HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/24/2014 - RegularJune 24, 2014 493
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 June 2013. Audio and video recordings of
this meeting will be held on file for a minimum of five (5) years in the office of the Clerk
to the Board of Supervisors.
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
Before the meeting was called to order a moment of silence was
observed. 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; and Deborah C. Jacks, Deputy
Clerk to the Board
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Resolution naming the Walrond Park Football Field the Bobby
Ragland Football Field at Walrond Park (B. Clayton Goodman III,
County Administrator)
In attendance for this recognition was David Linden of the North Roanoke
Recreation Club, Bobby Ragland and his family and Doug Blount, Director of Parks,
Recreation and Tourism.
494 June 24, 2014
The Deputy Clerk read the resolution. Each Supervisor offered their
thanks and congratulations.
RESOLUTION 062414-1 NAMING THE WALROND PARK
FOOTBALL FIELD THE BOBBY RAGLAND FOOTBALL FIELD
AT WALROND PARK
WHEREAS, President David Linden of the North Roanoke Recreation Club
(NRRC), has asked the County to consider naming the football field at Walrond Park
after longtime NRRC coach Bobby Ragland; and
WHEREAS, President Linden reports that Coach Ragland has served the North
Roanoke community for more than 40 years, has coached with honor, integrity and
passion and always did so in an exemplary fashion; and
WHEREAS, Coach Ragland has coached football, basketball and baseball for
North Roanoke from 1968 through 2010 and would still be coaching today were it not for
his declining health; and
WHEREAS, NRRC would like to express their sincere appreciation for his
dedication to the youth in North County by having the football field at Walrond Park
named after him and NRRC is willing to cover the cost associated with erecting and
maintaining a sign and plaque honoring Coach Ragland.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors does hereby designate and name the Walrond Park Football Field the
Bobby Ragland Football Field at Walrond Park.
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: BRIEFINGS
1. Briefing on the Roanoke Valley Regional Broadband Authority (B.
Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator)
Mr. Goodman gave a brief introduction. Mr. Bob Picchi, Project
Consultant, Blue Ridge Advisory Services Group provided the Board a PowerPoint
presentation. He advised the Authority will need $7.2 million in capital. He remarked
there would be negative cash flow through year six (6). Capital would be shared from
the four localities within the Authority. If the localities decided to proceed, it could
potentially be up and running by July of 2015.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he has several questions and wanted him to
know up front that he will probably be a skeptic. Why are we doing this and who isn't
being served now?
June 24, 2014 495
Mr. Picchi advised he was engaged to develop a business plan, which he
has done. Through the process, a lot was learned about telecommunications in the
valley. There largely is a robust telecommunications marketplace in the valley.
Economic Developers are telling him there are business parks that do not have
telecommunications or fiber optic facilities in them and it would be a very helpful tool for
them to have fiber or cable in those parks. Traditionally, when they go out on economic
development missions it would be beneficial to say that they had access to fiber and
could use as an incentive to attract prospects. As an example, many people have
pointed to Mid Atlantic Broadband to recruiting Microsoft; it could not have been
accomplished without such a tool. There is a robust telecommunications infrastructure
in the valley and a competitive one.
Supervisor Bedrosian then asked with regard to the business parks and if
somebody were to develop, there are private enterprise companies that would fulfill the
need. Is this correct, with Mr. Picchi responding in the affirmative. He stated he liked
the free enterprise system on its own to meet the requirements of the marketplace. He
always asked the question, is there some area of Roanoke County that is not met that is
asking for a service and we cannot provide it to them. The answer he has received is
no, there may be a price for it, but if anybody wants a service it is there. Mr. Picchi
stated there would be some services they would be providing that simply are not
available, i.e. direct fiber connectivity to major East Coast access points for the internet.
We would have direct fiber connectivity to Ashburn, Virginia and 56 Marietta Street in
Atlanta, George, which are two major network hubs. You cannot get there today on a
low agency network without going through a number of central offices, switchers and
routers.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked is there something that business cannot do
today that they will provide? Mr. Picchi stated first they would not be providing retail
services and residential services. This is geared to large business customers. Mr.
Picchi stated that every business here is being served. There is frustration in the
marketplace about availability and cost.
Supervisor Bedrosian then asked who owns the infrastructure. Mr. Picchi
stated the Authority is a separate entity and would own the assets.
Chairman McNamara stated the Board has to approve an operating
agreement with Cox Communication and Comcast. He understands they would be
reluctant to put broadband in because they do not have enough customers day one to
justify. Why would they not want to explore this or would we have an opportunity to
encourage laying the fiber as opposed to us creating our own fiber authority. In some
argument, we would be competing against them.
Mr. Picchi advised Cox is private and has no insight into anything about
the company. He cannot answer the questions about motivation or strategy. Chairman
McNamara then asked if part of this study was to engage Cox. What were the positive
results? Mr. Picchi stated Cox is a large part of this community and a large supporter.
496 June 24, 2014
They feel very strongly about their role and relationships in the valley. They advised
they probably would not be on our network. They would be happy to utilize conduit that
would be deployed where they could be the only one in the conduit. Cox feels that the
only way to guarantee high levels of service is to have complete sovereignty over their
network, end to end. He added they would need to prove themselves as a credible
operator and operates to a world class carrier standard. Then, they will use the
network. Verizon has made it clear they are a wireless company and they will not be
investing in landline infrastructure anymore. This is really intended to stimulate the
marketplace.
Supervisor Peters advised he understood the need and understands that
would give us the competitive edge in the Economic Development world. The Water
Authority is its own entity today and when the stimulus money came in from
Washington, they were able to apply for grants, etc. on their own. They are their own
funding source, so he is confused as to why we are in this. In other words, we will need
to come up with $2 million and turn it over to a "water authority" and then have no
control over it at that point. Mr. Picchi stated he made a recommendation to host the
organization in the Water Authority to use their office space, IT staff, mapping
experience, etc. They would be a complete separate entity. Mr. Goodman advised the
Broadband Authority would retain ownership of any improvement. The Western Virginia
Water Authority is the fifth member of the Roanoke Valley Broadband Authority, City of
Salem and Roanoke, Counties of Botetourt and Roanoke and as the fifth member, the
Western Virginia Water Authority because of assets they could bring to bear to help in
the future. The main goal of this study was to keep costs to a minimum.
Supervisor Peters reiterated this proposal is to put forth this infrastructure
(the four municipalities), put the money into this and then turn it over to the Broadband
Authority, which would be its own entity, like the Water Authority. Mr. Picchi and Mr.
Goodman both responded in the affirmative.
Chairman McNamara asked what was the initial reaction of the other
localities? Roanoke City has already budgeted money in their capital budget for this
project. City of Salem seems receptive, but does not know what the final outcome of
their Board was. Chairman McNamara then inquired about grants stating he assumed
there were no grants out there that we could apply for or we would have already tried to
do so. Mr. Picchi and Mr. Goodman both responded in the affirmative. The Roanoke
Valley is too big to qualify for those grants and public funding and we are just west of
the tobacco commission funded regions and those have been the principle providers of
capital. Once there is an investment in telecommunications and have an enterprise
going, he believes we will be able to apply for the so called Connect America funds; that
is the repurposing of the FCC funds for unconnected people. We would also be able to
work in collaboration with other service providers such as citizens or Cox to build the
network so they could serve those unserved residents.
Chairman McNamara stated far Southwestern Virginia put $5 million a
June 24, 2014 497
number of years ago, how did they fund it. Mr. Picchi stated they are actually in the
Tobacco Commission and the Commission has invested $60 million in the far SW.
Additionally, because they are such a sparsely populated area, they are eligible for the
Rural Utilities Services Broadband Connect Grant, which was just funded through the
Farm Bill for $19 million this year.
Chairman McNamara stated he would ask for our next work session is that
he would like to see a map of Virginia and see where broadband fiber exists and where
it does not exist.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated with regard to the Water Authority, he had
asked for some records regarding the Water Authority delivering water to the citizens
and what he found was all the prices rose. He is with a technology company himself,
sometimes he thinks when you have a lot more it becomes an economy of scale, but
the Water Authority from 2005 until 2014 actually went up for two localities and one
went down. There may be some subsidizing going on. Is there a promise or guarantee
that when you do something like this the prices will go down? Mr. Picchi stated he does
not have any insights into the Water Authority and can tell you anecdotally that the
introduction of Mid Atlantic Broadband had an effect for reducing capacity pipes by a
factor of six (6).
Supervisor Bedrosian stated if somebody came to us and asked for $2
million and other localities and pooled their money together and wanted to compete in
an area where there was already competing and day to day seems to be unfair. Is that
a correct perception to have? He just feels that when governments give money, it is tax
dollar money, so we are giving money so they can go in and possibly provide something
less than somebody else can. Is that intrinsically a fair thing to do? Mr. Picchi stated he
was tasked with creating a business plan. He cannot answer the fairness question.
Supervisor Bedrosian then asked could this authority on its own raise the $8 million and
compete. Mr. Picchi stated he thinks it is possible. There are providers of capital who
are about community improvement projects.
Supervisor Church stated he too would like to see where the optics are.
He will need to see much more information in order to make his decision.
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Ratification of Assistant Fire Marshal Brian Simmons to Fire
Marshal due to the retirement of former Fire Marshal Gary
Huffman (Richard E. Burch, Jr., Chief of Fire and Rescue)
A-062414-2
Chief Hall outlined the request and introduced both Brian Simmons and
Todd Maxey, Division Chief.
498 June 24, 2014
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the staff recommendation to
ratify the appointment. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
1. Resolution establishing the salary for the County Attorney (B.
Clayton Goodman III, County Administrator)
Mr. Goodman outlined the resolution for the raise for the County Attorney.
Supervisor Bedrosian noted that every other raise that has come before
him, he has voted no. He will be voting the same way on this one. The only reason
being new on the Board, he does not have the years with Mr. Mahoney and he thought
there was a better way to give raises out so he disapproves of these raises on the
higher end.
Supervisor Church stated he too would be voting as he outlined during the
budget session when he recommended a broad -ranging pay increase for those who are
at the very bottom of the scale.
Supervisor Moore stated that she approves of this and thanked Mr.
Mahoney. She stated he does an incredible job; always available to answer questions,
to respond to whatever issues the Board has. He does a really good job on working
with the citizens.
RESOLUTION 062414-3 ESTABLISHING THE SALARY FOR
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby
establishes the salary for the County Attorney for fiscal year 2014-2015.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows -
1 .
ollows:1. That the annual salary for the County Attorney shall be increased from
$152,554.69 to $155,605.78.
2. That the effective date for the establishment of this salary shall be July 1,
2014.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church
June 24, 2014 499
2. Request to change the order of the Board's agenda and move
Citizen Comments before New Business (B. Clayton Goodman III,
County Administrator)
Mr. Goodman outlined the request and advised it was requested by
Supervisor Bedrosian at the last Board meeting.
Supervisor Bedrosian moved approval of this item. He stated to talk about
the spirit of this, he recognized in the last Board meeting and in a couple of other that
there were items that people wanted to speak about. Our employer, basically, the
citizens of the community, were waiting for two to three (2 to 3) hours to speak. There
could be some discussion about making it pertinent when they have something they
want to talk about. The Board should not be voting on anything, and has found times
that they have done that, when no-one has given a comment or talked about the item
yet, which seems unusual. We should allow them to give input so that we can hear
what they say. A lot of good stuff comes from the people that we may not even be
thinking about and could put into our decision making.
Supervisor Church stated he thinks back, however we have reached this
point, he is okay with. In looking back at prior years, he has served as Chairman three
(3) times and Chairman McNamara has served before and it worked out really fine over
the years, i.e. we have an issue before the Board and the Clerk to the Board has sign-
up sheets, either called in or online and from the dais we can tell by looking out visibly
we can see ten to fifteen (10 to 15) people. We can hold sign-up sheets in our hand
that total any number. He knows that it has worked great in his opinion where it may
take an extra couple of minutes; extra work for the Chairman. So, you have twelve (12)
people signed up to speak and you would normally speak under Citizen Comments, but
today since we are talking about this item under New Business, he would bring them
forward and speak. He totally agrees the Board needs to listen to the concerns of the
people before we vote. There is nothing more discouraging than to have a room full of
people and the Board makes the decision and the people shake their heads and get up
and walk out. By doing so, you make them feel unimportant. He does not know about
changing the order, his only concern would be if we do something that is not going to be
officially in our agenda, then we need to have a commitment from all of us that we will
recognize people that come. This does not happen at every meeting, but will happen
time to time and we can recognize and see these people and let them speak. This has
worked in the past.
Supervisor Peters echoed the comments from Supervisor Church. In
reaching out to several of his constituents in Mount Pleasant and Vinton. This seems to
be the number one complaint that he receives. A New Business item comes up, the
Board votes and then an hour later, the citizen get to speak. They never seem to have
that time of giving the Board their thoughts.
Chairman McNamara stated if you look back over the years, when there
500 June 24, 2014
was someone to speak on an item, we typically did let them speak. He suggested that
putting Citizen Comments first is not the appropriate way to handle it because if you
have a public hearing, people are usually going to speak in the meeting. So, putting it
first in the meeting he does not feel is appropriate. He stated he thinks this Board has
had a history of being very interested in listening to citizens and going out of our way to
make sure we listen to our citizens and if we compare our processes with the processes
around us, some of our peer groups, we are one of the few Boards that has a very
established process to make sure citizens can speak. Some of them just work in
citizens. Some boards limit citizen comments to fifteen (15) minutes and then it is done.
They are all over the map as far as that is concerned. He suggested the Board go back
and if Supervisor Bedrosian will remove his motion, and if there is support on the Board
and we have a New Business item, which is fairly rare that we have a New Business
item that somebody wants to speak to, and if we have somebody who wants to speak to
a New Business item, we will let them speak. We will not make any change in our
procedures. If that turns into being an issue somewhere in the future, we can revisit it.
He offered that up if he sees support on the Board from that, which he heard support
from his left and sees it from the Supervisor from Cave Spring.
Supervisor Bedrosian advised he had no problem offering a substitute
motion to say that as people bring their comments and give them to the Clerk and
through email that we look at those comments and see how they are categorized and if
we have three groups of comments, i.e. this one is going before a certain issue and that
one, the Chairman would take the initiative to make sure they were able to speak before
the Board voted or discussed. Therefore, his substitute motion would be based on the
Chairman making the call knowing who was signed up to speak and allowing them to
speak.
Chairman McNamara inquired if the substitute motion was a requirement
or an allowance.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he guessed it could be an allowance first and
if that does not work, then go back to a requirement. He does not mind using a softer
word allowance, but we do it. We have it set because the spirit as he stated in the
beginning is allowing people to speak early enough so they are not waiting three hours
for their three minutes. Also, that the Board is never voting on anything before people
speak.
Chairman McNamara stated the original motion has been withdrawn.
There is now a main motion on the floor is to allow the Chairman to have people speak
before items as they are presented.
Supervisor Peters inquired is Supervisor Bedrosian saying the people that
have given us, the citizens, have turned in forms, the Chairman will need to sift through
those and make sure there are none that apply to New Business items. Is that
understanding correct?
Supervisor Bedrosian stated in order for a system like this to work, where
June 24, 2014 501
we are giving the Chairman an allowance to do this is that the Chairman will then have
to realize who is here to speak and allow them to speak. If we are not going to do that,
we would need to have the comments in the beginning. If we are willing to do that and
take the comments we see and look at them briefly before the meeting and allow them
to speak. He is good with that.
Supervisor Moore asked if the Board was not already doing that. The
Clerk gives you the information and you sift through it and if New Business you allow
that citizen to speak. Sometimes it is very complex, when they sign in they do not know
what item they want to speak on so we can see that would be confusing.
Supervisor Church stated what he is concerned with and he does not think
it is going to be a big problem. Even if we have twenty-five (25) yellow sheets, how
hard is it? We can communicate with our citizens. If they sign up under N and it should
be something else, it can be handled. His reservation is "what about second reading of
ordinances." Is this for New Business items only? With respect to the lady from Cave
Spring, we have not always done this. We have not done this correctly, in his opinion,
the way it should be done by having the citizens come up. There has been many times
over the years, not just since January, in the past where we have people sitting back
there for a long time and we are making decisions. So, does it happen every week, no,
but it should not happen at all. It is more than New Business. He is concerned that we
don't do it then this Board needs to go back and revisit. We looked at this and make an
agreement, then let's do it. With second reading of ordinances, there are some
important items. He is not concerned with the first reading because that is simply to get
the item on track for next reading. There is an extra two weeks for study, but there are
some areas in a second reading. It is not going to be a big deal in his opinion, but we
need to make sure that we include that possibility.
Chairman McNamara stated he has no interest in changing the Board's
Rules of Organizational Procedures. He thinks the statement was made and supported
by the Board that we will work Citizen Comments in. That is the commitment going
forward. So, he reoffered that commitment, he thinks there was support from the
majority of the Board; it was the appropriate thing to do. It is what we have done in the
past. He thinks there is some discretion that the Chairman should exercise and he
thinks first reading of ordinances is a very good example. He thinks the Board can
accomplish what Supervisor Bedrosian is trying to accomplish without changing the
Board's Rules of Organization Procedures. He is not going to support the motion, but
will support the intent of the motion.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated since he brought up this issue, he will go
along with this and watch over the next several Board meetings and just make sure that
the spirit of what we are trying to do, which is to allow citizens to speak before we vote.
Supervisor Bedrosian then withdrew the motion with the possibility of bringing it up
again in the future.
502 June 24, 2014
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance appropriating funds in the amount of $1,500,000 for the
replacement of the financial system (Rebecca Owens, Director of
Finance)
Ms. Owens outlined the request for the ordinance. Also in attendance was
Bill Hunter, Director of Communications and Information Technology who explained the
IT component.
Supervisor Peters motion to approve the first reading to appropriate
$1,500,000 for the replacement of the financial system and hold the second reading on
July 8, 2014, was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
2. Ordinance appropriating a donation from the Rotary Club of
Roanoke Valley in the amount of $5,605.38 to Parks, Recreation
and Tourism for improvements at Starkey Park (Doug Blount,
Director of Parks, Recreation and Tourism)
Mr. Blount outlined the ordinance. Tarek Moneir introduced the members
of the Rotary Club who made the presentation to the Chairman Peter Fields, Walter
Bowman, Larry Johnson, Jess Bird, Brad Green and Ev Worries.
Supervisor Moore moved to approve the first reading and
waiving of the second reading.
ORDINANCE 062414-4 APPROPRIATING A DONATION FROM
THE ROTARY CLUB OF ROANOKE VALLEY IN THE AMOUNT
OF $5,605.38 TO PARKS, RECREATION, AND TOURISM FOR
IMPROVEMENTS AT STARKEY PARK
WHEREAS, The Rotary Club of Roanoke Valley promotes local philanthropy;
and
WHEREAS, The Rotary Club of Roanoke Valley is a Park Partner for Starkey
Park; and
WHEREAS, The Rotary Club of Roanoke Valley would like to make a financial
donation for park improvements at Starkey Park; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that funds be
appropriated by ordinance; and
June 24, 2014 503
WHEREAS, first reading of this ordinance was held on June 24, 2014, and the
second reading of this ordinance has been dispensed with since an emergency exists,
upon a 4/5ths vote of the members of the Board.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows -
1 .
ollows:1. That the sum of $5,605.38 is hereby appropriated from the sources and
for the purposes as follows at Starkey Park:
• Staining playground border
• Staining (3) press boxes on Starkey fields 1, 2, 3
• Stain the bridge between Starkey Park I and II
• Painting park gate to fields # 5, 6, and 7
• Painting park gate to fields # 1, 2, 3
• Painting park gate to field #7
• Painting entrance gate to the Merriman Soccer Complex - main
parking lot
• Painting gate from the rear Merriman parking lot to the soccer fields
• Starkey Park I to Starkey Park II walk bridge repairs- removing the
damaged hand rail and rebuild with pressure treated lumber
• Install park bench with paver base at the Starkey playground
• Install park bench with paver base next to the bridge from Starkey Park
II to Merriman
• Install park bench with paver base at the Starkey II from playground
• Remove remaining spilt rail fencing- replace with parks barrier system
2. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
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
3. Ordinance appropriating funds in the amount of $11,024.99 to the
Clerk of the Circuit Court from the Commonwealth of Virginia for
fiscal year 2013/2014 for Technology Trust Funds (Rebecca
Owens, Director of Finance)
Ms. Owens outlined the request. There was no discussion. Supervisor
Church moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for July 8, 2014.
The motion called by the following roll call and recorded vote:
504 June 24, 2014
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
4. Ordinance accepting and appropriating fundraising monies in the
amount of $913.30 for the Roanoke Elementary Autism Program
(REAP)(Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance)
Ms. Owens outlined the request. There was no discussion. Supervisor
Church moved to approve the first reading and set the second reading for July 8, 2014.
The motion called by the following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance appropriating the 2014-2015 refund savings of the
Virginia Resources Authority 2014 Spring Pool in the amount of
$482,595.13 (Rebecca Owens, Director of Finance)
Ms. Owens outlined the ordinance and advised there were no changes
from the first reading. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 062414-5 APPROPRIATING THE 2014-2015
REFUNDING SAVINGS OF THE VIRGINIA RESOURCES
AUTHORITY 2014 SPRING POOL IN THE AMOUNT OF
$482,595.13
WHEREAS, the Board authorized with ordinance number 032514-6 the refunding
of the 2004 lease finance through the Virginia Resources Authority (VRA); and
WHEREAS, VRA completed the spring issue of the Virginia Pooled Financing
Program; and
WHEREAS, market conditions were very favorable and cash savings over the
remaining years of the bonds (2014-2034) totaled $1,011,660.12; and
WHEREAS, the recommended use of the savings for 2014-2015 is to address
the Integrated Financial System replacement capital project and use the remaining
years savings to pay additional money towards outstanding debt; 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 June 10, 2014, and the
second reading was held on June 24, 2014; and
June 24, 2014 505
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows-
1.
ollows:1. That the sum of $482,595.13 is hereby appropriated from bond refunding
savings to the Integrated Financial System replacement project; and
2. That the remaining years of bond refunding savings will be appropriated
through the annual budget process to pay additional money towards the outstanding
debt; and
3. That this ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2014.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None.
2. Ordinance accepting and appropriating funds in the amount of
$783,700 to the Department of Social Services from the Virginia
Department of Social Services for fiscal year 2013-2014 (Joyce
Earl, Director of Social Services; Jimmy Lyon, Business Process
and Management Analyst)
Mr. Lyon outlined the ordinance and advised there were no changes from
the first reading. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 062414-6 ACCEPTING AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $783,700 TO THE DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES FROM THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013-2014
WHEREAS, the State has made available $783,700 of additional appropriations
to the Department of Social Services for state adoption assistance, special needs
adoption, foster care placements and related administrative costs; 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 June 10, 2014, and the
second reading was held on June 24, 2014.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows -
1 .
ollows:1. That the sum of $783,700 is hereby appropriated from the Commonwealth
of Virginia and to the Department of Social Services for the purposes as follows:
$150,000 to Adoption Subsidy (602000-5771), $400,000 to Special Needs
Adoption (602000-5770), $200,000 to Title IV -E Foster Care (602000-5730),
506 June 24, 2014
$13,000 to Overtime (601000-1015), $4,000 to advertising (601000-3610),
$1,000 to Tires, Tubes and Parts (601000-6091), $6,200 to Small Equipment &
Supplies (601000-6013), $6,500 to technology equipment new (601000-8701),
$3,000 to technology equipment replacement (601000-8702)
2. That this ordinance shall take effect from and after the date of adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 062414-7 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
ollows:That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for June 24,
2014, designated as Item I - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 6 inclusive, as follows -
1 .
ollows:1. Approval of minutes — May 13, 2014
2. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Gary D. Huffman, Fire Marshal — Fire Prevention Captain,
upon his retirement after more than twenty-seven (27) years of service
3. Resolution to disband the Roanoke County Community Leaders
Environmental Action Roundtable (RCCLEAR) (This item was removed
from the Consent Agenda by Supervisor Moore for separate
consideration)
4. Appointment of Interim Building Commissioner
5. Confirmation of appointment to the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO)
6. Resolution appointing an Interim County Administrator (This item was
removed from the Consent Agenda by Supervisor Bedrosian for
separate consideration)
That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by
law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item
pursuant to this resolution.
June 24, 2014 507
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, with the exception of
items 3 and 6 and carried by the following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
RESOLUTION 062414-7.a EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO GARY D. HUFFMAN, FIRE MARSHALL -FIRE PREVENTION
CAPTAIN, UPON HIS RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN
TWENTY-SEVEN (27) YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Gary Huffman was hired on July 1, 1986, as a Firefighter/EMT, and
rose to the rank of Fire Marshal — Fire Prevention Captain for the Fire/Rescue
Department during his tenure with Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Captain Huffman retired on June 1, 2014, after twenty-seven (27)
years and eleven (11) months of devoted, faithful and expert service with the County;
and
WHEREAS, Captain Huffman was appointed as the Fire Marshal in 2002 and
has provided outstanding leadership and vision for the Fire Marshal's Office; and
WHEREAS, Captain Huffman received both Regional and State awards for his
efforts in reducing the loss of life and property through a proactive community based fire
prevention program; and
WHEREAS, Captain Huffman established the Character Academy in 2005 that
provides youth an opportunity to experience the work involved with providing fire/rescue
services as a firefighter while emphasizing firefighters as role models; and
WHEREAS, Captain Huffman partnered with Regional, State and Federal
agencies to improve the Roanoke Valley's overall ability to investigate arson fires; and
WHEREAS, Captain Huffman served two (2) terms as President of the Virginia
Fire Prevention Association providing leadership to the entire State in fire prevention;
and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of
the citizens of Roanoke County to Gary D. Huffman, for over twenty-seven (27) years
of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes for a happy
and productive retirement.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
508 June 24, 2014
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
A -062414-7.b
A -062414-7.c
3. Resolution to disband the Roanoke County Community Leaders
Environmental Action Roundtable (RCCLEAR)
This item was removed for separate consideration by Supervisor Moore.
She thanked all the RCCLEAR members for the dedication, time and commitment for
serving on this committee. The support and encouragement they have given the
citizens for Roanoke County not only ensures that our next generation will be the same
quality of life that we have, but an even better one. With your leadership, we have been
able to reduce our CO2 by three percent (3%) per year, receive a grant that was used to
reduce energy in the County buildings and provide one hundred (100) free energy
audits for our citizens and businesses, helped promote a cleaner environment through
education and outreach, have educational booths set up at the Energy Expos, helped
create and promote Sav-A-Ton, which won several awards, outreach to Cave Spring
High School at several eco fairs, helped create an educational program on energy
conservation through the schools by encouraging our students to some up with ways in
which we could save energy, work with the Schools Student Advisory Council to create
Green Ribbon Week, which inspired the students to come up with ways in which we
could all be involved in a safer and cleaner environment. This inspired a competitive art
contest, which students created visual arts to express their support of the environment.
Glen Cove won the Energetic Ideas contest and came before the Board and was
recognized for their creativity. Our efforts in RCCLEAR was recognized by VACO;
received the Platinum Go Green award. We participated in Earth Day by setting up a
booth and giving away prizes to everyone who correctly answered questions about the
environment. We participated in the March Homes Show at the Salem Civic Center.
RCCLEAR has always followed the ICLEI guidelines. She read an interesting article in
this past Saturday's Roanoke Times. Although this article was not about our State,
Virginia, it was about another state. She knows we can all learn from each other and
that is one of the things that ICLEI brought forth to us and promoted. The San
Francisco Bay area of California is moving forward with plans to put climate -change
warning labels on gas pumps. The signs would inform drivers that burning gas releases
carbon dioxide. The State has determined that carbon dioxide emissions cause global
warming. Thanks to everyone who has served on the RCCLEAR committee helping to
protect our citizens of Roanoke County from the environmental impacts of CO2. She
would like to recognize everyone at this time who has served on this committee: Gene
Marano, Tracy Garland, Susie Fortenberry, Anne Marie Green, Nadine Carson, Jesse
June 24, 2014 509
Freedman, Janet Scheid, Misty Gregg, Michael Lee, Dawn Werness, David Wymer,
Rebecca Beech, James Gray, Nell Boyle, Brian Pettinger, Victor lanello, Renee Gottard,
Nancy Duvall, Ruth Deibler, Mike Pedelty and Jim Vodnik, who just retired from
Roanoke County last year. He never gave up trying to save and promote energy
savings or Roanoke County. She is sure that wherever he is today he is still promoting
environmental issues. Thank you for your service and for being outstanding leaders of
your community. She hopes that sometime in the future, we can join forces with a
regional group and continue our work for the citizen of Roanoke County. It is with great
sadness that she moved approval to disband RCCLEAR.
CAM motion.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he would also like to thank those on
RCCLEAR, the reality is that we think very differently, people have different opinions on
things and that is okay. He has been on the Board for four or five months and people
have opinions of him and that is fine. He always appreciates people dedicated to what
they believe. He has a couple of questions that he wants to make sure he is clear on,
because he has had quite a lot of interest that would like to create a new County
organization dedicated to clean water/clean air. We could then at a follow-up meeting
create a new organization, will leave open. The other issue is regarding the $1,200
membership dues were removed from the budget. He wants clarification on that. He
stated he works for Xerox and do similar things and some of the software they have is
put on servers that tracks information, not about climate, but printing environments. The
software that we have, it is a server based software that is pushing information out from
Roanoke County or does it reside on a PC and is contained in and of itself. Anne Marie
Green, Director of General Services, advised her recollection is that the software had to
be updated every year and does not do anything by itself. Supervisor Bedrosian then
asked if there was any transmission. Ms. Green advised there is no information in it
unless they put it into it and transmit. He stated he was thinking since we had it for
several years that there would be an accumulation of data so his question since we
have stopped the membership, are there any resources that are being used or is it a
dead piece of software. Ms. Green stated she has a new Assistant Director who is so
busy planning the Vinton Library and the DSS building, none of us have any time
whatsoever to put anything into that machine. It is essentially a dead piece of software.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he said this in the work session and will now
say it publically. He is very disappointed in RCCLEAR. As he listens to the array of
things that Ms. Moore spoke of in accomplishments, getting children involved in
understanding energy savings, he still thinks that can be done. It seems like
everybody's only cause is CO2 and nothing else matters. There are other ways to have
energy efficiency and to educate our children and to continue the art contests, but it is
like they are going to walk away because we did not keep a piece of software. He
guesses it is very disappointing to him because he stated in the work session and will
state publically, he does not support getting rid of RCCLEAR, he thinks their charter
510 June 24, 2014
should be reevaluated and stated different to give them a new charge going forward.
RESOLUTION 062414-8 DECERTIFYING RCCLEAR AS A
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ESTABLISHED COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors approved Resolution
022409-3, Adopting By -Laws for the Roanoke County Community Leaders
Environmental Action Roundtable (RCCLEAR); and
WHEREAS, this action was taken due to the County joining the International
Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), which was to assist with identifying
ways to reduce emissions and long-term energy costs by developing strategies for
improved energy efficiency, and;
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors has terminated its membership in ICLEI by
removing from the fiscal year 2015 budget funds for ICLEI membership and directed
that the County's participation in ICLEI was to stop immediately; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors met on June 10, 2014, in a work session to
discuss with RCCLEAR representatives the future of RCCLEAR and it was the
consensus of all present that RCCLEAR should be decertified as a Roanoke County
citizen committee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors does hereby repeal Resolution 022409-3; and
FURTHERMORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the citizen committee RCCLEAR is
hereby decertified and shall cease to continue to be a recognized and supported
Roanoke County citizen committee.
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. Resolution appointing an Interim County Administrator
Consideration of this resolution was removed from consent by Supervisor
Bedrosian. He stated he is trying to understand and have had discussions on this. It is
relating to Item C, Section 3. In the event of termination, he wants to make sure what
he is reading is what he thinks he is reading. If the interim County Administrator is
terminated, there would be a severance pay that the Board would offer him. If we did
not approve of his job performance, why would we terminate him? Does this mean if we
put him back to his original position, he would assume there is no severance? So, this
is only covering if the Board just terminates him totally from Roanoke County
employment. Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative.
June 24, 2014 511
Chairman McNamara stated the Board feels very fortunate that Mr.
O'Donnell has an opportunity to lead the County for a time. For the folks watching, the
reason for the severance pay is the difference between being the County Administrator
and Assistant County Administrator is the County Administrator does not have
protections afforded to all other employees in the County with the exception of the
County Attorney and the Clerk to the Board. Those positions can be terminated at will
with no reason and is a very vulnerable position and is recognized as such and
employment agreements and severance agreements are very, very common and
Roanoke County is no different in its desire to have that as part of the interim County
Administrator agreement. He thinks it is appropriate.
RESOLUTION 062414-9 APPOINTING AN INTERIM COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR
WHEREAS, B. Clayton Goodman III has advised the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County of his intention to retire from the office of County Administrator
effective July 31, 2014; and,
WHEREAS, Section 4.05 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that the Board
may designate some responsible person without regard to his or her residence on an
interim basis to perform the duties of this office.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby appoints Daniel R. O'Donnell, as interim County
Administrator to fill the vacancy in this office beginning August 1, 2014, until a
permanent replacement is appointed.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby authorizes the Chairman to
execute the attached Employment Agreement with the interim County Administrator on
behalf of the Board.
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: REPORTS
Supervisor Moore moved to receive and file the following reports. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
512 June 24, 2014
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
May 31, 2014
5. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of May 31, 2014
6. Accounts Paid — May 31, 2014
7. Treasurer's Statement of Accountability per Investment and
Portfolio Policy as of May 31, 2014
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 5:10 p.m., Supervisor McNamara moved to go into closed meeting
following the work sessions pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A 1
namely discussion concerning an appointment to the Building Code Board of
Adjustments & Appeals (Fire Code Board of Appeals) (At -Large); Social Services
Advisory Board and Section 2.2.3711.A.3 namely the sale of the Roland E. Cook
Elementary School and the old William Byrd High School properties, where the
discussion in an open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or
negotiating strategy of the Authority and Section 2.2.3711.A.5 namely discussion
concerning a prospective business or industry or the expansion of an existing business
or industry where no previous announcement has been made of the business' or
industry's interest in locating or expanding its facilities in 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 6:17 p.m. until 6:40 p.m.
At 5:11 p.m. Chairman recessed to the 4t" floor for work session and
closed meeting.
June 24, 2014 513
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to discuss the Plantation Road Bicycle, Pedestrian
and Streetscape Improvement Project (David Holladay, Planning
Administrator; Megan Cronise, Principal Planner)
Mr. Caywood gave an overview of the project and introduced the other
people in attendance: Richard Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Megan
Cronise, Principal Planner; David Holladay, Planning Administrator and Brad Stypes,
consultant with Whitman, Requardt and Associates. Ms. Cronise went through a
Powerpoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board
of Supervisors, outlining the history and explanation of the project.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he thinks we need to focus on what is
absolutely important and wants to get done what we can with what we already have.
Supervisor Peters inquired why could we not do what we have the money
for without taking anything off the table? Staff advised we need them all and if put off
for five years it is going to cost more. This is an access point to Interstate 81.
Mr. Caywood reiterated what Mr. Peters outlined is the path staff is on
today. Supervisor Bedrosian's alternative is to do a smaller section with what we have
and forget the rest. Mr. Caywood reiterated this corridor is one of our valued corridors.
Ms. Cronise remarked it is the largest employment base.
Chairman McNamara stated his concern is if we go through the process
and then only do part of it; what happens to the next project. Ms. Cronise outlined the
alternatives.
Chairman McNamara then asked about the problems with Lila Drive and
Friendship Lane and how the County would participate. Ms. Cronise advised this is a
second phase of the project. Mr. Stypes advised VDOT is looking for Lila to be a part of
this project and is expecting Board approval.
Mr. Caywood explained that the outside pieces would be built first
because Lila cannot by physically done by the ad date. Reiterated that Lila Drive would
be Phase 2. He then asked if the Board wanted to eliminate any features and asked
what the scope would be for staff.
It was the consensus of the Board to move forward with the consultant's
recommendations.
The work session was held from 5:28 p.m. until 6:06 p.m.
514 June 24, 2014
2. Work session to discuss new Email Archiving System (NetMail)
(Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the new system. It was the consensus of the Board
to move forward.
The work session was held from 6:06 p.m. until 6:07 p.m.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
At 7:01 p.m., Supervisor McNamara moved to return to open session and
to adopt the certification resolution.
RESOLUTION 062414-10 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 .
nowledge: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
June 24, 2014 515
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance to increase the salaries of the members of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County pursuant to Section 3.07 of the
Roanoke County Charter and Section 15.2-1414.3 of the Code of
Virginia (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the request for the ordinance. There were no
changes from the first reading.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he had indicated his no vote at the first
reading. He thought about this and the points that were brought up, if you never
increase the salaries and twenty (20) years go by and you still have the same salary.
However, it feels very wrong for Board members to vote on their own salary increases.
Is there not a way for this to be done in the future to make it a referendum; goes to the
people. Why are they not voting on us getting or not getting a raise? Is that possible?
Mr. Mahoney responded in the negative, indicating under State law, local governing
bodies are allowed to call referendums only for limited items that are specified by Code
and this is not one of the limited categories by which the State Code and the General
Assembly has said referendums are authorized. Supervisor Bedrosian then asked if the
State legislature could change it. Mr. Mahoney responding in the affirmative.
Chairman McNamara inquired if this two percent (2%) raise is approved, is
it in the budget? Mr. Mahoney responded in the affirmative.
Chairman McNamara opened and closed the public hearing with no
citizens to speak on this issue.
Supervisor Church commented along the same lines he did two (2) weeks
ago. Categorically, he is the poorest member of the Board. This will equate to $9.85
clear every two (2) weeks. In some years he has voted yes, but just thinks now is the
wrong time, wrong signal. We probably should have a mechanism so we would not be
in this unusual predicament. He will not support.
ORDINANCE 062414-11 TO INCREASE THE SALARIES OF THE
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.07 OF THE ROANOKE
COUNTY CHARTER AND SECTION 15.2-1414.3 OF THE CODE
OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, Section 3.07 of the Charter of the County of Roanoke provides for
the compensation of members of the Board of Supervisors and the procedure for
increasing their salaries; and
516 June 24, 2014
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-1414.3 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended,
establishes the annual salaries of members of boards of supervisors within certain
population brackets; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, has
heretofore established the annual salaries of Board members at $17,083.46 by
Ordinance 061212-5 and further has established the additional annual compensation for
the Chairman for the Board to be $1,800 and for the Vice -Chairman of the Board to be
$1,200; and
WHEREAS, this section provides that the maximum annual salaries therein
provided may be adjusted in any year by an inflation factor not to exceed five (5%)
percent; and
WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on June 10, 2014; the
second reading and public hearing will be held on June 24, 2014.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, that the annual salaries of members of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, are hereby increased by an inflation factor of
two percent (2%) pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.07 of the Roanoke County
Charter and Section 15.2-1414.3 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. The new
annual salaries shall be $17,425.13 for members of the Board. In addition, the
Chairman of the Board will receive an additional annual sum of $1,800 and the Vice -
Chairman of the Board will receive an additional sum of $1,200.
This ordinance shall take effect on July 1, 2014.
On motion of Supervisor Moore to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
Chairman McNamara stated there was some miscommunication over the
weekend that people would be able to speak to this ordinance. It is not a public
hearing, the public hearing was held a month ago. We will present the ordinance again
and after the presentation, the Chairman will allow citizens to speak. Chairman
McNamara outlined the lighting system.
1. 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
(Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning)
June 24, 2014 517
David Holladay outlined the timeline of the petition from May 27, 2014. He
advised Tara Pattisall, Planner, representatives from Chick-fil-A and Gary Rouse,
Engineer and Brian Blevins from Virginia Department of Transportation were all in
attendance to answer any questions. There have been several community meetings as
well as staff meeting. VDOT has provided a $525,000 estimate to lower West Ruritan
Road. The revenue projections for Roanoke County has been estimated about
$171,000 in annual revenue. This morning Ms. Moore asked about the possibility of
adding additional warning signs for stopped vehicles when approaching the area from
West Ruritan Road. There is already a sign there that has the signal logo. Mr. Blevins
at first glance at the present time, it is something they would not consider, but may be
able to consider after construction and see what is going on with the results.
The following citizens spoke:
Mr. Ron Roop of 1431 West Ruritan Road stated over the three (3)
months they have shown why high density, heavy traffic business is not suited for
development on West Ruritan Road. This would apply to any high-density, heavy traffic
as defined in the County's own Zoning Ordinance; not just Chick-fil-A. Specifically for
Chick-fil-A, this includes non-compliance with a C-1, low intensity zoning restrictions
except by special use permit, which is just another waiver. The zoning requirements
were approved at some point in time with citizen input, but he is not sure if the
development of special use waivers, which appear to be used arbitrarily and
capriciously ever included citizen input. Non-compliance with the transition of the future
land -use map from the 2005 Community Plan, which was approved at some point in
time with citizen input is apparently being waived arbitrarily at the whim of the planner
and governing authorities and non-compliance with mandated VDOT standards
regarding the taper length merging into the proposed Southbound, West Ruritan right-
hand turn lane, before which VDOT granted an arbitrary waiver or exception and non-
compliance with mandated VDOT standards regarding corner clearance distance from
the corner of Rt. 460 and West Ruritan to the corner of the proposed entrance before
which VDOT granted an arbitrary waiver or exception. Note that noncompliance with
mandated standards regarding intersections safe site distance from the proposed exit
on West Ruritan before which VDOT granted an arbitrary and misguided waiver or
exception. Note this waiver was granted by VDOT based on inaccurate information that
VDOT was aware of and you can see the site -distance diagrams. The overwhelming
majority or ninety-six percent (96%) of the residents are against the proposed
development because of the assured traffic congestion and dangerous traffic issues
presently proposed not just because it is Chick-fil-A; it could be Arby's or any other high
density traffic business at this particular location. Another major concern is the citizens
feel they were misled by one of your very own Supervisors stated position on May 19,
2014 and then learning by email yesterday of that person's complete reversal of what
we were led to believe during that entire period. We are a little disturbed by the
seemingly high number of instances of three to two (3 to 2) votes by the same
518 June 24, 2014
Supervisor time and time again. We asked that due to the high probability of severe
crashes at the proposed exit from this development you put your political differences
you have for each other or whatever the problem seems to be aside and use common
sense and honest judgment to deny this inappropriate special use permit.
Ms. Ginger Cook stated she lived on Ashbury Drive, which is off of West
Ruritan Road so she travels that road every day and would like to present a petition to
allow the development of Chick-fil-A on the corner of Challenger and West Ruritan. She
has turned in the petition. Chick-fil-A will be an asset to our community by creating jobs
and helping with the community and our economy. It will provide revenue in Roanoke
County. They are often known to be a company that supports community events.
Chick-fil-A has agreed to put a turn lane in that will accommodate six (6) cars to help
avoid any traffic congestion or safety issues that has been addressed. VDOT has
performed traffic studies on West Ruritan Road and has approved this location as a
safe area to build a Chick-fil-A and they are State funded professionals that are paid to
do those studies; not citizens. We are not paid to do those type of studies. She stated
she went into greater detail and reasons why this should be allowed, the development
of Chick-fil-A on the request form to be able to present this today and she encouraged
the Board to really look at those comments included on the form and would like for the
Board to reconsider and vote yes to allow the development of Chick-fil-A on that corner.
Elizabeth Gray of 1530 West Ruritan Road stated her family moved to this
location twenty-three (23) years ago in 1991 and has loved living there. What she
would like to say first is that she definitely believes in economic development. We have
seen a lot of it over the last twenty-three (23) years. She does not oppose economic
development at all. Also, she would like to say they love Chick-fil-A; family visits there
very frequently. She likes their values, what they stand for and the idea of the revenue
that Chick-fil-A could bring into our community. Having said that, she does not feel that
the site they have selected is a safe site for a business that is so high volume. She
feels there are a lots of other options for Chick-fil-A. They are a high intensity, high
volume restaurant and that site has not been zoned for that type of high intensity
without waivers that the Board would be granting it. So, she asked the Board to vote no
to the safety issues. She stated that she prayed they will vote in the area of safety
versus revenue because there are lots of other options for Chick-fil-A in this surrounding
area that is safe and zoned for that.
Chris Craft stated he is asking the Board to rezone and accept Chick-fil-A.
As the speaker a couple of speakers ago, Chick-fil-A is very involved in the
communities. He works in the schools. Chick-fil-A is involved in the schools. They
donate food to different things, they bring the cows out for different programs and they
make the community. This Chick-fil-A will be no different. When you look at the safety
and revenues together, the revenue in the County would be able to help the County to
one day level the top of that road off, build better schools, pay teachers more and do
more stuff for our kids they will need in the future. He is asking the Board as part of the
June 24, 2014 519
Wildwood Civic League, which is a neighbor to the County and has done plenty for the
Roanoke before to please let this gentleman build this Chick-fil-A and after it has been
built maybe VDOT and the County and the Developer can work together and get some
of these problems afterwards. When they see the problems are not actually what
people think they are.
Maggie Angel of 2068 Wesvan Drive stated she would like to state again
as many of us have done at each meeting that we are not against development of this
area nor are we against the location of Chick-fil-A here. She has been in the
neighborhood forty-three (43) years. She has watched it go from cow pastures to what
it is now. What we are asking is for improvements to be made on West Ruritan Road
and Rt. 460. This is not something we should leave for taxpayers to do. It does not
matter how many signs are put up or how many safety stripes you paint on Ruritan
Road. This is not going to solve anything. Nor will reducing the speed limit to 25 mph.
Drivers already ignore all of these things so when there are one hundred and fifty (150)
cars coming and going every hour, they are not going to be inclined to obey these signs
than they are now. Yesterday afternoon she stated she was going out; there was an
UPS truck and six (6) cars at the light at the intersection of Rt. 460 and West Ruritan.
Four (4) of those cars just pulled right through the stripes by the UPS truck and turned
right. It happens every time she is at the light if there is another car. A right-hand
turning lane to Rt. 460 is not going to solve problems with the addition of all the extra
traffic that is being added there. This extra traffic will include 18 wheeler tractor trailer
delivery trucks as well as those trucks that come to pick up the dumpsters. A longer
turning lane is needed to turn right onto West Ruritan from Rt. 460. If you have 150
cars coming for breakfast, two to three car spaces is not going to be very much. A
turning lane is needed to turn right onto Rt. 460; there is one. A turning lane is needed
to turn into the proposed business lot on West Ruritan Road and a proper site clearance
is needed at the business entrance. No matter what the speed limit is lowered to, if you
could see the car turning in front of you and the cars coming over the hill at ten (10)
miles over the speed limit; they are still going to be doing the same thing. It concerns
her greatly that the dumpster location for this proposed business has been moved to the
side entrance to our neighborhood. No matter how nice the enclosure is around the
dumpster, the dumpster still holds rotting garbage and rotten used grease. This will
attract rodents and trash will blow there and anything else. She stated she has been
observing as she goes around, dumpsters at different businesses and no matter how
nice these are, they just do not take care of the problem. She saw one the other day
that had a beautiful fence around it and there was the dumpster sitting right in front of
the enclosure for everything. She does not think those who are giving directions to your
home say, "Just turn at the dumpsters, you cannot miss them." So, that you will think
about this seriously and vote no for the special use permit on this business.
Michael Taylor stated he is President of A Cleaner World drycleaners
located at 3806 Challenger Avenue, the lot next door to the proposed site. He stated he
520 June 24, 2014
has been here fifteen (15) years and watched Rt. 460 develop up the whole corridor and
often wonder who his business neighbors are going to be on both sides. He could not
welcome anyone more than Chick-fil-A as his neighbor. In fifteen (15) years, he has
witnessed no accidents on West Ruritan. He knows he is not there 24/7, but all the
accidents he has seen has been on Rt. 460. So, he encourages the Board to please
vote for them.
Ray W. Edwards of 4137 Coachman's Court in High Point, North Carolina
stated he purchased this land fifteen (15) years ago. He owns the parent company of A
Cleaner World, Mike is his partner and President of the Roanoke A Cleaner World. His
company was looking to expand and he found this piece of property and it turned out he
had to buy the entire block from Ruritan to Trail Drive. He originally designed it, put in
the stormwater, put in the sewer to build a strip shopping center in order to justify buying
that whole lot. As it turns out over the years, he is getting older and is turning the
business over to his children and he is trying to do some estate planning and decided to
sell the lot. He has been through a very, very difficult time. Seven (7) years ago, he
had it sold to Arby's. Arby's probably spent close to $75,000 on traffic studies, etc.
VDOT was not the most helpful in the world in this process. We had a very difficult
time. They are generally fair and he cannot complain too much, but we had a difficult
time. Finally, Arby's threw up their hands and said they cannot do anymore and left.
He has had automobile shops to look at it. He has had Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, Starbucks
and then Chick-fil-A came along. He thinks they are the perfect use for that lot. Their
business practices are fantastic; they operate a great business, they are clean, they are
not open late at night, they are not open on Sundays. There is a lot going. VDOT has
been very cooperative in this situation. He spent $40,000 on traffic studies five (5)
years ago and could not get VDOT to approve it because they wanted to know exactly
what it was going to be used for. After the improvements that Chick-fil-A has made,
after their exhaustive traffic study, VDOT has approved most of it. Part of it was
because of a $100,000 turn lane coming down West Ruritan onto Rt. 460, which we are
sharing between myself and Chick-fil-A that is going to solve a lot of the traffic problems
that are already there and the neighbors complain about. The traffic studies show that.
He would strongly ask the Board to bring a top notch business development to Roanoke
County that will bring a heck of a lot more revenue to the County than he will every pay
on a vacant lot. It is a great use for it. It is a win-win for everybody.
Bob Duffessy of 3230 Longhorn Road in Roanoke thanked the Board for
the time they have invested in this project. He sat through four (4) of these and all he
has heard is negative comments about Chick-fil-A and the traffic it is going to bring and
nobody is focusing on what it is going to bring to the community. Chick-fil-A does not
want to come as a business, they want to be part of the community. He really believes
that is why they chose that lot. Chick-fil-A brings so much. Moms with preschoolers
can come and have birthday parties there. Teenagers looking for a safe environment
can come and hang out. We want to become part of the community; not just a business
June 24, 2014 521
on Rt. 460. He has worked at five (5) Chick-fil-As, operates the one in Valleyview Mall
and he loves Chick-fil-A. He has been with Chick-fil-A for fourteen (14) years. Chick-fil-
A is a reputable business that does not want to create problems. They want to come in
and add value and revenue to a community. He stated he believes that if the Board
votes this way, to have a Chick-fil-A there, he believes a lot of the problems that have
been pointed out will not exist. They are bringing the negatives to everything and feels
it is a win/win situation for West Ruritan. Hopefully, he will be the operator of that store
and will try to be involved in the community as much as he can.
Shabo Karkenny is a homeowner and has raised his family at 1635 West
Ruritan Road since 1989. Please note there is an overwhelming objection to the
proposed, high-density business; not because it is a particular business; not because it
is something that will enhance our community or raise revenues. These objections are
not directly related to that. The objections are directly related to the safety issues and to
voice this, over two hundred (200) people have signed a petition that he brought to the
Board that they objected to the safety waivers that the VDOT presented. The waivers
are not an approval of the VDOT. It was not something they said these are our rules
and this was presented to us and we are going to approve it because it is in our rule
book. These are a stretch of the imagination to say these are approvals. They are
simply shifting the burden off of you folks. They are the professionals, but they do not
want to sign off and say we will take this to our Supervisors. This was passed on the
local level and was never taken upstairs. He stated he is tired of hearing that the VDOT
has approved this and has said it is the greatest thing on earth. It is not. If it was, they
could have gotten the proper channel involved and said yes they are going to approve
this, but it was never taken upstairs. He does not know if he needs to reiterate what the
other people that are against it because of the safety reasons have said. He does not
need to rehash all of these things. This particular property he has also heard it said that
it was chosen to enhance our community. It is the greatest thing ever. It could be, it
could be if it was next door in a properly zoned plat. Let this not be hidden, the reason
is because of the cost to the purchaser. They are buying this property because it is
going to cost them less than half as much as the properly zoned property. The cost
would have been laid on them, but they want to shift it to the County and the residents
to say we will take the bad with the good. We are not going to take the bad with the
good. We are going to state the facts. They can say all day long it is the greatest thing
on earth and we love this restaurant, but let's not be mistaken. His family does
business with the restaurant; they like eating there, but the fact is this lot was never
meant for this type of business. If you do approve this, it will be an injustice and a
detriment to our residents there. He does not want his children to have to suffer for the
mistakes we are making today. He asked the Board to please vote no for the facts.
Supervisor Bedrosian moved to deny the request.
The petitioner asked to speak and the Chairman declined.
522 June 24, 2014
Supervisor Bedrosian thanked everyone who was involved in this process
and provided two (2) videos and four (4) pictures that are on file in the office of the Clerk
to the Board of Supervisors. He advised he would not be approving this special use
permit. He advised he is a representative of the people of the Hollins area and Bonsack
is the area he represents. This issue is not about revenue. For many of you that know
him already, government has plenty of money and the problem is we spend it too much.
It is not an issue of needing more revenue and he always hears that is a priority.
Government's problem is they spend too much; not that they need more money. He
cautioned the Board to look at everything in terms of needing revenue because we will
make choices that we really should not make just because we say we need revenue.
The next thing is that it is not about being a good neighbor. He appreciates Bob and he
has gotten to know him; great man and all of us would have to say about Chick-fil-A, we
love it we go there all the time. Chick-fil-A has developed a brand name that is second
to none in the fast-food industry. It is absolutely second to none. It is not about that.
We are dealing with issues of zoning and safety. So, he really has to move the fact that
he loves it to the side. It is not about business practices; Chick-fil-A is closed on
Sunday and he appreciates it, their stance and their beliefs. As a Supervisor, he has to
move that to the side also because it is not about that. The issue here is this site is
zoned C-1; it is zoned low -intensity. If we change it, we are changing something. He
wants to make sure that everybody is clear on that. We are not denying anything.
What we are being asked to do is change what was in plan to something else to
accommodate. It was zoned C-1 for a particular reason, because it really does need to
be a low intensity type of business. It is what it is; that area is what it should be. This is
a huge concern to him that never went away. You can look at all the other things and
knows that Chick-fil-A had an issue with the trash that we can accommodate. There
was an issue regarding the turning lane, which Chick-fil-A accommodated, but every
time he comes back to the same issue. That is not what the property was zoned for.
We are pushing it. We are trying to put a "round peg in a square hole." You cannot; it
just does not work on that piece of property. So, trying to take all of the emotion out of it
and just the right thing to do. He thinks everybody would say if we were looking at a
choice that spot or the spot down the road, one hundred percent (100%) of the people
would agree that is the better spot. There are a couple of other spots that Chick-fil-A
could go on. Again, he does not want to get involved in Chick-fil-A's business; it is not
his role. Chick-fil-A needs to pick what they want, but he also has a role to say that is
not the place it should be.
Supervisor Church asked for Mr. Blevins from Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) to the podium. Having been around this Board and the County
all of his life, he recognizes and please correct him if he says something that is
inaccurate, the difficulty in obtaining a speed limit change. Is that a fair statement to
make? Mr. Blevins responded in the affirmative. He himself had made a request over
the years and cannot remember how long it took, but it was quite long; meaning months
June 24, 2014 523
and not one or two (1 or 2). The latest one he can remember was on Cove Road where
we had a potential expectation of growth and he was looking at all -residential (left and
right side of the road) and asking for twenty-five (25) mph all the way to Rt. 419. As you
know, that is going up near the interstate near Pinkerton Chevrolet, which was a no go.
The only thing he was successful in was, and this is not to beat on VDOT, he is just
trying to stress how difficult for whatever the reasons are to get a ten -mile an hour
reduction for a about two hundred feet (200 ft.); it was not much. It was nothing close to
what was needed. Did we take it, yes. Did it help, no not a bit. The reasons to bring
you forward is number one he is of the opinion that speed limit changes unless you are
going to go from fifty-five (55) to twenty-five (25), which you are not will not be effective.
He took that from his own engineers when he was working on Cove Road. Cove Road
is where our public safety center is and you can take a left and head back to Roanoke
or take a right and go back to Rt. 419. The people there are creatures of habit. He
does not care what you put on that speed limit sign, most of the people are going to go
the speed they have been used to going. What exacerbated the problem to help tie this
in was that is a thoughfare when Virginia Tech plays or Interstate 81 has any problem
as you well know. Traffic can be backed up as much as two miles all the way into North
Lakes. So, he does know what a real traffic problem is. To bring this forward, the
vertical hump, he wants to ask about the waiver. He has gone out to this site more than
one time and checked it from every angle possible. What tells him something is that we
are lacking; what is the distance that would be normal, with Mr. Blevins responding 390
feet. Supervisor Church asked Mr. Blevins what was the reason for the waiver
reduction. Mr. Blevins responded at this point, the design of the entrance or location of
the entrance would not meet that 390 feet. There are two types of site distances:
intersection site distance and then there is the stopping site distance. Intersection site
distance is what VDOT chooses as its standard for commercial entrances. Stopping
site distance is also listed in the ASTO manual for national guidelines, but the stopping
site distance is the national minimum as judged by ASTO. So what it is to clarify what is
the difference between a design exception and a waiver; what we did is a waiver. A
waiver is done locally because it is going from VDOT requirements to the national
requirements and using those as the minimums. If it would not meet the national
requirements, the minimum 250 feet, then it would have to go further up through the
State as a design exception and that goes all the way up to right below the Chief
Engineer; one of the folks in the L & D section and central office actually approves that.
We did concur with the waiver and we concurred with the other two waivers as well.
maybe not exactly approvals but pretty close. The intersection site distance is based on
several things; based on perception reaction time of about two and one half (2 '/2)
seconds, the speed of the roadway, and in case posted thirty-five (35) mph and de -
acceleration rate of 11.1 feet per second squared (do not quote him on this); which is a
fairly comfortable deceleration rate. It would not be a panic stop; slowing down at a
fairly reasonable that would not feel uncomfortable. Supervisor Church asked what
524 June 24, 2014
these studies were based on. Mr. Blevins advised national studies from ASTO
throughout the country.
Supervisor Church stated this is not a Chick-fil-A issue versus West
Ruritan Road or any place else; it is not a Chick-fil-A issue. Everybody in the world
loves Chick-fil-A; has built their reputation on service, food and not just the words, "my
pleasure." The employees really mean it, they make you feel they really mean it is their
pleasure to serve you. Some things that jump out at him is the fact that this site is
vacant and has been vacant for a long time for a reason. Yes, there has been up and
down economic times, but there are reasons. It is an unusual fit, very unusual fit. It is
like a blessing and a curse for Chick-fil-A. The blessing is that they are so good that
everybody wants to come to you, which is a curse because there are too many cars.
This does not take away what we are speaking about today. Let's put Chick-fil-A off the
burner, it could be any other business asking for this site. The VDOT issue is important.
He advised he went to Gary Burch at Valleyview forever, because there was not one in
Salem. Now we have one on Main Street. He was there at the opening, but the facts
prove out they are successful and people are going to come. They are going to come
from other places, not just Rt. 460. The lack of reasonable safety, he stated he is
looking for reasonable safety. The traffic studies are based on national studies. He has
gone to that site and sat one morning for an hour. He noticed another site that was
restaurant ready, a bid pad; this would be super and Chick-fil-A could triple their sales
even if it costs a little bit more for the land. He was able to recognize that Chick-fil-A is
going to constitute a whole lot more traffic than any national study will show; it is a
unique situation. So, the traffic is not going to ease up, it is going to be constant. In his
heart, he has to do what he feels is right for the people who are trying to protect their
home, their largest investment. He advised he always tries to think what would he do if
he lived right there; how does he feel. He advised he was in insurance before he took
early retirement. People are creatures of habit, and knows when the speed limit is
thirty-five (35) mph, they do forty-four (44) or forty-two (42). If it is fifty-five (55) mph,
they do seventy (70). He also knows because of the claims the accidents that can
happen. This is a perfect storm. You cannot be sure that traffic is going to be okay,
because people do not pay attention. It is just a glaring fact to him and would love to
find a way for the hump to be removed; a way for it to work, but there has been lots of
options, but no takers because it costs money. The County, with all due respect to
VDOT, if we start paying for leveling of a hump in the road because we would be broke
because we would have that request in every section and every proposal. In his
opinion, the stacking lane on Rt. 460 has to be a minimum of ten to fifteen (10 to 15)
cars, minimum because you will have them feeding out the lane of traffic at forty-five to
fifty-five (45 to 55). As much as he would like to see a successful Chick-fil-A, he cannot
for all the reasons mentioned and others he does not have time to elaborate on, he just
cannot approve this situation as presented. He thinks it is something he cannot live
with.
June 24, 2014 525
Supervisor Peters stated there is a perception out there that is being
driven by revenue; a misconception because he did not receive a revenue projection
until yesterday, June 23, 2014 at 12:43 p.m. We have been told by citizens a month
now that this is driven by revenue. He thinks it is a little comical when he was referred
to as the "Supervisor who is doing a reversal." The fact remains that he is not reversing
on anything, he is concerned about the safety of that road. As many may know, he
participates with Roanoke County Fire and Rescue out of the Vinton station so we have
a lot of calls on Challenger Avenue and spend a lot of time one block down at Valley
Gateway at the new Kroger. Safety is his concern and Mr. Roop was correct that two
days ago he did send an email out to him giving a couple of options. Why, because he
was looking for ways to make things work rather than just saying no, he is looking for a
way to make something work. His suggestions were twenty-five (25) mile per hour. His
suggestion was to extend that turning lane on Rt. 460 because he too has spent three
mornings there between six and eight (6:00 and 8:00 a.m.) and it was a glaring fact to
him that Ruritan was not the bigger issue, it was the problem he saw on Rt. 460. Here
is what we have encountered. He appreciates Supervisor Bedrosian's involvement.
Every time they have reached out for a solution we have been told no and he thinks that
has been very disheartening for him as a Supervisor because he is very pro -economic
growth. He wants to see things come in and be developed and wants to better our
community. He has to say that Chick-fil-A is a wonderful neighborhood partner, but
Supervisor Bedrosian and I were there on June 2, 2014, where we all met on the site
and we asked can we use Trail Drive; cut off Ruritan and not even use it. We were told
by the engineer or VDOT, no. We asked for a shared driveway in the center of this
property that you could access Chick-fil-A or a Cleaner World. They said no. We then
talked about a revenue sharing agreement to remove the hump. We were told no. We
were talking about the turning lane on Rt. 460. Again, we were told no. Not let's see
what we can work out, the answer was no. Something that he has found today that is
very disturbing, has a chance to meet the owner and he had an estimate from seven (7)
years ago from Branch Highways or Branch and Associates and if remembers correctly,
it was $75,000 to remove the hump in the road. However, today we are being told it is
$525,000. Now, he knows there is inflation out there, but that is just a little out of whack
in his opinion. He guesses there has been so many glaring issues that some of this just
does not make sense and cutting the hump out is just one of them. He has a little
different approach and will say that every alternate that he has given and it has been
comical because he is now getting emails from all over the area which have
misconstrued everything he said. He was told the twenty-five (25) mph was no, but was
told these things really don't matter. The hump in the road is all that matters; that is it.
He takes a little different approach from Supervisor Bedrosian and say, "Approve it."
Approve with a condition that the hump is removed and leave it up to the business, the
owner and VDOT and everyone else to figure it out. Our job is not to get into road
conditions. He thinks at this point to say no, when we do have an alternative, the
526 June 24, 2014
alternative is what has been requested, that Supervisor Bedrosian has given us video
footage tonight of the problem there. He is not at a $450,000 difference in taking the
hump out of there. He has a hard time swallowing that, but that is the way he feels
about it. Approve it with that condition and leave it up to the individuals who have the
property and have the issue, the stakeholders, allow them to figure out how to make it
work out.
Chairman McNamara stated he certainly hopes we figure out how to make
this work. At the end of the day, we are Rt. 460 at a signalized intersection and if that is
not commercial property, he is not sure what commercial property is. He thinks if we do
not figure out to help Chick-fil-A work on a signalized intersection and on Rt. 460 and it
cannot work there he does not know where in Roanoke County it can work. He thinks
when things are zoned C-1 or C-2, a rezoning to C-2 is quite common. In his past
service on the Board, if something was zoned C-2 and a Chick-fil-A and a McDonald's
or Burger King or anybody that had a drive-thru had to get a special use permit. So, we
had these things coming up even if it was zoned C-2. Part of the argument, why isn't it
C-2 or why did we have to have a special use permit was because that way if somebody
comes in we have a little bit of negotiating room to try to meet neighbor needs; to try
and soften the impact on the neighbors from how it is designed and we will do this for
the road and this to try and make it more palatable. He thinks that makes some sense,
but to delay to another meeting is a mistake and to not figure out a way to make this
work is a mistake.
Supervisor Moore asked Mr. Blevins of the turn lane that has been
mentioned several times, the right-hand turn lane going East on Rt. 460, can that be
done, widened and at what cost? Would VDOT be willing to do it? She has not heard
an answer. Mr. Blevins stated VDOT would not be willing to do it, but if the developer
wanted to do that they would allow it and possibly enough pavement could already be
there. As Supervisor Bedrosian's picture pointed out, it is fairly wide already; they
would just have to test the pavement to make sure it is thick enough. Sometimes,
shoulder pavement is thinner, so it would have to be built up to take the traffic. It would
be possible to lengthen it. Supervisor Moore asked if no one had tested it? Mr. Blevins
stated he would have to look at the plans. It may already show that the shoulders were
built to the proper depth to take the traffic; it just depends on the time frame and if they
ever considered that to possibly be widened.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked after Arby's was turned down; they were
turned down because of the site distance and that it would cost too much money to
correct. Somewhere it was mentioned that it would only cost $75,000 at the time so it is
interesting that Arby's would not do it for $75,000 six years ago. Mr. Blevins stated he
was correct and the estimate that he came up with was rough and included engineering
fees that would come through VDOT and he assumed they would be the ones actually
doing the design if it was a revenue-sharing project. It also included right-of-way costs
because according to what our limited analysis of the area showed it would affect the
June 24, 2014 527
two properties at the top of the hill, which would require relocation of driveways and
possible construction of walls and the lowering of those curbs. He does not know if the
actual engineer of Arby's or even the estimate that Mr. Agee gave in his waiver request
actually went that far into detail or took right-of-way costs into account.
Supervisor Bedrosian then asked after Arby's did not work out, has there ever been
anybody else that asked for a waiver on that area. Mr. Blevins responded not that he is
aware of. He believes that the owner of the parcel, RW Enterprises, submitted a traffic
study and he thinks that they did not do a waiver but operational speed study. He does
not remember what the results were as it was too long ago, but that is another option
that Chick-fil-A did explore, but at the entrance where it exists today the eighty-fifth
(85th) percentile speed, which is what we normally base operating speed on was the
actual posted speed of thirty-five (35) mph. Supervisor Bedrosian stated so no one else
requested a waiver that was turned down. Mr. Blevins responded in the negative.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated the other thing that keeps coming up is the fact that it is
zoned commercial and that is what free enterprise is all about. It is zoned commercial
and businesses come in, but he looks at it as yes it is zoned commercial, but it is zoned
C-1 or C-2 for specific reasons. It is zoned C-1 because it is low intensity; that is why
we have distinctions. This is a question for David Holladay. The reason we have a C-1
designation is because it is commercial that is best suited is a low intensity business for
certain reasons. Mr. Holladay stated it is to a certain degree, but in the past year or so,
the Board made some amendments to the C-1 zoning district to allow other uses by
right so make it a little more business friendly. One of those adjustments was to allow a
fast-food restaurant by special use permit in a C-1 district. It was not allowed before;
only in the C-2 district. The special use permit allows this body and the Planning
Commission a chance to review the petition, weigh its merits and pose conditions as
this Board sees fit on that special use permit. It is a less intensive district, but there is
some flexibility built in for this type of review for these types of uses. Supervisor
Bedrosian stated he would think the folks that oppose it, that a fast-food or other type of
restaurant would move it up to a high intensity and Chick-fil-A by its own merit are very
good at what they do so their traffic would be even heavier. Supervisor Bedrosian
stated that he finds a lot of these issues should have been resolved and not on the last
night. These should have been resolved so that we could come tonight with a clean
slate and everybody happy. The problem is that it was not done that way. We were
close to having the County removing the hump and everybody was excited, it wasn't a
perfect world, but that would have been better, but if we started doing that for everybody
in a place that is zoned already for business a C-1 business could come in without us
having to do anything. Having said that, the County should not be involved in spending
any money to fix this up because it is already ready for the correct type of business, not
a named business, but a type of business and that is why he thinks it is hard to start
making adjustments or promises.
Mr. Holladay requested that the petitioners be able to speak.
528 June 24, 2014
Supervisor Peters asked Mr. Holladay, regardless of being C-1 or C-2, the
issue of the site distance is not going to change. C-1 to the best of his memory from
seven (7) months ago when he was on the Planning Commission, is an office or those
kinds of things, but if they are going to use that as an outlet onto Ruritan, they would still
need the waiver, is that correct? Mr. Holladay advised the entrance issue is going to be
the same, the location of that entrance that far back on the lot he believes would be the
same. Supervisor Peters stated so it has nothing to do with the usage, no matter what it
is. It is not really a County issue, but something we need to leave up to the
stakeholders because even if this was a doctor's office, they are going to have the same
site distance issue as Chick-fil-A is having today; that problem is not going away
regardless of business.
Supervisor Church stated we keep hearing about stakeholders; he
certainly does not expect citizens to pay to have this road corrected. Consideration
should be given for Chick-fil-A to level the hump. There is a reason that this place has
been vacant for a long time, it is high intensity. Yes, the site distance is important, but
the high intensity is what makes this a special use permit. Now, he wants to talk about
the petitions, both ways, they can help you or hurt you. It says, "Would you favor Chick-
fil-A if located on Challenger Drive?" There are no other details, if he lives in Moneta he
would say yes, if he lived in Botetourt County, which is basically what it says. It does
not say anything about problems. With all due respect, that is not really an accurate
petition. The neighborhood is looking at it a little differently; they do not have a chicken
sandwich to sell, they are going around for safety issues when they are talking to the
people. So, if he is going to give credence to one or the other, with all due respect to
Chick-fil-A, he would give more credence to the citizens because that is their
neighborhood. We are talking about safety, not sales and revenue. When talking about
revenue projections, yes we did get this yesterday, June 23rd at 12:43 p.m., but he does
not think Supervisor Peters read as far as he did, it was hand delivered to Roanoke
County on June 3rd, twenty-one days we have been without this, why. Why does this
come to the Board on the day prior to our meeting? It says stamped on there in the
email from Economic Development, hand delivered on June 3rd. Is that relevant?
Maybe, maybe not, but again it is like Chick-fil-A is so well liked, well received that the
mere thought or mention that this could not be approved, he starts getting phone calls
and emails at the last moment. It is kind of apropos, but sometimes unusual. Phone
calls from people that have no earthly idea about the situation at Challenger Drive.
Friends of his that live in another area of the County, please approve it. He
understands, but that is not how he conducts his decision-making process. If that were
the case they would probably win by eight -nine percent (89%) vote because people love
Chick-fil-A. This is not about Chick-fil-A, it is about a situation that he is concerned
about as well as other supervisors have mentioned that nothing has been done all the
way back to Arby's. With all due respect to the Chairman, you mentioned if we could
not do something on an intersection, where can we. He is sorry, he respectfully
June 24, 2014 529
disagrees with that statement. Everything is relative; you have to look at exactly the
site. We cannot take just because we have signalization and say we should do it. We
have to consider all information, nor whether or not you have a signal, that is not the
underlying criteria for us to make a decision. So, putting together that we do not have
information, and remember, revenue "should not be" a factor here. He does not
consider it a factor. He wants the revenue under the right guise. He wants the revenue
to be at the right place at the right time. Chick-fil-A is going to be great no matter where
you put it. He would rather that they be somewhere they will go gangbusters and the
neighborhood appreciates you and you grow like crazy together. It is not about Chick-fil-
A; it never has been and he just has to do what he feels is right, whether it is West
Ruritan, West Riverside Drive in Salem or Bob White Lane in SW County. He has to
consider all the information that he has. He would like to see an offer by Chick-fil-A to
take care of that hump; make everybody happy and smile and go out of here with a pat
on the back. He knows it is going to cost money, but it shouldn't always be about
"follow the money." He was told a long time ago, it is always about the money. He
would be more than willing to delay it a month if we had a way for Chick-fil-A to cut that
hump down, take care of the stacking lane and make this work, but without that he
simply cannot vote for it.
Chairman McNamara apologized and asked the petitioner to come
forward.
Gary Rouse of GBC Designs just wanted to make a couple of points. Ms.
Sanders is here from the Chick-fil-A's corporate office. We have done everything we
felt we could do on this. We paid a lot of money for a professional engineer to do a
professional traffic study, not just some hand sketches and pictures take. We went to
VDOT and asked for waivers on areas that we needed waivers on. VDOT waivers are
not passed out like cookies and we were granted the waivers. We have committed to
put in what we were told in our traffic studies, a right -turn lane, because it would greatly
help an existing traffic problem on West Ruritan. We feel we have done an awful lot to
try to get an excellent development in here in a district that is zoned properly with a
special use permit for this. Again, special use permits are permitted. As of last
November, if he understands right, fast-food restaurants needed special use permits in
a C-2 district and that was part of the change. So, he thinks they have done a lot to try
to help and are paying $100,000 to help an existing traffic problem out there as it exists
today. There is another entrance, across an access easement over to Trail that can be
used. People could certainly use that. Another thing that he wanted to bring up, they
put the trash enclosure where they needed to put it at the end of the drive through in
order to keep as much parking. Through negotiations, agreements with the adjacent
owner, we are able to put that trash enclosure where the existing trash enclose is today
for a Cleaner World. So, the trash enclosure issue is totally off the table through a lot of
cooperation with a lot of really good people. We have done a lot, within the rules, with
professional people not photographs and hand sketches.
530 June 24, 2014
Ms. Sanders from Chick-fil-A corporate stated she is in development and
has been with the company for sixteen (16) years in Atlanta. She stated she knows the
Board knows about Chick-fil-A and everyone has spoken their opinions that they love
Chick-fil-A. She just wants the Board to know they are a family-owned business. They
are a wonderful neighbor; treat everyone with honor, dignity and respect. They want to
be at this location; they know the Board states it is not about economics, but we are
going to be a great influence in the community. They have a very strong marketing plan
for this store. They have a lot of community activities, spirit night, Daddy -Daughter Date
Night. They donate a lot to the schools. She stated the Board stated that they have a
petition in favor and one against. We do have a lot of support here, even though you
keep hearing the negative comments. As far as the site, they have done the proper
traffic studies. They have gotten the support from VDOT. They have gotten Planning
Commission approval. They have staff support. They have said they would install a
decell lane and we are going to put signs up that will direct customers. They have fifty-
three (53) parking spaces onsite to handle the traffic. They have a double, drive-thru
lane, which a lot of cars can be accommodated. They have the quickest drive-thru
service in the industry. They are willing to move their dumpster to put it out of the drive-
thru exit to alleviate that problem. They have cross access between the cleaners and
Chick-fil-A so all customers can go both ways in and out of the site. She does not want
to just focus on Ruritan Road but any use that goes there is still going to have to get a
waiver on that site distance. She asked the Board to give them an approval and advised
they are open for discussion on any items that the Board feels necessary for an
approval on this site as well as with the landowner.
Supervisor Church asked Mr. Rouse when he referred to drawings and
pictures, what was he referring to? Mr. Rouse responded they have seen some
sketches that have been admitted to the Planning Commission to the Board, to the
neighborhood meetings that were some sketches of some pictures of a lot of ugly traffic.
Supervisor Church stated he was curious because he had not seen. He did not know
whether they were talking about the video and pictures tonight with Mr. Rouse
responding in the negative stating there were hundreds of cars put in going everywhere.
Just plain and simple not reality based on professional engineering traffic studies.
Supervisor Church stated in response to what can they do, there is a site ready within a
thousand feet. It was ready. What is wrong with that site? Ms. Sanders advised it was
the economics. She stated it is the formula that they have for Chick-fil-A and a formula
that they want to make sure that the operator who runs the business who is in the
community and stays there for life makes a good income. If we go with a site that the
economics do not work, then we do not have an operator that is successful. Supervisor
Church stated so she is referring to the cost of doing business with Ms. Sanders
responding in the affirmative. The franchise owners are individuals and they have a
proforma and we have to assure they can make a good income. Supervisor Church
stated take the owner out of the picture and corporate helping with this hump in the
June 24, 2014 531
road. He stated he thinks that it critical. It is the intensity level that is key; you are not a
company that has five (5) drive -up, you have five (5) lined up in fifteen seconds. They
have the fastest drive-thru of any industry by far. What about corporate helping to take
that hump out. He thinks we would have the blessing of everybody. The community
just wants to feel safe. He does not live in that community, but has been here all of his
life and if you put a little weather on that hump, as well as distracted drivers. People
just don't pay attention. The situation is then compounded. He would be able to vote
yes. Would corporate be willing to help out? Ms. Sanders stated she would be glad to.
Supervisor Church asked the Chairman if that would be okay with
Chairman McNamara stating they do not have a motion on the floor. We have
processes, if we have a motion, we can approve the motion. Ms. Sanders stated they
are open to that. Supervisor Church stated he would be happy to make the motion to
approve with the condition of increasing the site distance by 100 feet or take the hump
out to make the people feel safe. We could also do the other things that are a non -
issue.
Ms. Sanders stated she needs to understand exactly what it is though,
because it is a very broad statement of fixing it. They need to know exactly what needs
to be fixed. Mr. Rouse stated what does participate mean.
Supervisor Church asked Mr. Mahoney for a resolution. Mr. Mahoney
advised he just wanted the Board to be careful. If the Board attaches a condition that
could be interpreted as requiring the applicant to acquire private property in order to
achieve their goals, the courts could view that as an unconstitutional requirement.
Supervisor Church advised Mr. Blevins should be able to tell us if this will require
acquisition of property.
Supervisor Bedrosian states that he feels it is very difficult at the last
moment to come up with these things. The hump in the road is a major project. He has
walked through there and looked at the houses on both sides. Although, he would be
very positive, but this is something that would need to be done way before we came
here tonight. It makes it very difficult if you start saying, we will put this condition in and
what does that mean. This is a complicated matter from what he has seen that effects
both houses and the one has a very steep bank and this would make it steeper and it
would push their driveway back. It is very complicated. He cannot see something like
that put here and saying okay this is a condition because it is so ambiguous. We also
have the Rt. 460 issue, which he thinks is as important to a lot of people for making a
right turn onto West Ruritan from Rt. 460. Only three cars can line up and nobody has
talked about that. He stated he guesses when he looks at this, there are so many
conditions that would have to be met that at the end of the day, they are really trying to
jam this in there and wouldn't it be better to do something else versus going through all
of this. He would not mind talking about all of this, but it needs to be in a much less
pressured situation about making a vote based on this or that and thinks that is very
dangerous. We have already postponed this one time. He is all for giving everybody an
532 June 24, 2014
opportunity to do what can be done, but at the end of the day, he represents the folks in
the Bonsack area and has an allegiance to them to represent them well. He would not
be able to vote yes on this; adding these things at the last minute when we have no idea
what it entails.
Chairman McNamara closed debate and called for the vote on the motion
to deny the rezoning.
Supervisor Peters made a substitute motion to approve with two
conditions, first, to find a way to increase the site distance on Ruritan and second to
extend the turning lane Westbound Rt. 460 to increase the stacking. Mr. Mahoney
added that it be more definitive and measurable. Supervisor Peters stated to increase
the site distance to meet the VDOT requirement of 390. Mr. Mahoney added on the
turning lane to six car lengths so long as no private property has to be acquired.
Chairman McNamara asked Supervisor Peters to restate the substitute
motion. Supervisor Peters stated his motion was to approve the petition with two
conditions. First, increase the site distance to 390, which is a VDOT standard and
secondly to increase the stacking ability on the Rt. 460 Westbound so long as no private
property is acquired.
Chairman McNamara clarified that these would be in addition to any
conditions already included regarding zoning. (D-1 through D-3)
Supervisor Church asked for a point of order. Mr. Mahoney had shaken
his head when he mentioned this referring to acquiring property. Can this site distance
be done without property acquisition? It could make it a moot point.
Mr. Blevins indicated it would impact both properties.
Supervisor Peters stated but if we have given our condition and we are out
of it. We are not the stakeholders in this.
The substitute motion was denied based on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Supervisor Peters
NAYES: Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara
Chairman McNamara then called the vote on the original motion to deny
the petition. He clarified a vote of yes is a vote to deny. The motion failed on the
following roll call vote.
AYES: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church
NAYES: Supervisors Moore, Peters, McNamara
Chairman McNamara then moved to approve the petition. The motion
failed and the petition was denied based on the following roll call vote.
AYES: Supervisors Moore, McNamara
NAYES: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church, Peters
June 24, 2014 533
Supervisor Bedrosian asked for clarification. The vote was for approval?
Chairman McNamara stated the motion to deny failed and there is a motion on the floor
to approve.
Supervisor Peters stated this does not take into consideration any of the
concerns addressed tonight, so he offered a substitute motion to postpone for thirty (30)
days. If we are not going to address the concerns, then we could go back and forth all
night.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated we have done this once before is it
appropriate to do it again. He asked his citizens stating they have heard a lot of things
that may be possible that could be done to improve your road and area. Is this an
opportunity?
Supervisor Moore stated she thinks postponing it for thirty (30) days and
she has heard a lot of good things, thinks it is a good location, thinks it is zoned
correctly. She has stated no one has witnessed an accident on West Ruritan Road
since the cleaners has been there. This would give an opportunity if we do postpone it
to get with the corporate Chick-fil-A to see if they are willing to do anything and give us
at least one (1) more opportunity because it is better than not giving everyone a fair
opportunity.
Supervisor Church stated he hopes that everyone realizes the Board is
trying. Supervisor Church then ask Ms. Sanders if we can find a way to make
something workable; give your best faith try and make something work so everybody
can smile at the end of the day. Ms. Sanders stated her response is there is a
regulation with the County of Roanoke that at the end of June, stormwater
management, will change. Supervisor Church stated that is a shame that the deadline
is here and has not been mentioned previously.
Supervisor Peters stated we knew that stormwater ordinance was going
into effect on July 1, 2014. He then asked Ms. Sanders if they would not run into that
anyway if it was passed tonight with Ms. Sanders responding in the negative.
Supervisor Bedrosian then asked what the stormwater issue would add.
Mr. Rouse stated from what he has been told, it is State law and is considerable. He
advised he did not know all the specifics. It is not something they could meet on this
site. Supervisor Bedrosian stated when this was discussed it was never outrageous.
Are we doing something outrageous? Supervisor Peters advised in the affirmative as
well as Ms. Sanders and Mr. Rouse.
Chairman McNamara asked for order.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he is looking at other businesses that after
July. Ms. Sanders advised they would not be able to meet it.
Chairman McNamara summarized that we have a petitioner that wants to
develop a C-1 piece of land that sits on Rt. 460 that has a light that we have had an
opportunity to work with for several months. They have told us what they are interested
in doing. We need to make a decision. Is that something we can or cannot live with?
534 June 24, 2014
Part of the responsibility of being on the Board is to make decisions. Sometimes, they
are going to be decisions that make people happy and unhappy; that is part of our job.
He personally thinks the Board needs to make a decision on this, up or down. Keep in
mind, we do not live here for revenue, but we are charging revenue for that piece of
land and if we are not going to allow anything to go on it that is commercial, we are
going to have a tough argument in sending a tax bill to the property owner when we tell
him we cannot put anything on his land accept a bank that does not get a lot of cars in
it. Supervisor Peters stated they would still have to meet the site distances. Chairman
McNamara suggested that VDOT has said that the site regulations is satisfactory to
them at the local level. It did not need additional approval. It is in concert with national
standards and he personally does not think we need to be pushing the site issue any
further than the experts in the field.
Chairman McNamara called the roll on the substitute motion, the motion to
postpone until July 8, 2014. The substitute motion failed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Supervisor Peters
NAYS: Supervisor Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara
Chairman McNamara then called the roll on the motion to approve the
special use permit. The motion failed by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Supervisor Moore, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church, Peters
Chairman McNamara commented the motion failed and he is very sorry
for Chick-fil-A and the property owners and noted he hoped they feel they were listened
to and wished everyone well.
ORDINANCE 062414-12 DENYING 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 (TAX MAP NO. 050.05-01-19.00-0000)
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, UPON THE PETITION OF
CORPORATE PROPERTY SERVICES, INC.
WHEREAS, Corporate Property Services, Inc. filed a petition for a special use
permit for restaurant, drive-in, or fast food in a C-1 Low Intensity Commercial District to
be located at 3814 Challenger Avenue (Tax Map No. 050.05-01-19.00-0000) in the
Hollins Magisterial District; and
June 24, 2014 535
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on
April 1, 2014, and acted on this matter on May 6, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a first
reading on this matter on March 25, 2014; the public hearing on this matter on May 27,
2014 and the second reading on this matter on June 24, 2014.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows -
1 .
ollows:1. That the Board finds that the granting of a special use permit to Corporate
Property Services, Inc. for a restaurant, drive-in or fast food located at 3814 Challenger
Avenue in the Hollins Magisterial District is substantially consistent with surrounding
land uses along Challenger Avenue, but is not in conformance with the Transition area
of the Future Land Use Map in 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:
1) The site shall be developed in substantial conformance to the site plan
prepared by GBC Design, Inc. dated 02/04/14, subject to any revisions
required during site plan review.
2) The site shall be developed in substantial conformance to the architectural
renderings titled "Challenger Avenue FSU — Roanoke, VA Store #03375"
subject to any revisions required during site plan review and building plan
review.
3) The dumpster shall only be serviced during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00
p.m.
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 McNamara to adopt the ordinance, the motion was
denied by the following roll call and recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Moore, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisors Bedrosian, Church, Peters
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Church congratulated Northside and Glenvar graduates. They
536 June 24, 2014
both had graduations on the same day and time; it was challenging and the weather
was excellent inside the Salem Civic Center. He also congratulated the Glenvar
community for the Glenvar High School groundbreaking last week. It was a neat event;
had prior School Board members and other dignitaries. Thunderstorms caused us to
cut our speeches in half.
Supervisor Moore wished everyone a happy and safe Fourth of July.
Supervisor Bedrosian commented it was a tough vote tonight on this
development with Chick-fil-A. He looks at his number one priority though as
representing his constituents; that is key to him and thinks it is very important and we
have had plenty of time on this. As we stated, when we do a vote one side is going to
be happy and the other side is not going to be happy, but the reality is we have had
plenty of time on this and a lot of issues have come up; we just had too many things. It
is not a win-win. The problem, as he is in sales, you like to have win -wins. It makes
everybody happy and everybody feels like it is good and it seems like it came down
tonight and maybe we need to look at our process internally and figure out how we all
get win -wins, whatever it is. It is a good learning experience. He stated he thinks the
vote was right tonight for the conditions that were there and the site that is there. We
talked a lot about that someone cannot develop on commercial property, where are they
going to go. Well, that is not the issue in his mind. This is commercial property, but
again, you have to go back to the intensity issue and there is a reason for that. He
thinks for that area, it should not have been such a high intensity type of business. The
reality is that the site issues will still be there no matter who comes in, but it does make
a difference with the amount of traffic that is there. It does make a difference. The site
issues will probably be of less significance for someone that has cars coming in once in
a while versus blocks of cars coming in from all different angles. We did not even look
at the Route 460 issue either. There is just so many other issues and the Rt. 460 issue
would have been another expensive hurdle to go over. He would recommend that we
fix these issues before somebody else tries to come in there. Rt. 460 is still a problem
for any business that is going to come in there.
Chairman McNamara thanked everybody who attended the meeting and
allowed it to run smoothly and the Board members as well. He reiterated that he felt it
was important for us to make a decision as to up or down; that is government and
sometimes it is difficult to make decisions, but we have to make decisions and move
forward. Certainly, there were opportunities for the petitioner to do things differently
throughout this process and they did not. There is certainly a lot of different factors in
this case. That is what we are here to do and we did it; he is proud that we did it.
June 24, 2014
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
537
Chairman McNamara adjourned the meeting at 9:04 p.m. until Tuesday,
July 1, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. for a joint meeting with the Roanoke County School Board at
the Roanoke County Administration Building, Fourth Floor Training Room, 5204
Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia 24018.
Sy4mitted by:
Deborah C. Jancl
Deputy Clerk to The Board
Approved by:
J s ph P. McNamara
airman
538
June 24, 2014
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY