board to move forward to the first reading on September 10, 2014. IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION At 7:00 p.m., Chairman Altizer moved to return to open session and adopt the certification resolution. RESOLUTION 082713-9 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member’s knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification resolution applies; and August 27, 2013 365 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Moore IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of congratulations to Dana Martin for his service to the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) upon his retirement (B. Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator) The Clerk read the resolution of congratulations to Mr. Martin. All Supervisor in attendance offered their thanks and congratulations. RESOLUTION 082713-10 OF CONGRATULATIONS TO DANA MARTIN FOR HIS SERVICE TO THE COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD (CTB) UPON HIS RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Dana Martin served as the Salem District representative on the Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) from November 2003 to June 2013 as one of the longest serving board members in the CTB’s history; and WHEREAS, Mr. Martin played an instrumental role in the Commonwealth Transportation Board’s ability to deliver highway, rail, pedestrian and enhancement projects across our region; and WHEREAS, Mr. Martin has done an excellent job representing the Roanoke Valley on the CTB. During his tenure he helped to secure funding for many critical construction projects including widening Route 11/460, Route 221 and Colonial Avenue in Roanoke County and regional projects including the I-81 Truck climbing Lanes, I-81 Exit 150 improvements, the I-581 / Elm Avenue interchange, the Route 58 Corridor and the completion of the I-581 / Valley View Mall Interchange; and WHEREAS, Mr. Martin devoted countless hours meeting with citizens, elected officials, groups, and boards across his district to hear their needs and concerns first hand, including working closely with Roanoke County Citizens to re-design the Route 221 widening project in Southwest Roanoke County; and WHEREAS, Mr. Martin was a tireless advocate for the Roanoke Valley Greenway and went to great lengths to secure funding for numerous Greenway projects August 27, 2013 366 across the County of Roanoke and the Town of Vinton as well as the Cities of Roanoke and Salem; and WHEREAS, Mr. Martin always had a warm smile, a funny tale and a genuine desire to help everyone he encountered in his capacity as our CTB Member. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia does hereby extend its sincere appreciation to Mr. Dana Martin for his leadership and service to the Commonwealth Transportation Board and its impact on Roanoke County; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors extends its congratulations to Mr. Martin on his retirement and best wishes in the future. On motion of Supervisor Altizer to adopt the resolution and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Moore IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 1. Resolution creating the Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority (Ruth Ellen Kuhnel, Senior Assistant County Attorney; B. Clayton Goodman, County Administrator) Mr. Goodman outlined the resolution creating the Authority. Supervisor Church thanked Mr. Goodman and Ms. Kuhnel for the work done on this item. Chairman Altizer opened and closed the public hearing. There was one citizen who spoke. Sam English of 5245 Roselawn Road stated he is the Founder and CEO of Attention Point, a Health IT company located in Roanoke County and are launching their product literally in less than two weeks and you will hear more about them soon. He is also a citizen as he lives in Roanoke County as well as currently the President of the Roanoke-Blacksburg Technology Council. The Tech Council represents over two hundred (200) tech companies throughout our region and has to say it is truly amazing to been a part of this effort over the last few years. He commended Roanoke County for their support and leadership. Thank you very much for what the Board has done, not only for the County but for the region. This has been a fantastic effort. It has been heartening to him as a citizen to actually see the municipalities and everyone working together. Not only the private sector, the business community, but also the governments working together not just publically but literally rolling up sleeves behind the doors to get things done. So it has been very refreshing to see it from that perspective as well. He applauds the Board for everything they have done to help this effort to date and look forward to the years to come. August 27, 2013 367 Supervisor Flora stated this is just another critical element in a broader picture of economic development. It has become incredibly more important to have high speed internet. We want to have every one of our businesses in the valley have the same opportunity that anyone else has anywhere else in the Country. Good step, will take a while to mature, but when it does the benefits will be obvious. Chairman Altizer stated the economy we are in has to do with positioning, planning, having certain infrastructure in place, etc. When people come calling at least you have a chance. If you are not prepared and you do not have what they are looking for you don’t even have a chance to “step up to the plate and take a swing.” Work in process, key is we are working. It will get here and the benefits will come along as we go. The regional cooperation that is going on right now in the valley is an integral part of it and it’s the day of the future; working with other localities and being able to do things and share the costs. It makes it a whole lot easier for everyone and also presents opportunities to be done a whole lot quicker than if everyone was trying to go their own separate ways. RESOLUTION 082713-11 CREATING THE ROANOKE VALLEY BROADBAND AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia (“Roanoke County”), the Board of Supervisors of Botetourt County, Virginia (“Botetourt County”), the City Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia (“Roanoke City”), and the City Council of the City of Salem, Virginia (“Salem City”) have determined that it is in the best interests of the Roanoke Valley to create the Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority pursuant to the provisions of the Virginia Wireless Services Authorities Act, Chapter 54.1, Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended (“Act”), and desire to do so by the adoption of concurrent resolutions, and a public hearing has been held in accordance with the requirements of Sections 15.2-5431.3 and 15.2-5431.5 of the Act. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. Creation of the Authority. There is hereby created the Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority (“Authority”). 2. Articles of Incorporation. The Articles of Incorporation of the Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority are as follows: ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF THE ROANOKE VALLEY BROADBAND AUTHORITY The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, and The Board of Supervisors of Botetourt County, and the Council of the City of Roanoke, and the Council of the City of Salem have by concurrent resolutions adopted the following Articles of Incorporation of the Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority, pursuant to The Virginia Wireless Services August 27, 2013 368 Authorities Act (Chapter 54.1, Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended), (the “Act”). The Authority shall exist for a term of 50 years as a political subdivision. ARTICLE I NAME AND ADDRESS The name of the Authority shall be the Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority (the “Authority”) and the address of its principal office is c/o Roanoke Valley – Alleghany Regional Commission, 313 Luck Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, VA 24016. The location of the principal office may be changed by the concurrence of three-fourths of the Authority members present at the regular meeting, provided that the clerk of the governing body of each member governmental subdivision has been notified of the contemplated relocation in writing at least thirty days before such meeting. ARTICLE II CREATING JURISDICTIONS The names of the incorporating political subdivisions are the County of Botetourt, the County of Roanoke, the City of Roanoke, and the City of Salem. As the incorporating political subdivisions, hereby acknowledge, covenant, and agree that these Articles of Incorporation shall not be further amended or changed without the express agreement of the governing body of each of the incorporating political subdivisions. None of the following actions shall be taken or permitted to occur by the Board of the Authority without the affirmative vote of a majority of the members from each incorporating political subdivision creating the Authority: 1. The inclusion of additional political subdivisions in the Authority. 2. Additional agreements with political subdivisions other than Authority members, entities, or persons, local universities and colleges, the Town of Vinton, and the Western Virginia Water Authority for the expansion of services or network, or wireless infrastructure. ARTICLE III MEMBERS, TERMS OF OFFICE The term of office of the Authority members shall be for four years. Members may serve additional terms as appointed by their governing body. The initial term of office shall be staggered with the initial term being for 2 and 4 years alphabetically by last name. The Board of the Authority shall consist of five Members. The names and addresses, August 27, 2013 369 and terms of office of the initial members of the Board of the Authority (“Authority”) are as follows: Name and address Designee Initial Term 1. Kevin S. Boggess Salem 2 years City Manager’s Office 114 North Broad Street Salem, VA 24153 2. B. Clayton Goodman III Roanoke County 4 years County Administrator’s Office 5204 Bernard Drive Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 3. Kathleen D. Guzi Botetourt County 2 years County Administrator’s Office 1 West Main Street, Box 1 Fincastle, VA 24090 4. Michael McEvoy Citizen 4 years Western Virginia Water Authority 601 S. Jefferson Street, Suite 200 Roanoke, VA 24011 5. Christopher P. Morrill Roanoke City 2 years City Manager’s Office Room 364 Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, N.W. Roanoke, VA 24011 The terms of office of the initial members shall begin on the date of issuance of a certificate of incorporation or charter for the Authority by the State Corporation Commission. The governing body of each participating political subdivision shall appoint one (1) member who may be a member of the governing body. The four (4) members of the Board of the Authority shall recommend to the participating political subdivisions the appointment of the fifth member who shall be a citizen and resident of one of the participating political subdivisions. The governing bodies of each participating political subdivision shall ratify and confirm the appointment of the fifth member. If any of the governing bodies fails to act or are unable to act within 60 days of the receipt of this recommendation, then the appointment of the fifth member shall be August 27, 2013 370 rd made by the judges of the Circuit Court for the 23 Judicial District. Initially, the governing body of the County of Roanoke shall appoint one member to a 4 year term; the governing body of the County of Botetourt shall appoint one member to a 2 year term; the governing body of the City of Roanoke shall appoint one member to a 2 year term; and the governing body of the City of Salem shall appoint one member for a 2 year term. The citizen shall be appointed to a 4 year term. After the initial terms, each member shall be appointed to a four-year term or until a successor is appointed and qualified. The governing body of each political subdivision shall be empowered to remove, at any time, without cause, the member appointed by it and appoint a successor member to fill the unexpired portion of the removed member’s term. Vacancies on the Board shall be filled for the unexpired term in the same manner as the appointment of the member vacating the Board was made. Each member shall be reimbursed by the Authority for the amount of actual expenses in performance of duties as a member of the Authority. Each member of the Board shall have one equal vote in all matters before the Authority. ARTlCLE IV PURPOSE The purpose of the Authority is to provide qualifying communication services as authorized by Article 5.1 (§ 56-484.7:1 et seq) of Chapter 15 of Title 56 Code of Virginia, as amended and to provide such other services as provided by law and Chapter 54.1 of Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. Such services are to be provided to the geographic areas of the County of Roanoke, the County of Botetourt, the City of Roanoke, and the City of Salem to establish local governmental network(s)to meet the communication needs of the participating localities and their subsidiaries and in accordance with the contracts and agreements by and between this Authority and other private or public entities as the Authority may agree in writing upon the terms and conditions established pursuant to such contracts. ARTICLE V POWERS, GENERAL OPERATIONS The Authority shall have all the powers granted by Section 15.2-5431.11 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. The general business of the Authority, including the issuance of revenue bonds and refunding bonds as permitted by the Act and the expenditure of funds for general expenses, shall be conducted by the majority action of the Board of the Authority, August 27, 2013 371 provided, such Board may create an executive committee and such other committees as the Board may direct, including project committees. The Authority is vested with the powers of a body corporate, including the power to sue and be sued in its own name, plead and be impleaded, and adopt and use a common seal and alter the same as may be deemed expedient. ARTICLE VI DISSOLUTION The Board of the Authority may determine that the purposes for which the Authority was created have been completed, or are impractical or impossible to complete, and that all of the obligations have been paid, or have been assumed by one or more political subdivisions or any Authority created, thereby, or that cash or United States government securities have been deposited for their payment. In such event, it shall adopt and file with each of the governing bodies a resolution declaring such facts. If the governing bodies adopt a resolution, concurring in such declaration and finding that the Authority should be dissolved, they shall file appropriate articles of dissolution with the State Corporation Commission. ARTICLE VII WITHDRAWAL OF LOCALITY A locality may withdraw from the Authority at any time, provided, that no locality may withdraw from the Authority at any time when bonds are outstanding unless all remaining members approve such withdrawal at such time. Prior to withdrawing, a locality shall provide the Authority and each of the other participating localities with written notice of the locality’s intent to withdraw. In the event that a locality withdraws, such locality electing to withdraw shall execute all documents necessary to reflect such withdrawal, the remaining participating localities shall appoint a replacement member to the Board, and file proper amendments to these Articles with the State Corporation Commission. If any of the governing bodies of the remaining participating localities fails to act or are unable to act to appoint a replacement member within 60 days after the locality electing to withdraw provides notice of withdrawal, then the appointment of the replacement member shall be made rd by the judges of the Circuit Court for the 23 Judicial Circuit. ARTICLE VIII AUDIT The Authority shall cause an annual audit of its books and records to be made by the State Auditor of Public Accounts or by an independent certified public accountant at the end of each fiscal year and a certified copy thereof to be filed promptly with the governing bodies of each of the incorporating political subdivisions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, the August 27, 2013 372 Board of Supervisors of Botetourt County, Virginia, the City Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, and the City Council of the City of Salem, Virginia have caused these Articles of Incorporation to be executed in their respective names, and their respective seals have been affixed and attested by the respective clerks of each. COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Attest:______________(Seal)____ By:_____________________________ Clerk Michael Altizer, Chairman Board of Supervisors COUNTY OF BOTETOURT, VIRGINIA Attest:______________(Seal)____ By:______________________________ Clerk _________________, Chairman Board of Supervisors CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Attest:______________(Seal) By:______________________________ Stephanie Moon, Clerk David A. Bowers, Mayor CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA Attest:______________(Seal) By:____________________________ Clerk __________________, Mayor 3. The appropriate officers are hereby authorized to execute all documents and take all other actions necessary or convenient to file or otherwise cause the Articles of Incorporation for the Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority to become effective. 4. Effective immediately. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Moore August 27, 2013 373 IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES 1. The petition of Blue Ridge Autism and Achievement Center to obtain a Special Use Permit in a R-1, Low Density Residential, District for operation of an educational facility, primary/secondary on approximately 2.967 acres, located at 8132 Olsen Road, Hollins Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning) Mr. Thompson outlined the petition and request for the special use permit. He advised the Planning Commission approved 5-0, with one condition. In attendance to answer questions from Craig Balzer, Chairman of the Board of Directors of BRAC. Chairman Altizer opened and closed the public hearing with no citizens to speak on this item. Supervisor Flora stated he has not received one call regarding this agenda item and Mr. Jarrell has filled him in on the issues. It is his understanding that all concerns have been addressed. There was no discussion. ORDINANCE 082713-12 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION OF AN EDUCATIONAL FACILITY, PRIMARY/ SECONDARY ON APPROXIMATELY 2.967 ACRES LOCATED AT 8132 OLSEN ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 26.16-2-6) HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON THE PETITION OF BLUE RIDGE AUTISM AND ACHIEVEMENT CENTER WHEREAS, Blue Ridge Autism and Achievement Center has filed a petition for a special use permit for the operation of an educational facility, primary/secondary on approximately 2.967 acres located at 8132 Olsen Road (Tax Map No. 26.16-2-6) in the Hollins Magisterial District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on August 6, 2013; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first reading on this matter on July 23, 2013; the second reading and public hearing on this matter was held on August 27, 2013. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Blue Ridge Autism and Achievement Center for a special use permit for the operation of an educational facility, primary/secondary on approximately 2.967 acres located at 8132 August 27, 2013 374 Olsen Road (Tax Map No. 26.16-2-6) in the Hollins Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 2005 Community Plan, as amended, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2232 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and that it shall have a minimum adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood or community, and said special use permit is hereby approved with the following conditions: a) The site shall be developed in general conformance with the concept plan. 2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The provisions of this special use permit are not severable. Invalidation of any word, phrase, clause, sentence or paragraph shall invalidate the remainder. The Zoning Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance. On motion of Supervisor Flora to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Flora, Church, Elswick, Altizer NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Moore IN RE: CITIZENS’ COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS The following citizens spoke. Noah Tickle of 1603 Frosty Lane in Salem, Virginia stated they're changing the name of the global-warming scam again. Wearing out words “Organizing for Action,” the presidential campaign machine declared, the other day on "climate change day," encouraged everyone to pepper skeptical members of congress at town hall meetings with questions about why they won't raise taxes to avert the doom of the planet. Even the most agile of senators won't be able to dodge these community organizers, because the league of conservative voters will spend $2 million filling the airwaves with an attack on any congressman who won't get with the program of putting teeth in carbon tax legislation. Well, the doomed planet movement has been losing momentum. Inconvenient scientific findings have confirmed the lack of any significant warming of dear old planet Earth over the past 16 years. This is the time period Co2 deception is at its most, nonsense. It's hard to scare people into action when nothing bad is happening. That's why the present beltway administration has changed its vocabulary again - first "global warming" was changed to "climate change" and now the correct name of the scam is "carbon pollution." It's a way to paint carbon dioxide as if it were black soot billowing out of industrial smokestacks to scam a carbon tax. Carbon August 27, 2013 375 dioxide is actually what humans’ exhale, and its food for plants. A nutrient that without which plants would not exist. Long ago, Humanity lost the ability to digest cellulose. So, we consume the fruits and seeds of plant flowers. Yet we have the arrogance of GOD given grace. "LOST" that we chose to vilify the very food we need to exist. Folks have been so dumbed down by socialists that they drink every drop of their green cool-aid. Where is the common sense? Federal employees who dare note the inconsistency of the global warming fairy tale are shunned. Five months into the job as head of the department of interior the secretary sent a clear message to the 70,000 employees (No telling how many czars of course), no dissents will be allowed, the First Amendment be damned. "I hope there are no climate change deniers in this "department of the interior" it was said, warning a gathering of employees. This is so unbelievable to me as I continue to stand here. Let's get back to intellectual common sense and defund the international council of local environmental initiatives the real UN socialist NGO responsible for this nonsense. Roxanne Christley of 7259 Willow Valley Road in Roanoke, Virginia stated she read an Op-ed in today's paper that was written by a member of this Board. The crux of the opinion was to support the notion that county debt is reasonable and to justify the need for that debt. My question to this Board would be, when would the level of county debt be considered unreasonable? The justification that debt is necessary to support the services mandated by the state and expected by the citizens aside, the real need is for our county to strive to pay off its debts and do all it can to support the idea of provident living, free from the bondage of interest. By implementing this standard, the county could better serve its citizens and emulate the example of how to conduct business, support needs (not wants) and prioritize future expenditures without being in debt. There is nothing wrong with borrowing money. It is true that not many people are able buy a home, get a college education, buy a new car, or start a business without taking on some kind of debt. However, these particular life milestones are not categorized as "wants," but in most cases needs. The needs of the citizens of Roanoke County have not always been considered or supported with this "reasonable debt," no matter how the board members want to "spin" the story. For instance, we did not NEED the Green Ridge Recreation Center and unfunded mandates from the state should be denied. This is a paragraph from the Op-ed, "Most people under the age of 50 would consider themselves fortunate if their total debt - including mortgage, automobile and credit cards was only 79 percent of their total household income. If you are a young adult and you own your home, car and have no debt, you must have been born into that privileged class that the rest of us only read about." This truly insulted me and should many others! My husband and I were not raised in the so-called privileged class that was so arrogantly assumed in this Op-ed. We were in fact raised in a blessed and humble class, by parents who taught us to work hard, tell the truth, give service to others and respect the Lord. We were taught to pay our way, stay out of debt and that if you can't pay in cash, you did not need it. To that end, we are under 50; own our home, several used cars and raised six amazing children along the 24years of our marriage August 27, 2013 376 and we owe no one for what we own, except the Good Lord for the blessings that have been given us and for honoring what we were taught by responsible parents. This Board would do a much better service to its citizens by promoting frugality and doing all -- possible to stay out of debt rather than to try to justify why it is reasonable to put the citizens of this county into unnecessary bondage. IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Elswick stated he would like to express appreciation for the efforts our County staff puts forth from the preparation of legal documents to all kinds of financial numbers, the planning, Parks and Recreation. We just had a work session where there was an unbelievable amount of time spend looking at ordinances and is there any way we can improve them. When our legal staff are asked to do documents, they are just as good a document as you would find anywhere. He is very appreciative of the work that our County employees do and he thinks our citizens are fortunate to have the kind of staff and leadership we have in Roanoke County. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Chairman Altizer adjourned the meeting at 7:36 p.m. Submitted by: Approved by: ________________________ ___________________________________ Deborah C. Jacks Michael W. Altizer Clerk to the Board Chairman