HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/22/2015 - RegularSeptember 22, 2015 439
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 second Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of September 2015. Audio and video
recordings of this meeting will be held on file for a minimum of five (5) years in the office
of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
Before the meeting was called to order an invocation was given by Senior
Pastor Jay Richards of New Testament Baptist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was
recited by all present.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Peters called the meeting to order at 3-05 p.m. The roll call was
taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman P. Jason Peters, Supervisors Al Bedrosian,
Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Joseph P. McNamara and
Charlotte A. Moore
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Thomas C.
Gates,
County
Administrator; Daniel R.
O'Donnell,
Assistant
County
Administrator; Richard
Caywood,
Assistant
County
Administrator- Paul M.
'7
Mahoney,
County
Attorney;
Amy Whittaker, Public
Information
Officer and Deborah C. Jacks, Chief Deputy
Clerk to the
Board
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Proclamation declaring the month of October 2015 as Fire
Prevention Month in the County of Roanoke (Stephen G. Simon,
Chief of Fire and Rescue)
The Clerk read the proclamation and each Supervisor offered their thanks
to Chief Simon on behalf of the Department of Fire and Rescue.
440 September 22, 2015
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke,
Virginia requesting the Governor of Virginia to require the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to provide the
appropriate plan review and construction oversight of the
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project to protect surface and
groundwater resources (Richard L. Caywood, Assistant County
Administrator)
Mr. Caywood explained the request for the resolution. He added that
ultimately, staff wants treated as any other development in the County so that water
resources are the same.
Supervisor Church stated he totally understands Roanoke County's
position if it is not regulated it would be similar to what Washington is dealing with in
regard to the Iran nuclear issue; inspecting themselves. The people who are in jeopardy
is Roanoke County and the State of Virginia.
Mr. Caywood stated the packet shows some work that was done in Giles
County through the Celanese plant and some members of the committee have visited
some pipeline construction underway in West Virginia and in both of those cases it
appears to be very little oversight and the pictures they have brought back indicate
items that if they were under our watch, the County would stop work immediately until
corrected. Without anyone doing inspection in the field, there are a lot of things that can
be damaging. Supervisor Church added that is his great fear.
Supervisor McNamara stated that later in the agenda they would be
talking about whether we should be regulating ten thousand (10,000) square feet of
disturbance or twenty-five hundred (2,500) square feet of disturbance. We have spent
weeks discussing it and meanwhile we are going to run a pipeline across half of
Roanoke County and we do not regulate it. He stated he feels the resolution is
appropriate. He then inquired if there has been any thought to try to have legislative
action so that we can regulate it and we can recoup our fees for that regulation as part
of the resolution?
Mr. Caywood advised some thought was given to that idea and they
thought this action would be the most appropriate action as a first step particularly given
the Governor's support for the project and the fact today the State has all the authority it
needs it is just a question of taking action. If the State choose not to then the next best
thing would be for us to have the authority locally. It would be somewhat of an
unfunded mandate. While we have the technical expertise, it would certainly be a cost
to us to do that. We would much rather see that outcome than no oversight. Step one
would be to have the State do its job and in the absence of that he will probably be back
in a few months to look for what is our next best alternate.
Supervisor McNamara then asked Mr. Mahoney if the State has the
September 22, 2015 441
capability to pass without legislation, pass their authority over to us. Mr. Mahoney stated
he did not know. When staff has looked at the existing legislation in State Code, it
appears as though that authority is taken away from localities and vesting solely in the
State. Supervisor McNamara then asked if they could delegate that role with Mr.
Mahoney responded it does not appear to be so. Supervisor McNamara stated on a
subsequent resolution we will be regulating it, which he feels is appropriate, but we
need to be reimbursed because we are not going to hire staff (significant staff) or
charge a builder and make them jump through hoops and some out-of-towners comes
in and does whatever they want and does not pay. It is patently unfair.
Supervisor Peters remarked that Roanoke County has to comply will all
the regulators but the federal government can do whatever they want to and thumb their
nose at us. It disturbs him and it should disturb every citizen out there. If they are going
to hold us to a standard, they should be held to that same standard.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he has not been in favor of the others
resolutions, but does support this one.
Supervisor Moore asked if Roanoke County sees an oversight, can we
stop them with Mr. Caywood responding that he believes we cannot. We would have to
call DEQ for assistance.
Supervisor Church asked Mr. Mahoney when the Governor was in town
he believed he said this was not his project, under his jurisdiction, but now he is hearing
that it is. Please clear up. Mr. Mahoney stated there were two (2) difference elements.
First element is since this is an interstate project, then the federal government through
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has the power to approve or not approve it.
Second, assuming that FERC issues the appropriate certificate, then what we have
seen in some other FERC orders, those orders contain provisions that say that project
has to comply with various State laws with respect to stormwater erosion or clean air. It
is in that piece that the State would have some limited degree of oversight in terms of
enforcing the various environmental laws that apply to that type of project. What staff
was surprised by and again as you see the attachment that Mr. Caywood included in
the Board Report, some of those folks were speaking to the state officials who had that
oversight responsibility and they were candidly acknowledging that they either lacked
the resources or the personnel to fulfill those duties and responsibilities.
Supervisor Church stated in his mind someone has to have responsibility
and that is what is so disruptive about this process.
Mr. Caywood stated that although FERC regulates the natural gas
pipeline as a whole there is still the Clean -Air Act, Clean -Water Act and some of these
other pieces of federal legislation that are actually carried out by the State and that is
where some of our E&S regulations have their origins in Federal code. When FERC
issues its orders, the other Federal programs keep going on. This is another place the
State in this area cannot stop the project, it does have the other authorities that it
always had to regulate, air, water and other environmental issues.
Supervisor Peters commented if he is hearing correctly, they are
442 September 22, 2015
responsible for clean air, water, etc. Mr. Caywood stated his concern is the lack of
inspection.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked if Mr. Caywood had mentioned staff was
trying to get together with other localities that are effected. Mr. Caywood responded
that is the goal; to share with Craig, Montgomery, Franklin, Giles and Pittsylvania
County. We can act on our own, but feels it will be more powerful in Richmond if all the
communities along the route were to pass a similar resolution thereby speaking with a
common voice. Supervisor Bedrosian then asked if our State legislators fit into this at
all. Mr. Caywood stated staff believes the governor has the authority to do this.
RESOLUTION 092215-1 OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA REQUESTING THE
GOVERNOR OF VIRGINIA TO REQUIRE THE VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) TO
PROVIDE APPROPRIATE PLAN REVIEW AND
CONSTRUCTION OVERSIGHT OF THE MOUNTAIN VALLEY
PIPELINE PROJECT TO PROTECT SURFACE AND
GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
WHEREAS, the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) project is a natural
gas pipeline system that spans approximately three hundred (300) miles from north-
western West Virginia to southern Virginia and, as an interstate pipeline, will be
regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The MVP will be
constructed and owned by Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC, which is a joint venture of
EQT Midstream Partners, LP; NextEra US Gas Assets, LLC; WGL Midstream; and
Vega Midstream MVP LLC. EQT Midstream Partners will operate the pipeline and own
a majority interest in the joint venture. The MVP project will impact six (6) Virginia
Counties, including Roanoke County.
WHEREAS, sedimentation caused by accelerated erosion from land -disturbing
activities during construction is a significant contributor to pollution of the surface waters
of Virginia and the United States-, and
WHEREAS, many miles of the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) project
would traverse highly erodible soils with very steep slopes in Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County is required by the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality to implement a comprehensive stormwater management and
erosion and sediment control program to reduce the environmental impacts of
development projects within the County- and
WHEREAS, Roanoke County h�s been assigned a Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) for sediment in the Roanoke River and is required by the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality to implement an action plan to lower sediment loads to the
Roanoke River to meet the TMDL; and
September 22, 2015 443
WHEREAS, the required amount of land -disturbance associated with the MVP
excavation is more than twice the area of all land disturbing activities in a typical year
for Roanoke County and has the potential to cause severe erosion in the County's steep
mountainous terrain; and
WHEREAS, many Roanoke County citizens rely on untreated groundwater from
wells or springs for their domestic water supplies; and
WHEREAS, due to its karst topography, sinkholes and underground channels
capable of carrying sediment and other pollutants are widespread in some portions of
the County where the pipeline's construction has been proposed to occur; and
WHEREAS, without very careful engineering and construction oversight, erosion
and sediment from the construction of the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline could
have severe negative consequences for the County's lakes, streams, and rivers as well
as its domestic, agricultural, and business water supplies- and
WHEREAS, the outdoor beauty and unspoiled n�ture of the mountain streams
and rivers is integral to the County's ability to attract tourism to the Roanoke Valley; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality has the authority
to require the submission of site-specific erosion and sediment control plans and
stormwater management plans, the authority to review and approve these plans, and
the authority to conduct inspections and enforcement of these plans during the
construction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline; and
WHEREAS, the Freedom of Information Act can be used to obtain public and
local government access to such plans, but only if the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality requires the submission of the plans to the agency by the
pipeline developer; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality has publicly stated
that it does not have sufficient resources to provide adequate oversight to linear
construction projects, including pipeline projects such as the Mountain Valley Pipeline.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Roanoke, in consideration of the points made above, request that -
1 . The Governor of Virginia provide adequate direction and resources to the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to execute its role laid out in
the Code of Virginia to adequately oversee and manage the environmental
aspects of the construction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline project-,
including reviewing plans, conducting inspections, enforcing regulations,
and when appropriate, reviewing the project -specific plans for the
proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline; and
2. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality is petitioned to require
project -specific Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater
Management Plans for the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline project that
meet all Virginia standards, and that these plans be made available to the
County and to the public for review and comment prior to project approval
444 September 22, 2015
and that the approved plans be made available to the County and the
public prior to construction; and
3. Prior to construction, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality is
petitioned to require Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC officials and third -party
inspectors to meet with local officials to discuss the implementation of the
project -specific Erosion and Sediment Control and Stormwater
Management Plans.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Roanoke, Virginia hereby directs the County Administrator to transmit this resolution
to- the Governor of Virginia Terry McAuliffe with copies to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) for inclusion in pre -filing Docket Number PF -15-3-00,
Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources Molly Ward, and Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality Director David Paylor.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
1. Resolution approving and adopting amendments to the
Community Comprehensive Plan for Roanoke County, Virginia
identifying Designated Growth Areas (David Holladay, Planning
Administrator)
Mr. Holladay outlined the resolution.
Chairman Peters opened and closed the public hearing with no speakers
on this item. There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 092215-2 APPROVING AND ADOPTING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA IDENTIFYING DESIGNATED
GROWTH AREAS
WHEREAS, on September 1, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan identifying designated growth
areas, after advertisement and notice as required by Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of
Virginia, and on September 1, 2015, adopted a resolution recommending that the Board
of Supervisors review and adopt a revised Comprehensive Plan for Roanoke County-,
and
September 22, 2015 445
WHEREAS, on September 22, 2015, the Board of Supervisors held a public
hearing on an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan identifying designated growth
areas , after advertisement and notice as required by Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of
Virginia- and
�/HEREAS, Roanoke County, Virginia, has a long and successful history of
community planning that has emphasized citizen involvement and participation; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-2223 of the Code of Virginia requires that the Planning
Commission of every jurisdiction shall prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan
for the physical development of their jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and recommended an
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for Roanoke County identifying designated
growth areas and adding State code references to satisfy criteria for transportation
project funding and said plan has been prepared in accordance with Sections 15.2-
22237 2224, and 2229 of the Code of Virginia; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia as follows -
1 . That the Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended by identifying
designated growth areas on existing maps, text and land use designations and adding
State code references in order to satisfy criteria for transportation project funding.
2. That this resolution is effective from and after September 22, 2015.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
1. Resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation
to restrict through trucks on Route 758 (Carson Road), Vinton
Magisterial District (David Holladay, Planning Administrator)
Mr. Holladay outlined the request from a citizen. Chairman Peters opened
and closed the public hearing with the following speaker.
Don Tingler stated he realizes this is a Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) road, but he is afraid it has been put on the back burner for so
long that little section of Carson Road has been overlooked. It is a rural type setting
and part of Kroger. The residential part could be improved. The main thing he would
like to explain is the bridge. He owns property on both sides of the bridge. It is really a
hazard. It is a two-way bridge that only one person can go across at one time. It needs
to be addressed. This may not be the place to say that, but you could certainly pass
that along. It is on a curve, plus it is seventeen (17) feet wide. Trucks are eight (8) foot
wide. So eight and eight is sixteen and that leaves you with a foot on each side to try to
446 September 22, 2015
miss the other. He understands that is a small thing to emphasize, but it is dangerous.
He looks for a wreck every time he goes there to the lots. There are a lot of curves on
that road, some of which are blind and he has wanted to bring this to the Board's
attention since this restriction was put on. He has no problem with the restriction, just
the fact that it is a stop -gap, Band-Aid type thing.
Supervisor Peters commented that Mr. Tingler does ring up a lot of good
points. It is a VDOT issue, but believes Carson Road has been forgotten and the area
back there has really grown up. The bridge is part of the issue, but it is a small road
and is subject to flooding. It is a thoroughfare for people trying to bypass King and
Challenger. It is a very dangerous road. He would hope that the County would add that
to our list of items that we submit to VDOT. Hopefully, we can get some improvements
there.
There was no discussion.
RESOLUTION 092215-3 REQUESTING THE VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO RESTRICT
THROUGH TRUCKS ON ROUTE 758 (CARSON ROAD), VINTON
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors have studied the
possibility of placing a through truck restriction on Route 758 (Carson Road)- and
WHEREAS, the through truck restriction is proposed on Route �58 (Carson
Road), beginning at the intersection of US Route 221 / 460 (Challenger Avenue) and
ending at the City of Roanoke corporate limits at Belle Avenue, with the termini to
termini distance equaling approximately 1.07 miles; and
WHEREAS, the alternate route proposed is US Route 221/460 (Challenger
Avenue) beginning at the intersection of Route 758 (Carson Road), then traveling west
on US Route 221/460 to Gus W. Nicks Boulevard, then traveling east on Gus W. Nicks
Boulevard, and ending at the intersection of King Street in the City of Roanoke, with the
termini to termini distance equaling approximately 2.95 miles; and
WHEREAS, the alternate route has been found to be reasonable; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on September 22, 2015, according to
Section 46.2-809 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors requests
the Virginia Department of Transportation to restrict through trucks on Route 758
(Carson Road) beginning at the intersection of US Route 221/460 (Challenger Avenue),
and ending at the City of Roanoke corporate limits at Belle Avenue, with the termini to
termini distance equaling approximately 1.07 miles-,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County will use its offices for enforcement
of the proposed restriction in Roanoke County.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote-
September 22, 2015 447
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance authorizing the lease of space in the Vinton Library to
Nature's Cool Coffee d/b/a/ Land of a Thousand Hills Coffee
Company for the operation of a coffee shop (Richard L. Caywood,
Assistant County Administrator)
Mr. Caywood outlined the request for ordinance. Supervisor Bedrosian
asked how the coffee shop at South County Library was working out. Mr. Caywood
advised rent is going up based on gross receipts. It has renewed one. There was no
further discussion.
Supervisor Peter's motion to approve the first reading and to establish the
second reading for October 13, 2015, was approved by the following vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
1 . Ordinance authorizing the purchase of approximately five point
two five (5.25) acres of real estate (Tax Map No. 080.00-05-19.00-
0000) located at the corner of Rutrough Road and Chestnut Ridge
Road from Timothy and Sean Martin for public use as a
recreational amenity in the Vinton Magisterial District for $159,900
and reallocate funds from the Parks, Recreation and Tourism
Reserve Account for such purpose (Doug Blount, Director of
Parks, Recreation and Tourism)
Doug Blount outlined the request for the ordinance.
Supervisor Bedrosian advised he is not a proponent of Explore Park. He
asked to be corrected if he is wrong. Through Federal grants, $150 million and $7
million have been put into Explore Park. If there are extra funds, he would like to see
what we can do right now; there seems to be a lot of needs that we have in Roanoke
County and to put $159,000 to buy more land in front of hundreds of acres, he has a
hard time with and the fact that we are going to be spending that kind of money to do
this. So, he cannot support. He finds it difficult because every time we have a budget,
everybody is needing money, we are scraping money and now we have $159,000 to
buy five (5) acres of land.
Supervisor McNamara inquired if the structure on the property would
require mothballing or removing. Mr. Blount responded that it would probably be
448 September 22, 2015
mothballed and it would factor in the decision for the Master Plan. Supervisor
McNamara then inquired as to how long the funds been in the Parks, Recreation and
Tourism account with Mr. Blount responding that the money comes from revenue
associated with fees and charges and has been accumulated over the last twenty-four
(24) months. Supervisor McNamara advised that it seems logical to have control over
the adjacent real estate. If it does not fit into the Master Plan, then the property can be
sold. It would not devalue the plan, the fair market value should stay the same. He
looks at it as a holding place for more options and we move forward with the Plan.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated we talk about recreational sports in the area.
He actually runs recreational sports for the home-schoolers. He inquired if they are
saying there is never a need of something that we need right now for residents of
Roanoke County on our sports fields and we do not need the funds right now? Mr.
Blount responded there is always a need for more athletic facilities. Our Master Plan
standards are short with rectangular fields right now, but the problem is finding the
acreage to put a rectangular field on in the district where we have the shortage.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked about upkeep to the fields and inquired about rest rooms or
upkeep and those things that would bring up the quality of life that we talk about all the
time. Instead of doing something way out and dumping this money into land, lets do
something that residents can use now and have a better quality experience now on all
ball fields. He asked if Mr. Blount did not think it could be better used in this manner.
Mr. Blount responded he feels the opportunity is with Explore Park as there is so much
interest in Explore Park over the past twenty-four (24) months and thinks this additional
acreage will help in the development and give us a better return on our investment.
Supervisor Moore stated she would like to point out a couple of things. It
would create a buffer between the residents and the park and the topography it has a
pond. She can see where that would be very beneficial and an asset to the Master Plan
at Explore Park. She is in support.
Supervisor Church stated this has gone back a number of years and is
such a complex situation. The only excitement was generated by Larry Vander Maten
and that did not pan out. From his perspective, he feels like we are moving in a positive
direction under Doug Blount's leadership. It seems to be getting done the right away
instead of something we are going to think about for five (5) years. Let's make this
parcel be beneficial financially. We have an opportunity to bring in some revenue that
will hopefully offset what has already been spent.
Supervisor Peters stated that his support for Explore Park is because of
how we are doing things now; not a fantasy theme park. We, Roanoke County are not
doing anything. All we are doing is facilitating private business. Yes we will have some
expenses for utilities but at the end of the day he believes we are doing this the right
way to help private businesses come in here and do what they need to do to make that
a viable option.
September 22, 2015
Supervisor Peter's motion to approve the first reading and to establish the
second reading for October 13, 2015, was approved by the following vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- Supervisor Bedrosian
IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance amending Article 111. — Regulation of Open Burning of
Chapter 9 — Fire Prevention and Protection of the Roanoke
County Code (Stephen G. Simon, Chief of Fire and Rescue)
Chief Simon outlined the ordinance and advised that he had met with the
Department of Environmental Quality on Friday and is working on a new ordinance.
Supervisor Peters' moved to table this item indefinitely was approved by
the following vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE
1. Ordinance authorizing the granting of an electric utility easement
to Appalachian Power (AEP) on property owned by the Roanoke
County Board of Supervisors (Tax Map No. 055.00-01-08.00-0000)
for the purpose of an underground electric power line to Green
Hill Park Ball Field at 3050 Green Hill Park Road, Catawba
Magisterial District (Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney)
Mr. Mahoney outlined the ordinance. This is the second reading; no
changes from first reading.
Chairman Peters opened and closed the public hearing with the no one to
speak on this item. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 092215-4 AUTHORIZING THE GRANTING OF AN
ELECTRIC UTILITY EASEMENT TO APPALACHIAN POWER
(AEP) ON PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ROANOKE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (TAX MAP NO. 055.00-01-08.00-
0000) FOR THE PURPOSE OF AN UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
POWER LINE TO GREEN HILL PARK BALL FIELD AT 3050
450 September 22, 2015
GREEN HILL PARK ROAD, CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, Appalachian Power Company (AEP) requires a permanent utility
easement for purpose of providing electrical service to the Green Hill Park Ball Field
from an existing overhead electric line; and
WHEREAS, the proposed utility easement will serve the interests of the public
and is necessary for the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Roanoke
County.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows -
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County
Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by
ordinance. A first reading of this ordinance was held on September 8, 2015, and the
second reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on September 22, 2015.
2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County
Charter, the interest in real estate to be conveyed is hereby declared to be surplus, and
is hereby made available for other public uses by conveyance to Appalachian Power
Company for a utility easement.
3. That donation to Appalachian Power Company of a utility easement for
purpose of an underground electric line, as shown on a plat titled "Proposed Right of
Way on Property of Roanoke County Board of Supervisors", prepared by Appalachian
Power Company and dated 7/16/2015, is hereby authorized and approved.
4. That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrator, is
hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such further actions as may be
necessary to accomplish this conveyance, all of which shall be on form approved by the
County Attorney.
5. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Church to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
2. Ordinance amending Chapter 23 "Stormwater Management" of
the Roanoke County Code (Tarek Moneir, Deputy Director of
Development)
Mr. Caywood outlined the ordinance. He referenced a memo from County
Administrator, Thomas Gates outlined the County's response to the local homebuilders
association. He noted there were issues concerning the bonding requirement.
Supervisor Bedrosian ask the number of times staff needed to take action.
September 22, 2015 451
Mr. Caywood responded he believed it was approximately four (4) cases that action was
taken. Of those cases, two (2) of the four (4) there were insufficient funds available to
complete the work. Supervisor Bedrosian stated he was trying to determine if it was a
major problem or rare problem.
Tarek Moneir, Deputy Director of Development note they only take cases
to the Bonding Committee if they have exhausted all other avenues.
Supervisor McNamara stated this is a contingency amount and they
already have a performance bond plus ten percent (10%) and staff wants to take it to
what it cost us, which is twenty-five percent (25%)? He then asked what the last
building project was that was done in the County; the Vinton Library? What contingency
did we use on that project? Mr. Caywood responded from a budget perspective, five
percent (5%). Why would we have developers at a higher level than what we have for
our own projects? Mr. Caywood stated often times these projects extend for a number
of years and they do not get adjusted for inflation. Also, our costs would be higher than
the industry. Our goal is to hold the County harmless in the event of a default.
Supervisor Peters inquired if it will automatically go to twenty-five percent
(25%) in 2017 with Mr. Caywood responding the County would need to take action to
raise it back to twenty-five percent (25%)
Supervisor McNamara stated he had a hard time following this and he can
read and he has experts on one side telling him something and experts on the other
side telling me something different. He likes them both. The actual Stormwater
Management (H-2), that specific item, does not have anywhere in there where he can
see anything about what the contingency is capped, unless he read it wrong. Mr.
Moneir stated it does not say that in the Board Report, but if you look at the section on
Stormwater Management, 23-8.8, page 24 of the ordinance. It talks about the bonding.
Supervisor Peters advised he felt that there should have been more in-
depth discussion before bringing this to a formal vote.
Supervisor McNamara thanked staff for bringing the code section to his
attention. The only other change is the fines. Mr. Moneir stated adding the Town of
Vinton was the only other change. His suggestion to the Board is to work through this
and strike language if they want to pass this item.
Supervisor Bedrosian reiterated that in July 2017, the percentage will
automatically go to twenty-five percent (25%) and what is staff trying to do today.
Supervisor Peters stated that the twenty-five percent (25%) would go into effect July
2017. Mr. Caywood explained the prohibition will expire, but the localities would need to
change the rate.
Chairman Peters opened and closed the public hearing with the following
speakers-
452 September 22, 2015
Sean Horne thanked the Board for allowing him to speak at the last
meeting and the opportunity to provide this additional clarification on the letter. There
has been a lot of conversation about this going on. He stated he thinks they will be able
to offer some insight into this particular issue of being just the Erosion and Sediment
Control Ordinance increase from ten percent (10%) to twenty-five percent (25%). There
is a stormwater component that was already raised as part of the stormwater ordinance
last year that is set to take effect in 2017, but thinks that will be a moot point. Bob Flynn
is here as well as Peter Fields from the Homebuilders Association are representing over
three hundred (300) firms. We take this very seriously as these things do cost money.
He is turning over to Bob Flynn who is on the State legislative committee as an officer
with the Homebuilders Association of Virginia and just with the last twelve (12) hours
was able to dig into this a little bit and get with our State representative to find out some
additional information behind the Erosion and Sediment Control bonding contingency.
Bob Flynn stated he is hoping to bring clarity to this issue, but may be
inflicting some more pain. In talking about the bond requirements, we know that our
opposition of the ten to twenty-five percent (10-25%) is well stated and the staff
response is well stated. He would like to quote the staff response and go into some
other information. In April of 2014, the Board of Supervisors approved raising our bond
percentage (This is staff's response in the County Administrator's memo) requirement to
25% for stormwater management facilities, effective upon the sunset of the State cap.
He stated he is here today to state that he thinks the whole premise is false and he is
going to refer the Board to the previous session of the General Assembly. He is going
to refer to Senate Bill 1257, which was patroned by Ralph Smith and it was passed by
the House of Delegates and General Assembly and signed by the Governor. Senate
Bill 1257 addressed two issues. One is the time of the payments of cash proffers for
per unit developments. We know in Roanoke County, we do not have cash proffers.
Part of that legislation dealt with the timing of the payments of those cash proffers. The
second part of that Senate bill says, "In addition the bill appeals the July 1, 2017,
expiration date of a 2009 Act of Assembly that lowered the cap of the Administrative
Costs a locality can charge a developer for the dedication of public right-of-way from
twenty-five to ten percent (25 to 10%) of the estimated construction costs. There will be
no sunset in 2017. The General Assembly has already acted and they have removed
the twenty-five percent (25%) permanently and established it at ten percent (10%). We
can discuss this and we can discuss it further with the staff. Hopefully, that may help to
simplify this discussion that it is a moot point. It has already been taken care of in the
last session of the General Assembly. On the E&S side of the 2,500 and 10,000. The
intent of the General Assembly when they set the 2,500 limitation was really for the
Chesapeake Bay Act. For those localities effected by the Bay Act. There was a lot of
discussion in the General Assembly about the merits of that. Certainly our industry
does not disagree with the merits for those localities effected by the Bay. We are not
affected by the Chesapeake Bay Act in Roanoke County and that is why they issued the
10,000 for other remaining localities in the State. When you think about it, 2,500 square
September 22, 2015 453
feet is 50 x 50, which is the size of his garden. What this ordinance intends to do is to
require everyone residentially in the County to have to pay for that permit because is it
very difficult to disturb less than 2,500 square feet. This is why the General Assembly
left open the 10,000 square feet. Senate Bill 1257 has been public record. It was
passed in the Senate and the House on February 20, 2015 and it was signed by the
Governor on March 19, of 2015.
Supervisor Bedrosian inquire what is staff's response. Mr. Caywood
stated they would like to take some time and research with the County Attorney's office.
Supervisor Peters' moved to table this item indefinitely and was approved
by the following vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
3. Ordinance amending Chapter 8.1, Erosion and Sediment Control
(ESC) of the Roanoke County Code (Tarek Moneir, Deputy
Director of Development)
Mr. Moneir explained the ordinance.
Chairman Peters opened and closed the public hearing with the following
speakers.
Sean Horne stated he is here to speak about the 2,500 and 10,000
square feet for the E & S ordinance. What he wanted to bring up on the 10,000 square
feet, you heard what Mr. Flynn had to say earlier as far as the intention of those
regulations. The history as they understand it is that it came about in 2004, the
reduction of 10,000 to 2,500 square feet. At the time there were a lot of complaints
about run off from small projects. Since that time, we have also enacted plot plan
requirements for single-family residential homes. We have enacted small square
footages required for those plot plans and basically in their opinion feel that those other
methods, the agreement in lieu of, which gives County control and enforcement for plot
plans for single family homes. Every single family home gets built with a plot plan now,
agreement in lieu of and a VPMP permit that gets submitted and inspected. So, with
that being said, the reduction of 2,500 square feet only effects commercial
development. It was stated that ninety percent (90%) of commercial development is
under 10,000 square feet. Just from their own practice, they find that pretty hard to
believe just based on the number of plans that they deal with. He is sure there is
supporting documentation for that. In all, when you get down to it, the 10,000 square
feet as the State's threshold is a good threshold to be at. Most of the other jurisdiction
around here are at 10,000 square feet. Some of them have contingencies and we
would be open to discussing those contingencies, such as Franklin County, 10,000
unless you are within 200 feet of a water body and then they reduce it down to 3,000 to
4,000 square feet of disturbance. Bedford County has something similar. So, he thinks
454 September 22, 2015
there is middle ground on this to some degree, but the point that staff is making about
our main concern is how the erosion and sediment control ordinance is coupled to the
stormwater ordinance. This is a concern, but it was put in during 2004 in their opinion
as a reaction to a problem. Since then, additional development regulations have been
put in place to also address that problem. Now, they think is a good time to pull back
and to say let's go back to the State's minimums for disturbance on the erosion and
sediment control plans. Hopefully, that is clear enough.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated we are just meeting the requirement of the
State. Mr. Moneir responded in the affirmative. Does staff have a problem with doing
this like other localities around us are doing with a contingency? Mr. Caywood stated
staff would be open to look into alternatives that are standard with the industry. He
stated he would like to point out that this would be introducing a change. Today, it is at
2,500 square feet and has been for eleven (11) years now. The caution he would make
to the Board is unlike many of our neighbors, we do have a MS4 permit and our highest
priority in that permit is the control of sediment, much like the discussion we had earlier
about the Mountain Valley Pipeline and while staff is certainly open to looking at
alternate ways to achieve the same goal, he would advise against just strictly going
back to the State minimum. We are different in topography, especially to our neighbors
in the East and also we do have many smaller projects that could become problematic.
A contingency based system whether on a water body or a vertical slope, we would be
open to. He would recommend against just going to the State minimum because of the
tieback to our MS4 permit and given the historical issues we did have with E &S on
some of the smaller projects. Mr. Moneir advised Roanoke City is 2,000. Supervisor
Bedrosian stated on a bigger picture here we have homebuilders, designers, etc. on
one side saying that this adds cost. He would agree with that because in the statement
that was made earlier, we agreed that this adds cost. Mr. Caywood responded that is
correct. So, to the people watching it adds cost which get passed to the consumer,
rightfully so. Everybody is effected by this kind of conversation. The more regulations
we put on any industry, we force costs up. The thing is to get to something reasonable.
It seems like there is room to make it work so that both sides are happy and it helps us
rather than hurting us.
Mr. Moneir noted that more than ninety percent (90%) of Roanoke County
projects are under 10,000 feet.
Supervisor Peters asked if other items enacted since 2004, like the plot
plan, is not helping us in under 10,000 square feet land disturbance with Mr. Moneir
responding in the affirmative.
Supervisor McNamara stated he felt we need to back off the State
minimums. Will there be a problem somewhere down the road? Every time we come
across an issue, we develop another law or requirement. Richmond is developing more
laws and don't get rid of any of the old laws and we just keep making it more difficult,
more costly to do business. There is a cost to the County in reviewing all these plans
and we are making the assumption that the experts that are developing and creating
September 22, 2015 455
these plot plans are not doing them accurately, which he does not think is a fair
assumption. You have people that this is their business and they are going to do it right
and they are giving you an agreement in lieu of a stormwater management program.
Supervisor Peters stated that he main priority this year has been
Economic Development and is thankful for Tom Gates and everything he has done to
assist. The majority of the Board had a retreat last week, at the same time we have to
look at stuff like this, which is more restrictive than what is allowed by the State is not
going to help Economic Development. He understands the contingencies. He has a lot
of concerns with making things more restrictive.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked what we would be voting on.
Supervisor McNamara moved to table this item until ready to discuss
further was approved by the following vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he does not want this to be adversarial and
would suggest the Board sit down with the Homebuilders and discuss.
Mr. Gates interjected that staff would be please to put together a work
session to work through the outstanding details that we continue to have and to review
some of these issues with the Board. This is a very complicated set of ordinances.
Staff and the industry have been working for a while now, mitigating other issues that
have existed. We have core differences of opinions, but would be happy to put together
a work session and bring these issues back and have the dialog so we can get some
clarity.
IN RE: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
1. Resolution adopting revisions to the Stormwater Management
Design Manual for Roanoke County to be effective October 5,
2015 (Richard L. Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Tarek
Moneir, Deputy Director of Development)
Mr. Caywood stated he would recommend the same action taken on the
previous agenda item.
Supervisor Peters moved to table this item and the motion was approved
by the following vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
456 September 22, 2015
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 092215-5 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM I- CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows -
That the certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for September
22, 2015, designated as Item K - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and
concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 5 inclusive, as follows -
1 . Approval of minutes — August 25, 2015
2. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County to Adele Birkhead, Police Officer — Uniform Division upon her
retirement after more than eleven (11) years of service
3. Resolution expressing the appreciation of the Board of supervisors of
Roanoke County to Charlton D. Wilson, Parks, Maintenance Foreman, upon
his retirement after more than forty (40) years of service
4. Request to accept and allocate funds in the amount of $13,399 from the
Bureau of Justice Assistance to the Roanoke County Police Department for
the fiscal year 2015 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)
Program Local Solicitation
5. Resolution supporting House Bill 2 project applications by Roanoke County
and the Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
RESOLUTION 092215-5.a EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO ADELE BIRCKHEAD, POLICE OFFICER — UNIFORM
DIVISION, UPON HER RETIREMENT AFTER MORE THAN
ELEVEN (11 1)YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Adele Birckhead was employed by Roanoke County on January 24,
2004 and has served as a Police Officer — Uniform Division during her tenure with
Roanoke County; and
September 22, 2015 457
WHEREAS, Ms. Birckhead retired on September 1, 2015, after eleven (11) years
and seven (7) months of devoted, faithful and expert service to Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Birckhead, throughout her employment with Roanoke County
has been instrumental in improving the quality of life and providing services to the
citizens of Roanoke County-, and
WHEREAS, throughout Officer Birckhead's career with Roanoke County, she
was able to serve as a Field Training Officer, senior evidence technician and valued
member of the Crisis Intervention Team. She additionally served as a valued member
of Roanoke County's Employee Advisory Committee and the Police Department's policy
review committee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens
of Roanoke County to ADELE BIRCKHEAD for more than eleven (11) 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 Peters to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
RESOLUTION 092215-5.b EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO CHARLTON D. WILSON, PARKS MAINTENANCE
FOREMAN, UPON HIS RETIREMENT AFTER FORTY (40)
YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, Charlton D. Wilson was employed by Roanoke County on
September 2, 1975, and has served as a Parks Laborer, Motor Equipment Operator 1,
Motor Equipment Operator 11, and as Parks Maintenance Foreman during his tenure
with Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Wilson retired on September 1, 2015, after forty (40) years of
devoted, faithful and expert service to Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Wilson, throughout his employment with Roanoke County has
been instrumental in improving the quality of life and providing services to the citizens of
Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, throughout Mr. Wilson's career with Roanoke County, he maintained
turf, park amenities, ballfields, and greenways for the public and recreation leagues,
supervised the construction of several large playgrounds throughout the county, and
where he worked directly with contractors to build Whispering Pines Park and Walrond
Park, and where he supervised and operated equipment to re -build the infrastructure to
458 September 22, 2015
re -open Camp Roanoke, and where he worked directly with staff to construct the
Walrond Park Wetland Trail, and where he served in a vital role to coordinate the Parks
Department's response for snow removal and outdoor emergencies at county facilities-,
and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens
of Roanoke County to CHARLTON D. WILSON, for forty (40) 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 Peters to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
A -092215-5.c
RESOLUTION 092215-5.d SUPPORTING HOUSE BILL 2
APPLICATIONS BY ROANOKE COUNTY AND THE ROANOKE
VALLEY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION
WHEREAS, at a work session on September 8, 2015, the Board of Supervisors
reviewed proposed House Bill 2 project applications; and
WHEREAS, the list of projects includes both Roanoke County application, and
Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization applications; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors desires to support both local and regional
projects to mitigate congestion, promote economic development, increase accessibility,
safety, and environmental quality, as well as develop projects consistent with local land
use policies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows -
1. That the Board of Supervisors hereby supports the following House Bill 2
projects for Roanoke County application -
a. Electric Road Widening, Safety, and Multimodal Improvements
b. McVitty Road / Old Cave Spring Lane Improvements
c. Lila Drive / Plantation Road Intersection Safety Improvements
d. Catawba Valley Drive / North Electric Road Intersection Safety and
Congestion Improvements
2. That the Board of Supervisors hereby supports the following House Bill 2
projects for Roanoke Valley Transportation Planning Organization
application-
September 22, 2015 459
a. Interstate 81 Northbound Auxiliary Lane / Exit 141 to Exit 143
b. Interstate 81 Widening / Exit 140 to Exit 143
c. Route 220 Signal Coordination / Route 419 to Clearbrook Village
Lane
d. Interstate 81 Interchange Lighting / Exit 137 to Exit 150
e. West Roanoke River Greenway Green Hill Park to Riverside Park
f. Interstate 81 Auxiliary Lanes Exit 150 through Truck Weigh
Stations
3. That the Clerk to the Board forthwith send a certified copy of this
Resolution to Senator Mark Warner, Senator Timothy Kaine,
Representative Bob Goodlatte, Representative Morgan Griffith, and
Commonwealth Transportation Board members William H. Fralin, Jr. and
Court G. Rosen.
4. That this resolution is effective immediately.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The following citizens spoke -
Matthew Hogan stated he is the owner and developer of Innovation
Works, which is actually a company that is based in Roanoke, but had its start up in
Roanoke County. He is a Chamber member of Roanoke Chamber and also an
ambassador for them. He believes in the development of the County and agrees whole-
hearted in law enforcement. His company is a product development company from
software to just products you see every day. He wanted to bring that they are working
on a program for Law Enforcement and Emergency Responders and it is to improve
public safety, the response time. Legally, he cannot go into too much detail. It will
improve response time and is in the patent pending process now and developed as he
is speaking. They are looking not only locally but nationally as well. He would like to
take the time to extend an open invitation. Any ideas, any public safety ideas, and or
simple products we are available and open and offer a training session that will teach
you how to do every aspect, to market, to get it going like you want. Again it is
Innovation Works.com and they are launching October 1st and have a ribbon cutting
with the Salem Roanoke Chamber at 306 Market Street in downtown Roanoke and the
current Miss Virginia is scheduled to be there as well. We work closely with the Miss
Virginia organization and other volunteer organizations. Contact us and we will be
happy to help you in any way.
460 September 22, 2015
Beverly Bryson thanked the Board for their service to the Valley. The
subject she wants to talk about today may seem small, but it is not. She moved here in
2003 and this problem has been very annoying to her. It is about the mediums that
provide the opposite direction traffic. There is a lot of weeds and grass growing and has
only seen that through our travels in areas that are dilapidated and that are not growing.
I think the Roanoke Valley is a beautiful place that deserves better attention to its
mediums and she personally has been in touch with the office in the County asking to
increase the mowing and to get in touch with the Virginia Department of Transportation
and sometimes that has worked and has gotten some progress and sometimes it has
not. Sometimes it will get three or four feet tall and block the oncoming traffic. It really
does need attention. So, she has begun a grass roots movement for the citizens who
want to see a change and she would say ninety-five percent (95%) of them want to get
something done about it. Before they do a step further, she would like to ask the Board
if they would help- Mr. Gates, Mr. Caywood, Chairman and Board members if they will
get in touch with tke Virginia Department of Transportation and ask them to please give
that attention because it is kind of sad to see our beautiful valley look shabby within,
very depressed. People do not want to live and buy homes and properties that look like
that because it is growing out of the concrete everywhere and it is not appropriate for a
beautiful place as this valley. We decided to write a letter to the Governor, Governor
McAuliffe and to the Secretary of Transportation, Aubrey Lane. She decided it was best
to come to the Board and ask if they could help them with this problem. If you would
like for us to hold up on these letters until you address it with them, we would be glad to
or maybe go ahead and send those, but she wanted to speak to the Board personally
asking for further action. If we don't get anywhere with it, what the people want to do is
to start getting the weeds out. The problem is that the concrete is not being sealed, so
every season the weeds keep growing in the cracks. So, if they seal them with
concrete, it is a very simple process, it would take care of it for years. So, that is what
they are asking the Board for help with and that way citizens don't have to call the
media so they can get protection out there in the median sealing those cracks in the
concrete, so they do ask for the Board's help.
Mark Smoot stated he lives in the City of Roanoke and wanted to pass on
to everybody here that as a military veterans and as military working dog handler, he
always felt as though our canines are not recognized. We have our own Veterans Day
and he has always felt like they deserve a lot more recognition. With that in mind, he
petitioned the City of Roanoke for a proclamation, which they have kindly granted him,
which recognizes March 13 th from here on our as Canine Veterans Day in the City of
Roanoke, Roanoke Valley. The reason he is here today is that he does not want
anyone to feel slighted as far as jurisdiction goes, so this extends to not only Roanoke
City but Roanoke County, the City of Salem and the Town of Vinton and anybody else
who may be interested in it. March 13 th was chosen because March 13, 1942, was the
very birth of the Army's canine program. Dogs first coming into that program were
brought into Front Royal, Virginia, which is still the reception and training center for a lot
September 22, 2015 461
of Department of Defense (DOD) dogs. He did all of this on his own, not knowing within
the last year that in 2012 the Virginia State legislature through House Joint Resolution
552 declared March 13 th as Canine Veterans Day in the Commonwealth of Virginia. So,
with that in mind, he wanted to make sure that our four -legged partners got the
recognition that they are due and he would like to, if it is something that the Board would
like, present them with a copy of that proclamation, does not know if politically correct or
not. Would it be okay to read it? Chairman Peters advised he could read or provide a
copy. "Office of the Mayor, City of Roanoke, Proclamation, WHEREAS, thousands of
dogs have served with honor, personal courage and valor through the history of our
County's military commitments and has served alongside their handles in peacetime
and in combat; WHEREAS, thousands of dogs have served with honor, personal
courage and valor throughout the history of our country's military commitments and
have served alongside their handlers in peacetime and in combat; WHEREAS, these
dogs of war serve to save and protect and have answered the call in defending our hard
won freedom. These dogs need to be honored and remembered; WHEREAS, the
official Army K9 program was created March 13th, 1942. So, it is out of respect for our
K9 partners that have sacrificed so much, that we declare March 13th as K9 Veteran's
Day- WHEREAS, still today, Police and Military Working Dogs help safeguard our
cou�try's borders and engage our enemies in war abroad with personal courage and
honor- WHEREAS, due to the current war on terror, our K9 partners who are on the
frontli�es with U.S. Customs , Border Patrol, Police, Search and Rescue and many
more are included with the Military Working Dog in this recognition, as they too protect
and serve our country; and WHEREAS, it is well known that our K9 brothers are loyal,
loving, devoted to their handler and will knowingly place themselves in harm's way,
make the ultimate sacrifice, laying down their life to protect their handler. -NOW,
THEREFORE, 1, David A. Bowers, Mayor of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, encourage all
citizens to acknowledge and support our fourleggedK9 Warriors and honor all of our
Police and Military Working Dogs and our K-9 Veterans, past and present. Semper
Fido! And, do hereby proclaim March 13, 2015 throughout this great, six -time All -
America City, now and hereafter asK-9 VETERANS DAY. Given under our hands and
the Seal of the City of Roanoke this second day of February in the year two thousand
and fifteen."
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara Peters
NAYS- None
462 September 22, 2015
1 . General Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. Capital Reserves
3. Reserve for Board Contingency
4. Outstanding Debt
5. Treasurer's Statement of Accountability per Investment and
Portfolio Policy as of August 31, 2015
6. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of
August 31, 2015
7. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of August 31, 2015
8. Accounts Paid — August 31, 2015
At 5-20 p.m. Chairman Peters recessed to the fourth floor for work
session.
IN RE: WORK SESSIONS
1. Work session to discuss the impact of mental illness on law
enforcement and a Department of Justice "Smart Policing" Grant
that has been awarded to the Police Department (Howard B. Hall,
Chief of Police)
Chief Howard Hall went through a PowerPoint presentation outlining the
DOJ Smart Policing Initiative Grant. A copy of this presentation is on file in the office of
the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.
Chairman Peters inquired if Chief Hall knew who would pay for the program
at the end of three (3) years. Chief Hall stated that was unanswered at this point.
Intercept has stated that it works and is cost effective and could convince private
insurance companies to step forward. In addition, there is also an opportunity to go to
Richmond.
Daniel O'Donnell, Assistant County Administrator advised other localities
are using mental health officers, which would be another opportunity to use. He further
noted it may not be feasible on smaller localities.
Supervisor Bedrosian inquired if there is a disturbance, the Police respond
and identify someone in crisis and does not feel an arrest is necessary, then Intercept
would be notified and it takes them approximately one (1) hour to respond. Chief Hall
responded in the affirmative. Supervisor Bedrosian then asked where is the person
housed. Chief Hall responded this is not a custodial issue on the part of Intercept.
They stabilize through the night then follow-up to get community-based services so they
may remain in their home. If there is a need to be hospitalized there is a process and
then to the emergency room.
September 22, 2015 463
Supervisor McNamara stated two (2) years from now, we will have enough
information to see if it is working.
Thomas Gates, County Administrator advised that the County is paying for
it now and anything that can be done to develop better protocols would be a plus to the
County.
It was the consensus of the Board to move forward and bring this item to
the Board at the October 13, 2015, meeting.
The work session was held from 5-35 p.m. until 6-05 p.m.
Chairman Peters called the evening session to order at 7-00 p.m.
Chairman Peters clarified that the agenda item Ordinance amending
Chapter 23 "Stormwater Management" of the Roanoke County Code will be postponed
along with the other two items and will not be heard at the next meeting.
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS
1. Proclamation commemorating the 150th anniversary of the Big
Hill Baptist Church (Joseph B. "Butch" Church, Supervisor)
The Clerk read the proclamation. All supervisors offered their thanks and
congratulations.
2. Resolution recognizing Hollins Fire and Rescue Department #5
for sixty-five (65) years of service (Stephen G. Simon, Chief of Fire
and Rescue)
The Clerk read the proclamation. All Supervisors offered their thanks and
congratulations.
RESOLUTION 092215-6 RECOGNIZING HOLLINS VOLUNTEER
FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT #5 FOR SIXTY-FIVE (65)
YEARS OF SERVICE
WHEREAS, in September, 1950, led by Volunteer Chief E. L. Honaker, a group
of twenty-one (21) men formed the Hollins Volunteer Fire Department to provide safety
to the northern part of Roanoke County- and
WHEREAS, their beginnings w�re humble as they relied on support and funds
from community individuals and businesses; and
WHEREAS, in the early years, volunteers used pumper trucks housed in a four -
bay station (located about a half a mile down Peters Creek Road from the current
station) to protect the rural and suburban residential landscape; and
464 September 22, 2015
WHEREAS, in 1953 Hollins Volunteer Rescue Squad got its start and joined the
Hollins Volunteer Fire Department, becoming the Hollins Volunteer Fire and Rescue
Department; and
WHERAS,iln 1981, a new station was built on Barrens Road and, after a few
additions, now includes twelve bays. The station houses a wagon, 105 -foot ladder, a
specialized rescue engine, three ambulances, a fire investigation unit, fire and severe
weather safety education trailer and two utility vehicles; and
WHEREAS, along with protecting residential areas, the Hollins station also
covers commercial, industrial and high-rise structures, as well as providing automatic
and mutual aid for the Roanoke Regional Airport; and
WHEREAS, currently, Volunteer Fire Chief Robert Ketchum and Volunteer
Rescue Chief Jeff Edwards lead the Hollins Volunteer Fire and Rescue Department.
The membership has grown and changed, reflecting the community it serves. The
Hollins Station serves nearly 14,000 citizens and businesses throughout northern
Roanoke County and provides back-up to the Catawba and Masons Cove areas. The
station responds to more than 2,200 calls each year; and
WHEREAS, Hollins firefighters share the credo- "No One Left Behind," while
Hollins rescuers adhere to the motto- "Save a Life Today." Through the thick and thin,
the good and the bad, the wins and the losses, Hollins Fire and Rescue stand by the
belief they are a brotherhood and sisterhood that cannot be broken.
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 THE HOLLINS VOLUNTEER FIRE AND RESCUE
DEPARTMENT for over sixty-five (65) years of dedicated service to Roanoke County.
On motion of Supervisor Bedrosian to adopt the resolution, and carried by the following
roll call and recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Resolution appointing the County Attorney and approval of an
employment Agreement (P. Jason Peters, Chairman, Roanoke
County Board of Supervisors)
Chairman Peters outlined the resolution, which is the result of the
retirement of Paul Mahoney.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he would like to make a couple of comments
that are more about the process versus the candidate. He thinks the candidate will be
fine, however, he just cannot approve the way we are doing these contracts. He had
September 22, 2015 465
some concerns from the very beginning when we interviewed only two (2) people. He
just thinks for a job of this magnitude, it is an extremely important job, he would have
thought we would have opened it up. Again, it may have been the same candidate that
eventually came out, but just thought it would have been important to do. Next, he is
concerned about the compensation for the County Attorney. He disagreed when we did
it for the County Administrator and he disagrees here. Our current County Attorney's
office salary is $165,000. When we hire somebody now, we are trying to get them to
that point very quickly. Our current County Attorney has been here for thirty (30) years
and he thinks that says something. He does not think when we hire people that we
have to get them to a certain point right away. He thinks we should hire people and see
how they do. We are starting at $145,000 and immediately on December 2016, there
will be in increase of salary of $5,000 in addition to whatever increases other Roanoke
County employees get. He stated he finds sometimes we do these things and he would
say we hire somebody and see how they do before we commit to increase in salary that
we are going to give them. The other thing he has a problem with is having a contract.
When he first joined the Board, he thought the County Administrator and the County
Attorney worked for the Board of Supervisors and when we hired a County
Administrator, we gave the County Administrator a contract. There were penalties if we
got out of that contract. They are supposed to work at our pleasure, which means there
is a little risk if a new Board comes along and does not appreciate the County
Administrator or the County Attorney they can dismiss them, they work at our pleasure-,
just like the President of the United States. We are now putting together these
contracts and if we do dismiss them, there is a six-month penalty. When he looks at the
private sector and he works for a company, he does not have a contract. He works and
stays at the job based upon his performance. There is nothing guaranteed. He thinks
we do things differently in government and maybe because that is what we are used to.
Maybe the others on this Board find it okay; he just wonders, why do we do it like that;
we do not need to. The final thing that was important to him was that the County
Attorney be a resident of Roanoke County. We squabbled on this for a while and had a
pretty heated discussion on it. He sees within the wording of the agreement. It is
interesting because we do say Section 13 of our contracts says, "The County Attorney
shall reside in and be a bonafide resident of Roanoke County during the term of this
agreement." If you stopped at that sentence right there it would be good and that is
what we wanted. County Administrator is a resident of Roanoke County. He thinks the
County Attorney should be a resident. Then, you go to the next line in the contract and
you see "The Board agrees that the County Attorney may take up to twenty-four (24)
months to relocate." In the beginning it was six months to 12 months and then it
became two (2) years. Again, this is a three (3) -year contract and they have two (2)
years to relocate. If you keep reading, "Failure to locate in the time provided in this
section, shall be good, sufficient cause to terminate the agreement." But it does not say
it will be cause to terminate, just good and sufficient. If members on the Board do not
agree to that they will just say we are going to keep the person on. At the very end, it
466 September 22, 2015
says, "The Board may extend this period for good cause." He thinks this person should
be a resident of Roanoke County. We have not forced anybody to become the County
Attorney. Just like when he got his job with Xerox, he applied and he moved where he
was supposed to move. As County Attorney, he thinks it is important that you be a
resident of Roanoke County. He did a poll of his people; he emailed out about 360 or
so emails that he has for the people in the Hollins area. He received seventeen or
eighteen percent (17-18%) back. He got seventy respondents, and eighty percent (80%
of the respondents said absolutely without a doubt it should be a County resident if you
are going to be a Roanoke County Attorney. Ten percent (10%) said it really does not
matter and ten percent (10%) said they think they should, but if you cannot get
somebody else then that is fine. So, eighty percent (80%) is overwhelming to him that
the people felt like the Roanoke County Attorney should be a resident of Roanoke
County. The way he feels about how this contract is written is that it does not make
anybody become a resident to keep their job. For those reasons, he has a hard time.
He finds that he thinks differently on these matter of contracts and how this was put
together.
RESOLUTION 092215-7 APPOINTING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
AND APPROVAL OF AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, Chapter 7 of the Roanoke County Charter provides for the
appointment of a County Attorney, his or her powers and duties, compensation and
tenure.
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-1542 of the Code of Virginia establishes the various
duties and responsibilities of the County Attorney; and
WHEREAS, an employment agreement between the County Attorney and the
Board of Supervisors has been negotiated.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows -
1 . That Candidate, subject to acceptance of the terms and conditions of
employment, is hereby appointed County Attorney for Roanoke County, and that his/her
tenure shall commence on or before December 1, 2015.
2. That Candidate shall exercise all of the powers and fulfill all of the duties
and obligations of County Attorney as provided in the Roanoke County Charter, the
position description, the policies and regulations adopted by the Board and the legal
directives of the Board.
3. That an employment agreement is hereby approved, and the Chairman of
the Board is hereby authorized to execute this agreement of behalf the Board.
September 22, 2015 467
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- Supervisor Bedrosian
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance amending Chapter 5 "Animals and Fowl" of the
Roanoke County Code to amend standards for residential chicken
keeping (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the ordinance. No change from first reading.
Chairman Peters opened and closed the public hearing with no one to
speak to this issue. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 092215-8 AMENDING CHAPTER 5 "ANIMALS
AND FOWL" OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO AMEND
STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL CHICKEN KEEPING
WHEREAS, Ordinance 082812-7 adopted by the Board of Supervisors on
August 28, 2012, established standards for residential chicken keeping; and
WHEREAS, after staff review the following amendments are recommended to
the standards; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 8, 20157
and the second reading and public hearing was held on September 22, 2015. and
WHEREAS, public necessity, convenience and general welfare are �alid public
purposes for such recommendations and action by the Board of Supervisors; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows -
1 . That the Roanoke County Code be amended to read and provide as
follows -
CHAPTER 5 — ANIMALS AND FOWL
ARTICLE 11 — DOGS, CATS AND OTHER ANIMALS
DIVISION 1 - GENERALLY
Sec. 5-38. Standards for residential chicken keeping.
The keeping of female chickens (hens) shall be permitted in non -agriculturally zoned
areas of the county subject to the following standards -
(1) The principal use of the property is a single-family dwelling.
(2) The owner of the chickens must reside on the property on which the chickens are
kept.
September 22, 2015
(3) Chickens shall be kept within a predator -resistant coop or chicken enclosure at
all times and shall not be permitted to run at large.
(4) Coops and chicken enclosures shall be setback at least ten (10) feet from side
and rear property lines and at least thirty-five (35) feet from any residential
dwelling on an adjacent lot. Coops and chicken enclosures shall also be located
behind the front building line of the principal structure.
(5) Coops shall provide at least two (2) square feet of interior space per chicken and
chicken enclosures shall provide at least ten (10) square feet of exterior space
per chicken with a maximum total area of two hundred fifty (250) square feet for
both the coop and chicken enclosure. Neither the coop nor chicken enclosure
shall exceed ten (10) feet in height.
(6) Coops and chicken enclosures shall be securely constructed, well -ventilated and
kept in a clean, dry and sanitary condition at all times.
(7) Provision shall be made for the storage and removal of chicken waste (manure).
Such waste shall not create a nuisance or health hazard to adjoining property
owners.
(8) All chicken feed or other material intended for consumption by chickens shall be
kept in containers impenetrable by rodents, insects or predators.
(9) The keeping of roosters, capons, and crowing hens is prohibited.
(10) The outdoor slaughtering of chickens is prohibited.
(11) The maximum number of female chickens (hens) that may be kept shall be as
follows -
Lot Size
Maximum Number of
Female Chickens (Hens)
20,000 square feet or less
6
20,001 square feet to 1.0
acre
9
Greater than 1.0 acre
12
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
September 22, 2015 469
2. Ordinance amending Article 11 (Definitions and Use types), Article
III (District Regulations and Article IV (Use and Design Standards)
of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance (Philip Thompson,
Deputy Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the ordinance. No changes from first reading.
Chairman Peters opened and closed the public hearing with no one to
speak to this issue. There was no discussion.
ORDINANCE 092215-9 AMENDING ARTICLE 11 (DEFINITIONS
AND USE TYPES), ARTICLE III (DISTRICT REGULATIONS),
AND ARTICLE IV (USE AND DESIGN STANDARDS) OF THE
ROANOKE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
WHEREAS, beginning in January of 2013, the Planning Commission and
Community Development staff identified several areas of the zoning ordinance to review
and update resulting in the proposal of amendments to the Roanoke County Zoning
Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on August 18, 2015, after proper notice, the Roanoke County
Planning Commission held a public hearing on various amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance and recommended said amendments to the Board of Supervisors for
adoption -and
�EREAS, public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning
practice are valid public purposes for such recommendations by the Planning
Commission and action by the Board of Supervisors; and,
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on September 8, 20157
and the second reading and public hearing was held on September 22, 2015.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County as follows -
1 . That the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to read and provide as
follows-
ROANOKE COUNTY CODE
APPENDIX A — ZONING ORDINANCE
ARTICLE 11 — DEFINITIONS AND USE TYPES
SEC. 30-29. USE TYPES; GENERALLY.
Sec. 30-29-5. Commercial Use Types.
Personal improvement services- Establishments primarily engaged in the
provision of informational, instructional, personal improvements and similar services.
Typical uses include driving schools, health or physical fitness studios and centers,
reducing salons, dance studios, handicraft and hobby instruction.
ARTICLE III — DISTRICT REGULATIONS
470 September 22, 2015
SEC. 30-42. R-2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-42-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to
all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*)
indicates additional,
modified or more stringent standards as listed in article
IV, use and design
standards, for those specific uses.
3. Commercial Uses
Bed and Breakfast
4. Miscellaneous Uses
SEC. 30-61. 1-1 LOW INTENSITY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-61-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to
all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*)
indicates additional,
modified or more stringent standards as listed in article
IV, use and design
standards, for those specific uses.
3. Office Uses
Medical Office
4. Commercial Uses
Agricultural Services
Automobile Repair Services, Minor
Automobile Parts / Supply, Retail
Communication Services
Construction Sales and Services
Consumer Repair Services
Garden Center *
Personal Improvement Services
Veterinary Hospital / Clinic
(B) The following uses are allowed only by special use permit pursuant to section 30-
19. An asterisk (*) indicates additional, modified or more stringent standards as
listed in article IV, use and design standards, for those specific
uses.
1 . Commercial Uses
Automobile Dealership
Automobile Rental / Leasing
Convenience Store
Fuel Center *
Gasoline Station
Manufactured Home Sales
Recreational Vehicle Sales and Service
SEC. 30-62. 1-2 HIGH INTENSITY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
Sec. 30-62-2. Permitted Uses.
(A) The following uses are permitted by right subject to
all other applicable
requirements contained in this ordinance. An asterisk (*)
indicates additional,
September 22, 2015 471
modified or more stringent standards as listed in article IV, use and design
standards, for those specific uses.
3. Office Uses
Medical Office
4. Commercial Uses
Personal Improvement Services
ARTICLE IV — USE AND DESIGN STANDARDS
SEC. 30-81. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY USES.
Sec. 30-81-5. Stable, Private.
(A) General standards -
2. A shelter shall be required for the keeping of a horse or pony.
3. No more than one (1) horse or pony shall be permitted for every two (2)
fenced acres
4. Stables, corrals, and other confined areas shall be setback at least fifty
(50) feet from any property line. For the purpose of this section, perimeter
fencing of a yard shall not be considered a confined area. All confined
areas and fencing shall be securely constructed.
6. A plot plan shall be required showing the location of all structures and the
location and type of fencing.
SEC. 30-82. RESIDENTIAL USES.
Sec. 30-82-1. Accessory Apartments.
(B) General standards -
2. An accessory apartment may be located in an accessory structure on the
lot provided -
a. The parcel meets the minimum lot size requirement of the zoning
district it is located in.
b. The accessory building shall comply with all applicable zoning
requirements for a principal building.
If these standards cannot be met, the applicant shall obtain a special use
permit to locate an accessory apartment in an accessory structure.
3. Maximum floor area- Upon completion of the construction, the accessory
apartment shall not contain more than fifty (50) percent of the finished
floor area of the principal dwelling unit located on the same lot, but in no
case shall the accessory apartment exceed one thousand five hundred
(1,500) square feet.
(C) General standards in the C-1 and C-2 districts, independent of the general
standards above -
1 . The accessory apartment shall be allowed in conjunction with a civic,
office or commercial use type.
2. The civic, office or commercial use type must occupy at least fifty (50)
percent of the gross floor area on the site.
Sec. 30-82-11. Multi -family Dwelling.
472 September 22, 2015
(F) General standards in the C-1 and C-2 districts, independent of the general
standards above -
1 The multi -family use shall be allowed in conjunction with a civic, office or
commercial use type.
2. The multi -family use may account for up to fifty (50) percent of the gross
floor area on the site. A special use permit shall be required if the multi-
family use accounts for more than fifty (50) percent of the gross floor area
on the site.
Sec. 30-82-15. Two-family Dwelling.
(C) General standards in the C-1 and C-2 district -
1 The two-family dwelling use shall be allowed in conjunction with a civic,
office or commercial use type.
2. The two-family dwelling use may account for up to fifty (50) percent of the
gross floor area on the site. A special use permit shall be required if the
two-family use accounts for more than fifty (50) percent of the gross floor
area on the site.
SEC. 30-85. COMMERCIAL USES.
Sec. 30-85-1. Agricultural Services.
(B) In the C-1, C-2, and 1-1 districts any outdoor storage area for agricultural
equipment awaiting repair shall be placed in a storage yard. The storage yard
shall be fully screened from public view and shall be set back at least one
hundred (100) feet from any adjoining residential district.
Sec. 30-85-8. Bed and Breakfast.
(A) General standards -
(B) In the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts, the following additional standards shall apply -
1 One (1) guest sleeping room or accommodation shall be allowed as a by -
right use provided the maximum number of guest occupants shall not
exceed four (4) guests.
2. For two (2) or more guest sleeping rooms, a special use permit
shall be required on lots less than five (5) acres. Lots that are five (5) acres or greater
in size, a bed and breakfast shall be considered a by -right use.
SEC. 30-88. ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES.
Sec. 30-88-2. Accessory Uses: Residential Use Types.
(A) Residential use types may include the following accessory uses, activities or
structures on the same site or lot -
10. Residential chicken keeping including coops and chicken enclosures
provided that -
(b) Coops shall provide at least two (2) square feet of interior space
per chicken and chicken enclosures shall provide at least ten (10)
square feet of exterior space per chicken with a maximum total
area of two hundred fifty (250) square feet for both the coop and
September 22, 2015 473
chicken enclosure. Neither the coop nor chicken enclosure shall
exceed ten (10) feet in height.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
adoption.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, and carried by the
following roll call and recorded vote-
AYES- Supervisors Moore, Bedrosian, Church, McNamara, Peters
NAYS- None
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Bedrosian stated he had made a commitment to discuss the
issue of United Way and Planned Parenthood as long as he is on this Board and as
long as we are a partner with United Way. Recently the tenth (1 oth) video came out
from Planned Parenthood showing the dismembering of life, aborted babies. This has
been a topic of discussion from all over our Country. In fact, our US House of
Representatives voted overwhelmingly to defund Planned Parenthood. So, what he is
asking is as long as United Way is going to be a partner of Roanoke County and they
are because we help facilitate their fundraising efforts and we spend Roanoke County
taxpayer dollars, several thousand dollars a year to help facilitate this. He thinks it is
important to ask the United Way to stop their funding of Planned Parenthood. Carlie
Fare Rena said it best in the Republican debates. She said, "It is about the conscious
of America and the things we are doing." The reality is every issue is a local issue. The
abortions that happen do so in our County, right off Peters Creek Road. In the Roanoke
Valley twelve hundred (1,200) babies are aborted, killed last year alone and every year
it is about that number. On a positive note, he would like to invite those to the Blue
Ridge Women's Center that helps bring life into the world and helps women who are in
need, maybe an unplanned pregnancy. They are having a fundraising banquet at Hotel
Roanoke and there is still an opportunity to invite people to come out to that and is a
very worthwhile cause, so he would like to make that as successful as possible for the
Blue Ridge Women's Center.
Supervisor McNamara asked if Mr. Gates could convey to the Department
of Community Development, he knows we are going to go back and revisit stormwater
and soil and erosion and sediment control all those types of things. It is our intention to
thank them for all the work they have done. We are going to continue to work through
this, but they did not do bad work by any stretch of the imagination. We just wanted to
keep working through that to try to come up with the best solution that we can. He
would also like to thank Mr. Gates and his staff for the work that was pulled together for
the retreat a week and a half ago where we started the beginning of a strategic direction
for Roanoke County, a community planning document which will be supplemented by
an economic development piece that hopefully will become a valley -wide initiative to
474 September 22, 2015
drive growth in the Roanoke Valley. Thank you all for that. Thirdly, there are probably
people out there who have an interest in government, perhaps. They may have an
interest in a particular area of government. We always in particular as we do this
community vision and process, we have a lot of need for people to get involved in
various different committees. Some of them are valley -wide and some of them are
district specific. He has an opening on the Capital Improvement Planning Committee,
which is a group that tries to evaluate capital spending over the next eight to ten (8 to
10) years. They are not making a decision on the capital spending, but they are
becoming involved and educated in the needs of our County and providing another set
of eyes and ears and comments for everybody to consider. He has another one on the
Parks and Recreation Commission. As part of the community strategic visioning
project, we will be creating a number of committees over the next few months. We don't
need all Joe McNamara's on the committee, we need young people, we need males, we
need females, we need minorities, we need majorities, we need a little bit of everything
to make a better committee. So, if you are so inclined, any of the Board members are
looking for folks like that just contact the Clerk to the Board at 772-2005 and we would
love to put you to work for some unpaid labor.
Supervisor Moore thanked Naomi in our Community Development for
doing such a great job on Parking Lot Day this past Friday at the South County Library.
This is a concept to get people to rethink how the automobile has changed our
environment and would like to thank all the people who participated in in- Mill Mountain
Zoo, Play it Again Sports, Healing Hands, Roanoke County Parks and '�ec and Penn
Forest Elementary School third-grade class. About three hundred (300) people came
out and enjoyed the event and she is really looking forward to next year.
Supervisor Peters stated he would like to thank Mr. McNamara for taking
care of business for him while he was gone the first of the month. While you were
sitting here, he was sitting looking at the ocean. Thank you for keeping things running
smoothly. He would like to recognize our Chief of Police for serving on a State Board.
Doug Blount has been elected to the Virginia Recreational Parks Society. Two really
cool things happened last week. One was the Board went to a retreat to discuss
economic development and where we need to be going as a community and Mr.
McNamara is correct. We need people to be part of those focus groups. He sees the
Boy Scouts in the back of the room and maybe we need their input into where we need
to be going as time unfolds. He thanked Mr. Gates for his assistance and everything he
is doing to bring all of that together. The second thing was on Wednesday, he has been
to Washington, DC and has seen the Veterans Vietnam Wall, but we had the traveling
wall make its way to Salem and the entire Board was there that night for the opening
ceremonies. He had the privilege of laying a wreath at the wall for Roanoke County and
it was truly an awesome experience. One last comment he would like to make is to the
Parks and Recreation staff, the Roanoke Times stated that he left for the beach on
whatever day it was, but William Byrd High School is finally cleaned out and hopefully
we will be looking for a developer to occupy that space in a very short window of time
September 22, 2015 47 r-,
I %.,#
and get that building back on the tax roll. Again, he would like to thank all employees
for everything that they do. It has been a long evening and hopes everybody has a
wonderful night.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Peters adjourned the meeting at 7:41 p.m.
Su
,�mifted by: Approved by:
D"eborah C. Ja s4— P. Jaso Peters
Dutvq
CI ir
Chief Deputy to the Board Chair n
476 September 22, 2015
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY