HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/22/2014 - RegularApril 22, 2014 261
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of April 2014. 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 an invocation was given by Pastor
Kirby L Whitfield, Sr. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman McNamara called the meeting to order at 3:01 p.m. The roll call
was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph P. McNamara, Supervisors Al Bedrosian,
Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Charlotte A. Moore and P. Jason
Peters
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: B. Clayton
Goodman III,
County
Administrator; Daniel R.
O'Donnell,
Assistant
County
Administrator; Richard
Caywood,
Assistant
County
Administrator; Paul M.
Mahoney,
County Attorney;
Amy Whittaker, Public
Information
Officer and
Deborah
C. Jacks, Deputy Clerk to
the Board
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution granting a waiver to the American Cancer Society and
Relay for Life of Roanoke under Section 13 -23 of the Roanoke
County Code to the provisions of the County's Noise Ordinance,
Article II. Noise of Chapter 13. Offenses - Miscellaneous, Catawba
Magisterial District (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the request. Supervisor Church asked what the
262 April 22, 2014
current noise ordinance stated, which Mr. Mahoney explained. There was no further
discussion.
RESOLUTION 042214 -1 GRANTING A WAIVER TO THE
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY AND RELAY FOR LIFE OF
ROANOKE UNDER SECTION 13 -23 OF THE ROANOKE
COUNTY CODE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE COUNTY'S
NOISE ORDINANCE, ARTICLE II. "NOISE" OF CHAPTER 13.
"OFFENSES - MISCELLANEOUS"
WHEREAS, Relay For Life of Roanoke, a fundraiser for the American Cancer
Society, will be holding its annual overnight Relay For Life event at Northside High
School for Roanoke County, Roanoke City and the general public on Friday, May 16,
2014, from 6:00 p.m. to Saturday, May 17, 2014, at 10:00 a.m.; and
WHEREAS, Relay for Life is held overnight to represent the journey of a cancer
patient, and stress that cancer continues to exist even when the sun has set. In order to
accommodate this atmosphere and bring the community together in the fight against
cancer, American Cancer Society and Relay For Life of Vinton are requesting a waiver
of the Roanoke County noise ordinance from 6:00 p.m. on Friday, May 16, 2014, to
10:00 a.m. on Saturday, May 17, 2014; and
WHEREAS, Section 13 -23 of the Roanoke County Code establishes certain
standards for the Board of Supervisors to grant waivers from the provision of the
Roanoke County noise ordinance to avoid undue hardship upon consideration of certain
factors set forth in sub - section (b) of Section 13 -23 and after making certain alternative
findings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the provisions of Section 13 -21. Specific acts as noise, sub - section
(5) and Section 13 -20. General prohibition of Article II. Noise be waived from 6:00 p.m.,
May 16, 2014, to 10:00 a.m., May 17, 2014.
2. That this waiver is granted specifically to The American Cancer Society
and Relay for Life of Roanoke for the Relay for Life fundraiser at Northside High School
on May 16 -17, 2014.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
April 22, 2014 263
2. Resolution granting a waiver to the American Cancer Society and
Relay for Life of Vinton under Section 13 -23 of the Roanoke
County Code to the provisions of the County's Noise Ordinance,
Article II. Noise of Chapter 13. Offenses - Miscellaneous, Vinton
Magisterial District (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the request. There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 042214 -2 GRANTING A WAIVER TO THE
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY AND RELAY FOR LIFE OF
VINTON UNDER SECTION 13 -23 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY
CODE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE COUNTY'S NOISE
ORDINANCE, ARTICLE II. "NOISE" OF CHAPTER 13.
"OFFENSES - MISCELLANEOUS"
WHEREAS, Relay For Life of Vinton, a fundraiser for the American Cancer
Society, will be holding its annual overnight Relay For Life event at William Byrd High
School for the Town of Vinton, Roanoke County, and the general public on Friday, May
2, 2014, from 6:00 p.m. to Saturday, May 3, 2014, at 7:00 a.m.; and
WHEREAS, Relay for Life is held overnight to represent the journey of a cancer
patient, and stress that cancer continues to exist even when the sun has set. In order to
accommodate this atmosphere and bring the community together in the fight against
cancer, American Cancer Society and Relay For Life of Vinton are requesting a waiver
of the Roanoke County noise ordinance from 6:00 p.m. on Friday, May 2, 2014, to 7:00
a.m. on Saturday, May 3, 2014; and
WHEREAS, Section 13 -23 of the Roanoke County Code establishes certain
standards for the Board of Supervisors to grant waivers from the provision of the
Roanoke County noise ordinance to avoid undue hardship upon consideration of certain
factors set forth in sub - section (b) of Section 13 -23 and after making certain alternative
findings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the provisions of Section 13 -21. Specific acts as noise, sub - section
(5) and Section 13 -20. General prohibition of Article II. Noise be waived from 6:00 p.m.,
May 2, 2014, to 7:00 a.m., May 3, 2014.
2. That this waiver is granted specifically to The American Cancer Society
and Relay for Life of Vinton for the Relay for Life fundraiser at William Byrd High School
on May 2 -3, 2014.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
264 April 22, 2014
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
3. Request to approve the Cable Television budget for fiscal year
2014 -2015 (Elaine Bays- Murphy, Cable Access Director)
A- 042214 -3
Ms. Murphy outlined the request. Each Supervisor thanked Ms. Murphy for
the job that was being done. There was no discussion.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to approve the staff recommendation to
approve the Cable Television Budget, the motion was carried by the following roll call
and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
4. Request for authorization to execute a Modification Agreement
between the County of Roanoke, the Roanoke County Economic
Development Authority and Edward Rose Development Company,
L.L.C., Catawba Magisterial District (Jill Loope, Director of
Economic Development)
U111 P*A El 1V
Ms. Loope outlined the request. Supervisor Bedrosian inquired if this
meant for two years there would be no local taxes with Ms. Loope responding if they
build, two years of reimbursement of taxes. Supervisor Bedrosian then asked if South
Peak a similar agreement with Ms. Loope advising it was far more complex and for a
longer period of time. Supervisor Bedrosian then inquired how often do we do these
types of things for businesses coming to Roanoke. Ms. Loope advised they do it
frequently. He then asked if anyone can get this. Ms. Loope advised their policy states
they can participate with manufacturers and or commercial development interest. This
incentive is tied to commercial development. Supervisor Bedrosian stated one of the
things he is uncomfortable with is if everybody cannot have a similar deal and only
certain ones can based on size. Ms. Loope advised this has been done for small
business as well.
Mr. McNamara stated he will be voting against this and would like to clarify
that he not voting against Economic Development per se. There was some confusion in
the paper about a year ago concerning his view on Economic Development. It has not
changed from his prior service on the Board. He stated he views this as a retail
development and his concern by subsidizing a retail development we are moving
April 22, 2014 265
subsidy from one location to another location and if it was bringing in the Ardagh Group
and the new business he is all for it.
On motion of Supervisor Church to approve the staff recommendation to
approve the extension of the agreement, the motion was carried by the following roll call
and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Peters
NAYS: Supervisors Bedrosian, McNamara
5. Request to authorize execution of an updated contract with the
Unified Human Services Transportation System, Inc. to provide
the CORTRAN services for Roanoke County from July 1, 2014,
through June 30, 2015 (B. Clayton Goodman III, County
Administrator)
Mr. Goodman outlined the request. Ms. Gearheart was in attendance to
answer any questions. Supervisor Bedrosian inquired per the included spreadsheet,
the total program totals $644 thousand, with total subsidies (not applied for pass
through grants) totaling $207 thousand, which means we pay $437,000. Mr. Goodman
advised that Supervisor Bedrosian was correct. Supervisor Bedrosian then asked if this
program was for anyone sixty (60) years and older with Mr. Goodman responding in the
affirmative. He stated he is uncomfortable with healthy people sixty (60) years and
older using this program. Mr. Goodman explained if the program is offering it is a
requirement that we have to open to all.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to approve the staff recommendation to
renew the updated contract, the motion was carried by the following roll call and
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisors Bedrosian
IN RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF
REZONING ORDINANCES - CONSENT AGENDA
1. The petition of Airport Road Holdings II, LLC to amend the
proffered conditions including the Masterplan in a R -4C, High
Density Multi - Family Residential Development District with
conditions for the Suncrest Community, a residential
development with a maximum of 115 dwelling units, located on
approximately 6.656 acres near 6044 Peters Creeks Road, Hollins
266 April 22, 2014
Magisterial District. The amended proffers and Masterplan would
replace thirty -six (36) townhomes with thirty -six (36) multi - family
dwelling units (apartments,) which would result in all the
residential units being multi - family dwelling units (apartments)
There was no discussion. Supervisor Bedrosian moved to approve the
first reading and set the second reading and public hearing for May 27, 2014, and the
motion was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance amending Chapter 2. "Administration ", Article V. —
"County Board Organization and Procedure ", Section 2 -112 —
"Rules of Order ", Section 2 -113 — "Order of Business ", Section 2-
114 — "Agenda ", Section 2 -115 — "Rules of Debate" (Paul M.
Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the ordinance and explained all of the changes
were contained within Chapter 2 and outlined each change.
Supervisor Moore moved approval of the first reading and requested the
second reading be held on May 27, 2014.
Supervisor Church stated he does not agree with hardly any of this and it
would probably be easier to say what he does agree with. Section 2 -112 related to
Robert's Rules of Order; that is inconsequential; Section 2 -113 change in Executive
Session to Closed Meeting; why are we here as he does not have any intention to vote
on first reading to move it along. He stated he does not agree and thinks it is absolutely
curtailing Board members comments and opinion. He is a duly elected Board member
of 18,000 plus citizens and speaks for them. So, he looks at certain portions of this
whereby his freedom of speech and his opinions are being curtailed. He has received
lots of emails and phone calls from his citizens and they feel the same way. They ask
the same question he has, we have been doing business like this for thirty -five to forty -
five years; what is wrong with it all of a sudden. He had to say that we have a situation
that in a March 25th email from our Chairman that we had a long meeting, but we have
one meeting that went excessively long but with all due respect it was because of items
brought up by the new three majority and it was very important issues. It probably could
have gone longer. He stated he does concur with the Supervisor from Cave Spring. He
had in his notes to ask for May 27th for the second reading, but he also wants to have a
public hearing because he thinks the citizens need a chance to speak and be allowed to
speak prior to the Board voting. Some of the guidelines now are indicating that you can
April 22, 2014 267
only speak at the appointed time, which can be two hours after we make a decision.
This has so many unintended consequences that it is scary. Prior Boards have had no
problem, even earlier today to give you a perfect example. We now have a change
where we do not really want comments or questions prior to a motion. Already during
today's meeting, we did it two times. When you are used to doing something for fifteen
(15) years, it is hard to break the habit when a lot of times we have a really hotly
contested item, he knows from this Board members opinion, he may actually make his
decision based on the information that he receives from the podium. If we have some
experts or someone bringing information that he was not aware of, he sure would hate
to make a motion and then find out from the speaker, petitioner or someone with
something there that he did not know about. Then what happens? He stated he thinks
we are putting the cart out in front of the horse. He really has some severe problems
with what it is doing. It is taking us to a direction where our citizens are getting the
feeling they are not included and that is the last thing we would want to happen. It is
their government. We represent the people out in Roanoke County.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he took looked at this and just the gist of it
when reading them it does seem like it being prepared to limit discussion. That may
sound general and simple, but it seems like that is what it is trying to do. He has always
been of the opinion in government, everybody wants everybody's opinion to be spoken
and heard so we seem to be going in the opposite direction by doing this. He also has
a question or clarification on a couple of these things, for example what does ten (10)
minutes mean. It is ten (10) minutes on any item we talk about when you state limit to
ten (10) minutes the length of time any Board member can speak on a motion, report or
inquiry. So like today, all these things we have gone through, would it be each one of
us would have ten (10) minutes on each item?
Chairman McNamara responded under Robert's Rules of Order, each
Board member has an opportunity to speak on an item. He is limited to ten (10)
minutes. So, theoretically that is part of our rules and procedures as they exist today.
What this does is just clarifies and reiterates. Now, that is not ten (10) minutes of
debate and discussion on the entire topic. It is ten (10) minutes for an individual Board
member. After every Board member has had an opportunity to speak or has chosen not
to speak, each Board member has a second opportunity to again address an item. So,
potentially another ten (10) minutes. The ten (10) minutes is not per topic, but ten (10)
minutes for a Board member opportunity to speak. Each Board member is given an
opportunity to speak twice on a topic, according to Robert's Rules. You can speak for
twenty (20) minutes on one topic.
Supervisor Bedrosian would also assume that Chairman McNamara had
put this today and Mr. Mahoney you helped with Mr. Mahoney responding in the
affirmative stating he put it into ordinance format. Supervisor Bedrosian then asked Mr.
Mahoney if he would recommended that he say yes to this? Let me ask it another way.
You are the County Attorney that serves at our pleasure and if He came to Mr.
Mahoney's office and asked you a question about something and wanted your advice
268 April 22, 2014
because he is not an attorney, you would give me your advice with Mr. Mahoney
responding in the affirmative. So, he is now asking him for his advice, would you
recommend on record that I say yes to this?
Chairman McNamara advised asking the County Attorney his opinion on
one of our ordinances is putting him in an awkward position. It is out of order.
Mr. Mahoney advised he has no problem answering. He stated he
believes the proposed amendments are consistent with Robert's Rules of Order. There
are a lot of different things in Robert's Rules of Order. As he has said to many Board
members over all the years he has served as County Attorney. Robert's Rules were
initially designed sometime in the mid 1800's for the US Congress. So you are talking
about a set of rules that were put together to try to govern debate, discussions, motions,
amendments, arguments, adopting legislation when you have 435 members. So, he is
not insulting anyone but that is like herding cats when you try to get 435 people together
and function in an orderly fashion is very hard. One of the difficulties has always been
and not just for this Board, but any County, City and town governing body. You are
really looking at five to seven (5 to 7) member boards. It is hard to translate a set of
rules that were designed for the US Congress and have that apply. So, there are a lot
of things in Robert's Rules that people will look at and kind of scratch their head about,
but having said all that, there is nothing in these proposed amendments, nothing in your
rules of procedures that already exist in Chapter 2 that are inconsistent with Robert's
Rules. He would recommend them to you and sees nothing in here that violates the
spirit or intent of Robert's Rules. This is not like a legal opinion or advice that he would
say if you do this, you violate a provision of the State Code or a provision of the US
Constitution or the Virginia Constitution. These are your rules and you can change your
rules in any way you wish. For example, Hanover County has a set of rules for
Supervisors that limits members speaking to five (5) minutes. He cannot cannot tell you
that five (5) minutes are better than ten (10) minutes or twenty (20) minutes, but each
governing body has made a decision with respect to how it wants to govern its meetings
and run its meeting. As a legal matter, there is nothing in here that violates Robert's
Rules, but there is nothing in the law of Virginia that says you have to follow Robert's
Rules. You could throw Robert's Rules and come up with a whole different set of rules
altogether; that is more of a discretionary issue.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he understands what Mr. Mahoney is saying
and the only issue he has here is that he is not an attorney and he became a Supervisor
to look out for the people in his area and for the good of Roanoke County and he finds a
lot of these meetings he is coming to he cannot figure out. He feels he is a pretty
educated guy; pretty smart, but he cannot figure out if this is going to bite him two (2)
months or one (1) month later because he does not know where they are going with
this. When he gets this feeling that it looks like it is very much against the minority view
that bothers him. We have talked about it before and philosophy does matter; we are
not in a democracy; it is not that the majority rules, it is representative republic that we
are in. So, because of that, these things are important if the minority feels like, "I need
April 22, 2014 269
three votes to put something out for us to talk about next time for public hearing." He
cannot just ask for it? He has been elected by the people in his district, so that is why
he asked you for your personal opinion because you are my attorney basically as you
are each one. He cannot figure this out; and he does not want the legalese of it
because it seems like anything is okay legally, but is it really good.
Mr. Mahoney responded really good or really bad is the beauty is in the
eye of the beholder. The beauty of Robert's Rules is that in large measure it protects
minority rights. It protects a right to speak; it protects a right to debate. It sets out some
pretty strong provisions about making sure that members of the legislative body are
heard and they have an opportunity to bring amendments forward and make changes
and have those voted upon.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated the last couple of items definitely look like
they require, i.e. the one you cannot bring up for eleven (11) months. He thinks the bad
legislation that has been written in our Country with Obamacare. Can you imagine if
that was the law and nobody could say anything about it or bring it up again in the
legislative body; our Country would be going crazy. It got passed, but now people have
an opinion about it and they want to bring it back up again. He stated he just thinks that
is totally against the minority at the time and the other one 115 (c) you need two - thirds
(2 /3rds) of the members so if he is the only one that thinks it ought to be brought up, he
cannot. He stated he is very disappointed in this and feels we all should have been
involved in even bringing it here today. We should have talked about this in some kind
of work session and really thought about it before it was brought up.
Supervisor Peters stated he is very familiar with Robert Rules and it does
make way for the minority to be heard. He does not have an issue with this, but he
does have two changes that he would like to amend the motion with. Under Section C
2 -115, Rules of Debate, he mentioned this to the Chairman earlier, he knows that
Robert's Rules sets the precedence for us, but it does not mean we cannot amend it.
We can change it to our discretion. Where it requires a two /third votes he would like to
see a simple majority of the Board. Under Section H, he would like to have added, that
any item can be revisited with a simple majority. Because as it written, unless he is
misunderstanding it is saying after eleven (11) months you are done, i.e. if we vote on
something tonight, we are done for eleven months and he does not like that. As the
gentleman from Hollins says there is bad legislation and we may make a bad choice
and he would like to have the opportunity to revisit it.
Chairman McNamara stated that the Board has a substitute motion on the
table, the substitute motion modifies the Section 2- 115(h) rules of debates by adding the
language or if a majority of the Board requests it. The second change is Section 2 -115
(c) rules of debate which has been revised to limit to ten (10) minutes any Board
member may speak on any motion, report or inquiry, unless the Board member obtains
the consent of the majority of the Board.
Supervisor Peters stated with regard to the ten (10) minutes; he did clarify
because he was misunderstanding what was presented to us that it was ten (10)
270 April 22, 2014
minutes period. Now that he knows we have ten (10) minutes and another ten (10)
minutes. What has been disturbing to him is that we are elected to go through the
packets presented to us, to sift through the information and to come back and make a
decision. This is not our classroom. This is not where we come for education. We
should do our homework before we get here. He thinks that maybe limiting the time that
we speak will help some of us do our homework. He knows our agendas are large, this
week it was 588 pages for anyone who kept up, but he thinks that is what the citizens
elected them to do; go through 588 pages to figure out what is wrong, what needs to be
changed and what questions we need to ask; not to come here and be educated.
Supervisor Moore asked if this substitute motion will be heard at second
reading on May 27, 2014 with Chairman McNamara responding in the affirmative.
Chairman McNamara commented he thinks we cannot say what we need
to say in ten (10) minutes on two different occasions, he thinks we need to rethink how
we are saying things. So, does it limit discussion? If we can talk on something for
twenty (20) minutes, it is not limiting discussion. He stated he thinks it is the least we
can do for our citizens if we limit ourselves so our citizens who are waiting to listen to
the next item or watching on television do not have to listen to extended amounts of
debate. Chairman McNamara stated during Supervisor Bedrosian's radio show this
morning he stated he would like to see our meetings be shorter. This may not make our
meetings shorter, but it is not going to make them any longer. We put out a first and
second reading to allow citizen's comment. Citizens will have an opportunity to
comment again at our next meeting under citizen comments for this potential legislation
and we have an opportunity as the gentleman from Vinton has done to modify our
ordinance as he has done with his substitute motion. He thinks it is appropriate; thinks
it would improve the way we operate as a governing body.
Supervisor Church inquired if the Chair would be willing to allow the
citizens to speak prior to a vote. This is very critical item. Chairman McNamara stated
if there is majority support on the Board he does not have a problem with having a
public hearing. Chairman McNamara noted there were no objections so it would be set
up as a public hearing.
Supervisor Church stated with all due respect to his colleague from
Vinton. We do have 588 pages, but let me say this. Our meetings are not routinely this
long. We are talking about an exception here. He goes back again. The exceptions
have been since January of 2014 are because we have had items brought before this
Board that our major, major changes. Previous Boards have been working with the
arrangement for thirty (30) plus years. With all due respect to Congress, we only have
five (5) people and he understands where Mr. Mahoney is coming from but it has not
been broken. Some of my citizens live thirty (30) miles from here and cannot
conveniently be at the meeting and some of the homes do not get the telecast. They
expect to get information from our Board if there is something very important, which we
have dealt with in no particular order Code of Conduct, a new set of operating
procedures called structure, which he calls the very nuts and bolts of what we do. It is
April 22, 2014 271
not a routine thing; it is not doing our homework. With all due respect, he has not had
one minute of discussion with the County Attorney. He represents all five of us; not one
phone call, not one email, not one "Mr. Church, what do you think..." He stated his
point is all Board members are all five represented by the County Attorney equally. The
same with the Code of Conduct. The Board did receive an email, but he does see the
oppression of the minority and because we receive an email or things that have already
been proposed. The Supervisor from Vinton made a change and the Chairman read
from that, which means they talked. He stated he has not had the luxury. He thinks
there is another Supervisor with him that has not had the luxury of being included; the
inclusive part. Mr. Mahoney you spoke about the spirit and intent of Robert's Rules. He
advised he thinks we all have to have a guideline and for new people he will repeat
what he stated at a previous meeting. The spirit and intent of the rules was what he was
taught during his career as a college basketball referee and he made a comment. They
have a rule book like the Robert's Rulebook sitting right in front of the Chairman, that he
had never seen before until January of this year. It does not make it wrong, but he has
to ask himself, we have been operating fine without a thick book. The college
basketball rulebook holds hundreds of rules and he can go out and referee every single
rule exactly how it is written and he would have been fired the first night. If it was
televised instead of a two -hour game, it would be four hours, the coaches would go
berserk as well as the fans. So, what did he do, he used common sense and logic;
what is best for the game; the spirit and intent of the rules. Just because they rub
elbows is not a foul. You let it go. When does somebody get an advantage; that is
what you look for and you have to look at high speed knowing the cameras are going to
replay everything in slow motion. It is pretty difficult. Here we have a chance to look at
this and study it. We have not talked about it, not once. Here we go, we had a long
meeting the 25th of March and boom, and we have a whole new set of rules because
March 25th was not in the eye of the beholder as you said Mr. Mahoney. Obviously it
was not in the eye of the beholder, there must have been something wrong with it. He
thought they had good, honest and open discussion. He stated he thinks when we have
five -zero votes, the ones we have enough of routinely, i.e. consent agendas. Those
votes indicate somebody is not really paying attention or thinking on the nuts and bolts,
i.e. rezoning issues. For example, the asphalt plant, you want a five to zero vote on
that. Tell his 18,000 people, he should vote yes. This is just a small example, but you
have a situation where you have individuals that are duly elected and we have Chair
and make no mistake about it, if this passes, it is not just the Chair it takes three and
three people are putting their signature; they are taking ownership of this. He stated he
thinks it is far reaching. He has a problem with item 2 -115 (h) Rules of Debate. He has
listened to it from the Supervisor from Vinton and see we could just about scrap that
item entirely. Why would we need a majority to come back and bring up something.
Forget about the eleven (11) months we talked about. Are we saying that a sitting
Board member does not have an opportunity to revisit? Are we saying that one Board
member is not important, his 18,000 people do not have a voice or even two Board
272 April 22, 2014
members? Does that make sense not to have a voice? This super majority he had a
note written about that. He called the super majority of two /thirds should go out the
window forever. It makes it next to impossible for anyone with an opposing view. You
have to have four votes. Mr. Mahoney you said we can tailor -make this by the second
reading? Mr. Mahoney stated you can make any rules or changes that you desire.
Let's start to work together. Let's have some logic; the spirit and intent. That is just
some common courtesy for our citizens. Let's change some real things with bite in
them, i.e. we have work sessions in a cramped room and we have been asking to have
them in the Board room downstairs. Open it up down here; let the people come down
here and relax. Where they can go to the rest room and not step over people upstairs.
Let's make sure when we recognize that we have fifty (50) people to speak, let's not
hold them to the last item on the agenda; three (3) hours. They have a life; they have to
get home to children, husband, and wife, whatever to feed. With all due respect, he is
getting close to ten minutes, but he is not ready to come in here and have all his
homework done. He thinks he is a pretty smart guy. There are five hundred and eighty -
eight (588) pages. He received his package on Friday afternoon around 4. We had a
work session, but you are talking about for example budget figures. He is not a financial
expert; he knows a couple of people are. He depends on who is standing at the
podium. Supporting information showed 185 people had a raise; this is new
information. We cannot just pick a package up and you come with me and see if you
can learn it on Tuesday. He thinks we are all intelligent people, but this give and take
and exchange of information is something that is vital. It is vital to each Board member
and is vital to the people we represent.
Supervisor Peters stated he wanted to make clarification. One, he has
had no conversation with Mr. Mahoney as well. If you had an issue with it, you should
have contacted him. Secondly, you may not have been contacted by the Chairman, but
he pulled the Chairman aside and told him what he had a problem with and in prior
conversation.
Supervisor Church called for a point of order that confrontation between
Board members is not done on this Board.
Supervisor Peters responded he is just clarifying and simply saying that he
simply pulled the Chairman aside before the meeting started and stated he had issues
with this. He told him that he would be bringing this up. This is not an issue of there is
some kind of secret majority. He brought up the issues to him and he has not
discussed with the County Attorney either. He was able to review it and make his own
decisions.
Supervisor Church asked the Chairman for a point of order stating it was
very important. With all due respect, it was not pointed toward you individually. He had
an hour and one half meeting individually with our Chairman individually upstairs about
a lot of this and it was ignored.
Chairman McNamara stopped discussion advising this was not a point of
order.
April 22, 2014 273
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he likes this type of give and take because
things are coming out. He then asked Mr. Goodman what is the amount of time it takes
to put together this agenda because it was mentioned that we received it on Friday, the
five hundred and eight (580) pages. Does it take a lot of time? Mr. Goodman
responded in the affirmative and you can ask the Deputy Clerk and other staff
members. Supervisor Bedrosian asked the reasons for that. Mr. Goodman stated staff
is compiling a lot of information from various department on various complex situations.
Some are not complex, some are simple. Those are usually listed on the consent
agenda, but there are several subject matters that we bring before you that our quite
exhaustive; quite complex and require several people reviewing to make sure that we
try to provide the Board with the most accurate information to enable the Board
members to respond to the agenda item. Supervisor Bedrosian then asked when this
agenda is started being put together with Mr. Goodman responding that actually there is
a meeting tomorrow morning; called the E -Team meeting and we review the draft
agenda for the next meeting and because of the meeting it will be three weeks from
now, typically it is two weeks and that is how early we start that early. The Monday
before we sit down and review the agenda, several of us, and make sure we pull
everything together and then everything is due by Tuesday afternoon to the Clerk
because it very hard to pull everything together because of the amount of work, amount
of items that are given to her for review and we want to make sure once again that it is
right when it goes out to the Board. Supervisor Bedrosian stated he would say that you
probably taking 50 to 60 hours, there are multiple people, multiple layers doing this
work. Mr. Goodman responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Bedrosian then stated so
we are putting hundreds of hours into this information and then we are coming here and
saying get it done in ten minutes. He would want to stress that he agrees with Mr.
Goodman that it takes a lot of time. Can you imagine for someone like himself that gets
this on Friday, not blaming you, it takes a lot of time. Part of the time here is to go over
the homework a little bit in front of the people, the citizens of our County; why not there
are things we need to discuss. It is not like everything is absorbed, six hundred pages
worth of stuff that you got it okay, ding, ding ding. If it takes that long to compile this
information, it should take us some time here to go over the information and make sure
we have it right. So, that is the first thing; rush, rush rush, we do not need to do that.
He advised he would love to have shorter meetings, but it would be based on not having
five hundred and eight -eight (588) pages. He votes no on a lot of things, but he does
not think that is the role of government. We need to get out of these things and get it
down to fifty (50) pages and then we are good to have a quick meeting, but if we have
five hundred and eight -eight pages due diligence says take some time and do it. The
other thing and he guesses we still have it on the table, the vote for the amendment,
why have three people then be able to okay bringing something back up. His stated his
feeling is wow, so we really are going with the minority getting the shaft. People think
that they want to bring something back up, but now, we just made it so that just three
people in the majority can bring something back if they want it, but if two people do, they
274 April 22, 2014
cannot. So, he thinks why are we doing that, it just goes back to the thing if you are in
the minority view and that does not mean just one person, it can be two people that
think a certain way, you cannot bring something back up. He does not like it either
actually and seems to him that we need to leave things the way they are; the more
freedom the better. If somebody up here starts going on and on, their constituents can
say you know what you talk too much about stuff I don't care about, you are out. Let his
or her constituents make that decision, not other Board members.
Supervisor Moore stated when we receive our draft agendas on Tuesday
and we have equal opportunity to call staff members and ask them if we do not
understand what it is, to be specific, to ask questions, compile our information and when
we get our agenda on Friday, we still have another opportunity within four (4) days to
look over the information. She stated she remembered when she first got elected to the
Board in 2008, we did not even have that opportunity and often staff will send us
information ahead of time, if it is a lengthy something that we need to discuss the
County Administrator will give us a call and let us know this is coming up. She stated
she thinks we do have an opportunity; it is their job as an elected official to represent
their citizens and do the best job they can.
Supervisor Peters moved to approve the first reading with the corrections
noted and to set the second reading and public hearing for May 27, 2014. The motion
was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance approving an amendment to Section 4 of the Lease
with the Bent Mountain Center, Inc. to allow the use of alcoholic
beverages at the Bent Mountain Center (B. Clayton Goodman III,
County Administrator)
Mr. Goodman outlined the ordinance and advised they were working on
obtaining the Certificate of Insurance. Supervisor Moore asked if they considered hiring
a police officer or County staff. Supervisor Moore stated last time it was suggested that
instead of using volunteers have they considered hiring a Police Officer or County staff
to monitor. Mr. Goodman advised they did not discuss in order to keep the costs down.
Chairman McNamara requested a modification that provides staff discretion to require a
police officer be in attendance at certain events without having to come back to the
Board for approval.
Chairman McNamara opened and closed the public hearing with no
citizens in attendance to speak on this issue. There was no further discussion.
April 22, 2014 275
ORDINANCE 042214 -6 AMENDING ORDINANCE 121112 -7 AND
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE OF THE BENT
MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY CENTER TO ALLOW THE USE OF
ALCOHOL ON THE LEASED PREMISES
WHEREAS, during the December 11, 2012, meeting the Roanoke County Board
of Supervisors approved a lease with the Bent Mountain Center, Inc., for a portion of the
Bent Mountain Elementary School for use as a community center; and
WHEREAS, the Bent Mountain Center Inc. is a 501 C3 organization consisting of
residents of the Bent Mountain community who are interested in preserving the
structure as a community center and will benefit the community; and
WHEREAS, the approved lease prohibits the use of alcoholic beverages at the
Community Center; and
WHEREAS, representatives from the Bent Mountain Center, Inc. requested an
amendment to the lease, which would allow the use of alcoholic beverages at the Bent
Mountain Center.
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 8, 2014, and the
second reading and public hearing was held on April 22, 2014.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia as follows:
1. That Section 4. USE OF LEASED PREMISES is hereby amended to
eliminate any reference to the prohibition of the use of alcohol on the Lease premises;
and
2. That the following sentence is added to the last paragraph of Section 4
which reads: That the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors does hereby designates
the Bent Mountain Center as one of Roanoke County owned facilities at which the use
of alcoholic beverages is permitted. This permission is granted in accordance with the
County's "POLICY FOR USE, CONSUMPTION, OR POSSESSION OF ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES AT ROANOKE COUNTY FACILITIES ". In addition, the County may
require the Tenant to hire an off -duty police officer or private security service to be in
attendance when alcoholic beverages are used at the Bent Mountain Center.
3. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
adoption.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisor Bedrosian
276 April 22, 2014
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance accepting and appropriating a grant in the amount of
$8,040 from the Foundation for Roanoke Valley to the Roanoke
County Police Department for the support of the Project Lifesaver
program (Mike Warner, Assistant Chief of Police)
Assistant Chief Warner advised there were no changes from the first
reading. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 042214 -7 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING A
GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,040 FROM THE FOUNDATION
FOR ROANOKE VALLEY TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY POLICE
DEPARTMENT FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT
LIFESAVER PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Foundation for Roanoke Valley has awarded the Roanoke
County Police Department a grant to assist in the purchase of electronic tracking
bracelets, testers and batteries for participants who have been diagnosed with
Alzheimer's or some other form of a cognitive disorder who have a tendency to wander
away from their caregiver; 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 April 8, 2014, and the
second reading was held on April 22, 2014; and
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the sum of $8,040 is hereby accepted and appropriated from the
Foundation for Roanoke Valley to the Roanoke County Police
Department; and
2. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
April 22, 2014 277
RESOLUTION 042214 -8 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM I- CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for April 22,
2014, 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 2 inclusive, as follows:
1. Approval of minutes — March 11, 2014
2. Confirmation of appointment to the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
A- 042214 -8
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The following citizens spoke.
Bill Gregory of 3312 Pamlico Drive asked why must the County monitor its
annual CO2 emissions for ICLEI using their software? Why must the County monitor its
CO2 emissions at all? There is not any State or Federal law mandating the County
track its CO2 emissions. The pro - ICLEI crowd has repeatedly pulled a "rabbit out of the
hat" stating that ICLEI software is needed to track the ozone levels so that the County
can avoid becoming a non - attainment zone. That trick worked quite well for a while,
even recently, because nobody was looking nor took the time to check things out. Here
is why the ozone non - attainment zone has no merit. The Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) already tracts emissions in the County at the DEQ Emissions Tracking
Station in Vinton to include ozone totally suspended particles, lead, carbon monoxide,
sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide and has been doing so since 1990. That tracing
station should be the only indicator the County needs to determine if further emissions
reduction is required by the County. The station has been showing a drop in all
emissions since 2003. Some emissions dropping considerably. The DEQ emission
station recorded several emissions dropping in the ten -year period from 1999 to 2009;
some of the most notable are a sixty -two percent (62 %) drop in carbon dioxide, thirty -
two percent (32 %) drop in ozone and a ninety -eight percent (98 %) drop in average total
suspended particles. The readings should definitely correlate to a considerable drop in
278 April 22, 2014
CO2 levels by the County in that ten -year period, which was prior to the first ICLEI
required Roanoke County baseline carbon footprint report in 2010. The County uses a
portion of electricity generated at distant coal and natural gas fired plants so what about
that source of Roanoke County's emissions? That is a moot point since the EPA has
increasingly regulated those plants to dramatically reduce those emissions including
CO2 or be put out of business. The portion of emissions caused by Roanoke County
has been taken care of itself from heavier regulation and will continue to do so.
RoxAnne Christley of 7259 Willow Valley Road in Roanoke County stated
that it is no great surprise that the only liberal member of this Board is attempting to
circumvent the majority opinion of this Board with her personal, political agenda to keep
Roanoke County involved in a United Nations affiliated organization known as ICLEI,
International Council of Local Environmental Issues. She would like to make sure that
this Board understands the only important thing about ICLEI is that it is a political
organization that has absolutely no concerns for our environment. If you do not believe
that statement, then due consider that the Federal Environmental Protection Agency
and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality regularly monitor our air and
water quality right here in the Roanoke Valley and they have done so since the early
1990's. What does the ICLEI software do; it monitors one gas called carbon dioxide
that is it. Those propagandizing for ICLEI like to use the term, GHG's, they pluralize
that, greenhouse gasses, when the only thing they monitor is a single gas that neither
the EPA nor the DEQ view as a hazard in our environment. The ICLEI software is
redundant and not necessary aside from the political agenda so let's move on and get
rid of it. The Cave Spring Supervisor in concert with the County Administrator of
General Services has long been disingenuous to this Board about its known relationship
with the United Nations and the political agenda behind it. They have been amply
assisted by the liberal local newspaper in their attempts to sway public opinion with their
propaganda campaign to keep the UN body intertwined in Roanoke County
government. Is this Board as a representative body going to allow one member of it to
dictate to it County policy? Is this Board going to allow County staff to dictate this
policy? Is this Board going to allow the leftist bias of the Roanoke Times dictate this
policy? The conservative elected of this Board are on record to sever ties with ICLEI.
You have been previously given a resolution and you were vetted with this question.
Would you please just make the resolution as promised?
Linda LaPrade of the Cave Spring district stated the news article entitled,
"Roanoke County torn on green initiatives" in the Roanoke Times on April 19, 2014
referenced a survey compiled by the Roanoke Valley Alleghany County Regional
Commission. It listed clean air and water as a major concern of eighty -five percent
(85 %) of the respondents. Some information was omitted from this. The survey
compiled by the Center for Research at Virginia Tech telephoned one thousand and
thirty (1030) residents. Three hundred and forty -seven (347) of those were residents of
Roanoke County. The article made it sound like these two hundred and eight -five (285)
people were the majority of the 94,000 people in Roanoke County. The survey goes on
April 22, 2014 279
to say that eighty -five percent (85 %) of those people who felt that clean water and clean
air were important when asked, "would you be willing to pay more for preservation of
clean air ?" only forty -one percent (41 %) said that they would. Also implied in the article
is that ICLEI would assist Roanoke County garner new businesses. Sierra Nevada who
are good stewards of the environment selected Mills River, North Carolina over
Roanoke County and other areas. She stated she would remind the listeners as the
article did not, that Roanoke County was a member of ICLEI when the selection process
was ongoing. She also contacted Mills River, North Carolina to see if they were
members of ICLEI; they are not and in fact they asked me what ICLEI was and she had
to explain it to them. ICLEI proponents and even a BOS member continually refer to
those opposed to ICLEI as conspiracy theorists. This appears the prime statement
when facts, which they have presented, conflict with information that ICLEI and their
partners including Cool Cities and the Sierra Club provides. Roanoke County is
capable of being environmentally friendly. Our employees are capable of creating a
plan, we had a plan long before ICLEI. RCCLEAR members can be creative, helpful
and refocused. If they are unwilling to work without this international organization, it
simply shows they bought the propaganda and that is more important than preserving
the Roanoke County environment. Do not let their threats, biased newspaper articles or
Board of Supervisor members try to overrule majority decisions sway you from doing
the right thing.
Max Beyer of 2402 Coachman Drive in LaBellvue stated during the last
session during Citizen Comments, Mr. Freedman, a volunteer appointment from
RCCLEAR appeared before this Board. After he had defended his displeasure with the
Board and his adversaries, he settled in to offer to him some significant statements.
First, he suggested the Board's actions appear to be in denial of the need for their
services in RCCLEAR. Further, this action may require more dedicated volunteers to
resign or driven away from RCCLEAR due to the absence of ICLEI material. In other
words, if they do not get their way, they will simply "pick up their marbles" and go home.
Subsequently, however, he indicated activism for some would not need, but they would
continue to stand up for what they advocate. Although the genesis of RCCLEAR is
closely tied to ICLEI, he would hope that the Board continues to employ RCCLEAR to
improve the environment of Roanoke County in its various components, i.e. air and
water quality, conserving resources, saving energy and cleaning up the ground and
streams without any association with ICLEI. Much of a constructive nature has been
and can continued to be accomplished. He would also hope that the Board would
encourage the current membership and volunteers to remain and adjust to the new
guidance that the Board will rightfully provide to that body. However, if one or more of
the current members elect to leave solely because of the County's withdrawal from
ICLEI, then for many of us it will be proof positive of our latent suspicion and the major
reason we object to continued association with ICLEI. That is our suspicion that their
real intent is not to help Roanoke County and abide by the Board's legitimate oversight
and guidance but to use our concerns for the environment that is our collective need as
280 April 22, 2014
a vehicle to promote a different idealogic agenda and opinions to gain control and
power; political, economic and cultural. To dictate land use, to manage development to
usurp individual property rights, extend a rural concept alien to our national self- interest
and to inhibit local control and determination of our County's destiny. He and many
others are convinced that RCCLEAR and Roanoke County can make significant
progress in environmental actions in the future without ICLEI.
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor Moore moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
1. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of
March 31, 2014
5. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of March 31, 2014
6. Accounts Paid — March 31, 2014
7. Treasurer's Statement of Accountability per Investment and
Portfolio Policy as of March 31, 2014
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 4:26 p.m., Chairman McNamara moved to go into closed meeting
following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2- 3711.A.3
namely acquisition of property for use as public park and recreation purposes, the East
Roanoke River Greenway, where the discussion in an open meeting would adversely
affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the County.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
The Closed Session was held from 6:16 p.m. until 6:29 p.m.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
April 22, 2014 28
Supervisor Church requested that the work session be moved to
the Board meeting room on the first floor. The request did not receive unanimous
consent and accordingly stayed in the training room.
1. Work session with Roanoke County Citizen Leaders
Environmental Action Roundtable (RCCLEAR) (B. Clayton
Goodman III, County Administrator)
In attendance for this work session were Nadine Carson and Jesse
Freedman of RCCLEAR.
Chairman McNamara stated that he understands the purchase of
RCCLEAR is to take information from the ICLEI software and create actions to lower
carbon emissions for Roanoke County. So, if Roanoke County does not have the
software; he knows Ms. Moore may have the software, but if the County is not
associated with ICLEI what would be the role without the ICLEI software? He advised
he and Supervisor Moore have had conversations about this and he does not believe
there is a high likelihood of the sitting Board maintaining membership with ICLEI. If you
look at RCCLEAR and you look at all the work you are doing and the number of open
positions, there is perhaps less than one hundred percent (100 %); there are certainly a
number of open seats. His conversation was that it makes sense to him if RCCLEAR is
a dedicated group of people you could be a bigger dedicated group of people if you did
not have the restrictions of the Board. So, now you would become an organization that
is not specifically chartered by Roanoke County that is doing some of the same things
you are doing right now and making recommendations to the Board, etc. If you are your
own organization, you do not have restrictions from the Board on where the members
are from and it becomes a Clean Valley Council and what would be the right number of
members. Whomever has an interest in joining is the right number.
Supervisor Moore stated it would have to become a nonprofit organization.
First of all, she supports RCCLEAR and continues her support and will do whatever is in
her power to support you in leading Roanoke County into being sustainable and
whatever we need to do to continue that effort she will do. If it means that we are
dissolved from RCCLEAR, because we obviously have bylaws that we would no longer
be able to abide by. So, if we become our own organization, she will certainly lead that
with you. We would have a lot of members and continue that support. She stated if that
makes her an arrogant person, Mr. Bedrosian, she gladly accepts that title. She stated
she would also like to point out that you have called staff members liars, you have
demeaned RCCLEAR and criticized them for their good work. They have spent
hundreds of hours working in this organization just to make Roanoke County
sustainable. In having said that and based on your news conference this morning, and
actually charged every Board member, your colleagues that are sitting here right now as
to being lazy because they do not have the same opinions that you do. She does not
respect that, she respects him and you should respect us. We all deserve that respect.
282 April 22, 2014
She stated maybe they could have their last formal RCCLEAR meeting and discuss
where we go from there.
Mr. Freedman stated that part of the value with RCCLEAR being affiliated
with the Board, we were advisory to the Board and there were non - binding emission
targets that were set and approved by the Board and when you remove RCCLEAR from
the Board of Supervisors, they lose that affiliation, lose the staff help from Ms. Green
and her department. It does not have the same weight and reflects poorly on the
County that we are giving up and saying you don't really care about climate change and
it is just another nonprofit. He feels that pulling that out really sends a message. He
has a hard time seeing RCCLEAR being successful without the affiliation with the
Board.
Chairman McNamara stated he would argue that you would have more
than if you were affiliated with the Board. No decision has been made; there is two
ways to look at this. There is the way Mr. Peters had suggested, to take RCCLEAR and
change direction and the other option is to create a separate organization.
Supervisor Peters stated he had pulled some information from Herman L.
Horn in Vinton where they measure a multitude of things; real time. We do see that the
CO2 has been reduced significantly from 1999 to 2009. He stated as he explained to
Mr. Purdy from the Roanoke Times he feels like and has felt for some time, that what
you are doing is not wrong. You are environmental stewards. Having said that, he also
stated we are going to be "chasing the dog." We can spend all of our time looking at
this building, but there are buildings being renovated today and there are building being
built today. So, five years from now and we see the deficiencies of that building and
make the property owner comply. So, his direction is that RCCLEAR should have a
two -fold purpose. One, to become part of the planning process and the EDA and
setting the bar for new businesses coming into town. He is trying to look at the big
picture and the more we can become efficient today, we will get things done faster than
in looking behind us.
Ms. Carson stated that it is her understanding that companies coming in
are going to want to come to areas that are environmentally sustainable and they are
engaged. Supervisor Peters asked based on what?
Mr. Freedman stated that climate change and the air quality index are two
separate things. They are both very important, climate change is not necessarily
related to the ozone non - attainment zone. The DEQ monitoring site does not monitor
CO2. They monitor at the power plant level. Supervisor Peters stated his question
regarding climate change is why are we not more concerned about air quality because
that is when we get all the alerts for asthma in the summer. It is the air quality, correct?
Mr. Freedman stated he is not saying you should be concerned with it, but climate
change is a different set of gasses and measured in a different way. They are both
important, but we need to separate out that DEQ is not monitoring CO2 emissions.
Supervisor Peters then stated he spends a lot of time with developers who
state they do not get a clear, defined direction of what Roanoke County wants them to
April 22, 2014 283
do. We need to give them a clear direction. Mr. Freedman stated it is in the code, but
comes back to enforcement and whether the County wants to incentivize.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he has mentioned a point that he feels is very
valid. We were talking about clean air. There are two different things: climate change
and the whole air quality that is being monitored. That is really the gist of all of this. We
are talking about two different things and so often he feels that we try to clump it all
together and if we are not for RCCLEAR or ICLEI, we want dirty air and dirty water and
thinks it upsets a lot of people. You have made it very clear; it is about climate change,
man -made global warming and we are adding to global warming and we as human
being are effecting the climate and we are effecting everything. He stated he thinks that
is where he has the issue. He went through the entire summary when he first started
and finds it is more a group about promoting man -made global warming and that
viewpoint of things. He does not believe in that and that is why he has always had an
issue with ICLEI and RCLEAR being attached because the whole premise was about
man -made global warming and when you go through and look at the carbon footprint
you find that residential and transportation are the two big ones. For what reason, what
mandate do you have to track all carbon emissions and then stated the two biggest
ones are two that he does every day, he gets a little nervous about when you start
tracking this, what do you do. First thing is to conduct an inventory, then have a target,
develop a plan, implement policies. This does not look voluntary to him. The last thing
is to monitor and verify. You are not a group that gives ideas. He thinks you are a
group that says we have a way of thinking and this is the way we think things should be
done and we are going down this track. This is why he says dissolve RCCLEAR; create
another group that is actually interested in helping conserve energy. Everybody wants
to do that, but they do not want to be told to do it. Everybody would love to have ideas
and great air quality. But, he thinks what they are saying is that is not what you guys
are interested in. We need an organization that is going to talk about things like clean
air, clean rivers and streams.
Mr. Freedman stated with all due respect, we are not promoting climate
change; that is the climate scientist that are telling me that it is real. When the scientists
with a PHD and ninety -seven percent (97 %) of them say that it is real, he believes it.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated those numbers are not correct. You keep
saying those numbers over and over again until people start believing and they are not
correct.
Mr. Freedman stated they are correct. Supervisor Bedrosian stated they
are not. Supervisor Moore commented it does not matter if they are correct or not, it is
his opinion. Mr. Freedman stated that climate change does not hinge on Mr.
Bedrosian's belief, it exists whether he believes or not. Supervisor Bedrosian stated
climate change used to be global warming. It tells him it is not an absolute science.
This organization is really politically charged for some reason. Mr. Freedman stated it is
not politics, it is science.
284 April 22, 2014
Supervisor Church stated this Board really needs to get together. How
can we agree on something when our own Board violates what we have? What you
hear and what you read will be what he says in public. We need to get our act together.
Ms. Carson advised they moved her thinking it was a very progressive,
beautiful area, but the thing attracted to her was the whole goal of moving into a
beautiful area and are lucky to build green certified buildings. It has drawn people to
build expensive homes there because they think it is beautiful. One of her missions was
greenways, just a desire to be a part of what she thought was a progressive and
outstanding group. Supervisor Bedrosian asked what progressive means. Ms. Carson
stated moving forward. When she moved to Roanoke, she was told why did you move
to Roanoke it is ten -years backward. So, if he can explain backwards, she can explain
moving forward. She thinks of progressive as moving forward, thinking ahead and
making things better. Supervisor Bedrosian stated but he is that way. Are we all
progressives? Ms. Carson responded she would hope so, but some of the things she is
hearing today make her think differently. Supervisor Bedrosian then asked if we are not
in ICLEI does that make Roanoke a terrible place. Can it only be beautiful with ICLEI?
Ms. Carson said she did not say that and thinks it was great to have all this work done
for us for not much money and they did not have to reinvent the wheel. Supervisor
Bedrosian then asked if she would be agreeable to have a group for a clean
environment.
Mr. Freedman responded that RCCLEAR's guiding principles were carbon
emissions and if you pull that out of RCCLEAR, it has been gutted. It does not do what
it is supposed to do.
Chairman McNamara stated it is very clear that RCCLEAR is not going to
be effective as an organization created by the Board of Supervisors. RCCLEAR can be
more effective as a stand -alone organization, which Ms. Moore has offered to lead.
Supervisor Moore stated it is her goal is to lead like- minded people who
believe in global warming, because it is here. We have had derechos, hurricanes, and
three -feet of snow. We don't create climate change or global warming, but we can
certainly reduce it and that is what she is on board with. She stated if the committee
wants to meet after work next week, we will see about continuing our work with the
software for the County, but not as the County representative because they will not
support us. We received the $300,000 grant because of RCCLEAR.
Supervisor Peters inquired what that had to do with ICLEI. Ms. Moore
explained it needed to be a shovel ready project and RCLEAR had worked to implement
energy audits for the citizens. Supervisor Peters stated it did not answer the question of
what did that have to do with ICLEI. Supervisor Peters stated RCCLEAR should re-
evaluate what their objective is. Supervisor Moore stated but they have bylaws and it is
our job to implement policy. Supervisor Peters stated but bylaws can be changed. She
advised she would have to discuss with RCCLEAR. Supervisor Peters stated his point
is that ICLEI is not bringing the Ardaghs and South Peak to Roanoke County and what
April 22, 2014 285
have we done as a County. What are we doing to make sure that you doing to bring
those companies here?
Mr. Freedman asked if they separate RCCLEAR from the Board would we
still keep the non - binding carbon reduction goals, which was part of the ordinance when
they joined RCCLEAR.
Supervisor Peters stated that he believes the reductions in carbon
emissions will take place with buildings and renovations with iniatives from day one.
Supervisor Moore asked if they don't track it how will we know. Chairman McNamara
stated if it is its own organization you can track all you want.
Supervisor Bedrosian inquired if a Board member can join an organization
and obtain their services and provide it to the County. Mr. Mahoney advised he cannot
give a clear yes or no answer as the Board has acted both ways.
The work session was held from 4:46 p.m. until 5:36 p.m.
2. Work session to finalize contributions to Human Service, Social
Service, Cultural, Tourism and other outside agencies (W. Brent
Robertson, Director of Management and Budget)
It was consensus of the Board to change the Salem /Roanoke food pantry
contribution to $3,800 to go with VML. There were no other changes.
The work session was held from 5:36 p.m. until 5:40 p.m.
3. Work session for the updated GIS website (Bill Hunter, Director of
Communication and Information Technology)
Mr. Hunter and David Wray provided the Board with a PowerPoint
presentation of the updated GIS website. It was the consensus of the Board to proceed
with the launch.
The work session was held from 5:40 p.m. until 6:01 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 7:00 p.m., Chairman McNamara moved to return to open session and
to adopt the certification resolution.
286 April 22, 2014
RESOLUTION 042214 -9 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING
WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in
accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2 -3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this
certification resolution applies; and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Proclamation proclaiming the month of May 2013 to be Asthma
Awareness Month in Roanoke County (B. Clayton Goodman III,
County Administrator)
The Proclamation was read by the Deputy Clerk. In attendance for this
recognition were Diana Christopolous, President of the Roanoke Valley Asthma and Air
Quality Coalition; Dr. Stuart Tousman, Past President; Mary Tousman, Professor at
Jefferson College of Health Sciences and Donna Bond, Doctor of Nursing, one of the
experts on tobacco and other issues related to human health at Carilion.— listen for
remainder of the attendees.
All Supervisors thanked the members in attendance.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING
April 22, 2014 287
1. Public hearing on the proposed budget for fiscal year 2014 -2015
and the fiscal year 2015 -2019 Capital Improvements Program (B.
Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator; W. Brent Robertson,
Director of Management and Budget)
Mr. Robertson outlined the need for the public hearing. Chairman
McNamara opened the public hearing and the following citizens spoke.
Linda LaPrade stated she is from the Cave Spring District. She stated the
Board knows that these are very tough economic times; nationally, on the state level; it
is very difficult for people and this is true for Roanoke County residents as well.
Budgets have to be tightened on a personal level throughout the County and throughout
the County and they should be tightened in our government as well. You hear people
discuss this necessity on a federal level. You even hear them discuss it on a State
level, but it mostly starts locally and that is the Board's responsibility. Every
department, every non - profit will ask for more money than the previous year; it is just
the way things are. The Board needs to examine these very carefully. In the budget for
2014 -2015, there is $1,338,152 allocated for non - profits. In looking at these, a lot seem
duplicates of services and she thinks the Board needs to examine that and see if they
can be grouped together and learn to work together as we must all do to the benefit of
this County. County residents should have many questions about these. Why are we
giving Center in the Square in the City $50 Why are we giving the Miss Virginia
Pageant and television sponsorship of it $6 Why are we giving the Roanoke
Symphony $8,000 and this list goes on. These are just a few examples. Do you really
believe that that these things are going to bring money into Roanoke County? What
proof do you have? What are the salaries of Directors in these non - profits and Roanoke
is Roanoke County donations doing for those? This is the time for you to develop a
long -term budget plan and a tax reduction plan if you want to attract new businesses
and investors. This is the time for you to say, no, to a department whose wish lists
continue to grow. This is the time for you to put residents and taxpayers about staff.
They need to streamline departments and budgets. Roanoke County residents are
taking a close look at how you support them and not a bigger government, more
beautiful buildings. Were staff bonuses and incentives received? Have employees
already been paid their two percent (2 %) bonuses. Residents are expecting you to
encourage their participation in meetings and in budget development. Never forget you
are our employees. It is no more your County, than it is the County of every resident in
this valley. We are alert and we are monitoring our interests.
Max Beyer of 2402 Coachman Drive in LaBellvue stated he attended the
work sessions upstairs and heard the discussion and thought that information may have
come out from that meeting. It did not and he just wants to provide this budget
information for public view. In addition for the funds for the direct membership in ICLEI,
there are also two items in the General Services budget under environmental
management pertaining to participation in ICLEI and support of RCCLEAR totaling
288 April 22, 2014
some $43,000. It is his recommendation because of the uncertainty going forward that
be removed and put into the Board of Supervisors Discretionary Fund and used for
environmental management down the road.
Mike Bailey of the Hollins District stated he comes before the Board today
to support a long term budgetary plan for the County. Mr. Chairman, he would like to
acknowledge what a great responsibility you have in trying to lead this Board. Since last
year's election, the Board has spent a lot of time talking about each other's views on
governing. Part of your role is to allow that to happen. He does not know if you feel
responsible when: a board member rambles on and on or when board time is used for
personal education on an issue, or when members get into sometimes heated
ideological debate, but he recognizes your leadership job is difficult. Sometimes it must
be like herding cats. Based on last year's Board directive for this year's budget, the staff
and Board have done a responsible job in addressing a long- awaited employee pay
increase, some market -based pay adjustments to better attract and retain key positions
and the beginnings of storm water management funding. However, looking ahead, he
has some real concerns with balancing taxation reduction and debt reduction with the
long term priorities of a school system that has a declining enrollment, with
environmental issues, fostering economic development, regional cooperation, and
developing a plan for systematic facility and equipment maintenance or replacement.
He stated he has heard in various discussions by the Board and staff that there may be
an initiative to get together to discuss these issues in some type of strategic planning -
perhaps a Supervisory Retreat with a facilitator to develop a strategic fiscal plan for the
County that will encompass a compromise on these priorities. Such a budget plan
needs more time to develop than what has transpired this year. The opinions of each
board member has been discussed and now it is time to find a way to bring those
different opinions together into a long term plan of reducing our debt, lowering our
taxes, increasing our personal freedoms, and making government more effective.
Therefore, he would like to encourage the Board to consider the idea of a retreat to help
give Roanoke a plan for the long term future.
Charles Landis of 5268 Glenvar Heights Blvd in the Glenvar Community
stated he comes before the Board tonight without a prepared speech, but to simply
support the proposed budget. He stated he thinks everyone has done an excellent job
at trying to make the best of a very difficult economic situation so he commends
everyone involved in the budget process. He stated he went back and looked at all the
budgets going back to 2008 and if you really want to appreciate what has been done,
you need to look at prior budgets and hope our citizens will see that to see the trend
and what has been done in Roanoke County since 2008, i.e. number of employees and
other things that have been done at the same time you have maintained basically the
same level of service for all of our citizens. For that, everyone is to be commended.
There is one issue that got my attention when he looked at the budget and that is the
makeup of the revenue for the County. In this year's budget, it looks like that only about
sixteen percent (16 %) of the revenue is coming in from the business sector, which
April 22, 2014 289
means that approximately eighty -four percent (84 %) comes from the personal side,
which means mainly real estate taxes and personal property taxes. He suggested to
the Board that is out of bounds and we should have a long -term goal of trying to redo
that balance; to try and bring in more business revenue so we can possibly lower the
real estate tax rate. He advised he would like to point out today, Roanoke County has
one of the highest real estate tax rates of any county in Virginia. Among urban
counties, Roanoke County has one of the lowest per capita incomes, which means this
tax becomes a regressive tax on our citizens, our homeowners particularly. He advised
the way to start in his opinion to try and bring in more business revenue and he agrees
with Mr. Peters and others that have suggested this, is that we have some advantages
here that can attract new business. For example, Roanoke County owns two business
parks today. These parks are developed. These parks have the infrastructure in place.
These parks are business parks designed for clean businesses that provide good
paying jobs. One of those properties is owned entirely by Roanoke County, which is the
Center for Research and Technology and is located at the Dixie Caverns exit on
Interstate 81. At the present time, there are currently five (5) viable tracts available,
ready to be occupied. The infrastructure is in place, i.e. power, electric, water and
roads. The second business park is the Vinton Business Center in Vinton, which is co-
owned with the Town of Vinton. Currently, at this time there are three (3) viable tracts
available in that park. Consequently, he is asking that the Board put forth every effort to
recruit and he says recruit because we have to go out and find these new businesses to
locate in Roanoke County. We do have advantages and he asks that we take
advantage of what we have in place today.
RoxAnne Christley stated she lives at 7259 Willow Valley Road in the
Windsor Hills District. Two or more of our Board members have expressed the desire to
reduce County taxes, to retire debt, reduce County government and to have a strategic
plan to accomplish these things going forward. These ideas are not incompatible and
this is the kind of conservative thinking that she is sure most of the Board will agree
with. The underlying question is how do we accomplish this? She stated she believes
that it is accurate to say that government at any level is inefficient and wasteful of the
monies it collects from its citizenry. The current proposed Roanoke County budget
reflects that once again. Now, she is not here to comment specifically on what could or
should be permanently eliminated from the County budget this year; much of that
should be obvious. What she would like to suggest is having a strategic plan, a plan in
place as suggested by our Vinton supervisor to accomplish mutual goals that he and the
Hollins supervisor have suggested. With all due respect, she does not also intend to be
inclusive of the supervisors from Catawba and from Windsor Hills in this long -term
planning, but is borrowing the words spoken by the previous supervisors that she
mentioned in particular. What could we do to say a ten -year plan, streamline County
staff, reduce taxes, retire debt and generally make Roanoke County a more attractive
place for business and residents? If we could do all of those things by three percent
(3 %) per year, the way ICLEI claims it can reduce carbon emissions, then we would be
290 April 22, 2014
a pretty wealthy County in ten (10) years. Okay, thirty percent (30 %) reduction in all of
the above in ten (10) years might be a stretch, or is it? The point is that we as a County
have no plan and no goals to attain. Let's set the goals and figure out a way to do it.
This does not mean reducing services as the liberals want to claim or that typical red -
herring of eliminating trash pickup for our citizens. Services can easily be maintained
by eliminating waste and redundancy. We are expected to do this in our household
budgets to meet our obligations. As taxpayers, we should expect the same of our
elected officials as stewards of the revenue that we provide you. It is your job to do this.
Chairman McNamara closed the public hearing.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he appreciates everyone who came up and
spoke. He is definitely one that believes in limited government and when you talk about
that it may be easier to say that than to actually putting it into fruition. Limited
government means we are getting smaller and he has made this point to a lot of people
that it is against everybody's self- interest in government to become smaller. He has
heard so many people say they want to run government like a business, but a business
loves to expand and grow revenues. The problem is growing revenues is that you are
moving revenue from people's pockets and putting into government. So, that becomes
an issue and he has grappled with this and really appreciates this public hearing tonight
because he a grappled with how do we do this. Thinking back, he thinks we really need
to put lower taxes as the basis. We need to start with the fact that we are going to
reduce taxes by two cents or whatever and everything works around that. Because if
we do it the other way, it seems like we get into an issue where everybody has a need
and the expansion just happens. For him to look at this budget and say remove this,
remove this, etc. is difficult to do because everybody will say that is absolutely needed.
You cannot go to one department and say are your sure you do not have any wasteful
spending. How do you say it? How do you bring efficiencies to a department? Does a
department really want to become efficient? In the private sector we do, because we
have a profit motive, but in the public sector he does not know if anybody wants to
become efficient. He does not know who wants to reduce their staff from thirty to forty
(30 to 40) people and actually say well actually I have two or three (2 or 3) people that I
really do not need. No one is going to say that. He thinks it is a problem. We are going
to come across this all the time. It is not like it is new to Roanoke County. The State
does it. The federal government does it. We just keep getting bigger. He has a hard
time supporting our budget because it does grow. We are growing two percent (2 %).
We have had this discussion. We have had good work sessions and thinks everybody's
philosophy is great. When you grow government like we are doing by $3.2 million,
which is forecasted and we have spent the money basically by saying here is our
budget for the new year. It is going to make it more and more difficult each year to
lower taxes because we now have the $174 million budget versus the $170 million
budget. Next year it is going to grow more and it is going to become very, very difficult.
So, as he looks at this budget he looks at things such as pay increases and he
remembers when he first came on the board and was told no one has had a pay
April 22, 2014 291
increase for several years. Then, we started diving in and in 2009/2010 we had a $500
bonus for everybody. In 2010/2011, we had a one -time salary support of four percent
(4 %). In 2011/2012 we did and in 2012/2013 we had a two percent (2 %) salary
increase. So, there have been increases. Departments have had salary raises, so
money has been coming in. People are having increases and their salaries have gone
up. He has had word that a couple of people have gotten $10,000 to $15,000 raises.
This is bothersome because it is not going to correct itself. Sometimes it takes
somebody that asks a lot of questions and he has had to do that and everybody thinks
he is coming down on government. No, he is just coming down and trying to find out
what the real truth it and how we can ask government to do something it never wants to
do. It just does not want to do it. He stated he thinks we had some good points brought
up and he would like to talk about one that Mr. Landis talked about. The money is
coming from a relative small portion from businesses and a larger portion from
taxpayers; that is a problem. Just because we say it, does not mean now that more
businesses come in. We have a whole economic development department that is
supposed to go out there and bring businesses in. Why isn't that happening? Why
hasn't that happened in while? These are questions that someone needs to be held
accountable for. Why aren't more businesses in our industrial parks; what is the
reason. He thinks somebody should be held accountable for that because we do need
to get that percentage up. The population is relatively stagnant in Roanoke County,
roughly ten to eleven percent (10 to 11 %) over the last twenty years of resident
population. That is tough. We have increased the budget $70 million in the last twenty
years and the population has only gone up about eleven percent (11 %). That is $70
million spread out not on a whole lot of people; that is troubling to him, that is a sixty -
three percent (63 %) increase of the budget dollars, but the population has not gone up
that much. So, he just expresses his views to everybody that it is time to do it. It is
bothersome to him; it is troubling that we would actually grow our budget this time.
There was another comment that things are very, very tough on people. A lot of people
do not even have jobs and yet we are getting out $1.7 million in salaries and market
adjustments - $1.7 million. There are a lot of people that are lucky to have a $50 or
$100 raise and we are giving people that make over $70- $160,000 raises. He stated
this is not how he would run his own home and so he is a little bothered by these budget
numbers.
Supervisor Church stated he takes this as a wake -up call. There have
been years past when we have had budget proposals with our public hearings and did
not have one person to speak; not even one person for a few years in a row. So, he
takes this as a wake -up call for him personally. Nothing changes, nothing changes. He
wants to comment on our tax rate. The gentleman from his area mentioned and this is
very important. He has covered this when he was Chairman at the State of the County
in the 2010 and 2011 addresses and you have heard me several times on the Board.
We do have the highest effective tax rate of $1.09 when you compare apples to apples.
When you compare other rural areas, i.e. Montgomery, Bedford, Botetourt, Franklin and
292 April 22, 2014
take away what we offer to our citizens: three vital services, paid fire and rescue, paid
police department and trash and curbside bulk pickup. This amounts to $41 million a
year. We can take those out and have about sixty -four cents ($0.64) like the others and
they would run us out of here on the next boxcar. The citizens would take us out the
door because they do not want to put their trash in a pickup and go to Rt. 460 or Rt.
220. They expect to have a policeman or fireman come. No disrespect to other
counties, unless there is gunshots, you do not see a deputy in five to seven (5 to 7)
minutes. Let's not just make the statement we have the highest effective tax rate, not in
reality we don't if you talk about core services. Now, he also agrees we have some
good launch pads, the Center for Research and Technology, but again Supervisor
Bedrosian is right we have to cultivate and bring those in. We have an Economic
Development Department, but we cannot hold a gun to people and make them come.
We have to make it attractive for them. He stated he does think as he mentioned in a
work session a few weeks ago, he thinks we should start next year's budget process
with a two cent ($0.02) tax reduction and work from them. Because if we do not do it, it
will never get done. You gave us a projected of $3.2 million, not surplus, but projection
and our folks are good because normally the projections are close, not pie in the sky.
He stated he has seen projections within a couple of thousand dollars. This is a
compliment to Mr. Robertson. Previous years, we go through the lean and the hungry
and low and behold at the end of the year we have $4 million in surplus and up to $6 or
$7 million. What happens we do not know about it; we are not budget experts. You can
do a lot of things with $6 million; a lot of opportunities were missed. Mr. Goodman
knows we would probably get a noose if that happens, we do not expect to have this
because we are running a ship that we are held accountable. It is their money; it
bothers him when he hears throughout the County, this is our department and out
money. It is really not. He stated he does not mean he thinks they mean it literally, but
sometimes the mentality happens to make you feel way. Everything should be on the
table, this Board does not get into personnel, but we do hold Mr. Goodman accountable
for personnel. We have had some good questions asked and some good information.
He read where 175 people received salary increases. He does not know the ins, outs
and whys. He does not mean that everybody got a raise because Mr. Goodman likes
them, but 175 people. He stated that makes him question, and he did, his is going to
name three, three of the top -paid part -time workers. We have a part -time worker
making $65 an hour. If you work 2,080 hours; that is $135,000 a year. We have a part -
time worker making $25.32 an hour and the next one is $32.52. He only asked for the
top three. Does that bother him, yes he replied, because these people are former
employees? He has been here a long time and developed a lot of relationships with
citizens and employees and when they pick up the phone and call him at home because
they do not want to call him from the office to say they are a "little ticked because they
heard somebody received a $15,000 raise." You have to ask yourself, if you get one
call, he may not play close attention, but when he gets five to ten (5 to 10), it shows him
morale is really taking a hit. Morale in any business, sports or government, you have to
April 22, 2014 293
make people happy by being transparent. It goes back to what you folks prioritize.
Question past patterns of spending. Know the true cost of doing business and the one
he likes is provide transparency, service impact and demand accountability, and results.
Provide transparency priorities, spend within your means. These are good phrases, but
he does not know and he is guilty as well as any other Board member. This is his ship
too. This is a wake -up call. He is not sure we are doing these things as good as we
can do these. We means all of us, not just the folks at the podium. You make the big
bucks and sometimes you have to take the call. It is not individually on a personal
basis, but we need to look at ourselves in the mirror and ask what can we do better with
what we have. We have been told regarding the real estate market and Mr. Landis is
right about the percentage of real estate, personal and commercial. Our Board as far
back as twelve (12) years ago, we have been screaming about that a long time. We
want it to be 75/25 or 80/20. We recognize this. We know we have to correct, but you
cannot hold a gun to CEO's and have them come here. We have to be creative and do
things a little different. It does not mean scrap the whole building; it does not mean
throw away all the machines, but we have to learn to do better with what we have. So,
he does think it would send a loud and clear signal. In his prior business life, if you pay
yourself first. The citizens are going to get a tax increase with the assessment anyway,
why make it a double hit. He thinks we can do that and it is going to include a lot of self -
examination; a lot of people truly tightening up the belt, but he knows it can be done.
Supervisor Peters stated conversation is good. He stated to Mr. Landis he
is glad someone is listening to him. He is correct; economic development is where it
has to be. We have to find a way to bring those businesses in here. Unfortunately, the
Center for Research and Technology in the Glenvar area and Ms. Loope is not here,
need $4 million of work to get it ready for that business to come in here. Again, we are
not taking a priority to make things ready for those companies to come here.
Something else that has screamed at the board and apparently keeps getting ignored
and is something that he has known for a number of years because of being in the
government in other positions is the maintenance that we keep kicking down the road.
He would be the first to tell you that he would love to get a reduction in his real estate
tax, thanks to Mr. Hutchins he received in the mail yesterday. But, when sitting on this
side of fence it scares him because in conversations he has had with Department
Heads and the Board has had with Department Heads across the Board. We have five
(5) trash trucks and we all like to have that trash picked up, but we have kicked that can
down the road as far as we can kick it. The last number he received was five (5). We
tried to get one (1) in this budget, but it was cut. They are to the tune of $300,000 a
piece. Mr. Burch, and he knows one is in his station which is why he knows more about
this, there are four (4) ladder trucks in Roanoke County. When you kick that can down
the road about as far as you can kick it and guess what in the next three (3) years all
four (4) will need to be replaced at $1.5 million a piece. So, he guessed he is
concerned, he would love to give the money back, he is all for that, but what he does
not want to happen is to give it back and then come back for it because we are running
294 April 22, 2014
in a hole. He has a grave concern about the maintenance of not only this building, but a
lot of things, prior Boards have kicked that can down the road, like stormwater. We
kicked that down the road as far as we can kick it and now it is staring us in the face
and we have to do something with it. He stated he is proud of our budget team and Mr.
Goodman. Because if you pay attention, and he may be wrong and the Roanoke Times
is not here to clarify it for him, he believes we are the only County that has not been in
the newspaper with the conversation piece has been raising taxes. So, that tells him we
are doing something right. The last thing he is going to touch on is something that the
Chairman mentioned in a meeting they had earlier today as it relates to our Employee
Advisory Committee. He knows there are several individuals in the government that are
making good money, and while he is going to say that is not the issue to him, the issue
comes to the people who are on our front lines. The people who are responding to fire
and rescue calls, the police officer who shows up to your house at 2 o'clock in the
morning, the Deputy Sheriff that is keeping the jails save and that solid waste
equipment operator who comes by your house every week and picks up your trash.
Those folks are also trying to raise a family; trying to pay for their living as well. When
he has looks at the numbers and he shared this in our work session two weeks ago, a
dispatcher in Roanoke County when he starts out makes $29,460. A two percent (2 %)
raise is $589 a year. A Deputy Sheriff, a Police Officer, Fire and Rescue Personnel
(they are all the same pay) make $33,608. A two percent (2 %) raise for them is $672.
The starting salary for a solid waste equipment officer is $26,333. A two percent (2 %)
raise to them is $526. Mr. Bedrosian had asked County staff to provide to the Board a
listing of salaries (kind of scares him, because he does not know what you would do
with that) but now that he has it, it was very apparent to him that the bulk of our people
are not in the $100,000 range. They are in the lower grid and those are the folks that he
thinks ought to be taken care of. We are trying to improve their lifestyle as well. One
step further, because he brought it up earlier, the County, the City of Roanoke and the
City of Salem are doing a lot of work together as far as training people and he asked the
question earlier today, when that police officer shows up at 2 o'clock in the morning do
you want that person to be there because they want to do that as a career or they are
doing it because they want a job until the next best thing comes along. So, when we
are talking about the compression of salaries and that we are not up to market, it is
disturbing to him that in our last round of hiring fire and rescue personnel, the same
people that we could have picked up, Roanoke City did because they paid $3,000 to
$4,000 more. A dispatcher is in eighty -three percent (83 %) of the market where our
dispatchers are today. If that does not mean anything to you, again, he has said a
hundred times and will say one more time. He is a member of fire and rescue of
Roanoke County. Many of you may have nothing to do with it and may not have a clue
what we do, but that dispatcher is his lifeline and to say they are not worth two percent
(2 %) or that EMS person that medic standing beside me ready to administer drugs to
that person who has just taken their last breath. He cannot do it. He believes they
earned where they are and believe we should take care of our people because he
April 22, 2014 295
wants that quality of employees in Roanoke County.
Supervisor Moore thanked Mr. Goodman and Brent Robertson and all the
budget team who worked really hard on the budget; they did an incredible job and she
would also like to concur with what Mr. Peters has said. Number one we do need to
maintain our buildings and our equipment and we do need to take care of our
employees, they do an incredible job. They come to work every day, they give us their
all. They deserve a raise. We need to take care of them also. One other thing, with
regard to the contributions that we make to our nonprofits. They do provide many,
many things to our society, to our community, to our elderly and to a lot of others. She
advised she was not going to go down the list, but they do provide a service and she
thinks it is important that we take care of the people who sometimes cannot take care of
themselves.
Chairman McNamara stated he wanted to add one comment. Tonight
was primarily to get input from the citizens, hence the public hearing. We will be
discussing the budget in our next two meetings as well. We will be adopting first
reading of our budget at a subsequent meeting, May 13, 2014 and the second reading
and adoption of the final budget on May 27, 2014. One other thing he wants to put out
there because it has not been mentioned with the other comments on the budget. We
are the only locality that he is aware of in our size because it trends from big localities to
small localities that has not implemented a stormwater fee. He stated he thinks there is
a commitment and he thinks it is going to be a lot of work on this Board in having to
every having a stormwater management fee. So, while there might not be a tax
reduction this year, there is not a stormwater management fee, which everybody around
us is putting into place. It is worth mentioning. We are very, very conscious of your
dollars and try to spend them as if they are our dollars (They are our dollars.), they are
all of our dollars. We appreciate the comments and everyone that spoke today.
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION
1. Resolution of Endorsement for the landscaping project at the
Merriman Road roundabout in Roanoke County, Virginia (Megan
Cronise, AICP, Principal Planner)
Ms. Cronise outlined the resolution. Chairman McNamara opened and
closed the public hearing with no citizens to speak on this matter. There was no
discussion. Supervisor Church complimented Ms. Cronise on her presentation.
RESOLUTION 042214 -10 OF ENDORSEMENT FOR THE
LANDSCAPING PROJECT AT THE MERRIMAN ROAD
ROUNDABOUT IN ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
296 April 22, 2014
WHEREAS, T.J.S. Enterprises, Inc. has committed to maintain for five years
landscaping and signage at the Merriman Road Roundabout in Roanoke County,
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, this landscaping and signage project would implement the 2005
Roanoke County Community Plan; and
WHEREAS, these improvement activities fall under the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) Comprehensive Roadside Management Program; and
WHEREAS, this VDOT program requires the local governing body to hold a
public hearing and adopt a resolution of endorsement prior to project approval by
VDOT; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors was briefed on this project in a work
session on April 8, 2014 by County staff and the Board held a public hearing on this
project after advertisement as required by law on April 22, 2014.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the Board finds that this landscaping and signage project at the
Merriman Road Roundabout is consistent with the goals of the 2005 Roanoke
County Community Plan.
2. That the Board of Supervisors accepts the offer of T.J.S. Enterprises, Inc. to
maintain for five (5) years the landscaping and signage at the Merriman Road
Roundabout.
3. That the Board of Supervisors hereby adopts this Resolution of Endorsement
for the landscaping project at the Merriman Road Roundabout, and requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to approve this project under its
Comprehensive Roadside Management Program.
4. That the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors is directed to send a copy of this
resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation and to T.J.S.
Enterprises, Inc.
On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
2. Resolution of Endorsement for a landscaping project in the
Williamson Road medians between Campus Drive and North
Brook Drive in Roanoke County, Virginia (Megan Cronise, AICP,
Principal Planner)
Ms. Cronise outlined the resolution. Chairman McNamara opened the
public hearing and the following citizen spoke.
Wendy Jones stated she is the Executive Director of the Williamson Road
April 22, 2014 297
Area Business Association, which would fall under the Hollins District. She advised she
would like to thank the Board for taking the time to listen. As the manager of two (2)
such projects, she wants to tell you and let everybody know that this is the kind of
Public /Private Partnership that we all need. It stretches the tax dollar. Where does the
public part come in, you guys support the project. Where does the private part come it,
Hollins pays for it. It is pretty simple. This is not tax dollar supported project. VDOT
has cut their budgets to the point where mowing only happens once every six weeks
and the grass gets up to the point where you are in a car with her car's profile you
cannot see around the corner. Not only does this beautify the area, it makes it safe.
This is one of the things that helps attract other businesses to an area because people
give a hoot. It is pretty simply. This is a Public /Private Partnership and she supports
this one and any others that are going on including the one in the Cave Spring area
Chairman McNamara closed the public hearing. There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 042214 -11 OF ENDORSEMENT FOR A
LANDSCAPING PROJECT IN THE WILLIAMSON ROAD
MEDIANS BETWEEN CAMPUS DRIVE AND NORTH BROOK
DRIVE IN ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, Hollins University has committed to maintain for five years new
landscaping and signage in the Williamson Road medians between Campus Drive and
North Brook Drive in Roanoke County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, this landscaping and signage project would implement the 2005
Roanoke County Community Plan and the 2008 Hollins Area Plan; and
WHEREAS, these improvement activities fall under the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) Comprehensive Roadside Management Program; and
WHEREAS, this VDOT program requires the local governing body to hold a
public hearing and adopt a Resolution of Endorsement prior to project approval by
VDOT; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors was briefed on this project in a work
session on April 8, 2014 by County staff and the Board of Supervisors held a public
hearing on this project after advertisement as required by law on April 22, 2014.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, AS FOLLOWS:
5. That the Board of Supervisors finds that this landscaping and signage project
in the Williamson Road medians between Campus Drive and North Brook
Drive is consistent with the goals of the 2005 Roanoke County Community
Plan and the 2008 Hollins Area Plan.
6. That the Board of Supervisors accepts the offer of Hollins University to install
and maintain for five (5) years the landscaping and signage in the Williamson
Road medians between Campus Drive and North Brook Drive.
298 April 22, 2014
7. That the Board hereby adopts this Resolution of Endorsement for the
landscaping project in the Williamson Road medians between Campus Drive
and North Brook Drive, and requests the Virginia Department of
Transportation to approve this project under its Comprehensive Roadside
Management Program.
8. That the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors is directed to send a copy of this
resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation and to Hollins
University.
On motion of Supervisor Bedrosian to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance repealing Chapter 23. Stormwater Management in its
entirety and adopting a new Chapter of the Roanoke County Code
— Chapter 23. Stormwater Management Ordinance (Arnold Covey,
Director of Community Development)
Mr. Covey advised there were no changes from the first reading held on
April 8, 2014. Chairman McNamara opened and closed the public hearing with no
citizens to speak on this issue. There was no discussion.
April 22, 2014 299
ORDINANCE 042214 -12 REPEALING CHAPTER 23.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN ITS ENTIRETY AND
ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY
CODE — CHAPTER 23. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, the Federal Clean Water Act requires the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to enact regulations to permit and eliminate pollutants
discharged into the nation's waterways; and
WHEREAS, the EPA has required the states and in the Commonwealth of
Virginia, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to enforce these regulations;
and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County through the state - mandated programs is required
to lessen the adverse impacts from stormwater runoff from land disturbing activities and
from previous development through the local erosion and sediment control ordinance,
the Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP), M unicipal Separate Storm
Sewer System (MS4) Permit, and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program; and
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia has determined that to increase the
effectiveness of these programs, the administration of the VSMP is being transferred to
the localities and the stormwater management requirements are being completely
revised effective July 1, 2014; therefore, Roanoke County's stormwater ordinance must
be repealed and a new ordinance adopted; and
WHEREAS, since Roanoke County is becoming the local VSMP authority, which
will result in additional plan reviews, field inspections, educational activities,
enforcement actions, and coordination with DEQ; and
WHEREAS, many of Roanoke County's creeks and streams are listed by DEQ
as impaired and the County has been assigned thirteen (13) different "waste local
allocations" to limit the pollutants entering the County's impaired streams from its storm
sewer system; and
WHEREAS, the County is required through its MS4 permit to reduce these
pollutants over time to satisfy the assigned wasteload allocations; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance satisfies the DEQ requirements effective July 1, 2014;
and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 8, 2014, and the
second reading and public hearing was held on April 22, 2014.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That Chapter 23. Stormwater Management be, and hereby is, repealed in
its entirety.
2. That a new Chapter 23, entitled " Stormwater Management Ordinance" be,
and hereby is, adopted to read as set out below.
3. That the effective date of this ordinance is July 1, 2014.
300
April 22, 2014
Stormwater Management Ordinance from Chapter 23 of the
County of Roanoke Code
Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................ ...............................
Section 23 -1 General Provisions ........................................... ...............................
23 -1.1 Title and Authority .............................................. ...............................
23 -1.2 Purpose .............................................................. ...............................
23 -1.3 Applicability ........................................................ ...............................
23 -1.4 Compatibility with Other Requirements .............. ...............................
23 -1.5 Severability ......................................................... ...............................
23 -1.6 Stormwater Management Technical Criteria for Regulated Land
Disturbance Activities .......................................... ...............................
23 -1.7 Stormwater Management Technical Criteria for Regulated Land
Disturbance Activities: Grandfathered Projects and Projects subject
to the Provisions of 9VAC25- 870 -47B ................ ...............................
23 -1.8 Stormwater Management Design Manual .......... ...............................
23 -1.9 County Right of Entry ......................................... ...............................
Section 23 -2 Definitions ......................................................... ...............................
Section 23 -3 Program Permit Procedures and Requirements ...........................
23 -3.1 Permit Required ................................................. ...............................
23 -3.2 Permit Application Contents ............................... ...............................
23 -3.3 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans .............. ...............................
23 -3.4 Pollution Prevention Plans .................................. ...............................
23 -3.5 Stormwater Management Plans ......................... ...............................
23 -3.6 Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plans and Regional
Stormwater Management Facilities ..................... ...............................
23 -3.7 Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Agreements ............
23 -3.8 Performance Securities ...................................... ...............................
23 -3.9 Fees ................................................................... ...............................
23 -3.10 Permit Application Procedure ........................... ...............................
Section 23 -4 Exceptions to Stormwater Management Requirements ..............
Section 23 -5 Property Owner Responsibilities for Drainage Ways ...................
April 22, 2014 301
Section 23 -6 Construction Inspection .................................. ...............................
23 -6.1 Notice of Construction Commencement ............. ...............................
23 -6.2 Periodic Construction Inspection ........................ ...............................
23 -6.3 Final Inspection and Record Documentation ...... ...............................
Section 23 -7 Post Construction Inspection, Maintenance and Repair
Of Stormwater Management Facilities ............. ...............................
23 -7.1 Maintenance Inspections of Stormwater Management Facilities.......
23 -7.2 Records of Inspection, Maintenance and Repair ...............................
Section 23 -8 Hearings and Appeals ...................................... ...............................
23 -8.1 Hearings ............................................................. ...............................
23 -8.2 Appeals .............................................................. ...............................
Section 23 -9 Enforcement and Penalties ............................. ...............................
23 -9.1 Violations ............................................................ ...............................
23 -9.2 Notice of Violation .............................................. ...............................
23 -9.3 Stop Work Orders ............................................... ...............................
23 -9.4 Civil and Criminal Penalties ................................ ...............................
23 -9.5 Restoration of Lands .......................................... ...............................
23 -9.6 Holds on Certificate of Occupancy ..................... ...............................
302 April 22, 2014
Chapter 23
Stormwater Management Ordinance
County of Roanoke, Virginia
INTRODUCTION
The County of Roanoke is home to a vast array of scenic natural resources, from the
mountains that span our landscape to the streams that flow through our valleys. This
picturesque environment has embraced generations of citizens while drawing in more
newcomers every year. The continual increase in population aids in the growth and
development of this area, improving jobs and enhancing economic stability. Yet,
intensive development can degrade the beautiful natural resources that make the
County so special.
Inadequate management of stormwater runoff from land- disturbing activities and
development in watersheds increases flood flows and velocities, erodes and /or silts
stream channels, pollutes water, overloads existing drainage facilities, undermines
floodplain management in downstream communities, reduces groundwater recharge,
and threatens public safety. More specifically, surface water runoff can carry pollutants
into receiving waters.
The Roanoke River and many of its tributaries inside the County are listed as impaired
waters by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
Many future problems can be avoided through proper stormwater management, and the
County is dedicated to preventing the damaging effects that uncontrolled stormwater
may present. The lands and waters of Roanoke County are valuable natural resources
that need to be protected. The County finds that it is in the public interest to establish a
stormwater management program.
Pursuant to Code § 62.1- 44.15:27, this ordinance is part of an initiative to integrate the
County of Roanoke's stormwater management requirements with the County of
Roanoke's erosion and sediment control (Chapter 8.1) and floodplain management
(Section 30 -74) requirements into a unified stormwater program. The unified
stormwater program is intended to facilitate the submission and approval of plans,
issuance of permits, payment of fees, and coordination of inspection and enforcement
activities into a more convenient and efficient manner for both the County of Roanoke
and those responsible for compliance with these programs.
April 22, 2014 303
SECTION 23 -1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 23 -1.1 TITLE AND AUTHORITY
A. This ordinance shall be known as the "Stormwater Management Ordinance of the
County of Roanoke, Virginia."
B. Pursuant to § 62.1- 44.15:27 of the Code of Virginia, the County of Roanoke
hereby establishes a Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) for
land- disturbing activities and adopts the applicable Regulations that specify
standards and specifications for VSMPs promulgated by the State Water Control
Board (State Board) for the purposes set out in Section 23 -1.2 of this ordinance.
The County of Roanoke hereby designates the Director of Community
Development as the Administrator of its Virginia Stormwater Management
Program.
Section 23 -1.2 PURPOSE
The purpose of this ordinance is to promote and protect the general health, safety, and
welfare of the citizens of the County and to protect property, state waters, stream
channels, and other natural resources from the potential harm of unmanaged
stormwater, and to establish requirements whereby stormwater is managed to protect
water quality and downstream property owners.
This ordinance provides the framework for the administration, implementation, and
enforcement of the provisions of the Virginia Stormwater Management Act (VSMA) and
delineates the procedures and requirements to be followed in connection with the
permits issued by the Administrator.
Section 23 -1.3 APPLICABILITY
A. Except as provided herein, no person may engage in any land- disturbing activity
until a permit has been issued by the Administrator in accordance with the
provisions of this ordinance.
B. A stormwater management plan, or an agreement in lieu of a stormwater
management plan, shall be reviewed and approved by the Administrator prior to
permit issuance.
304
April 22, 2014
C. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this ordinance, the following activities
are exempt, unless otherwise required by federal law:
1. Permitted surface or deep mining operations and projects, or oil and gas
operations and projects conducted under the provisions of Title 45.1;
2. Clearing of lands specifically for agricultural purposes and the
management, tilling, planting, or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural, or
forest crops, livestock feedlot operations, or as additionally set forth by the
State Water Control Board in regulations, including engineering operations
as follows: construction of terraces ,terrace outlets, check dams, desilting
basins, dikes, ponds, ditches, strip cropping, lister furrowing, contour
cultivating, contour furrowing, land drainage, and land irrigation; however,
this exception shall not apply to harvesting of forest crops unless the area
on which harvesting occurs is reforested artificially or naturally in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 11 (§ 10.1 -1100 et seq.) or is
converted to bona fide agricultural or improved pasture use, as described
in subsection B of § 10.1 -1163 of Article 9 of Chapter 11 of Title 10.1 of
the Code of Virginia;
3. Single- family residences separately built and disturbing less than one acre
and not part of a larger common plan of development or sale, including
additions or modifications to existing single - family residential structures;
4. Other land disturbing activities that disturb less than one acre of land area,
except land disturbing activities that are part of a larger common plan of
development or sale that is one acre or greater of disturbance;
5. Discharges to a sanitary sewer or a combined sewer system;
6. Activities under a state or federal reclamation program to return an
abandoned property to an agricultural or open land use;
7. Routine maintenance that is performed to maintain the original line and
grade, hydraulic capacity, or original construction of the project. The
paving of an existing road with a compacted or impervious surface and
reestablishment of existing associated ditches and shoulders shall be
deemed routine maintenance performed in accordance with this
subsection; and
8. Conducting land- disturbing activities in response to a public emergency
where the related work requires immediate authorization to avoid
April 22, 2014 305
imminent endangerment to human health or the environment. In such
situations, the Administrator shall be advised of the disturbance within
seven days of commencing the land- disturbing activity and compliance
with the administrative requirements of subsection A is required within 30
days of commencing the land- disturbing activity.
D. The provisions of this Chapter shall not be applicable within the limits of the
Town of Vinton.
Section 23 -1.4 COMPATABILITY WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS
This ordinance is not intended to interfere with, abrogate, or annul any other ordinance,
rule or regulation, stature, or other provision of law. The requirements of this ordinance
should be considered minimum requirements, and where any provision of this ordinance
imposes restrictions different from those imposed by any other ordinance, rule or
regulation, or other provision of law, whichever provisions are more restrictive or impose
higher protective standards for human health or the environment shall apply.
Section 23 -1.5 SEVERABILITY
If the provisions of any article, section, subsection, paragraph, subdivision or clause of
this ordinance shall be judged invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such order of
judgment shall not affect or invalidate the remainder of any article, section, subsection,
paragraph, subdivision or clause of this ordinance.
Section 23 -1.6 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL CRITERIA FOR
REGULATED LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES
The County hereby adopts the technical criteria for regulated land- disturbing activities
set forth in Part 1113 of the Regulations, as amended, expressly to include 9VAC25 -870-
62 [applicability]; 9VAC25- 870 -63 [water quality design criteria requirements]; 9VAC25 -
870-65 [water quality compliance]; 9VAC25- 870 -66 [water quantity]; 9VAC25- 870 -69
[offsite compliance options]; 9VAC25- 870 -72 [design storms and hydrologic methods;
9VAC25- 870 -74 [stormwater harvesting]; 9VAC25- 870 -76 [linear development projects];
9VAC25- 870 -85 [stormwater management impoundment structures or facilities]; and
9VAC25- 870 -92 [comprehensive stormwater management plans], which shall apply to
all land disturbing activities regulated pursuant to this ordinance, except as expressly
set forth in section 23 -1.7 of this ordinance.
Section 23 -1.7 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL CRITERIA FOR
REGULATED LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES: GRANDFATHERED PROJECTS
AND PROJECTS SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF 9VAC25- 870 -47B
306
April 22, 2014
A. The County hereby adopts the technical criteria for regulated land- disturbing
activities set forth in Part IIC of the Regulations, as amended, expressly to
include 9VAC25- 870 -93 [definitions]; 9VAC25- 870 -94 [applicability]; 9VAC25 -
870-95 [general]; 9VAC25 -870- 96 [water quality]; 9VAC25- 870 -97 [stream
channel erosion]; 9VAC25- 870 -98 [flooding]; and 9VAC25- 870 -99 [regional
(watershed -wide) stormwater management plans], which shall only apply to all
land disturbing activities regulated pursuant to this section.
B. Any land- disturbing activity shall be considered grandfathered and shall be
subject to the Part II C technical criteria of the Regulations, provided:
A proffered or conditional zoning plan, zoning with a plan of development,
preliminary or final subdivision plat, preliminary or final site plan, or any
document determined by the locality to be equivalent thereto (i) was
approved by the locality prior to July 1, 2012, (ii) provided a layout as
defined in 9VAC25- 870 -10 and section 23 -2, (iii) will comply with the Part
II C technical criteria of the VSMP Regulation, and (iv) has not been
subsequently modified or amended in a manner resulting in an increase in
the amount of phosphorus leaving each point of discharge, and such that
there is no increase in the volume or rate of runoff;
2. A state permit has not been issued prior to July 1, 2014; and
3. Land disturbance did not commence prior to July 1, 2014.
C. County, state, and federal projects shall be considered grandfathered and shall
be subject to the Part II C technical requirements of the Regulations, provided:
There has been an obligation of county, state, or federal funding, in whole
or in part, prior to July 1, 2012, or the Department has approved a
stormwater management plan prior to July 1, 2012;
2. A state permit has not been issued prior to July 1, 2014; and
3. Land disturbance did not commence prior to July 1, 2014.
D. Land disturbing activities grandfathered under subsections B and C of this
section shall remain subject to the Part II C technical criteria of the Regulations
for one additional state permit cycle. After such time, portions of the project not
under construction shall become subject to the technical criteria in effect at that
time.
April 22, 2014 307
E. In cases where governmental bonding or public debt financing has been issued
for a project prior to July 1, 2012, such project shall be subject to the technical
requirements of the Part II C technical criteria of the Regulations.
F. Land disturbing activities that obtain general permit coverage or commence land
disturbance prior to July 1, 2014, shall be conducted in accordance with the Part
II C technical criteria of the Regulations and Roanoke County's local stormwater
management requirements that were in effect at the time of receiving general
permit coverage or commencing land disturbance. Such projects shall remain
subject to these requirements for an additional two general permit cycles, if
general permit coverage is maintained. After that time, portions of the project,
not under construction, shall become subject to the technical criteria in effect at
that time.
G. An operator may choose to decline grandfather status and to instead comply with
the technical requirements of section 23 -1.6 of this ordinance. Nothing in this
section shall preclude an operator from constructing to a more stringent standard
at his discretion.
Section 23 -1.8 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DESIGN MANUAL
A. The County will utilize the policies, criteria and information contained within the
County Stormwater Management Design Manual for proper implementation of
the requirements of this ordinance.
B. The County Stormwater Management Design Manual may be updated and
revised from time to time. The Administrator shall recommend any updates,
supplements, or modifications of the County Stormwater Management Design
Manual subject to the authorization and approval by the Board of Supervisors by
resolution.
Section 23 -1.9 COUNTY RIGHT OF ENTRY
A. The Administrator and /or duly authorized employees, agents, or representatives
of the County, bearing proper credentials and identification, may, at any
reasonable times and under reasonable circumstance, enter any establishment
or upon any property, public or private, which has a VSMP permit or a
maintenance agreement, for the purpose of enforcing this ordinance, including,
but not limited to:
1. Obtaining information or conducting surveys or investigations;
1 '
April 22, 2014
2. Taking samples of discharges;
3. Inspecting monitoring equipment;
4. Inspecting and copying documents relevant to the enforcement of this
ordinance;
5. Initiating or maintaining appropriate actions which are required by the
permit conditions associated with a land- disturbing activity when a
permittee, after proper notice, has failed to take acceptable action within
the time specified;
6. Inspecting stormwater management facilities or other BMPs or to initiate
or maintain appropriate actions which are required to restore proper
stormwater management facility or other BMP operation when a land
owner, after proper notice, has failed to take acceptable action within the
time specified;
7. And such other items as may be deemed necessary for the enforcement
of this ordinance.
B. If the Administrator has cause to believe an activity regulated under this
ordinance is occurring without a VSMP permit, or if the person in charge of the
property refuses to allow the Administrator to enter in accordance with
subsection A, then the Administrator may present sworn testimony to a
magistrate or court of competent jurisdiction and request the issuance of an
inspection warrant to enter the property for the purpose of making such
inspection and investigation. The Administrator shall make a reasonable effort to
obtain consent from the owner or person in charge of the property prior to
seeking the issuance of an inspection warrant under this section.
SECTION 23 -2
DEFINITIONS
In addition to the definitions set forth in 9VAC25- 870 -10 of the Virginia Stormwater
Management Regulations, as amended, which are expressly adopted and incorporated
herein by reference, the following words and terms used in this ordinance have the
following meanings, unless otherwise specified herein. Where definitions differ, those
incorporated herein shall have precedence.
April 22, 2014 309
"Administrator" means the VSMP authority responsible for administering the VSMP on
behalf of the County of Roanoke. The Administrator shall be the Director of Community
Development and any duly authorized agent of the Director of Community
Development, or the person designated by the County Administrator to administer this
ordinance on behalf of the County.
"Agreement in lieu of a Stormwater Management Plan" means a contract between
the VSMP authority and the owner or permittee that specifies methods that shall be
implemented to comply with the requirements of a VSMP for the construction of a
single - family residence; such contract may be executed by the VSMP authority in lieu of
a stormwater management plan.
"Applicant" means any person submitting an application for a permit or requesting
issuance of a permit under this Ordinance.
"Best Management Practice or BMP" means schedules of activities, prohibitions of
practices, including both a structural or nonstructural practice, maintenance procedures,
and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of surface waters
and groundwater systems from the impacts of land- disturbing activities.
"Clean Water Act or CWA" means the federal Clean Water Act (33 United States
Code 1251 et seq.), formerly referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Public Law 92 -500, as
amended by Public Law 95 -217, Public Law 95 -576, Public Law 96 -483, and Public Law
97 -117, or any subsequent revisions thereto.
"Common plan of development or sale" means a contiguous area where separate
and distinct construction activities may be taking place at different times on different
schedules.
"Control measure" means any best management practice or other method used to
prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants to surface waters.
"County" means the County of Roanoke, Virginia.
"Department" means the Department of Environmental Quality.
"Development" means land disturbance and the resulting landform associated with the
construction of residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, recreation, transportation
or utility facilities or structures or the clearing of land for non - agricultural or non -
silvicultural purposes.
310 April 22, 2014
"Executed Development Agreements" means documents that are executed by the
applicant and County that implements the various sureties.
"Fee in lieu" means a payment of money to the County for the use of a regional
stormwater management facility in place of meeting all or part of the stormwater
performance standards required by this Ordinance on the site.
"General permit" means the state permit titled GENERAL PERMIT FOR
DISCHARGES OF STORMWATER FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES found in
Part XIV (9VAC25 -880 -1 et seq.) of the Regulations authorizing a category of
discharges under the CWA and the Act within a geographical area of the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
"Illicit discharge" means any discharge to a municipal separate storm sewer that is
not composed entirely of stormwater, except discharges pursuant to a VPDES or VSMP
permit (other than the VSMP permit for discharges from the municipal separate storm
sewer), discharges resulting from firefighting activities, and discharges identified by and
in compliance with 9VAC25- 870 -400 D 2 c (3).
"Land disturbance" or "Land- disturbing activity" means a manmade change to the
land surface that potentially changes its runoff characteristics including any clearing,
grading, or excavation, except that the term shall not include those exemptions
specified in Section 23 -1.3 of this Ordinance.
"Layout" means a conceptual drawing sufficient to provide for the specified stormwater
management facilities required at the time of approval.
"Minor modification" means an amendment to an existing general permit before its
expiration not requiring extensive review and evaluation including, but not limited to,
changes in EPA promulgated test protocols, increasing monitoring frequency
requirements, changes in sampling locations, and changes to compliance dates within
the overall compliance schedules. A minor general permit modification or amendment
does not substantially alter permit conditions, substantially increase or decrease the
amount of surface water impacts, increase the size of the operation, or reduce the
capacity of the facility to protect human health or the environment.
"Municipal separate storm sewer" means a conveyance or system of conveyances
otherwise known as a municipal separate storm sewer system or "MS4," including roads
with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-
made channels, or storm drains:
1. Owned or operated by Roanoke County;
April 22, 2014 311
2. Designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater;
3. That is not a combined sewer; and
4. That is not part of a publicly owned treatment works.
"Municipal separate storm sewer system" or "MS4" means all municipal separate
storm sewers that are located within the portion of the County that is identified as
"urbanized" by the U.S. Bureau of the Census in the latest Decennial Census.
"Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Management Program" or "MS4 Program"
means a management program covering the duration of a permit for a municipal
separate storm sewer system that includes a comprehensive planning process that
involves public participation and intergovernmental coordination, to reduce the
discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, to protect water quality, and
to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the CWA and regulations and
the Act and attendant regulations, using management practices, control techniques, and
system design and engineering methods, and such other provisions that are
appropriate.
"Off -site facility" means a stormwater management measure located outside the
subject property boundary described in the permit application for land- disturbing activity.
"Operator" means the owner or operator of any facility or activity subject to regulation
under this Ordinance.
"Permit or VSMP Authority Permit" means an approval to conduct a land disturbing
activity issued by the Administrator for the initiation of a land- disturbing activity, in
accordance with this Ordinance, which may only be issued after evidence of general
permit coverage has been provided by the Department.
"Permittee" means the person to whom the VSMP Authority permit is issued.
"Person" means any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, association, joint
venture, public or private or municipal corporation, trust, estate, commission, board,
public or private institution, utility, cooperative, county, city, town or other political
subdivision of the Commonwealth, any interstate or governmental body, or any other
legal entity, or any agent or employee of any such person.
"Regional stormwater management facility" or "Regional facility" means a facility
or series of facilities designed to control some or all of the adverse impacts from
stormwater runoff from two or more parcels or lots, located in the same watershed,
although only portions of the area may experience development.
312 April 22, 2014
"Regulations" means the Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) Permit
Regulations, 9VAC25- 870 -10 et seq., as amended.
"Site" means the land or water area where any facility or land- disturbing activity is
physically located or conducted, including adjacent land used or preserved in
connection with the facility or land- disturbing activity.
"State" means the Commonwealth of Virginia.
"State Board" means the State Water Control Board.
"State Permit" means an approval to conduct a land- disturbing activity issued by the
State Board in the form of a state stormwater individual permit or coverage issued under
a state general permit or an approval issued by the State Board for stormwater
discharges from an MS4. Under these state permits, the Commonwealth imposes and
enforces requirements pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act and regulations, the
Virginia Stormwater Management Act and the Regulations.
"State Water Control Law" means Chapter 3.1 ( §62.1 -44.2 et seq.) of Title 62.1 of the
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
"State waters" means all water, on the surface and under the ground, wholly or
partially within or bordering the Commonwealth or within its jurisdiction, including
wetlands.
"Stormwater" means precipitation that is discharged across the land surface or
through conveyances to one or more waterways and that may include stormwater
runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage.
"Stormwater facility maintenance agreement" means a legally binding agreement
between the owner of a property and the County regarding long -term maintenance of
stormwater management facilities.
"Stormwater Management Facility" or "SWMF" means a device that controls
stormwater runoff and changes the characteristics of that runoff including, but not
limited to, the volume, rate of flow, quality, the period of release, or the velocity of flow.
"Stormwater management plan" means a document(s) containing material fer
describing methods for complying with the requirements of Section 23 -3.5 of this
Ordinance.
April 22, 2014 313
"Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan" or "SWPPP" means a document that is
prepared in accordance with good engineering practices and that identifies potential
sources of pollutants that may reasonably be expected to affect the quality of
stormwater discharges from the construction site, and otherwise meets the
requirements of this Ordinance. In addition, the document shall identify and require the
implementation of control measures, and shall include, but not be limited to the inclusion
of, or the incorporation by reference of, an approved erosion and sediment control plan,
an approved stormwater management plan, and a pollution prevention plan.
"Subdivision" means the division of a parcel of land into two (2) or more parcels of any
size by the establishment of new boundaries lines or by the adjustment, relocation, or
vacation of existing boundary lines, for the purpose whether immediate or future, of
transfer of ownership or building development. A subdivision includes all changes in
street or lot lines, and any portion of any such subdivision previously recorded in which
building development or street creation occurs, or is required, subsequent to such
recordation. The transfer of ownership of land to the Commonwealth of Virginia or a
political subdivision thereof and the division of lands by court order or decree shall not
be deemed a subdivision as otherwise herein defined.
"Total Maximum Daily Load" or "TMDL" means the sum of the individual wasteload
allocations for point sources, load allocations for nonpoint sources, natural background
loading and a margin of safety. TMDLs can be expressed in terms of either mass per
time, toxicity, or other appropriate measures. The TMDL process provides for point
versus nonpoint source trade -offs.
"Town" means the incorporated Town of Vinton.
"Virginia Stormwater Management Act" or "Act" means Article 2.3 (§ 62.1- 44.15:24
et seq.) of Chapter3.1 of Title 62.1 of the Code of Virginia.
"Virginia Stormwater BMP Clearinghouse website" means a website that contains
detailed design standards and specifications for control measures that may be used in
Virginia to comply with the requirements of the Virginia Stormwater Management Act
and associated regulations.
"Virginia Stormwater Management Program" or "VSMP" means a program
approved by the State Board after September 13, 2011, that has been established by a
locality to manage the quality and quantity of runoff resulting from land- disturbing
activities and shall include such items as local ordinances, rules, permit requirements,
annual standards and specifications, policies and guidelines, technical materials, and
requirements for plan review, inspection, and enforcement, where authorized in this
314
April 22, 2014
Ordinance, and evaluation consistent with the requirements of this Ordinance and
associated regulations.
"Virginia Stormwater Management Program authority" or VSMP authority" means
an authority approved by the State Board after September 13, 2011, to operate a
Virginia Stormwater Management Program. For the purpose of this Ordinance,
Roanoke County is the VSMP Authority.
SECTION 23 -3
PROGRAM PERMIT PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS
Section 23 -3.1 PERMIT REQUIRED
A. No grading, building, or other local permit will be issued for a property until a
VSMP authority permit has been issued by the Administrator, unless the activity
is specifically exempted from VSMP permitting by this Ordinance.
B. No VSMP authority permit will be issued unless and until the permit application
and attendant materials and supporting documentation demonstrate that all land
clearing, construction, disturbance, land development and drainage will be done
according to the requirements of this Ordinance, including an approved erosion
and sediment control plan; and an approved stormwater management plan or an
executed agreement in lieu of a stormwater management plan.
C. No VSMP authority permit will be issued without the general permit registration
statement except that construction activity involving a single - family detached
residential structure, within or outside of a common plan of development or sale
does not require a permit registration statement. Construction activities involving
a single - family detached residential structure, within or outside of a common plan
of development or sale, shall comply with the requirements of the General
Permit.
Section 23 -3.2 PERMIT APPLICATION CONTENTS
A. Unless specifically exempted by this Ordinance, any land owner or operator
desiring a permit for a land disturbance activity shall submit to the County a
permit application on a form provided by the County for that purpose. Permit
applications shall comply with the requirements contained within the County
Stormwater Management Design Manual that is available from the Department of
Community Development office.
April 22, 2014 315
B. No VSMP authority permit shall be issued by the Administrator, until the following
items have been submitted to and approved by the Administrator as prescribed
herein.
1. A permit application that includes a fully- executed general permit
registration statement, except that construction activity involving a single -
family detached residential structure, within or outside of a common plan
of development or sale does not require a permit registration statement;
2. An erosion and sediment control plan approved in accordance with the
County Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance [Chapter 8.1];
3. A stormwater management plan, or agreement in lieu of a stormwater
management plan, that meets the requirements of Section 23 -3.5;
4. Maintenance agreement in accordance with Section 23 -3.7;
5. Performance bonds in accordance with Section 23 -3.8;
6. Fees in accordance with Section 23 -3.9; and,
7. Executed Development Agreements.
C. Pursuant to § 62.1- 44.15:40 of the Code of Virginia, the Administrator may
require every VSMP authority permit applicant or permittee, or any such person
subject to VSMP authority permit requirements under this Ordinance, to furnish,
when requested, such application materials, plans, specifications, and other
pertinent information as may be necessary to determine the effect of the
permittee's discharge on the quality of state waters, or such other information as
may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Ordinance.
Section 23 -3.3 STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANS
A. The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) required by the general
permit, shall comply with the requirements set forth in 9VAC25- 870 -54 and shall
also comply with the requirements and general information set forth in Section
9VAC25- 880 -70, Section II [stormwater pollution prevention plan] of the general
permit.
The SWPPP shall include:
1. An approved erosion and sediment control plan;
316
April 22, 2014
2. An approved stormwater management plan, or agreement in lieu of
a stormwater management plan;
3. A pollution prevention plan for regulated land disturbing activities;
and
4. Description of any additional control measures necessary to
address a TMDL.
B. The SWPPP shall be amended, by the operator, whenever
there is a change in design, construction, operation, or
maintenance that has a significant effect on the discharge of
pollutants to state waters, which is not addressed by the
existing SWPPP.
C. The SWPPP shall be maintained at a central location onsite. If an onsite location
is unavailable, notice of the SWPPP's location must be posted near the main
entrance at the construction site. Operators shall make the SWPPP available for
public and County review in accordance with Section II of the general permit,
either electronically or in hard copy.
Section 23 -3.4 POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANS
A. A Pollution Prevention Plan, required by 9VAC25- 870 -56, shall be developed,
implemented, and updated as necessary and must detail the design, installation,
implementation, and maintenance of effective pollution prevention measures to
minimize the discharge of pollutants.
B. At a minimum, such measures must be designed, installed, implemented, and
maintained to:
1. Minimize the discharge of pollutants from equipment and vehicle washing,
wheel wash water, and other wash waters. Wash waters must be treated in a
sediment basin or alternative control that provides equivalent or better
treatment prior to discharge;
2. Minimize the exposure of all materials, including, but not limited to building
materials, building products, construction wastes, trash, landscape materials,
fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, detergents, sanitary waste, and other
materials present on the site to precipitation and to stormwater; and
3. Minimize the discharge of pollutants from spills and leaks and implement
chemical spill and leak prevention and response procedures.
April 22, 2014 317
C. The pollution prevention plan shall include effective best management practices
to prohibi t the following discharges:
1. Wastewater from washout of concrete, unless managed by an appropriate
control;
2. Wastewater from washout and cleanout of stucco, paint, form release oils,
curing compounds, and other construction materials;
3. Fuels, oils, or other pollutants used in vehicle and equipment operation and
maintenance; and
4. Soaps or solvents used in vehicle and equipment washing.
D. The pollution prevention plan shall prohibit discharges from dewatering activities,
including discharges from dewatering of trenches and excavations, unless
managed by appropriate controls.
Section 23 -3.5 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS
A. No application for land- disturbing activity will be approved unless it includes a
stormwater management plan or agreement in lieu of a stormwater management
plan, as required by this Ordinance, detailing how runoff and associated water
quality impacts resulting from the activity will be controlled or managed.
B. Submittal, review, approval, and resubmittal of stormwater management plans,
and agreements in lieu of stormwater management plans shall comply with the
requirements set forth in this Ordinance and the County Stormwater
Management Design Manual.
C. The stormwater management plan shall apply the stormwater management
technical criteria set forth in Section 23 -1.6 of this Ordinance to the entire land -
disturbing activity. Individual lots in new residential, commercial, or industrial
developments shall not be considered to be separate land- disturbing activities.
D. A stormwater management plan that is approved for a residential, commercial, or
industrial subdivision shall govern the development of the individual parcels,
including those parcels developed under subsequent owners
E. The stormwater management plan must consider all sources of surface runoff
and all sources of subsurface and groundwater flows converted to surface runoff.
F. If an operator intends to meet the water quality and /or quantity requirements set
forth in 9VAC25- 870 -63 or 9VAC25- 870 -66 through the use of off -site
compliance options, where applicable, then a letter of availability from the off -site
318
April 22, 2014
provider must be included. Approved off -site options must achieve the necessary
nutrient reductions prior to the commencement of the applicant's land- disturbing
activity except as otherwise allowed by §62.1- 44.15:35 of the Code of Virginia.
G. Elements of the stormwater management plans that include activities regulated
under Chapter 4 ( §54.1 -400 et seq.) of Title 54.1 of the Code of Virginia shall be
appropriately sealed and signed by a professional registered in the
Commonwealth of Virginia pursuant to Article 1 (§ 54.1 -400 et seq.) of Chapter 4
of Title 54.1 of the Code of Virginia.
H. Where a stormwater management plan is required, a construction record drawing
for permanent stormwater management facilities shall be submitted to the
Administrator and approved prior to the release of bonds. The construction
record drawing shall be appropriately sealed and signed by a professional
registered in the Commonwealth, certifying that the stormwater management
facilities have been constructed in compliance with the approved plan.
Stormwater management facilities include all storm drain structures, storm drain
pipes, culverts, open channels, BMPs, and all other facilities used to convey,
control, or treat stormwater runoff.
The stormwater management plan shall include the following information:
1. Information on the type and location of stormwater discharges; information
on the features to which stormwater is being discharged including surface
waters or karst features, if present, and the pre - development and post -
development drainage areas;
2. Contact information including the name, address, and telephone number
of the owner and the tax reference number and parcel number of the
property or properties affected;
3. A narrative that includes a description of current site conditions and final
site conditions;
4. A general description of the proposed stormwater management facilities
and the mechanism through which the facilities will be operated and
maintained after construction is complete;
5. Information on the proposed stormwater management facilities, including:
(i) The type of facilities;
(ii) Location, including geographic coordinates;
April 22, 2014 319
(iii) Acres treated; and
(iv) Surface area, volume, depth, and width of facilities, if applicable;
(v) The surface waters or karst features, if present, into which the
facility will discharge ;and
(vi) The Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) into which the facilities drain.
6. Hydrologic and hydraulic computations, including runoff characteristics;
7. Documentation and calculations verifying compliance with the water
quality and quantity requirements.
8. A map or maps of the site that depicts the topography of the site and
includes:
(i) All contributing drainage areas;
(ii) Existing streams, ponds, culverts, ditches, wetlands, other water
bodies, and floodplains;
(iii) Soil types, geologic formations if karst features are present in the
area, forest cover, and other vegetative areas;
(iv) Current land use, including existing structures, roads, and locations
of known utilities and easements;
(v) Sufficient information (such as grades) on adjoining parcels to
assess the impacts of stormwater from the site on these parcels;
(vi) The limits of clearing and grading, and the proposed drainage
patterns on the site;
(vii) Proposed buildings, roads, parking areas, utilities, and stormwater
management facilities; and
(viii) Proposed land use with tabulation of the percentage of surface
area to be adapted to various uses, including but not limited to
planned locations of utilities, roads, and easements.
J. An agreement in lieu of stormwater management plan shall conform to the
Regulations and the County Stormwater Management Design Manual.
Section 23 -3.6 COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS AND
REGIONAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
A. The County may develop comprehensive stormwater management plans in
accordance with 9VAC25- 870 -92 as a means to more effectively and efficiently
address water quality objectives, quantity objectives, or both; through the
implementation of regional stormwater management facilities.
320
April 22, 2014
B. Once a comprehensive stormwater management plan is adopted by the County
and approved by the Director of the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality, it is enforceable under this Ordinance.
C. Stormwater management plans for land disturbing activities located in areas that
have a comprehensive stormwater management plan, adopted by the County,
and approved by the Director of the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality, shall comply with the requirements of the comprehensive stormwater
management plan.
D. If a proposed regulated land- disturbing activity is located in a watershed that has
a regional stormwater management facility currently constructed, and if the
regional stormwater management facility is in accordance with a comprehensive
stormwater management plan, the County shall have the option to require the
payment of a fee -in -lieu of providing a portion or all of the proposed regulated
land- disturbing activities stormwater management requirements. The fee -in -lieu
shall be based on the reasonable proportion of stormwater impacts from the
proposed regulated land- disturbing activity compared to the total stormwater
impacts that the regional stormwater management facility is designed to mitigate,
multiplied by the total estimated project costs. The reasonable proportion of
project costs shall be solely determined by the County. Project costs include, but
are not limited to, the costs of land, professional services for investigations,
studies, design, environmental permitting, surveying, construction phase
services, legal services, and construction. Project costs may also include County
staff costs for project development, design, construction, permitting, oversight, or
other project activities; and other direct costs. Project costs shall also include the
present value of the estimated operation and maintenance costs for the next
20years, if the County is responsible for the regional stormwater management
facility's operation and maintenance.
E. The County and any other party (ies) may mutually agree to share the costs of a
regional stormwater management facility, in the absence of a comprehensive
stormwater management plan. The fee -in -lieu shall be based on project costs
apportioned to each party in reasonable proportion of each party's contribution to
the total stormwater impacts that the regional stormwater management facility is
designed to mitigate, as mutually negotiated.
Section 23 -3.7 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENTS
A. Maintenance of all stormwater management facilities shall be ensured through
the creation of a formal maintenance agreement that is executed by the property
April 22, 2014 321
owner and submitted prior to plan approval and recorded by the County in the
County land records prior to permit termination. The maintenance agreement
shall be binding on all subsequent property owners.
B. The property owner of the site shall execute an access easement agreement,
prior to plan approval, to provide for access to stormwater management facilities
at reasonable times for periodic inspection by the County, or their contractor or
agent, to ensure that the facility is maintained in proper working condition to meet
design standards and any other provisions established by this Ordinance. The
easement agreement shall be recorded in the County land records by the County
and it shall be binding on all subsequent property owners.
C. A stormwater management facility that serves more than one parcel shall be
located on its own, separate parcel. The land owners of each parcel served by
the stormwater management facility shall be jointly and severally responsible for
the maintenance of the stormwater management facility through a formal
maintenance agreement with the County.
D. Responsibility for the operation and maintenance of stormwater management
facilities, unless assumed by a governmental agency, shall remain with the
property owner and shall pass to any successor or owner. If portions of the land
are to be sold, legally binding arrangements, acceptable to the County, shall be
made to pass the responsibility to successors in title. These arrangements shall
designate for each land owner, governmental agency, or other legally established
entity to be permanently responsible for maintenance.
E. As part of the maintenance agreement, a schedule shall be developed identifying
anticipated routine maintenance, to be performed by the property owner, needed
for proper function of the stormwater management facility. The maintenance
agreement shall also include a schedule for periodic inspections, to be performed
by the property owner, to ensure proper performance of the facility between
scheduled routine maintenance activities, and it shall require repairs when
needed for proper function of the SWMF. The maintenance agreement shall
require that the property owner document routine maintenance, repair, and
periodic inspection activities, maintain said documentation for five (5)years, and
submit said documentation to the County, if requested.
F. The maintenance agreement shall also include "failure to maintain" provisions.
In the event that maintenance or repair is neglected, or the stormwater
management facility becomes a danger to public health, safety, or the
environment, the County reserves the authority to perform the necessary
maintenance or repair work and to recover the costs from the property owner.
322
April 22, 2014
Nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to mean that the County has the
responsibility to maintain privately -owned SWMFs.
G. Prior to the release of the performance security or bond, the developer shall
either (1) transfer the maintenance responsibilities of the stormwater
management facilities to a Home Owners Association or (2) provide the County
with a maintenance security.
1. Requirements for Transfer of Maintenance Responsibilities to the Home
Owners Association (HOA)
i. Submission of acceptable record drawings.
ii. Acceptable final inspection of the stormwater management facility
by the County.
iii. Transfer of the necessary property to the HOA.
iv. Organize and hold a meeting attended by the developer, the
County and members of the HOA. Provide evidence to the County
that each member of the HOA was provided prior notice of the
meeting. The meeting shall be held at a place and time convenient
for members of the HOA.
v. Provide a copy of the recorded documents establishing the Home
Owners Association to the County.
vi. Provide the County with evidence that the Home Owners
Association is funded. Minimum funding shall be based on the
following schedule:
1 -20 lots = $1,000
21 -50 lots = $1,500
51 and over = $1500 + $30 per lot over 50
2. Requirements for Posting Maintenance Security.
i. The County shall require a maintenance guaranty in the amount of
twenty (20 %) percent of the construction costs of the stormwater
management facility.
ii. The maintenance security shall contain forfeiture provisions for
failure, after proper notice, to complete work within the time
specified, or to initiate or maintain appropriate actions which may
be required of the permittee in accordance with the approved
stormwater management plan.
iii. If the County takes such action upon such failure by the permittee,
the County may collect from the permittee the difference should the
April 22, 2014 323
amount of the reasonable cost of such action exceed the amount of
the security held.
iv. The maintenance agreement and security will be the responsibility
of the permittee or owner until such time as the permittee or owner
provides the County with the necessary requirements for Transfer
of Maintenance Responsibilities to the Home Owners Association
as outlined above in (1).
Section 23 -3.8 PERFORMANCE SECURITIES
A. The County may, at its discretion, require the submittal of a performance security
or bond with surety, cash escrow, letter of credit, or other acceptable legal
arrangement, all of which shall be in a form approved by the County, prior to plan
approval, in order to ensure that the stormwater practices are installed by the
permittee, as required by the approved stormwater management plan.
B. Until July 1, 2017, the amount of the performance security shall be the total
estimated construction cost of the storm drainage systems and stormwater
management facilities approved under the permit, plus 10% contingency. After
July 1, 2017, the amount of the performance security shall be the total estimated
construction cost of the storm drainage systems and stormwater management
facilities approved under the permit, plus 25% contingency. The amount of
contingency is in accordance with Title 15.2, Chapter 22, Article 41 (§ 15.2 -2241
et seq.) of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
C. The performance security shall contain forfeiture provisions for failure, after
proper notice, to complete work within the time specified, or to initiate or maintain
appropriate actions which may be required of the permittee in accordance with
the approved stormwater management plan.
D. If the County takes such action upon such failure by the permittee, the County
may collect from the permittee the difference should the amount of the
reasonable cost of such action exceed the amount of the security held.
E. Within 60 days of the completion of the requirements of the permit conditions,
including request for permit termination by the operator, such bond, cash escrow,
letter of credit, or other legal arrangement, or the unexpended or unobligated
portion thereof, will be refunded to the permittee or terminated.
Section 23 -3.9 FEES
324
April 22, 2014
A. Fees to cover costs associated with implementation of a VSMP related to land
disturbing activities and issuance of general permit coverage and VSMP authority
permits shall be imposed in accordance with the appropriate fee schedule
established, updated and revised from time to time by the County Board of
Supervisors by resolution. VSMP costs include County costs associated with
stormwater management plan review, VSMP registration statement review,
permit issuance, state - coverage verification, inspections, reporting, and
compliance activities associated with land- disturbing activities, as well as state
program oversight costs.
B. Fees for providing coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of
Stormwater from Construction Activities shall be imposed in accordance with the
appropriate fee schedule established, updated and revised from time to time by
the County Board of Supervisors by resolution. Fifty percent (50 %) of the total
fee shall be paid by the applicant at the time that a stormwater management
plan, or agreement in lieu of a stormwater management plan, is submitted for
review. The remaining total fee is to be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of
coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from
Construction Activities.
C. When a site or sites has been purchased for development within a previously
permitted common plan of development or sale, the applicant shall be subject to
fees in accordance with the disturbed acreage of their site or sites according to
the fee schedule established, revised and updated from time to time by the
County Board of Supervisors by resolution.
D. Fees for the modification or transfer of registration statements from the general
permit issued by the State Board shall be imposed in accordance with the fee
schedule established, revised and updated from time to time by the County
Board of Supervisors by resolution. If the permit modifications result in changes
to stormwater management plans that require additional review by the County,
such reviews shall be subject to the fee schedule established by the County
Board of Supervisors, as amended. The fee assessed shall be based on the total
disturbed acreage of the site. In addition to the general permit modification fee,
modifications resulting in an increase in total disturbed acreage shall pay the
difference in the initial permit fee paid and the permit fee that would have applied
for the total disturbed acreage in accordance with the fee schedule established,
revised and updated from time to time by the County Board of Supervisors by
resolution.
E. General permit maintenance fees: Annual permit maintenance fees required by
9VAC25- 870 -830 shall be imposed in accordance with the fee schedule
April 22, 2014 325
established, revised and updated from time to time by the County Board of
Supervisors by resolution, including fees imposed on expired general permits
that have been administratively continued. With respect to the general permit,
these fees shall apply until the permit coverage is terminated. General permit
coverage maintenance fees, for permits issued in a previous calendar year, shall
be paid by April 1st of each year that it is in effect. No permit will be reissued or
automatically continued without payment of the required fee. General permit
coverage maintenance fees shall be applied until a Notice of Termination is
effective.
E. Persons whose coverage under the general permit has been revoked shall apply
to the Department for an Individual Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from
Construction Activities.
F. No permit application fees will be assessed to:
1) Permittees who request minor modifications to permits as defined in
Section 23 -2 of this Ordinance. Permit modifications at the request of the
permittee resulting in changes to stormwater management plans that
require additional review by the Administrator shall not be exempt
pursuant to this section.
2) Permittees whose permits are modified or amended at the initiative of the
Department or Administrator, excluding errors in the registration statement
identified by the Administrator or errors related to the acreage of the site.
G. All incomplete payments will be deemed as nonpayments, and the applicant shall
be notified of any incomplete payments. Interest may be charged for late
payments at the underpayment rate set forth in §58.1 -15 of the Code of Virginia
and is calculated on a monthly basis at the applicable periodic rate. A 10% late
payment fee shall be charged to any delinquent (over 90 days past due) account.
The County shall be entitled to all remedies available under the Code of Virginia
in collecting any past due amount.
H. In addition to the fees contained on the fee schedule established, revised and
updated by the County Board of Supervisors by resolution the County may
collect convenience fees associated with processing credit card payments.
Section 23 -3.10 PERMIT APPLICATION PROCEDURE
A. Permit applications and the stormwater management plan, or agreement in lieu
of a stormwater management plan, shall include all of the information required by
this Ordinance and the County Stormwater Management Design Manual.
326
April 22, 2014
B. No VSMP authority permit shall be issued until the maintenance agreement
required in section 23 -3.7 is approved, performance securities required in section
23 -3.8 have been submitted and accepted, and fees required to be paid,
pursuant to section 23 -3.9, are received.
C. All applications will be processed in accordance with procedures set forth below
and in the County Stormwater Management Design Manual.
1. The Administrator shall determine the completeness of a plan in accordance
with section 23 -3.2 of this Ordinance and shall notify the applicant, in writing,
of such determination, within 15 calendar days of receipt. If the plan is
deemed to be incomplete, the above written notification will contain the
reasons the plan is deemed incomplete.
2. The Administrator shall have an additional 60 calendar days from the date of
the communication of completeness to review the plan, except that if a
determination of completeness is not made within the time prescribed above,
then plan shall be deemed complete and the Administrator shall have 60
calendar days from the date of submission to review the plan.
3. The Administrator shall review any plan that has been previously disapproved,
within 45 calendar days of the date of resubmission.
4. During the review period, the plan shall be approved or disapproved and the
decision communicated in writing to the applicant or his /her designated agent.
If the plan is not approved, the reasons for not approving the plan shall be
provided in writing. Approval or denial shall be based on the plan's
compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance.
5. If a plan meeting all requirements of this Ordinance is submitted and no action
is taken within the time provided above, the plan shall be deemed approved.
D. Approved stormwater management plans may be modified, as follows:
1. Modification to an approved stormwater management plan shall be allowed
only after review and written approval by the Administrator. The Administrator
shall have 60 calendar days to respond in writing either approving or
disapproving such request.
April 22, 2014 327
2. The Administrator may require that an approved stormwater management
plan be amended, within a time prescribed by the Administrator, to address
any deficiencies noted during inspection.
E. The Administrator shall require the submission of a construction record drawing
for permanent stormwater management facilities.
SECTION 23 -4
EXCEPTIONS TO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
A. The Administrator may grant exceptions to the technical requirements of Part II B
or Part II C of the Regulations, provided that (i) the exception is the minimum
necessary to afford relief, (ii) reasonable and appropriate conditions are imposed
so that the intent of the Act and this Ordinance are preserved, (iii) granting the
exception will not confer any special privileges that are denied in other similar
circumstances, and (iv) exception requests are not based upon conditions or
circumstances that are self- imposed or self- created. Economic hardship alone is
not sufficient reason to grant an exception from the requirements of this
Ordinance.
1. Exceptions to the requirement that the land- disturbing activity obtain the
required VSMP authority permit shall not be given by the Administrator,
nor shall the Administrator approve the use of a BMP not found on the
Virginia Stormwater BMP Clearinghouse Website, unless it is duly
approved by the Director of Environmental Quality.
2. Exceptions to requirements for phosphorus reductions shall not be
allowed unless offsite options otherwise permitted pursuant to 9VAC25-
870-69 have been considered and found not available.
3. Nothing in this section shall preclude an operator from constructing to a more
stringent standard at their discretion.
B. The Administrator may grant an exception from provisions contained in the
County Stormwater Management Design Manual when not reasonably
achievable, provided that acceptable mitigation measures are provided.
C. Requests for an exception to the stormwater technical requirements shall be
submitted in writing to the Administrator.
328
April 22, 2014
SECTION 23 -5
PROPERTY OWNER RESPONSIBILITIES FOR DRAINAGE WAYS
A. Drainage ways consist of natural watercourses, storm sewers, gutters, manmade
channels, and other natural or manmade drainage paths.
B. Every person owning property through which a drainage way passes, or such
person's lessee, shall keep and maintain that part of the drainage way within the
property free of trash, debris, yard wastes, and other obstacles that could pollute,
contaminate, or significantly retard the flow of water.
C. No person shall sweep, wash, or otherwise place dirt, trash, debris, yard wastes,
or other materials in drainage ways where they could be picked up and carried
off the person's property by stormwater runoff.
D. The property owner or such person's lessee shall maintain healthy vegetation to
protect the drainage way from excessive erosion during storm events. Particular
care shall be taken to maintain healthy bank vegetation along watercourses.
SECTION 23 -6
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
Section 23 -6.1 NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTION COMMENCEMENT
The permittee shall notify the County in advance before the commencement of land
disturbing activities. In addition, the permittee shall notify the County in advance of
construction of critical components of a stormwater management facility.
Section 23 -6.2 PERIODIC CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
A. The Administrator shall periodically inspect the land- disturbing activity during
construction for:
1. Compliance with the approved erosion and sediment control plan;
2. Compliance with the approved stormwater management plan, or executed
agreement in lieu of a stormwater management plan;
3. Development, updating, implementation with the pollution prevention plan;
April 22, 2014 329
4. Development and implementation of any additional control measures
necessary to address a TMDL.
B. If the County inspections find any violations, the permittee shall be notified in
writing of the nature of the violation and the required corrective actions. No
additional construction or land- disturbing activity in the area of the violation shall
proceed until any violations are corrected and all work previously completed has
received approval from the County. The permittee is responsible for
maintenance and repair for all stormwater management facilities during
construction.
C. The person responsible for implementing the approved plan is required to
provide adequate inspection monitoring and reports to ensure compliance with
the approved plan, to determine whether the measures required in the plan
provide effective stormwater management and to allow the registered
professional to certify the record documents in accordance with Section 23 -3.5.
All permittee inspections shall be documented and written reports prepared that
contain the following information:
1. The date and location of the permittee inspection;
2. Whether construction is in compliance with the approved stormwater
management plan;
2. Variations from the approved construction specifications;
3. Corrective actions that have been taken to correct previous violations;
4. Any violations that exist; and.
5. The name and signature of the person who performed the inspection.
Permittee inspection documentation shall be organized chronologically and be
stored with the SWPPP.
D. If the County determines that there is a failure to comply with the plan, notice
shall be served upon the permittee or person responsible for carrying out the
plan in accordance with Section 23 -9 of this Ordinance.
Section 23 -6.3 FINAL INSPECTION AND RECORD - DOCUMENTATION
330
April 22, 2014
A. The permittee shall submit record drawings and supporting documentation for all
stormwater management facility and storm drainage system associated with the
project before final County inspection. Record drawings and supporting
documents shall comply with the requirements contained in the County
Stormwater Management Design Manual.
B. Receipt of record drawings and supporting documentation, final inspection and
approval by the County, execution and recordation of maintenance agreement,
and permit termination is required before the release of performance securities.
C. If it is determined from the record drawings, or inspections, that the storm
drainage systems and the stormwater management facilities have not been
constructed in accordance with the approved stormwater management plan, then
corrective action will be taken to comply with the approved Plan or the permittee
shall provide studies and information required by the County to demonstrate that
the constructed system will function equivalent to the approved Stormwater
Management Plan, and that all regulatory requirements are met.
SECTION 23 -7
POST CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITES
Section 23 -7.1 MAINTENANCE INSPECTIONS OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
FACILITIES
A. Following the completion and acceptance of construction, the property owner is
responsible for the maintenance and repair of stormwater structures and
stormwater management facilities. The property owner shall ensure that proper
maintenance and repair of stormwater structures and stormwater management
facilities occur and that periodic inspection, maintenance, and repair are
performed so that the structures and facilities operate properly. All inspection,
maintenance, and repair activities, performed by the property owner shall be
documented. Documentation shall be submitted to the County, if requested.
B. Stormwater structures and stormwater management facilities that have recorded
stormwater facility maintenance agreements shall be operated, inspected,
maintained and repaired in conformance with the applicable performance
requirements contained in the approved stormwater facility maintenance
agreement.
April 22, 2014 331
C. Existing stormwater structures and stormwater management facilities that do not
have a recorded stormwater facility maintenance agreement shall be operated,
inspected, maintained and repaired as required for proper operation of the
structures and facilities. Following are the minimum requirements for stormwater
structures and stormwater management facilities that do not have a recorded
stormwater facility maintenance agreement:
1. Stormwater structures and stormwater management facilities shall be
inspected, by the property owner, after significant rainfall events that cause
localized flooding, and at least annually.
2. All structures and slopes shall be kept in a safe condition.
3. The stormwater management facility shall be kept clear of grass clippings, cut
brush, and other debris.
4. All pipes and structures shall be kept clean and clear of debris that could
decrease flow capacity.
5. Sediment and silt that washes into stormwater management facilities shall be
removed and properly disposed of when the sediment and silt builds up to the
point that they adversely impact the facility's proper operation.
6. Trees and other woody plants shall be cut and removed from embankment
slopes annually.
7. Trees and woody plants shall be cut and removed from non - embankment
areas of a stormwater management facility as needed to avoid buildup of
debris in the facility and to avoid a nuisance. Periodic cutting and brush
removal shall occur at a frequency of at least once in three years.
8. Landscaping and grass cover shall be maintained for proper operation and
erosion control. Replace landscaping as required. Repair erosion and
replace grass cover as required.
D. In addition to the inspections performed by the property owner, the County will
periodically inspect stormwater management facilities. In the event that the
stormwater management facility has not been maintained and /or becomes a
danger to public safety, public health, or the environment, the County shall notify
the property owner by registered or certified mail. The notice shall specify the
measures needed to comply and shall specify the time within which such
measures shall be completed. If the responsible party fails or refuses to correct
332
April 22, 2014
the violation, the County, after reasonable notice, may correct a violation of the
design standards or maintenance needs by performing all necessary work to
place the facility in proper working condition, and recover the costs from the
property owner.
E. If stormwater management facility inspection requires entry into a confined
space, or special equipment or training, then the County may hire licensed
professionals to perform the inspection, or it may require the property owner to
hire a licensed professional to perform the inspection. The cost for any licensed
professionals to perform the required inspection shall be paid by or recovered
from the owner.
F. The County will conduct post- construction inspections of stormwater
management facilities pursuant to the County's developed, and State Board's
approved inspection program and will inspect each stormwater management
facility at least once every five (5) years.
Section 23 -7.2 RECORDS OF INSPECTION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
A. Property owners responsible for the operation and maintenance of stormwater
management facilities shall make records of all inspections, maintenance, and
repairs, and shall retain the records for at least five (5) years.
B. Upon request from the County, property owners shall provide copies of records
documenting property owner inspections, maintenance, and repairs.
SECTION 23 -8
Section 23 -8.1 HEARINGS
HEARINGS AND APPEALS
A. Any permit applicant or permittee, or person subject to the requirements of this
Ordinance, who is aggrieved by any action, of the County in approving or
disapproving any plans required by this Ordinance, or by any enforcement action
taken pursuant to Sec. 23 -9, shall have the right to request, in writing, a hearing
to the County Administrator or his /her designee provided a petition requesting
such hearing is filed with the Administrator within 30 days after notice of such
action is given by the Administrator.
April 22, 2014 333
B. The hearing shall be held provided that the County Administrator and the
aggrieved party has at least thirty (30) days prior notice.
C. A verbatim record of the proceedings of such hearings shall be taken and filed
with the Board of Supervisors. Depositions may be taken and read as in actions
at law.
D. The County Administrator, shall have power to issue subpoenas and subpoenas
duces tecum, and at the request of any party shall issue such subpoenas. The
failure of any witness without legal excuse to appear or to testify or to produce
documents shall be acted upon by the County Administrator whose actions may
include the procurement of an order of enforcement from the circuit court.
Witnesses who are subpoenaed shall receive the same fees and reimbursement
for mileage as in civil actions.
E. During its review, the County Administrator shall consider evidence presented by
all parties. After considering the evidence, the County Administrator's decision
shall be final.
Section 23 -8.2 APPEALS
Final decisions of the County Administrator, under this Ordinance, shall be subject to
judicial review by the Roanoke County Circuit Court, provided an appeal is filed within
thirty (30) days from the date of any written decision adversely affecting the rights,
duties, or privileges of any permit applicant, permittee, or person subject to any
enforcement action under this Ordinance.
SECTION 23 -9
ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES
Section 23 -9.1 VIOLATIONS
Any land- disturbance activity that is commenced or is conducted contrary to this
Ordinance or the approved plans or agreements and permit, may be subject to the
enforcement actions outlined in this section and the Virginia Stormwater Management
Act.
Section 23 -9.2 NOTICE OF VIOLATION
A. If the Administrator determines that there is a failure to comply with the VSMP
authority permit conditions, notice shall be served upon the permittee or person
334
April 22, 2014
responsible for carrying out the permit conditions by any of the following: verbal
warnings and inspection reports, notices of corrective action, consent special
orders, and notices to comply.
B. Written notices shall be served by registered or certified mail to the address
specified in the permit application or by delivery at the site of the development
activities to the agent or employee supervising such activities.
C. If there is no permittee, the notices shall be issued to the property owner.
D. The notice of violation shall contain:
1. The name and address of the permittee, or if there is no permittee, the
property owner;
2. The address when available or a description of the building, structure, or
land upon which the violation is occurring;
3. A statement specifying the nature of the violation;
4. A description of the remedial measures necessary to bring the land -
disturbing activity into compliance with this Ordinance and a time schedule
for the completion of such remedial action;
5. A statement of the penalty or penalties that may be assessed against the
person to whom the notice of violation is directed;
6. A statement that the determination of violation may be appealed by filing a
written notice of appeal within 30 days of service of notice of violation.
Section 23 -9.3 STOP WORK ORDERS
A. If a permittee fails to comply with a notice issued in accordance with Section 23-
9.2 within the time specified, the Administrator may issue an order requiring the
owner, permittee, person responsible for carrying out an approved plan, or the
person conducting the land- disturbing activities without an approved plan or
required permit to cease all construction land- disturbing activities until the
violation of the permit has ceased, or an approved plan and required permits are
obtained, and specified corrective measures have been completed.
B. However, if the Administrator finds that any such violation presents an imminent
and substantial danger of causing harmful stormwater runoff impacts to its MS4
April 22, 2014 335
system or waters within the watersheds of the Commonwealth, it may issue,
without advance notice or hearing, an emergency order directing such person to
cease immediately all land- disturbing activities on the site and shall provide an
opportunity for a hearing, after reasonable notice as to the time and place
thereof, to such person, to affirm, modify, amend, or cancel such emergency
order. If a person who has been issued an order is not complying with the terms
thereof, the Administrator may request the County Attorney to institute a
proceeding for an injunction, mandamus, or other appropriate remedy.
C. This "stop work order" shall be in effect until the County confirms that the land -
disturbing activity is in compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance and
the violation has been satisfactorily addressed. Upon failure to comply within the
time specified, the permit may be revoked and the applicant shall be deemed to
be in violation of this article and upon conviction shall be subject to the penalties
provided by this Ordinance.
Section 23 -9.4 CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES
A. Any person violating or failing, neglecting, or refusing to obey any rule,
regulation, ordinance, order, approved standard or specification, or any permit
condition issued by the Administrator may be compelled in a proceeding
instituted in the Roanoke County Circuit Court to obey same and to comply
therewith by injunction, mandamus, or other appropriate remedy.
B. Any person who violates any provision of this Ordinance or who fails, neglects, or
refuses to comply with any order of the Administrator, shall be subject to a civil
penalty not to exceed $32,500 for each violation within the discretion of the court.
Each day of violation of each requirement shall constitute a separate offense.
C. Violations for which a penalty may be imposed under this Subsection include, but
are not limited to the following:
1. No state permit registration;
2. No SWPPP;
3. Incomplete SWPPP;
4. SWPPP not available for review;
5. No approved erosion and sediment control plan;
336
April 22, 2014
6. Failure to install stormwater BMPs or erosion and sediment controls;
7. Stormwater BMPs or erosion and sediment controls improperly installed or
maintained;
8. Operational deficiencies;
9. Failure to conduct required inspections;
10. Incomplete, improper, or missed inspections; and
11. Discharges not in compliance with the requirements of Section 9VAC25-
880-70 of the general permit.
D. The Administrator may issue a summons for collection of the civil penalty and the
action may be prosecuted in the appropriate court.
E. In imposing a civil penalty pursuant to this Subsection, the court may consider
the degree of harm caused by the violation and also the economic benefit to the
violator from noncompliance.
F. Any civil penalties assessed by a court as a result of a summons issued by the
County shall be paid into the County treasury to be used for the purpose of
minimizing, preventing, managing, or mitigating pollution of the waters of the
County and abating environmental pollution therein in such manner as the court
may, by order, direct.
G. With the consent of any person who has violated or failed, neglected or refused
to obey this Ordinance or any condition of a permit, the County may provide, in
an order issued by the County against such person, for the payment of civil
charges for violations in specific sums, not to exceed the limit specified in
subdivision B of this section. Such civil charges shall be instead of any
appropriate civil penalty which could be imposed under subdivision B.
H. Notwithstanding any other civil or equitable remedy provided by this Section or
by law, any person who willfully or negligently violates any provision of the
Ordinance, any order of the Administrator, any condition of a permit, or any order
of a court shall, be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by confinement in jail for
not more than 12 months or a fine of not more than $2,500, or both.
Section 23 -9.5 RESTORATION OF LANDS
April 22, 2014 337
A. Any violator may be required to restore land to its undisturbed condition or in
accordance with a notice of violation, stop work order, or permit requirements.
B. In the event that restoration is not undertaken within a reasonable time after
notice, the County may take necessary corrective action, the cost of which shall
be covered by the performance security, or become a lien upon the property until
paid, or both.
Section 23 -9.6 HOLDS ON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
Final certificates of occupancy may not be granted until corrections have been made in
accordance with the approved plans, notices of violation, stop work order, or permit
requirements, and accepted by the County.
2. Ordinance adopting a new Chapter of the Roanoke County Code —
Chapter 24; "Illicit Discharge" (Tarek Moneir, Deputy Director of
Development)
Mr. Moneir advised there were no changes from the first reading.
Chairman McNamara opened and closed the public hearing with no citizens to speak on
this issue. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 042214 -13 ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER OF THE
ROANOKE COUNTY CODE — CHAPTER 24. ILLICIT
DISCHARGE ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County finds that the
uncontrolled discharge of pollutants to its Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
(MS4) has an adverse impact on the water quality of receiving waters; and
WHEREAS, Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly
known as the Clean Water Act, established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System ( NPDES) Program, which requires permits for discharges from regulated
municipal separate storm sewer systems into the waters of the United States; and
WHEREAS, The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
promulgated regulations implementing the NPDES program, and the EPA has
authorized the Commonwealth of Virginia to issue NPDES permits under the Virginia
Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System ( VPDES) permit system; and
WHEREAS, The VPDES regulations for stormwater discharges require
Roanoke County to control the contribution of pollutants to its regulated MS4 by
prohibiting illicit discharges, and to inspect, monitor, and enforce the prohibitions of illicit
discharges to its regulated MS4; and
338 April 22, 2014
WHEREAS, the Board finds that this ordinance satisfies these regulatory
requirements effective July 1, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the illicit discharge provisions were previously found in the
Stormwater Ordinance that was recently repealed, and that said provisions must be
included in the Roanoke County Code; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 8, 2014, and the
second reading and public hearing was held on April 22, 2014.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That a new Chapter 24. "Illicit Discharge" be and hereby is adopted to
read as set out below.
2. That the effective date of this ordinance is July 1, 2014.
SECTION 24 -1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 24 -1.1 TITLE AND AUTHORITY
A. This ordinance shall be known as the "Illicit Discharge Ordinance of the County
of Roanoke, Virginia."
B. This ordinance establishes the County's illicit discharge program that regulates
non - stormwater discharges to its regulated MS4, consistent with state regulations
promulgated pursuant to the law.
C. The County of Roanoke hereby designates the Director of Community
Development as the Administrator of the illicit discharge program.
Section 24 -1.2 PURPOSE
The purpose of this ordinance is to promote the general health, safety, and welfare of
the citizens of the County by protecting property and state waters through the
prohibition of illicit discharges of non - stormwater within the County's regulated MS4
area into the County's MS4, subject to certain exceptions.
Section 24 -1.3 APPLICABILITY
A. This ordinance is applicable to any non - stormwater discharge that enters, or has
the potential of entering, the County's MS4, located within the County's regulated
MS4 area.
April 22, 2014 339
Section 24 -1.4 COMPATABILITY WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS
This ordinance is not intended to interfere with, abrogate, or annul any other ordinance,
rule or regulation, stature, or other provision of law. The requirements of this ordinance
shall be considered minimum requirements, and where any provision of this ordinance
imposes restrictions different from those imposed by any other ordinance, rule or
regulation, or other provision of law, whichever provisions are more restrictive or impose
higher protective standards for human health or the environment shall apply.
Section 24 -1.5 SEVERABILITY
If the provisions of any article, section, subsection, paragraph, subdivision or clause of
this ordinance shall be judged invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such order of
judgment shall not affect or invalidate the remainder of any article, section, subsection,
paragraph, subdivision or clause of this ordinance.
SECTION 24 -2
DEFINITIONS
The following words and terms as used in this ordinance shall have the following
meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
"Administrator" means the position responsible for administering the illicit discharge
program on behalf of the County of Roanoke. The Administrator shall be the Director of
Community Development or his /her designee.
"Best Management Practice or BMP" means schedules of activities, prohibitions of
practices, including both structural or non - structural practices, maintenance procedures,
and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of surface waters
and groundwater systems from the impacts of land- disturbing activities.
"Clean Water Act or CWA" means the federal Clean Water Act (33 United States
Code 1251 et seq.), formerly referred to as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act or
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Public Law 92 -500, as
amended by Public Law 95 -217, Public Law 95 -576, Public Law 96 -483, and Public Law
97 -117, or any subsequent revisions thereto.
"Control measure" means any best management practice or other method used to
prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants to surface waters.
340 April 22, 2014
"County" means the County of Roanoke, Virginia.
"Department" means the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
"Discharge" means to dispose, deposit, spill, pour, inject, dump, pump, leak, or place
by any means, or that which is disposed, deposited, spilled, poured, injected, dumped,
pumped, leaked, or placed by any means.
"Illicit discharge" means any discharge to the County's MS4 that is not composed
entirely of stormwater, except discharges pursuant to a VPDES or VSMP permit (other
than the VSMP permit for discharges from the MS4), discharges resulting from
firefighting activities, and discharges identified by and in compliance with 9VAC25 -870-
400 D 2 c (3).
"Municipal separate storm sewer" means a conveyance or system of conveyances
otherwise known as a municipal separate storm sewer system or "MS4," including roads
with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, drop inlets, curbs, gutters,
ditches, man -made channels, storm drainage pipes, or other drainage structures:
1. Owned or operated by Roanoke County;
2. Designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater;
3. That is not a combined sewer; and
4. That is not part of a publicly owned treatment works (POTW).
"Municipal separate storm sewer system" or "MS4" means all municipal separate
storm sewers that are located within the portion of the County that is identified as
"urbanized" by the U.S. Bureau of the Census in the latest Decennial Census.
"National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System" ( NPDES) means the federal
program for issuing, modifying, revoking, reissuing, terminating, monitoring, and
enforcing permits, and imposing and enforcing pre- treatment requirements under the
Clean Water Act (CWA).
"Person" means any individual, firm, organization, partnership, association,
organization or other entity, including governmental entities, or any combination thereof,
or any agent or employee of any such entity.
"State waters" means all water, on the surface and under the ground, wholly or
partially within or bordering the Commonwealth or within its jurisdiction, including
wetlands.
April 22, 2014 341
"Stormwater" means precipitation that is discharged across the land surface or
through conveyances to one or more waterways, which may include rainfall runoff, snow
melt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage.
"Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System" (VPDES) means the program
issued by the Commonwealth of Virginia for imposing and enforcing pre- treatment
requirements pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA).
"Virginia Stormwater Management Program" (VSMP) means a program approved by
the State Board after September 13, 2011, that has been established by a locality to
manage the quality and quantity of runoff resulting from land- disturbing activities, which
shall include such items as local ordinances, rules, permit requirements, annual
standards and specifications, policies and guidelines, technical materials, and
requirements for plan review, inspection, enforcement, where authorized in this article,
and evaluation consistent with the requirements of this article and associated
regulations.
SECTION 24 -3
PROHIBITED DISCHARGES
A. It shall be unlawful and a violation of this ordinance to allow any discharge that is
not composed entirely of stormwater, except as described in subsection C below,
that enters, or has the potential of entering, the MS4.
B. Illicit discharges include, but are not limited to:
1. Discharging, or causing or allowing to be discharged, sewage, industrial
wastes, yard wastes, or other wastes, into the storm sewer system, or any
component thereof, or onto driveways, sidewalks, parking lots, the ground,
or any other areas draining to the storm sewer system.
2. Connecting, or causing or allowing connection of any sanitary sewer to the
storm sewer system, including any sanitary sewer connected to the storm
sewer as of the date of the adoption of this ordinance.
3. Connecting, or causing or allowing any connection to the storm sewer
system, without a valid VSMP, VPDES, or NPDES permit, any structure
that conveys any liquid other than stormwater or discharges listed in
subsection C, including, but not limited to, pipes, drains, sanitary sewer
lines, washing machine drains, or floor drains.
342
April 22, 2014
4. Prohibitions 2 and 3 listed in this subsection expressly include, without
limitations, illicit connections made in the past, regardless of whether the
connection was permissible under law or practices applicable or prevailing
at the time of the connection.
5. Throwing, placing, or depositing, or causing to be thrown, placed, or
deposited in the storm sewer system anything that impedes or interferes
with the free flow of stormwater therein, or adversely affects water quality.
C. The following non - stormwater discharges are allowable under this ordinance:
1. Discharges or flows covered by a separate individual or general VPDES or
VSMP permit for non - stormwater discharges;
2. Individual non - stormwater discharges or flows that have been identified in
writing by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality as de minimis
discharges that are not significant sources of pollutants to state waters
and do not require a VPDES permit;
3. Non - stormwater discharges or flows as listed in the following categories,
unless they are identified by the Administrator or Virginia Water Control
Board, as significant contributors of pollutants.
a. Water line flushing;
a. Landscape irrigation;
b. Diverted stream flows or rising groundwater;
c. Uncontaminated ground water infiltration;
d. Uncontaminated pumped groundwater;
e. Discharges from potable water sources;
f. Foundation drains;
g. Air conditioning condensate;
h. Irrigation water;
i. Springs;
j. Water from crawl space pumps;
k. Footing drains;
I. Lawn watering;
m. Individual residential car washing;
n. Flows from riparian habitats and wetlands;
o. Dechlorinated swimming pool discharges;
p. Street wash water; and
q. Firefighting activities
April 22, 2014 343
4. The discharge of material resulting from a spill that is necessary to prevent
loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage. The responsible
party shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any adverse
effect on human health or the environment. This provision does not
transfer liability for the spill itself from the party(ies) responsible for the
spill, nor relieve the party(ies) responsible for a spill from the reporting
requirements of 40 CFR Part117 and 40 CRF Part 302 (2001).
D. In the event any of the activities listed in sub - paragraph C.3 of this section are
found to be a significant contributor of pollutants to be discharged into the MS4,
the Administrator shall so notify the person performing such activities, and shall
order that such activities be ceased or be conducted in such a manner as to
avoid the discharge of pollutants into the MS4. The failure to comply with any
such order shall constitute a violation of the provisions of this ordinance.
SECTION 24 -4
INSPECTIONS AND MONITORING
A. The Administrator shall have the authority to carry out all inspections and
monitoring procedures necessary to determine compliance and /or
noncompliance with this ordinance, and to enforce the requirements of this
ordinance.
B. The Administrator shall have the authority, at his sole discretion, to require
a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) from any person whose
property discharges, or has the potential to discharge, to the MS4.
C. The Administrator and /or his /her duly authorized employees, agents, or
representatives of the County, bearing proper credentials and
identification, shall be authorized to enter any public property or to request
entry into private property at any reasonable time for the purpose of
enforcing this ordinance, including, but not limited to taking samples of
discharges, inspecting monitoring equipment, inspecting and copying
documents relevant to the enforcement of this ordinance, and such other
items as may be deemed necessary for the enforcement of this ordinance.
If the person in charge of the property refuses to allow the Administrator to
enter in accordance with subsection C, then the Administrator may
present sworn testimony to a magistrate or court of competent jurisdiction
and request the issuance of an inspection warrant to enter the property for
the purpose of making such inspections and investigations. The
344
April 22, 2014
Administrator shall make a reasonable effort to obtain consent from the
owner or person in charge of the property prior to seeking the issuance of
an inspection warrant under this section.
D. The Administrator shall have the authority to require any person
responsible for a discharge to the MS4 to document that such discharge
meets and is in compliance with the requirements of this ordinance. This
includes, but is not limited to, the ability of the Administrator to require
such person to provide monitoring reports, test results, and such other
matters as may be deemed necessary to show that such discharge is in
compliance with the requirements of this ordinance. The cost of any
required documentation shall be the responsibility of the person
responsible for the discharge.
E. The failure of any person to comply with any of the requirements of this
section shall constitute a violation of this chapter.
SECTION 24 -5
ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES
A. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be
guilty of a Class I misdemeanor and, upon conviction, is subject to
punishment by a fine of not more than two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500.00) per violation per day and confinement in jail for not more than
twelve (12) months, either or both.
B. Each day during which a violation of this ordinance occurs or continues
shall be deemed a separate and distinct violation of this chapter.
C. Any person who commits any of the acts prohibited by this chapter or
violates any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be liable to the
County for all costs of testing, containment, cleanup, abatement, removal,
disposal, and any other related costs or expenses that the County may
incur in connection with the enforcement of this ordinance and /or the
prohibition and /or correction of a violation of this ordinance.
D. The Administrator may bring legal action to enjoin a violation of this
ordinance and the existence of any other remedy shall be no defense to
any such action.
April 22, 2014 345
E. In addition to any of the remedies set forth above, the Administrator may
seek to impose, or have imposed by the appropriate authority, any of the
remedies provided for by § 62.1- 44.15:48, Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, which are incorporated herein by reference.
F. In any court action that may result from enforcement of this ordinance, a
judge hearing the case may direct the person responsible for the violation
or the property owner to correct the violation and each day that the
violation continues shall constitute a separate violation of this chapter.
G. Any person who knowingly makes any false statements, representations,
or certifications in any record, report, or other document, either filed or
requested pursuant to this chapter, or who falsifies, tampers with, or
knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method required or
used by the director under this chapter in monitoring discharges, shall be
guilty of a violation of this ordinance.
H. The remedies set forth in this section shall be cumulative, not exclusive,
and it shall be no defense to any action that one (1) or more of the
remedies set forth in this section has been sought or granted.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
3. The petition of Corporate Properties Services, Inc. to obtain a
special use permit for a restaurant, drive -in or fast food in a C -1,
Low Intensity Commercial, District, on approximately 1.3825 acres
located at 3814 Challenger Avenue, Hollins Magisterial District
(POSTPONED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION)
346 April 22, 2014
4. The petition of State Central Bank to amend the proffered
conditions and Planning and Design documents for Loblolly Mill
by amending the sections dealing with trails and lighting. The
Loblolly Mill Planned Residential Development is located on
Sterling Road and is approximately 104.4 acres in size, Vinton
Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of
Planning)
Mr. Thompson advised there were no changes from the first reading and
had been approved by the Planning Commission. Chairman McNamara opened and
closed the public hearing with no citizens to speak on this issue. There was no
discussion.
ORDINANCE 042214 -14 AMENDING THE PROFFERED
CONDITIONS ON PROPERTY CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY
104.4 ACRES AND ZONED PRD, PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED ON STERLING DRIVE, VINTON
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON THE APPLICATION OF STATE
CENTRAL BANK
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on March 25, 2014, and
the second reading and public hearing were held April 22, 2014; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on April 1, 2014; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by
law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the proffered conditions on property containing approximately 104.4
acres and zoned PRD, Planned Residential Development with conditions, located on
Sterling Drive in the Vinton Magisterial District, are hereby AMENDED as set out below:
1) The property will be developed in substantial conformance with the "Planning
and Design Documents for: Loblolly Mill a Planned Residential Community" prepared
by Balzer and Associates, Inc. dated January 18, 2006, revised April 17, 206, amended
January 10, 2007, revised February 9, 2007, and last revised November 25, 2013.
Specifically, the sections dealing with trails and lighting from the planning and
design documents are amended as follows:
ne twork of pedestrian/equestrian trails will be prov These Will
throughout t the dev e l o pment and Will e separate development areas
April 22, 2014 347
w the open s a Ge hiStGrin features and any nth #�m e
��aGe will he MU or pea gravel and will be a minimum of 4' wino
A pedestrian hiking trail will be provided within the development.
Any and all street light ng shall be residential on SGa and style (i.e. post mount
light ing) and shall GX 'I�e�igh Tho be ton shTaldo�n
Gast all light and /or glare downward. All "c� e t lights on the Property will - -
evneed 150 watts All light emanating from the o of any house lnnated on
lot on the Property will innli de a shield on top that nai ices the light to chine Town
not u or ni it Dusk to dawn lights will not he p ermitter! 411 lights on the a tsid of
any house on a lot on the Property will not evneed 1 watts All lighting shall he
ar c�rrangedse that no more and s
it noes not Gas g l are en�a p
nent rnopperties o
�r�rvcaTrv� en c propert and
than 0 font handles nrnss any adjanent property line
Street lighting will be provided in select locations. Street lighting will be post top style
fixtures as provided by AEP and will not exceed 16' in height.
The remaining proffered conditions including but not limited to all open space lots
and easements shall remain unchanged and shall still be usable for all residents of the
development including the existing pond, creeks, mill house, and covered bridge.
2. That this action is taken upon the application of State Central Bank.
3. That real estate subject to this amendment is more specifically described
in Exhibit A.
4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning Administrator is directed
to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change in zoning classification authorized
by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
5. The petition of McDonald's USA, LLC to obtain a special use
permit for a restaurant, drive -in or fast food in the CVOD,
Clearbrook Village Overlay District, on approximately 1.0 acre
located at 5347 Franklin Road, Cave Spring Magisterial District
(Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson advised there were no changes from the first reading and
had been approved by the Planning Commission with four proffers. Chairman
McNamara opened the public hearing and the following citizen spoke.
348 April 22, 2014
Dr. Tyler Bowersock stated he resides in the Cave Spring District and one of
his motivations in coming today is that they have a twelve (12) day old son and that son
will be going to Clearbrook Elementary in the future. So, first the concern he and his
wife has is the proximity to Clearbrook and the studies have been done that associate
the proximity effect at fast -food restaurants to elementary schools and an increased risk
of obesity and other health effects. So, primarily that is our main concern, the health
effects. On top of that, we are all in favor of economic development. Everybody wants
to broaden the tax base and bring in more jobs. But, really we have to question whether
McDonald's is the way to do it. He does not understand who benefits from it. He stated
it is a bunch of minimum wage jobs, no benefits. So, really are these quality jobs that
we want to bring in to Roanoke County. One person's comment at the meeting at
Clearbrook Elementary was if they build a McDonald's, they will build a Burger King
right next to it. Is that the type of economic development we want in Roanoke County?
We talked about the business parts earlier and other better paying jobs, so he would
implore that the Board of Supervisors turn down this petition and move forward and try
and incentivize other businesses to come in here. Again, there are self- concerns with
the McDonalds close to the elementary school. His child is his future and he is
concerned about him and his well- being, but also the lack of the benefit of the actual
jobs brought in to Roanoke County.
Chairman McNamara closed the public hearing. Supervisor Moore stated
the only reason for the petition was due to the drive -thru and the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) had answered all of the traffic questions. There was no further
discussion.
ORDINANCE 042214 -15 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
FOR A RESTAURANT, DRIVE -IN OR FAST FOOD IN THE
CVOD, CLEARBROOK VILLAGE OVERLAY DISTRICT, ON
APPROXIMATELY 1.0 ACRE LOCATED AT 5347 FRANKLIN
ROAD (TAX MAP NO. 098.02 -02- 01.00) CAVE SPRING
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON THE PETITION OF
MCDONALD'S USA, LLC
WHEREAS, McDonald's USA, LLC has filed a petition for a special use permit for
a restaurant, drive -in or fast food in the CVOD, Clearbrook Village Overlay District to be
located at 5347 Franklin Road (Tax Map No. 098.02 -02- 01.00) in the Cave Spring
Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
April 1, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on March 25, 2014; the second reading and public hearing on
this matter was held on April 22, 2014.
April 22, 2014 349
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
McDonald's USA, LLC for a restaurant, drive -in or fast food in the Clearbrook Village
Overlay District on approximately 1.0 acre located at 5347 Franklin Road in the Cave
Spring Magisterial District is substantially in accord with the adopted 2005 Community
Plan, as amended, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2 -2232 of the 1950 Code of
Virginia, 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) Development of this site shall be in substantial conformance with plan sheets
C -3 and L -1 titled McDonald's by Stimmel Associates, PA, and dated 1/24/14
subject to any revisions required during site plan review.
b) The facade of the primary structure shall be in substantial conformance with
the undated elevation sheet titled "Proposed McDonald's Restaurant — Color
Elevation Study" subject to any revisions required during site plan review and
building plan review.
c) The building materials for the proposed monument sign shall match the
building materials used on the primary structure and shall be in substantial
conformance with the monument elevation sheet. The dimensions of the
monument sign shall be equal to or less than the dimensions depicted on the
elevation sheet prepared by Persona Sign Makers /Image Builders dated
04/24/13.
d) The building materials for the dumpster enclosure shall match the building
materials used on the primary structure.
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 Moore to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
6. The petition of Richard and Nancy Koplow to obtain a special use
permit to operate a bed and breakfast in a R -1, Low Density
Residential, District, on approximately 2.35 acres located at 864
350 April 22, 2014
Dexter Road, Hollins Magisterial District (Philip Thompson,
Deputy Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson advised there were no changes from the first reading and
the Planning Commission had approved. Chairman McNamara opened and closed the
public hearing with no citizens to speak on this issue.
ORDINANCE 042214 -16 GRANTING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
FOR A BED AND BREAKFAST ON 2.35 ACRES LOCATED AT
864 DEXTER ROAD (TAX MAP NOS. 027.11 -04 -19.00 AND
027.11 -04- 18.00) HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON
THE PETITION OF RICHARD AND NANCY KOPLOW
WHEREAS, Richard and Nancy Koplow have filed a petition for a special use
permit for a bed and breakfast to be located at 864 Dexter Road (Tax Map Nos. 027.11-
04 -19.00 and 27.11 -04- 18.00) in the Hollins Magisterial District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
April 1, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on March 25, 2014; the second reading and public hearing on
this matter was held on April 22, 2014.
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 Richard
and Nancy Koplow for a bed and breakfast on 2.35 acres located at 864 Dexter Road 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 condition:
(a) The site shall be developed in general conformance with the
Concept Plan dated February 21, 2014 (Exhibit A).
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 Bedrosian to adopt the ordinance, and carried by
the following roll call and recorded vote:
April 22, 2014 351
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Max Beyer of 2402 Coachman Drive in LaBellvue stated he is concerned
this evening about the nature of proposed actions in exercising administrative
leadership over the Board. The Chairman has been elected by Board members to be
their leader and to exercise administrative management of the Board. He rightfully feels
responsible when the Board members are excessively verbose, use Board time for
personal education on an issue, use Board time to pronounce, vent or argue about
issues the Board members may differed. He is also rightfully concerned that the Board
always appear to the public to be efficient, smart, deliberate and articulate in discussing
and arriving at a decision as it votes on issues that are important to County governance.
Having said this, let him say that what has happened today to him is that this body is
spending an extraordinary amount of time in discussing core issues in governance to
include the very purpose and extent the local government's responsibilities within the
Commonwealth of Virginia and under the guidance of the General Assembly. It is a
much needed debate that should be occurring at this level of government. The
Chairman is correct in seeking to streamline administrative procedures to improve the
deliberative process as long as the essence of representative and deliberative
government is not jeopardized. He stated he believes the County citizens would prefer
debate to blind acquiescence. Many of us do not and the Board certainly should not
allow itself to be overly influenced by hostile local press and a juvenile reporter who
does not report an unbiased representation of events and does not always represent
the best interests of the citizens of Roanoke County. Mr. Chairman, as one of the
supervisors stole his thunder, the major disciplinary force over supervisors is their
constituents. Arbitrary restricting elected Board members to in accurately reflect the
attitude or the direction of his or her constituents and their conduct, votes, discussion
and influence is wrong. The proposed administrative procedures are coming close if not
over the bounds in exercising excessive authority over the Board. If his supervisor
loses his voice, then he has lost his.
Dan Crawford of 2311 Kipling Street in Roanoke, Virginia stated the
decisions you make affect so many people in ways often obvious, and sometimes
elusive. One's perspective is a key part of the process, and in our area, getting an
accurate view of the growing trends in conservation and generation of clean energy is
exceptionally challenging. But, nationally and globally, the .trend is encouraging. I can't
keep up with the changes. This isn't the time to go through the long list, so I chose a
few details that remind us that renewable energy is making tremendous progress. The
biggest source of clean energy is wind, and in the past six years, it tripled in capacity,
with over 47,000 utility -scale turbines in this country cranking out power equal to 60
352 April 22, 2014
large nuclear plants. The cost of wind power fell tenfold between 1980 and 2000. Solar
is coming on strong. The cost of solar panels dropped 80% in just 5 years. In some of
the sunnier places, it is already competitive with fossil fuels. If the County turns its
back on this growing trend, the businesses and industries you hope to attract will pass
us by, and you will fail to protect the health and well -being of the people you serve.
Happy Earth day.
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Church stated he wants to continue what he was trying to
finish saying this afternoon about our Board and the complexity of our agenda at times.
There are times when we can come here and we are so well versed and we know what
is going on, it is what he calls a piece of cake. There are fifty to one hundred and
seventy five (50 to 175) pages, but when you are dealing with complex issues such as
budgets, money, revenue, expenditures and then throwing on top of it some highly
volatile issues as new Board structure; the first time in eternity. Code of Conduct, first
time ever. Clerk being removed from the citizens. These are very important; just as
important as budgetary items. So, with that being said, there were some comments that
he probably should have saved until here, but he does not come here to do homework
on your time. He comes here to represent his people and the remainder of Roanoke
County to the best of his ability every time he shows up. There is no off day for him and
he means that sincerely. There is no off day; you cannot afford to take an off day.
Another Supervisor talked about getting our agenda on Friday afternoon. The
supervisor from Cave Spring, with all due respect, we get our draft agenda on Tuesday,
that is correct, draft agenda. It is like getting a box from Amazon, you know what you
ordered, but when you open it the computer is there, but no paperwork and you have
never seen it before; that is how it is when we get our agenda. Draft agenda says,
A,B,C, etc. and that it is, there is no background. We do not have all the multitude of
pages with respect to Brent Robertson and Mr. Goodman and Rebecca Owens and
Community Development. There is where the nuts and bolts are. Most of us have
regular jobs, so if you put this part -time position into full time, 588 pages, and if you
have family, children, sickness. When are you able to do this, unless you can ask
questions to the people who work forty to sixty (40 to 60) hours a week. They stand
right before us. They have the luxury of doing this every day, Monday through Friday at
nighttime. You are familiar with it. Sometimes the package we get is brand new and on
some occasions things have changed, new provisions have come into play. In your
case, Mr. Robertson, new revenue, sales tax is up, used vehicle sales, we did not know
that last week or two weeks ago. So, this is not a first time learning experience for us
and he was hoping that the Roanoke Times would be here so he could hear appropriate
comments from our citizens, lord knows what he will print tomorrow. Remember, he is
in the same meeting we are. He stated he does not get the paper, but you can get it
online and when you look at you wonder, "Where was he ?" "What meeting was he in ?"
April 22, 2014 353
So it will be interesting, look for something like, "somebody's shoe was not tied." Look
for that tomorrow, it will not be anything especially earth shattering like the budget, like
the complexity of our Board structure, he will find something to sell a paper and it will be
on the front page that we are at a standstill. Here we go again. It makes you dizzy. He
would make one request to the three sitting Board members, he would ask for
reconsideration, we have a month and some days to reconsider. Do we really want to
go down this road and take away, and he feels like it is taking away, for his people, the
citizens that he represents, a large part of their representation. It was hard for him
earlier when we had a presenter come to the podium, for fifteen (15) years, there has
been discussion. We start talking and we learn more things, now we have to make a
motion. It may sound minute to you, but try changing something you have done for
fifteen (15) years. Do it, kind of tough to change especially if it has been working for
you. So, you have presenters coming here to the Board and they have information and
we have had sometimes in the past that the Chairman and others can tell you, three
hundred to four hundred (300 to 400) people, upstairs and in two different rooms. We
have people pouring their heart out. Think about this, go back to the asphalt plant,
Keagy Village, we would make a motion before they talk possibly. How absurd would
that be if we did that? We may as well put a sign outside that says, "Citizens, you are
wasting your time coming in today." That is not what we want to be about. We want to
be inclusive, we want to include you. If we stay another extra half an hour, good, if it is
for you. Let the people speak and present their opinions until the last one has finished.
That is what real governance is about. We should not care what time we get out of
here. We should care about how well we can perform our meeting; are the people
represented. He stated it is his wish and hope that between now and May 27th at a
public hearing at 7:00 p.m. that we will reconsider. He suggested that the Board has
had three issues and three issues only that has caused any knee -jerk reaction or
whatever the case may be. But, other than updating Robert's Rules for 2011 and
calling a closed session a closed session, we shouldn't be tinkering with something that
has really served us well. Each of us have a chance to represent our people.
Supervisor Peters stated his comment earlier seems to be misconstrued
and regurgitated, but the fact is we are a representation of our citizens. Whether the
agenda is 588 pages or not, it is our job to get through that rather if it is Friday afternoon
and be ready for those questions to ask staff when we come in here; not to do our
homework in front of you. The statement was made earlier that we do not want to run
government like a business because all they want to do is expand and that is not true.
Some of the best businesses he knows are not looking to expand, but looking to be the
most efficient that they can be. They do not want to be bigger, they want to be more
efficient and preserve and maximize revenues. He stated he has a lot of concerns and
has shared this before, especially after a supervisor has stated that "he has no vision for
the ideal Roanoke County." As Max and Mr. Landis brought up, we have got to come
together, unfortunately, time has been short to get to this budget, but he will make the
promise to Roanoke County citizens that he has already started and that he plans as
354 April 22, 2014
soon as we get through the next little bit. He is not finished should be his first
statement; there are a lot of issues that need to be taken into our budget process to
address the maintenance issues to address all the issues we are kicking down the road
so that we know what that true picture is. As Mr. Bailey pointed out, we need to have a
five or even seven year plan, so that the citizens at any time can pick up that plan and
know where we are, know when replacements are coming along, do we have people
buying miscellaneous cars to keep on the road. He does not know, he will be honest,
he does not know, but these are the questions he plans to get the answers to because
we need to simplify our budget process. Every Department has its fixed expenses
including personnel and we need to know that and then we can start to build from there
as far as what that budget looks like. He gives you his word that he will be focusing on
that in the next couple of months and will affect us until the next budget year to have
that ready. It will not be an overnight success. With that said, he stated he does not
know if he really agrees that a retreat in our best interest, maybe it is. He thinks we
need to get these things on paper, go through them and itemize them and talk about
maybe for public use. Maybe they should be sitting in on those work sessions to see
where the money is being spent. On a lighter note, for anyone interested, the Vinton
Dogwood Festival is this Saturday and the parade will be at 2:30 p.m. and on May 10tH
we are going to have a lot of activity down at Explore Park starting at 10:00 a.m. and
hope everyone can be there and show up.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he thought it was a very eventful day today.
It was a good one. We went through a lot of things and wants to talk about a couple of
things. It is interesting, he guesses there is a City Council race going on now for the
City and he is always interested. He has been to a couple of their forums and listening
to them speak. He thought it would be interesting to be on the other side and watch
some debate and talk about the issues instead of being the one in the debate or talking
about issues. He stated he learned a lot listening to other candidates; in the City they
have about ten (10) of them. One thing that he found interesting is that most people
running for office, they think they know what other people want. It is an interesting thing
about politicians and people running for government. They think they know what
everybody else wants. He sees these signs all over talking about how he is going to
change the quality of life for the citizens. Wow, that is interesting. He stated he thinks
everybody has a different definition of quality of life; people are different. His definition
of the quality of life is actually to have more of his own money and the freedom to spend
it where he wants and do things with his own family the way he wants. It is not in a
building; it is not in what the government does. It really isn't. Maybe we think it is
because we are up here spending $174 million, it really isn't. The reality is most people
don't think about us at all, they really don't and he really kind of likes that. They
shouldn't. We should be responsible to do things, but you know what, we sometimes
think a little mighty of ourselves, no one cares. They don't care. They want to live their
life and have freedom and we really need to get back to that. So, he has had a great
experience being on the Board for about four (4) months and he loves it. He is revved
April 22, 2014 355
up and is looking forward to the next four (4) years. He is actually on this side, where
he always used to be on the other side and complaining about something he saw and
did not like and all he could do was talk to my friends about it and gripe about it and now
he is on this side. This is good. Everybody should do this, we do not need professional
politicians, and everybody should do it. We talk about being up here and we should be
all studied up and not do our homework in front of you. The heck with that, sometimes
like doing my homework in front of the citizens. I like people to listen to what he is going
through and how he is thinking about something. He does not know all the answers and
you know what, sometimes it gets very confusing. There is a lot of stuff; he is not going
to pretend. He has a very inquisitive mind. He asks lots of questions and people get
offended, that is fine. It is his job to ask a lot of questions and uncover what is really
going on. We spend $174 million of the people's and businesses' money, the five (5) of
us have the final say in spending $174 million. You better believe it that you better take
all the time in the world to talk about it, stumble upon it, do whatever it takes, go back
over it if we made a bad decision, We better do it right and that is what he believes and
he hopes that if somebody was representing him they would say anything it takes to go
the right thing and if I make a mistake I am going to tell you that I made a mistake, but
you have to do the right thing all the time. We have a big responsibility here and he
does not take it lightly. We had a great discussion upstairs on ICLEI and RCCLEAR.
He thinks it was a great discussion and what he found out because he has been trying
to figure this thing out. Trying to combine all this together and this whole argument has
been ICLEI is for good environment, clean air and no ICLEI is ugly, dirty. If you don't
like ICLEI, you like dirty water; you don't understand. If you do like ICLEI then you are
for all these great things. There are two separate issues. When we were upstairs and
talking to RCCLEAR, ICLEI is really about global warming, man -made global warming
and there is a group in America that feels that we as human beings, with our actions,
with our daily living can change the climate and change everything. We can create
hurricanes just by living, tornados and everything. Everything is based on us and what
we do and that is a little dangerous because if you buy into that it that means that every
action that you take should be controlled. He kept asking the question and sometimes
people say, "You are being a little overbearing." Well, if he is not getting an answer to a
basic question, you need to give me an answer. In Vinton, there is a monitoring station
that monitors and has been monitoring since 1990. No one brought that up. One of his
constituents actually emailed him and told him that several weeks ago that there is a
station out there that is monitoring. It is checking all these levels, so what is the ICLEI
group doing. They are tracking; they are so bent on this carbon emissions. It is their
religion; we all emit carbon. Carbon is a natural thing, but we act like it is the thing that
is going to destroy the world and he wants to make sure that we separate. One way is
fanatical about this climate change and global warming, the other side, which he thinks
is ninety -nine point nine percent (99.9 %) of the people is for clean air, clean streams.
Got it. We all agree on that. So, he just wanted to make that clarification. They are two
entirely different things and we always try to bring them together and thinks they were
356 April 22, 2014
very decisive when they did it. You could never speak against ICLEI or you would be
put into that group and he thinks that is wrong. We had a good discussion on the
budget. We agree and disagree on some things. The interesting thing we talked about
is people's salaries. He agrees; it is amazing to him that we have a wide range of
salaries. $20,000 all the way up to $160,000. 1 look at that and think we should put the
weight of all increases should be on that lower group. Some guy making $20,000 is
going to get $400. The guy making $160,000 is going to get $3,200. What is that all
about? The guy that is making $20,000 to $40,000 as County employees should have
really been scaled; higher there and really low as you go up top. That would be the way
to really help the people that really, really need it. $400 a year for an increase. We
need to rethink that in the future years; not to give the same salary increases to
everybody. Look at the people on the low end. He is ending by saying it is very, very
difficult in government he finds to limit the size. Again, some people may think he is
overbearing on them to limit government and make it smaller, but if you don't the natural
state of government is not to get smaller. It just does not happen that way and we can
talk about it all we want, but we really need to check and have the departments evaluate
and check. It just does not happen; it really doesn't on its own. He has never seen it
happen himself. You really have to work hard at reducing the size of government.
Look, this year, we are in a tough economic time and we are growing two percent (2 %).
We are growing two percent (2 %) this year and he would say as you look around it is
tough for a lot of people, but yet government grows two percent (2 %) and we are all
okay with it. He is not, but he thinks we really need to think about that and he does not
think sometimes these conversations maybe don't sound pretty, but he thinks it is good
to have the discussions and he thinks sometimes they get a little heated, but again, we
are the last line right here in somebody's tax dollars being spent and spent on. We are
it and if you try to muffle our conversation or stifle or place limits on it, he thinks that is
very, very dangerous. He really does and he thinks we need to keep these
conversations as open as possible. Like tonight, we have had great conversations
tonight, he could be here for another three hours, it is only 9 o'clock and we are doing a
very, very important business. We have had lots of discussions and they have gone
long. He looks forward to each meeting.
Chairman McNamara commented there will be a lot of discussion about
potential changes in the Board's procedures. He does not want anyone to leave with
the inclination or the suggestion that the idea is to stifle the citizens and otherwise stifle
any of the Board members. That is not the case at all. If we were having a public
hearing and rezoning anything like that, we have the public hearing, we have comments
and questions of staff before a motion needs to be on the floor. So, we have had a very
good discussion today, but we actually followed the procedures that we are looking to
codify and reconfirm in the potential changes. He does not view it as anyway shape or
form trying to take anything away from the citizens, but to try and improve the overall
citizen experience so that people are more likely to be involved with our meetings.
Thank you to the people who came and to the people who spoke.
April 22, 2014 357
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman McNamara adjourned the meeting at 8 :44 p.m.
Approved by:
ph P. McNamara
rman
Deputy Clerk to the Board
358
April 22, 2014
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY