HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/23/2017 - Regular
May 23, 2017
205
Roanoke County Administration Center
5204 Bernard Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday and the second
regularly scheduled meeting of the month of May 2017. Audio and video recordings of
this meeting will be held on file for a minimum of five (5) years in the office of the Clerk to
the Board of Supervisors.
IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES
Before the meeting was called to order a moment of silence was observed.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.
IN RE: CALL TO ORDER
Chairman McNamara called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. The roll call
was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Joseph P. McNamara, Supervisors George G.
Assaid, Al Bedrosian, Martha B. Hooker and P. Jason Peters
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Thomas C. Gates, County Administrator; Daniel R.
O’Donnell, Assistant County Administrator; Richard
Caywood, Assistant County Administrator; Ruth Ellen Kuhnel,
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. Resolution expressing appreciation and gratitude to Nancy Oliver
Gray for her service as President of Hollins University (Thomas C.
Gates, County Administrator)
Resolution was read by the Clerk and Supervisors Bedrosian, Hooker,
Peters and McNamara offered their congratulations.
May 23, 2017
206
RESOLUTION 052317-1 EXPRESSING APPRECIATION AND
GRATITUDE TO NANCY OLIVER GRAY FOR HER SERVICE AS
PRESIDENT OF HOLLINS UNIVERSITY IN ROANOKE COUNTY
WHEREAS, President Nancy Oliver Gray has ably led Hollins University with
th
boundless enthusiasm for 12 years as its 11 president, outlining and implementing a
bold vision and vaulting the University to prominence as a women’s college of excellence;
and,
th
WHEREAS, this year Hollins celebrates its 175 anniversary and there have been
significant gains in enrollment during President Gray’s tenure, with the largest incoming
class in 17 years beginning in the fall of 2016; and
WHEREAS, under her guidance, Hollins operated under no debt and a balanced
operating budget and was ranked by Forbes as among “America’s 100 Most Financially
Fit Colleges” in 2013 and was issued an “A” rating by Forbes in the “College Financial
Grades for 2016” list; and
WHEREAS, she led the largest comprehensive fundraising campaign in school
history and the largest undertaken by a women’s college in the South, the Campaign for
Women Who Are Going Places; and,
WHEREAS, President Gray has overseen the renovation of historic buildings and
gardens on the Hollins campus in Roanoke County and became a driving force in
deepening the University’s commitment to environmental sustainability; and
WHEREAS, during her presidency, Hollins University and Roanoke County
entered into an agreement for the County and Pathfinders for Greenways to build a
trailhead on University property for the Tinker Creek Greenway connecting to Carvins
Cove, which opened in 2012, and allows students and the community to enjoy the area’s
greenway system; and
WHEREAS, during her presidency, Hollins University also partnered with the
County with regards to public involvement and implementation of the Hollins Area Plan,
which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2008; and
WHEREAS, the Board adopts this Resolution of Appreciation and Gratitude to
recognize President Gray for her many years of service to Hollins University.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, that it expresses its deepest appreciation and gratitude to President
Nancy Oliver Gray for her enthusiastic, loyal and dedicated leadership of Hollins
University and collaboration with Roanoke County; and
FURTHER, that the Board does express its best wishes to her and success in her
future endeavors.
On motion of Supervisor Bedrosian to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor McNamara and carried by the following recorded vote:
May 23, 2017
207
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, Peters, McNamara,
NAYS: None
IN RE: NEW BUSINESS
1. Request to amend the scope of services for the Professional
Engineering Services Contact with Draper Aden Associates for the
Dixie Caverns Landfill Leachate Management Upgrade (David
Henderson, County Engineer)
A-052317-2
Mr. Henderson outlined the request. There was no discussion.
Supervisor McNamara moved to approve the staff recommendation to
amend the contract, which was seconded by Supervisor Hooker and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, Peters, McNamara,
NAYS: None
IN RE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance amending Article III (District Regulations) of the
Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance (John Murphy, Zoning
Administrator)
Mr. Murphy outlined the request for changes to the zoning ordinances,
planned districts.
Supervisor Bedrosian inquired about Intercept that came up last year, does
this effect with Mr. Murphy advising this is outpatient only.
Supervisor Peters’ motion to approve the first reading and set the second
reading and public hearing for June 27, 2017, was seconded by Supervisor McNamara
and approved by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisor Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, McNamara, Peters
NAYS: None
May 23, 2017
208
2. Ordinance authorizing the conveyance of the former William Byrd
High School to Waukeshaw Development, Inc. (Due to time
constraints, it is requested that, upon a four-fifths vote of the
Board, the second reading be waived per Article V Chapter 2,
Section 2-123 (h) of the Roanoke County Code) (Ruth Ellen Kuhnel,
County Attorney)
Ms. Kuhnel outlined the request for the ordinance and the need for the
waiving of second reading.
th
Supervisor McNamara stated the 4/5 vote and waiving of the second
reading; is having the second reading a Roanoke County requirement. Ms. Kuhnel
advised back in 1986 or 1987 when Roanoke County lobbied the General Assembly for
the Charter, it was put in at that time. All other localities would be having one reading.
One a side topic, sometime in the near future, no rush, he would be interested in what we
do two readings on and what we are required to do two readings on. If we are trying to
be lean, mean and very responsive to our constituents, he wonders if some of these
outdated activities should be looked at. Ms. Kuhnel responded we would still have to do
them on our real estate transfers so this would be a two-reading ordinance.
Supervisor Peters commented this is the second project in the Vinton
area, the Roland E. Cook Project has exceeded all of his expectations and would like to
thank Jill Loope as he has pushed her hard over the last two years and is glad we are to
this point.
ORDINANCE 052317-3 AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF
THE FORMER WILLIAM BYRD HIGH SCHOOL TO WAUKESHAW
DEVELOPMENT, INC. (NOW TO BE KNOWN AS WM BYRD LLC)
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County acquired this property
located in Vinton Magisterial District through a conveyance from the Roanoke County
School Board by deed dated August 8, 2013. At the time of the conveyance from the
School Board to the County, the old William Byrd High School (“School”) was no longer
in use by the Roanoke County School Board and was considered surplus property; and
WHEREAS, Waukeshaw Development, Inc. (now to be known as Wm Byrd
LLC)(“Buyer”) proposed a purchase of the School for the purpose of restoration and
renovation of the School; and
WHEREAS, the School is a landmark building in the County, and Buyer’s proposal
would preserve the historic nature of the building and also provide additional residential
and commercial services and employment in the Vinton Magisterial District; and
May 23, 2017
209
WHEREAS, the County, the Roanoke County Economic Development Authority
(“EDA”), and the Buyer entered into a Contract of Sale dated April 7, 2016, which set forth
terms and conditions for the Buyer’s purchase, restoration, and renovation of the School
WHEREAS, this property is on Tax map number 60.11-4-20 designated as “that
certain parcel of real estate known as the "old William Byrd High School” containing 6.494
acres, more or less, situate in the Vinton Magisterial District, together with any
improvements thereon, rights incident thereto, and appurtenances thereon belonging, all
as shown on the plat entitled "Resubdivision plat for County School Board of Roanoke
County being the resubdivision of Lot A-1 and Lot B as shown on ‘Resubdivision plat for
County School Board of Roanoke County’ recorded as Instrument #201203791 creating
hereon Lot A-1A (11.335 Acres) & Lot B1 (6.494 Acres) situated on Gus Nicks Boulevard
& Highland Road, said plat is recorded in the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk’s Office
as instrument #201212052; and
WHEREAS, the Contract of Sale required the County to apply to the
Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Historic Resources (“DHR”) for a Historic
Preservation Certification and the County made such application to seek a listing of the
School on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places
(“the Register”); and
WHEREAS, the County applied for and has received the appropriate designations
by DHR fulfilling the condition of the contract required prior to closing.
WHEREAS, the designation of the School on the National Register of Historic
Places and on the Virginia Landmarks Register has a significant fiscal impact on the ability
of Buyer to finance the renovations of the School through the sale of historic tax credits,
which credits are available only in the renovation of those structures designated on the
National and Virginia Registers; and
WHEREAS, Buyer has agreed that, subsequent to this conveyance, Buyer will
assume all responsibility to ensure that the restoration, renovation, and maintenance of
the School is in compliance with requirements established by the Virginia and National
Registers; and
WHEREAS, the County authorizes the Buyer to stand in its stead or as its proxy in
ongoing agreements and negotiations with DHR with regard to the restoration, renovation
and maintenance of the School so that Buyer may obtain historic tax credits; and
WHEREAS, the conveyance of this surplus school property for restoration and
renovation provides economic benefits to the County and preserves a historic landmark
in the County; and
WHEREAS, Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter directs that the
acquisition and conveyance of real estate interests be accomplished by ordinance; the
first reading of this ordinance was held on May 23, 2017, while second reading was
waived pursuant to Section 2-123(h) of the County Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
May 23, 2017
210
1. That the County shall convey to Buyer the School property parcel, which
consists of Tax map number 60.11-04-20, by Deed, a copy of which is attached hereto
and incorporated by reference.
2. That the County Administrator or Assistant County Administrator are hereby
authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke
County in this matter as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of this real estate,
all of which shall be approved as to form by the County Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
McNamara and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: ADOPTION OF PROPOSED BUDGET AND SECOND READING OF
ORDINANCES
Chairman McNamara allowed citizen comments:
Dale Sheets of 2656 Willowlawn Street stated he has lived here for 39 years
and has been retired for five years and lived in Virginia for 46 years and has lived within
15 miles of the Blue Ridge Parkway the entire time. So, he is here to talk about the Blue
Ridge Parkway and the Friends of the Blue Ridge Parkway. He does not have a published
agenda that he can give to the Clerk, but he will be real brief. One of the things when he
was talking on his front porch about different things and got up the next morning and
Wednesday morning it showed that the funding for the Friends of the Blue Ridge Parkway
had been eliminated, which is $5,600. If you look at a piece of literature that came out
from the home office, which he calls Ashville, North Carolina, the Friends of the Blue
Ridge Parkway created almost a billion dollars in money and 26 counties in the Parkway.
He would like to thank the 26 counties, if you divide that into the figure, the return on
investment (and he spent 35 years in sales) return on investment is extremely important
and the County is getting some really good return on investment. So, even though the
horse is out of the barn, if it is, it is. He heard Mr. Peters speak over at the dedication
ceremony for the Fisherman’s Trail and he spoke very highly of the Blue Ridge Parkway
and the benefits it brings to Roanoke County. So, he does not know what happened and
if the horse is out of the barn, we will have to raise the $5,600 that we normally use from
the Board, but he is sure that the hard work and dedication that we have. He has been a
volunteer for five years and he has enjoyed every bit of it. He appreciates the time.
Isabel Kase of 5220 Archer Drive stated that she feels privileged to speak
as a citizen and thanked the Chairman for letting her speak. She is here again to speak
about the debt. She does not understand how we allowed ourselves to get so deep in
debt. She is amazed at how so few people are even aware of our debt ($200 million debt)
and the fact that we are required to pay $8 million every year interest on our debt.
May 23, 2017
211
They are shocked and she does not understand why they are not even aware of it. It
concerns her. She has lived on Archer Drive in Hunting Hills for 45 years and she loves
Roanoke County and it grieves her to think we are allowing ourselves to do this (to get
so deep in debt). It just sounds too much like the federal government to her and one
other thing she would like to say is that she had heard that real estate taxes would not
be increased, but hers has. It really does not bother her that much, but just wanted to
mention that. Thank you again for allowing her to speak.
Mr. Bever outlined the request for the resolution. He noted that the budget
does include $5,600 for Friends of the Blue Ridge Parkway.
Supervisor Bedrosian commented that he would make his comments at
the beginning and knows we have a lot of other things to vote on. He asked for a slide to
be presented (a copy of the slide is on file in the office of the Clerk). He added that a lot
of people come up to the podium. So he has listed them so we can look at them and if
there is an error, he would be glad to know. He thinks it is important that the citizens
know how we spend our money and what our burdens are. He is not really trying to
convince anybody else on the Board; everyone is accountable to their own constituents
and he feels it is important to walk through this. $8 million in interest, which was comment
of someone who came to speak and is the interest we pay each year on the debt. It is an
estimate because our debt fluctuates; it has been over $200 million and then came down
and now it is going to go back up. So, he gives that as an estimate. $15 million is in the
increase in the budget over four years. People can get an idea of how this Board has
done over the last four years and that is his term, four years. The budget has gone up by
$15 million. There has been $40+ million debt over the last four years. Here is the thing.
We as a Board are responsible for fiscal year 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018. We are elected
basically in 2013 and we came on Board in 2014, but the budget was already approved
including CIP. Technically, they are our budgets and the debt is really for fiscal year 2018.
So, in addition to the one today that will pass, there is $30+ million in debt, plus he
includes debt for Broadband and the Industrial Authority even though we don’t have that
on our books, it is money that we are obligated to. So, basically the last four years we
have accumulated $40 million in debt. $124 million interest since fiscal year 2000. This
one is interesting; a lot of money for interest only. A lot of times, we come to this Board
and everybody is angsting over trying to give a pay raise. Just to give you an idea, the
pay raise this year is $700,000 (he thinks) and is potatoes compared to the interest we
are paying. If we just did not have to pay these interest payments all of the time, a lot of
the other things would be more easily done, but that is a good figure to know, $124 million
of interest only since the year 2000. This year’s budget is $187 million; is the largest
budget we have ever had in Roanoke County history and $200 million total debt burden.
The number is derived from the fact of where we are right now and estimating fiscal year
2017 and we are going to end up at about $170 million, which was great and we were
doing really well. We held off on borrowing money and debt was going down. We held
off, basically postponed it and did not really have a plan to get out of debt, we just
May 23, 2017
212
postponed it. So, now, this CIP that we will be approving today will be adding $36 million
back. We have debt that we don’t really count as debt because we play games with these
authorities and will be back over the $200 million mark. So, those are the numbers; he is
a numbers guy and thinks behind the numbers are a lot of stories. It is important for us
to do a lot of the things we do in County government, but he does not handle his home
this way. He does it very differently and that is why it is hard for him to approve things
when he sees that it is unsustainable. It really is. He would just say that probably in the
next few years there will have to have a tax increase to pay for some of these things and
things will get tighter and tighter and maybe programs will need to be removed and down
to the basic things for government because we will not have the money because the debt
burden will be too high.
RESOLUTION 052317-4 ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2017-
2018 OPERATING BUDGET, THE FISCAL YEAR 2017-2018
CAPITAL BUDGET, AND FISCAL YEAR 2018-2027 CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
AND ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
WHEREAS, Section 15.2-2503 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended,
provides that the governing body of the County shall prepare and approve an annual
budget; and
WHEREAS, said budget shall be prepared and approved for informative and fiscal
planning purposes only; and
WHEREAS, this budget contains a complete itemized and classified plan of all
contemplated expenditures and all estimated revenues and borrowings for the ensuing
fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, a brief synopsis of said budget was published as required by the
provisions of Section 15.2-2506 of the State Code, and the public hearings as required
thereon were held on April 11, 2017 and May 9, 2017; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia:
1. That there is hereby approved the annual operating budget for fiscal year
2017-2018 for Roanoke County, Virginia, and Roanoke County Public
Schools as shown on the attached Schedules.
2. That there is hereby approved the capital budget for fiscal year 2017-2018
and Capital Improvement Program for fiscal year 2018-2027 for Roanoke
County, Virginia, and Roanoke County Public Schools as shown on the
attached Schedules.
3. That the preparation and approval of these budgets is for informative and
fiscal planning purposes only.
4. The fees which shall be charged by the County of Roanoke for the following
described emergency medical services provided by the Roanoke County
May 23, 2017
213
owned, operated, funded, housed or permitted emergency vehicles shall be
as follows:
Advance Life Support (ALS) 1 Emergency $450.00
Advance Life Support (ALS) 2 Emergency $685.00
Basic Life Support (BLS) Emergency $390.00
Mileage (loaded) $11.00/per mile
No recipient of ambulance services who cannot afford to pay the ambulance
transport fees will be required to do so.
5. The ambulance fees described above in this resolution replace fees
approved as part of resolution 032712-6 and shall be in full force and effect
on and after July 1, 2017.
Revenues - County
Amount
General Fund - County
General Government
General Property Taxes$127,917,671
Local Sales Tax10,484,945
Telecommunications Tax3,686,255
Business License Tax6,220,000
Bank Franchise Tax600,000
Consumer Utility Tax3,789,450
Motor Vehicle License Tax2,280,883
Recordation/Conveyance Tax1,509,509
Meals Tax4,656,620
Hotel/Motel Tax1,461,052
Other Local Taxes604,000
Permits, Fees & Licenses724,450
Fines and Forfeitures404,500
Use of Money and Property271,600
Charges for Services4,101,398
May 23, 2017
Commonwealth11,192,038
Federal4,467,294
214
Other
2,222,601
Subtotal, General Government
$186,594,266
Communications and Information Technology$10,032,908
Children's Services Act7,250,176
Law Library11,025
Public Works Projects182,940
Recreation Fee Class5,513,439
Grants and Other Funds1,051,962
Criminal Justice Academy371,699
Police Special Programs1,000
Fleet Service Center
2,917,515
Subtotal, Other General Funds
$27,332,664
Total, General Fund - County$213,926,930
Debt Service Fund - County$7,257,239
Capital Projects Fund - County23,571,344
Internal Service Fund - County
12,116,575
Total, All County Funds$256,872,088
Revenues - Schools
Amount
School General (Operating) Fund$145,407,698
School Nutrition Fund6,079,204
School Debt Fund11,863,259
School Grants Fund7,017,665
School Capital Fund36,982,750
School Instructional Resources Fund1,091,652
School Bus Fund876,893
School Laptop Fund
357,740
Total, All Schools Funds$209,676,861
Total: All County and Schools Funds466,548,949
Less: Transfers(111,216,130)
Total Net of Transfers$355,332,819
May 23, 2017
215
Schedule #1
County of Roanoke & Roanoke County Public Schools
Adopted Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Operating and Capital Budget Expenditures
May 23, 2017
Expenditures - County
Amount
General Fund - County
General Government
General Administration$3,320,028
Constitutional Officers13,790,787
Judicial Administration737,232
Management Services3,461,133
Public Safety27,708,715
Community Services11,847,768
Human Services20,300,763
Non-Departmental14,318,598
Addition to Fund Balance/Contingent Balance479,719
Transfers to School Operating Fund68,078,937
Transfers to (from) Capital Fund3,625,379
Transfers to Debt Service Fund - County Debt6,949,696
Transfers to Debt Service Fund - Schools Debt7,625,570
Transfers to Internal Services - Risk Management1,654,003
Transfer to Public Works Projects182,940
May 23, 2017
Transfer to Children's Services Act Fund - County
1,284,000
Transfer to Children's Services Act Fund - Schools
1,229,000
216
Subtotal, General Government
$186,594,266
Communications and Information Technology$10,032,908
Children's Services Act7,250,176
Law Library11,025
Public Works Projects182,940
Recreation Fee Class5,513,439
Grants and Other Funds1,051,962
Criminal Justice Academy371,699
Police Special Programs1,000
Fleet Service Center
2,917,515
Subtotal, Other General Funds
$27,332,664
Total, General Fund - County$213,926,930
Debt Service Fund - County$7,257,239
Capital Projects Fund - County23,571,344
Internal Service Fund - County
12,116,575
Total, All County Funds$256,872,088
Expenditures - Schools
Amount
School General (Operating) Fund$145,407,698
School Nutrition Fund6,079,204
School Debt Fund11,863,259
School Grants Fund7,017,665
School Capital Fund36,982,750
School Instructional Resources Fund1,091,652
School Bus Fund876,893
School Laptop Fund
357,740
Total, All Schools Funds$209,676,861
Total: All County and Schools Funds$466,548,949
Less: Transfers$(111,216,130)
Total Net of Transfers$355,332,819
May 23, 2017
217
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisor Bedrosian
ORDINANCE 052317-5 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE 2017-2018 FISCAL
YEAR OPERATIONS BUDGET AND APPROVAL OF THE CLASSIFICATION AND
PAY PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017-2018 FOR ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, public hearings were held
on April 11, 2017 and May 9, 2017, concerning the adoption of the annual budget for Roanoke
County for fiscal year 2017-2018; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, approved said
budget on May 23, 2017, pursuant to the provisions of Section 13.02 of the Roanoke County
Charter and Chapter 25 of Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was held on May 9, 2017,
and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 23, 2017, pursuant to the
provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the respective funds for
the period beginning July 1, 2017, and ending June 30, 2018, for the functions and
purposes indicated:
County of Roanoke, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
County Operations
May 23, 2017
Appropriation
Amount
Revenues:
General Fund - County:
General Government$ 109,660,760
Communications & Information Technology 10,032,908
Children's Services Act 7,250,176
Law Library 11,025
Public Works Projects 182,940
Recreation Fee Class 5,513,439
Grants & Other Funds 1,051,962
Police Special Programs 1,000
Criminal Justice Academy 371,699
Fleet Service Center 2,917,515
Subtotal, General Fund$ 136,993,424
May 23, 2017
Debt Service Fund - County$ 7,257,239
218
Internal Service Fund - Health Insurance$ 9,746,749
Internal Service Fund - Dental Insurance 715,823
Internal Service Fund - Risk Management 1,654,003
Subtotal, Internal Service Funds $ 12,116,575
Total Revenue - County Operations Funds$ 156,367,238
Expenditures:
General Government - County Operations:
General Administration
Board of Supervisors$ 331,954
County Administration 753,710
Internal Auditor 114,528
Public Information 189,275
County Attorney 571,113
Human Resources 839,443
Economic Development 520,006
Subtotal, General Administration$ 3,320,028
Constitutional Officers
Commissioner of the Revenue$ 774,293
Commonwealth's Attorney 1,135,031
Sheriff's Office 9,939,974
Treasurer 838,725
Clerk of the Circuit Court 1,102,764
Subtotal, Constitutional Officers$ 13,790,787
Judicial Administration
Circuit Court$ 237,972
General District Court 95,440
Magistrate 1,590
Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court 47,086
Court Service Unit 305,144
Courthouse Maintenance 50,000
Subtotal, Judicial Administration$ 737,232
Management Services
Real Estate Valuation (Assessor)$ 812,371
Finance (Accounting, Payroll, Purchasing) 1,897,594
Management & Budget 331,168
Public Transportation (CORTRAN) 420,000
Subtotal, Management Services$ 3,461,133
Public Safety
Police$ 12,237,599
Fire & Rescue 15,471,116
May 23, 2017
Subtotal, Public Safety$ 27,708,715
219
Community Services
Community Development$ 4,322,361
General Services 7,525,407
Subtotal, Community Services$ 11,847,768
Human Services
Parks, Recreation, & Tourism$ 4,668,093
Public Health 500,358
Social Services 10,629,039
Library 4,045,221
Virginia Cooperative Extension 87,097
Elections (Registrar) 370,955
Subtotal, Human Services$ 20,300,763
Non-Departmental
Employee Benefits$ 2,653,886
Transfer to Communications & Information Technology 8,114,268
Contributions - Discretionary, Contractual, Dues & Memberships 2,055,444
Miscellaneous 1,495,000
Board Contingency 50,000
Addition to Fund Balance 429,719
Subtotal, Non-Departmental$ 14,798,317
Transfers to Other Funds
Transfer to Debt Service - County$ 6,949,696
Transfer to County Capital 3,625,379
Transfer to Children's Services Act - County 1,284,000
Transfer to Internal Services - Risk Management 1,654,003
Transfer to Public Works Projects 182,940
Subtotal, Transfers to Other Funds$ 13,696,018
Total, General Government - County Operations$ 109,660,760
Communications & Information Technology$ 10,032,908
Children's Services Act$ 7,250,176
Law Library$ 11,025
Public Works Projects$ 182,940
Recreation Fee Class$ 5,513,439
May 23, 2017
Grants & Other Funds$ 1,051,962
220
Police Special Programs$ 1,000
Criminal Justice Academy$ 371,699
Fleet Service Center$ 2,917,515
Total, General Fund - County Operations$ 136,993,424
Debt Service Fund - County$ 7,257,239
Internal Service Fund - Health Insurance$ 9,746,749
Internal Service Fund - Dental Insurance 715,823
Internal Service Fund - Risk Management 1,654,003
Total, Internal Service Funds$ 12,116,575
Total Expenditures - All County Operations Funds$ 156,367,238
2. That the County Administrator may authorize or delegate the authorization of
the transfer of any unencumbered balance or portion thereof from one
department to another.
May 23, 2017
221
3. That all funded outstanding operating encumbrances at June 30, 2017, are re-
appropriated to the 2017-2018 fiscal year to the same department and account
for which they are encumbered in the previous year.
4. That all General Government Fund unexpended appropriations at the end of
the 2016-2017 fiscal year not lapse but shall be re-appropriated to the County
Capital Reserve.
5. That all General Government Fund revenues collected in excess of
appropriated revenues shall be re-appropriated to the County Capital Reserve.
6. Account balances remaining in the Fee Class Fund collected by the Parks,
Recreation and Tourism Department will be allocated to accounts as defined
by the Fee Class Accounts Procedure.
7. Account balances remaining in Children’s Services Act (C111), Police
Confiscated Property (C120), Police Special Programs (C121), Forfeited Asset
Sharing (C122), Sheriff Confiscated Property (C123), Sheriff Jail Fees (C124),
Inventory Accounts (C125), Criminal Justice Academy (C126), Police Training
Facility (C127), Garage - Fleet Service Center (C130), Motor Pool (C132),
Grants (C135), Communications and Information Technology (C141-C144),
Fee Class (C150), Law Library (C155), Public Works Fund (C170), Social
Services Building (C175), South Peak Community Development Authority
(C201), County Debt Fund (C310, C320, C330, C340), County Capital and
Economic Development Funds (C420, C421, C425, C428, C440, C445, C451,
C455), County Trust Funds (C501, C502), Internal Service Funds (C700, C705,
C710), Special Welfare (C810), Regional Fire/Rescue Training Center (C814),
Commonwealth Fund (C815), and Economic Development Authority (C818)
funds will carry over 100% and be re-appropriated to the individual funds.
8. That the Board of Supervisors anticipates receiving various grants, donations,
and other miscellaneous revenues. These anticipated funds are appropriated
to the Grants Fund for the various functions and purposes as provided therein,
and said appropriation shall be acknowledged and allocated to the appropriate
fund upon approval by the Board of Supervisors on the Consent Agenda.
9. That the Board of Supervisors approves the County of Roanoke Classification
and Pay Plan. The Classification and Pay Plan included as part of this
ordinance is effective July 1, 2017. The County Administrator shall implement
the County Classification and Pay Plan pursuant to Board of Supervisors
Resolution 0825115-1.
10. This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2017.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
McNamara and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisor Bedrosian
May 23, 2017
222
ORDINANCE 052317-6 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR
THE 2017-2018 FISCAL YEAR CAPITAL BUDGET FOR
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, public hearings were
held on April 11, 2017 and May 9, 2017, concerning the adoption of the annual budget
for Roanoke County for fiscal year 2017-2018; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, approved said
budget on May 23, 2017, pursuant to the provisions of Section 13.02 of the Roanoke
County Charter and Chapter 25 of Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended;
and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was held on May 9,
2017, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 23, 2017, pursuant to
the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the respective funds
for the period beginning July 1, 2017, and ending June 30, 2018, for the
functions and purposes indicated:
County of Roanoke, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
County Capital
May 23, 2017
Appropriation
Amount
Revenues:
County Capital:
Transfer from General Government Fund$ 7,610,901
County Unrestricted Cash (excl. Transfer from General Govt. Fund) 3,102,196
County Restricted Cash 2,975,247
Non-County 1,108,000
Lease/Revenue Bonds 8,675,000
Miscellaneous Revenues 100,000
Total Revenue - County Capital$ 23,571,344
Expenditures:
County Capital:
May 23, 2017
FY 2018 Capital Fund supported by General Government Fund
excluding General Government Transfers to CIP & Fleet Replacement$ 3,825,000
223
FY 2018 Capital Year Budget - Public Safety$ 5,047,000
FY 2018 Capital Year Budget - Community Services$ 2,843,247
FY 2018 Capital Year Budget - Human Services$ 5,238,000
FY 2018 Capital Year Budget - Internal Services$ 3,715,000
Subtotal, FY 2018 Capital Year Budget$ 16,843,247
FY 2018 Fleet Replacement Budget$ 2,903,097
Total Expenditures - County Capital$ 23,571,344
2. That the County Administrator may authorize or delegate the authorization of
the transfer of any unencumbered balance or portion thereof from one project
to another so as to provide for the completion of a capital project.
3. That all funded outstanding capital encumbrances at June 30, 2017, are re-
appropriated to the 2017-2018 fiscal year to the same account for which they
are encumbered in the previous year.
4. That appropriations designated for capital projects will not lapse at the end of
the fiscal year but shall remain appropriated until the completion of the project
or until the Board of Supervisors, by appropriate action, changes or eliminates
the appropriation. Upon completion of a capital project, staff is authorized to
May 23, 2017
224
close out the project and transfer to the funding source any remaining balances.
This section applies to appropriations for capital projects at June 30, 2017, and
appropriations in the 2017-2018 budget.
5. That the Board of Supervisors anticipates receiving various grants, donations,
and other miscellaneous revenues. These anticipated funds are appropriated
to the Grants Fund for the various functions and purposes as provided therein,
and said appropriation shall be acknowledged and allocated to the appropriate
fund upon approval by the Board of Supervisors on the Consent Agenda.
6. This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2017.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, seconded by
Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisor Bedrosian
ORDINANCE 052317-7 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR
THE 2017-2018 FISCAL YEAR TRANSFERS TO AND ON
BEHALF OF ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, public hearings were
held on April 11, 2017 and May 9, 2017, concerning the adoption of the annual budget
for Roanoke County for fiscal year 2017-2018; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, approved
said budget on May 23, 2017, pursuant to the provisions of Section 13.02 of the
Roanoke County Charter and Chapter 25 of Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was held on May 9,
2017, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 23, 2017, pursuant to
the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the respective funds
for the period beginning July 1, 2017, and ending June 30, 2018, for the
functions and purposes indicated:
County of Roanoke, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Schools Revenue Sharing Transfer, Debt Service Transfer, and
Children's Services Act Transfer
May 23, 2017
Appropriation
Amount
Revenues:
General Government Fund$ 76,933,507
Total Revenue - Schools Transfers$ 76,933,507
Expenditures:
General Government Fund
Transfer to Schools Operations$ 68,078,937
Transfer to Transfer to Debt Service Fund - Schools Debt Service 7,625,570
Transfer to Children's Service Act on behalf of Schools 1,229,000
Total Expenditures - Schools Transfers$ 76,933,507
May 23, 2017
225
2. That the transfer to Roanoke County Public Schools for operating per the
County and School revenue sharing agreement shall be transferred in its
entirety.
3. That the transfers made by Roanoke County on behalf of Roanoke County
Public Schools to the Debt Service Fund and Children’s Service Act Fund shall
be based on actual expenditures incurred during fiscal year 2017-2018. Any
remaining balance in those transfers shall remain with Roanoke County
government.
4. This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2017.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, seconded by
Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisor Bedrosian
May 23, 2017
226
ORDINANCE 052317-8 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR
THE 2017-2018 FISCAL YEAR OPERATIONS BUDGET
FOR ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, public hearings were
held on April 11, 2017 and May 9, 2017, concerning the adoption of the annual budget
for Roanoke County for fiscal year 2017-2018; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, approved said
budget on May 23, 2017, pursuant to the provisions of Section 13.02 of the Roanoke
County Charter and Chapter 25 of Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended;
and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was held on May 9,
2017, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 23, 2017, pursuant to
the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the respective funds
for the period beginning July 1, 2017, and ending June 30, 2018, for the
functions and purposes indicated:
County of Roanoke, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Roanoke County Public Schools Operations
May 23, 2017
Appropriation
Amount
Revenues:
Schools Operating Funds:
General$ 145,407,698
Nutrition 6,079,204
Grants 7,017,665
Instructional Resources 1,091,652
Bus 876,893
Laptop 357,740
Subtotal, Schools Operating Funds $ 160,830,852
Debt Service Fund - Schools$ 11,863,259
May 23, 2017
Total Revenue - Schools Operations and Debt Service Fund$ 172,694,111
227
Expenditures:
Schools Operating Funds:
General$ 145,407,698
Nutrition 6,079,204
Grants 7,017,665
Instructional Resources 1,091,652
Bus 876,893
Laptop 357,740
Subtotal, Schools Operating Funds Expenditures$ 160,830,852
Debt Service Fund - Schools$ 11,863,259
Total Expenditures - Schools Operations and Debt Service Fund$ 172,694,111
2. That all School General Fund appropriation remaining at the end of the 2016-
2017 fiscal year not lapse, but shall be appropriated to the School Capital Fund
in fiscal year 2017-2018 as follows:
a.) Two-thirds of the year-end balance in the school operating funds will be
allocated to the Major School Capital Reserve;
b.) One-third of the year-end balance in the school operating fund will be
allocated to the Minor School Capital Reserve.
May 23, 2017
228
3. Account balances remaining in the Schools Debt Fund (C360, C365, C370) will
carry over 100% and be re-appropriated to the individual funds.
4. This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2017.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, seconded by
Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Hooker, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: Supervisor Bedrosian
ORDINANCE 052317-9 APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR
THE 2017-2018 FISCAL YEAR CAPITAL BUDGET FOR
ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
WHEREAS, upon notice duly published in the newspaper, public hearings were
held on April 11, 2017 and May 9, 2017, concerning the adoption of the annual budget
for Roanoke County for fiscal year 2017-2018; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, approved
said budget on May 23, 2017, pursuant to the provisions of Section 13.02 of the
Roanoke County Charter and Chapter 25 of Title 15.2 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as
amended; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this appropriation ordinance was held on May 9,
2017, and the second reading of this ordinance was held on May 23, 2017, pursuant to
the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That the following appropriations are hereby made from the respective funds
for the period beginning July 1, 2017, and ending June 30, 2018, for the
functions and purposes indicated:
County of Roanoke, Virginia
Fiscal Year 2017-2018
Roanoke County Public Schools Capital
May 23, 2017
Appropriation
Amount
Revenues:
Schools Capital
Schools Unrestricted Cash$ 6,982,750
Virginia Public Schools Authority (VPSA) Bonds 30,000,000
Total Revenue - Schools Capital$ 36,982,750
Expenditures:
Schools Capital
Cave Spring High School$ 35,500,000
Capital Maintenance Plan 1,000,000
Human Resources and Payroll Module 50,000
Other Minor Capital Items & Reserves 432,750
May 23, 2017
Total Expenditures - Schools Capital$ 36,982,750
229
2. That all funded outstanding capital encumbrances at June 30, 2017, are re-
appropriated to the 2017-2018 fiscal year to the same account for which they
are encumbered in the previous year.
3. That appropriations designated for capital projects will not lapse at the end of
the fiscal year but shall remain appropriated until the completion of the project.
This section applies to appropriations for capital projects at June 30, 2017, and
appropriations in the 2017-2018 budget.
4. Upon completion of a capital project, staff is authorized to close out the project
and transfer to the funding source any remaining balances. This section applies
to appropriations for capital projects at June 30, 2017, and appropriations in
the 2017-2018 budget.
5. This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2017.
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
McNamara and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Hooker, Peters, McNamara
ABSTAIN: Supervisor Assaid
NAYS: Supervisor Bedrosian
May 23, 2017
230
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION
1. Resolution approving Roanoke County's Secondary Road Six-Year
Improvement Plan for fiscal years 2018-2023 (David Holladay,
Planning Administrator)(POSTPONED AT THE REQUEST OF
STAFF UNTIL JUNE 27, 2017)
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance authorizing the vacation of a portion of a 16.5 foot public
utility easement (PUE) located on 5501 Valley Drive, Windsor Hills
Magisterial District on Tax Map No. 067.10-01-21.00-0000 in
Farmingdale Subdivision (Tarek Moneir, Deputy Director of
Development Services)
There were no changes from first reading. Chairman McNamara opened
and closed the public hearing with no citizens to speak on this agenda item. There was
no discussion.
ORDINANCE 052317-10 AUTHORIZING THE VACATION OF A
PORTION OF A 16.5 FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY OF DUMITRU AND MARY K.
BRANISTEANU, 5501 VALLEY DRIVE, WINDSOR HILLS
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT ON TAX MAP NO. 067.10-01-21.00-
0000 IN FARMINGDALE SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, the plat of Lot 1, Section 1 – Revised Farmingdale Subdivision
recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat
Book 4, page 28 and Plat Book 3, page 171, dedicated two, 16.5 foot wide public utility
easements across a parcel identified as Lot 1, Section 1 (Tax Map # 067.10-01-21.00-
0000); and
WHEREAS, the current owners of the property, Dumitru and Mary K. Branisteanu,
have requested that a portion of the 16.5 foot public utility easement which bisects the
property in the northwest-southeast direction running diagonally across the property be
vacated in order to remove the encumbrances on their property; and
WHEREAS, County staff has reviewed and approved the vacation of the portion
of the 16.5 foot public utility easement as shown on the exhibit (Exhibit ‘A”) attached
hereto; and
WHEREAS, no other property owner will be affected by the vacation of the portion
of the public utility easement, and this vacation will not involve any cost to the County,
and the affected County departments and public utilities have raised no objection; and
May 23, 2017
231
WHEREAS, this notice has been given as required by Section 15.2-2204 of the
Code of Virginia (1950, as amended); and
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 May 9, 2017, and a second
reading and public hearing of this ordinance was held on May 23, 2017.
2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County
Charter, the subject real estate, a portion of one of two16.5 wide public utility easements,
dedicated by plat of Lot 1, Section 1 – Revised Farmingdale Subdivision (Plat Book 4,
Page 28 and Plat Book 3, Page 71) is hereby declared to be surplus and the nature of
the interests in real estate renders them unavailable for other public use.
3. That the subject real estate, a portion of a 16.5 foot wide public utility easement,
running diagonally and bisecting the property in the northwest-southeast direction,
dedicated by plat of the revised Farmingdale Subdivision (Plat Book 4, Page 28 and Plat
Book 3, Page 171) be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.2-2270 of the Code
of Virginia 1950, as amended.
4. That all costs and expenses associated herewith, including but not limited to
publication, survey and recordation costs, shall be the responsibility of the Petitioners.
5. That the County Administrator, or any Assistant County Administrator, is hereby
authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to
accomplish the provisions of this ordinance, all which shall be on form approved by the
County Attorney.
6. That this ordinance shall be effective on and from the date of its adoption, and
a certified copy of this ordinance shall be recorded in the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court
of Roanoke County, Virginia, in accordance with Section 15.2-2272 of the Code of Virginia
(1950, as amended).
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the ordinance, seconded by
Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION 052317-11 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN
CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM K- CONSENT AGENDA
May 23, 2017
232
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 May 23,
2017, 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 – March 28, 2017
2. Request to accept and allocate donations totaling $350 given to the Roanoke
County Police Department to be used for Project Life Saver
3. Request to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of $5,000 from
the Office of the Attorney General for Virginia Rules Camp Program
4. Request to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of $95,718.16
from the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Program to Roanoke
Valley Regional Drug Unit
5. Request to accept and appropriate grant funds in the amount of $3,000 from
the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) to retrofit
current trash containers to make them bear resistant
On motion of Supervisor Peters to adopt the resolution, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, Peters, McNamara,
NAYS: None
A-052317-11.a
A-052317-11.b
A-052317-11.c
A-052317-11.d
IN RE: CITIZENS’ COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The following citizens spoke:
Ms. Keitler stated she lives at 6683 Mt. Chestnut Road stated she intended
to speak in support of Friends of the Blue Ridge Parkway on sustaining the previous levels
and her colleague has told her that the Board has done so. They appreciate it so much.
The volunteers know how to stretch a dollar and it is a good investment at this time,
especially when national parks are experiencing funding shortages. Thank you so much.
Michael Altizer stated what he really wanted to talk about tonight are some
comments for the Board. First of all, being an election year and it happens all over this
Country. It happens locally, State-wide and at the Federal government, all government
is bad. We do everything bad and we are not doing anything good. So, he is going to
commend this Board, all five of you for the things that you have done and the things you
May 23, 2017
233
have laid into motion that really has to happen for the years coming. He respects Mr.
Bedrosian; does not agree with him on a lot of things and that is okay. He will agree with
one spot down the road, but for different reasons that Roanoke County could encounter;
having to raise taxes in the near future. It has nothing to do with the debt service. What
is has to do with and he is going to go back to the slide from 2000 to now with debt service.
What we haven’t heard is from the years 2000 to 2012 there were three real estate tax
cuts that happened in Roanoke County. Why did they happen? They happened by
growing economic development, by going out and investing in the future of Roanoke
County. How does economic development play a role. It plays a role that it is biggest pot
of money that comes from what they provide for us in getting tax relief from residential.
Our rates of residential in our revenue is too high. Economic development and he
applauds this Board for buying the property out beside Green Ridge because he is going
to go back and talk about if the Chairman will give him latitude because he thinks there
are things that need to be said in this day and time. There are a lot of people that talk
about government should not be getting into incentives and whathaveyou. He thinks they
worked pretty well for Roanoke County in 2000 and on; Ardaugh, Cardinal Glass and
Integrity Windows. Not having inventory, not having property, not having places ready
for businesses when they are ready to come can be devastating. When Ardaugh came
it was the biggest investment in Roanoke County. For $97 million, 100 jobs, average jobs
$21 an hour. What wasn’t out in the media was there was another company here looking
for the same building; wanting to come to Roanoke County, wanting to be here, a Fortune
500 company, 350 jobs, $173 million in investment that did not come because there
wasn’t an inventory here or in a position for them to locate; not in Roanoke City, not in
Roanoke County, not in Botetourt, Franklin, etc. Roanoke County has to stay competitive.
If you look at Franklin County, $30 million is going to be invested over the next ten years
for an industrial park. Botetourt County is making great strides with their park, but as he
found out last week, they are looking for more land to buy. They have a beautiful place
down there. When we are talking about things, he does not hear about economic
development being the number one goal because it is going to be the number one
hindrance to Roanoke County over the next 15 years. The other hindrance here is with
a population growth of one percent or one point 2 percent, we cannot generate enough
people in the labor force to fill the jobs that are going to come. We cannot do that. We
have to be positioned for that. So, there are many things out here so the people that don’t
want to bring economic development and don’t want to give incentives are pre-destining
Roanoke County to raise taxes; that is what they are doing. We have to have inventory
for businesses. He just wants to go back. People talk about supporting our school
systems, but they hand them the debt of Roanoke County; 51.2% of Roanoke County’s
debt is schools. It was just brought up a few minutes ago since 2000, approximately $145
million was spent on Roanoke County schools. Money was dispersed through every
district in Roanoke County for the citizens who pay equal taxation to have the same
appropriate new schools. Northside High School, Glenvar High School, William Byrd, Mt.
Pleasant Elementary, Cave Spring Elementary, Herman L. Horn, Burlington and Cave
Spring Middle all were renovated in those years to the tune of $145 million. So, when we
May 23, 2017
234
talk about debt, let’s not just put platitudes out there. Let’s put what is paid for and say
what are we going to do to reconcile what is really going to be the problem for the next
coming years.
IN RE: REPORTS
Supervisor McNamara moved to receive and file the following reports and
was seconded by Supervisor Hooker. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
1. Unappropriated, Board Contingency and Capital Reserves Report
2. Outstanding Debt Report
3. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Revenues as of
April 30, 2017
4. Comparative Statement of Budgeted and Actual Expenditures and
Encumbrances as of April 30, 2017
5. Accounts Paid - April 30, 2017
IN RE: CLOSED MEETING
At 3:50 p.m., Supervisor McNamara moved to go into closed meeting
pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-3711 A Section 2.2.3711.A.1 Discussion or
consideration of the employment contract of specific public officers, appointees or
employees, namely the County Administrator. Supervisor Peters seconded the motion.
The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
The closed session was held from 4:05 p.m. until 4:25 p.m.
th
At 3:51 p.m. Chairman McNamara recessed to the 4 floor for closed
meeting.
At 7:02 p.m., Supervisor McNamara moved to return to open session and
adopt the certification resolution.
IN RE: CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION 052317-12 CERTIFYING THE CLOSED MEETING
WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
May 23, 2017
235
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened
a closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance
with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.2-3712 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the
Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that such closed meeting was
conducted in conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to the best of each member’s knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the closed meeting which this certification
resolution applies; and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the closed meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor McNamara to adopt the resolution, seconded by
Supervisor Peters and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READINGS OF ORDINANCES
1. The petition of Lexington Falls, LLC to rezone approximately 1.67
acres to amend a proffered condition on property zoned C-2CS
(High Intensity Commercial District with conditions and special use
permit), located at 6065 Peters Creek Road, and to rezone 0.68 acre
from C-1 (Low Intensity Commercial District) to C-2 (High Intensity
Commercial District), located in the 6100 block of Burlington Drive.
The amended proffer references general conformance to a revised
concept plan showing additional parking and a new access drive
on Burlington Drive for an existing Bojangles restaurant; Hollins
Magisterial District (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of Planning)
Mr. Thompson outlined the request.
Supervisor Bedrosian questioned what could go in there now with Mr.
Thompson responding office buildings, day care.
Mr. Seymour (petitioner) outlined the request is for rear access only.
Stormwater will be in compliance with County ordinance.
Chairman McNamara opened the public hearing and the following citizens
spoke:
May 23, 2017
236
Paul Holt of 5132 Bennett Springs stated this is the first time he has had the
pleasure of addressing Roanoke County, usually he is in Roanoke City. He loves Mr.
Seymour’s chicken, but the problem is that one thing he does not think he has taken into
consideration is that he spoke with Good Hospise and they did not know anything about
this and they also have another road. Their road comes through on Burlington and
another Road and the way they explained it to him was that part of the land that they
would need belongs to them. He is not speaking for them, he is speaking more for quality
of life. There are people who are patients who are handicapped. They leave from there
and it is hard enough to get onto Airport Road from the Burlington site. It is already so
congested with the light that is there. So, he cannot imagine putting any more traffic over
there. It is a lovely area. He goes to Bojangles at Peters Creek Road every day. He
does not have a problem with the entrance that they have. He does not have a problem
with getting out of there, but there is a problem on Burlington, trying to get out of there
because of the traffic light and it is always backed up. So, he does not understand why
they would want to put another road to access there. They can barely handle the traffic
that it has now with quality of life, the dental, Good Hospice and the houses that are there.
So, he is looking at it from a safety issue and if you stop and think about it for a moment
you can tell that what he is saying is correct if you have ever been that way. He just asks
the Commissions if they would think about that. He knows they say you don’t have to do
anything and it can be approved. He loves Mr. Stan’s chicken, but one road is big enough
for what he has up there. He has never had a problem getting out of his place, but getting
out of there he has.
Daniel Mazur of 6143 Burlington Drive stated the proposed rear access off
of Burlington Drive, if you look at the diagram that was brought up earlier is almost directly
across from his walk. His neighbor at the end of the block also is going to have the same
problems that he will. Any vehicles leaving Bojangles, if that is turned into an exit road,
will shine directly into his room, which is his bedroom and as soon as they make the right
it will hit my house and shines rights into his house. Then, it is going to hit his third
neighbor’s house. This is going to upset the way around there. He has been there for 32
years. Some of his neighbors have also been there a long period of time. Everybody
bought a house in that neighborhood because of the quality of life. It is a quiet
neighborhood; everybody maintains their property and it is a beautiful place to live. One
of his neighbors bought a house two years ago because of the area and to raise a
newborn, which was approximately a year ago. We are being told or asked to change
our quality of life just so there can be a rear access. He would like to know if there is
going to be anything in the plans as far as a sound barrier or anything regarding lighting
because in the drawings there is nothing shown about the lights and how they are going
to effect the residents down there.
May 23, 2017
237
Burlington is basically a dark street and you have the people coming out of there and
turning on their high beams and we are looking at changing right now. It is basically
established with the businesses that are there right now on an 8 to 5 schedule. What we
are looking at is putting our grandkids and our children and everything in harm’s way. He
does not think any member on the Board would like to put their family in harm’s way
either. We are being asked to do that and change everything around, which he does not
think is fair. That is basically all he has to say for now but he would like the Board to take
into consideration the safety issues and in your package there should be some recent
pictures that were just put in today of what happened on Burlington and near the
intersection of Peters Creek and Airport Road.
Susan Wooldridge of 6125 Burlington Drive stated she has lived here for
the last 27 years. She and her husband, George, are opposed to opening the back
access. One of the reasons she purchased the house in April of 1990 was that it was a
dean-end street. She has two daughters and at the time were learning to ride their
bicycles. Unfortunately, her two grandsons, age 6 and 2, are not allowed to ride their
bikes on the street because of the traffic. Luckily, they do have a driveway so they ride
up and down. She and her neighbor, Josie Stevens, walk two miles up and down
Burlington each day while dodging the traffic. They have changed their walking schedule
so that they walk later in the evening in order to avoid this traffic. Our road is only 0.13
miles long, but they have had VDOT install a 25 mph speed limit because of the problems
with vehicles going up and down the street mostly due to the existing business of the
General Shepherd Hospice, which they use Burlington as a back entrance instead of the
access road that they have. They also have a sign posted at the entrance to the back
that states it is not a through street and vehicles are not to go there. It seems that the
entrance of choice now is Burlington and not the front. Our bedroom faces Burlington
Drive and the added traffic from 5:00 am until midnight will greatly affect her husband’s
sleep because he works and sleeps usually from 5:00 pm until 11:30 so the lights in the
cars are going to effect that. We back into our driveway because backing onto Burlington
is an absolute nightmare. Delivery trucks have to drive in the middle of Burlington
because of the trees on there and they dodge the low hanging branches. Speaking of
dodging, on Wednesday is our trash day and it is usually an obstacle course for anyone
driving up or down Burlington to avoid the trashcans. She and her neighbors have
replaced their mailboxes at least 12 times in the past 6 years because cars passing up
and down Burlington decide it is easier to hit the mailboxes instead of each other. Safety
is her biggest concern. Anyone that has children or grandchildren know that you must
keep them within arm’s length. Playing in her front yard will no longer be an option
especially when the back entrance to Bojangles. An increase of 145 cars daily, which is
290 trips up and down the street is about 1 car every 2 to 3 minutes. Existing Burlington
especially between 8:00 am and 5-9 pm is very difficult. Turning onto Burlington is even
harder. Her daughter, a year ago was rear-ended trying to turn onto Burlington Drive and
she is constantly looking in her rear view mirror because cars swerve to avoid hitting her
when she is turning onto Burlington.
May 23, 2017
238
As Dan stated, this morning around 9:00 am, there was a 3 car accidents at the
intersection of Peters Creek and Airport Road. Three vehicles were involved. Traffic was
stopped and back up almost an hour on Airport Road, Peters Creek Road trying to get in
and out of Burlington was impossible. At the Planning Commission we were told the back
access to Bojangles would increase our property value. She actually spoke to two realtors
and was advised that the value would not necessarily increase but the marketability of
her house would drop, so selling her home is going to be extremely difficult if we do need
to move. Our road is crumbling and cracked. Most of this is due to the 2006 construction
of Bojangles where they had a back entrance. We would told then that the road would
be repaired and it hasn’t. She lives in a neighborhood and she would like to continue to
live in the neighborhood and not a shortcut to a fast-food restaurant. So, they respectfully
request that the Board disapprove the access of Burlington Drive to the Bojangles
restaurant.
Jozann Stevens of 6001 Peters Creek Road stated that her only access is
via Burlington Drive. They have owned and resided at this property for sixty years. Before
she starts she would like to clarify a statement that Mr. Seymour just made. He said there
are three commercial businesses that use Burlington and that is incorrect. The only
access that the two dental offices have are on Frontage Road. Previously, they were
using her back property, her back driveway. This all changed in July of 2010; just wanted
to clarify. She is opposed to Lexington Falls proposal for commercial access. Her
concerns are safety and security. She hopes the Board has reviewed the letters and
photos that highlight her concerns, which are same as those spoken before. Burlington
Drive was constructed in the mid-1950’s as a dead-end, residential street for seven,
single-family homes. Three of these homes are now commercial businesses, yet
Burlington Drive remains the same. No updates, no alterations. Burlington Drive cannot
safely accommodate two-way traffic. It was not constructed for that purpose and again
no upgrades have occurred. Daily, when two vehicles try to pass, one of the vehicles has
to veer off to avoid being sideswiped. When this occurs, these vehicles end up in her
yard or her neighbor’s yard, leaving behind deep ruts and tire marks of which they are
responsible to repeatedly repair. The proposal call for tractor-trailer access. Using an
already cracked and eroded and now such good shape for heavy vehicles will lead to
more difficulties. The traffic impact analysis provided with this application does not
include the Archcrest Drive Goodwill Development. Since this development opened,
traffic congestion at Burlington Drive and Airport Road has increased. She remains
concerned that adding more traffic to Burlington Drive will compound the existing
condition. The existing business neighbors hours are 8 am until 5 pm; nine hours a day,
five days a week. Bojangles hours are 5:30 am until 11:30 pm; 18 hours a day, seven
days a week. This does not afford many safe times each day to walk, stroll her
grandchildren, mow her yard, etc. She hopes the Board will factor this into their decision.
nd
Since the May 2 meeting, she has also talked to real estate agents, had two different
companies come out to her property and access it.
May 23, 2017
239
She was specifically told that adding commercial access on Burlington Drive specifically
for a fast-food restaurant will decrease the marketability and the value of her property.
She also asked the Board to factor that into its decision. When the property was
purchased and a fast-food restaurant built, no access via Burlington Drive was allowed.
Here we are nine years later. Bojangles is still in operation, obviously successful, without
a secondary access. She is respectively asking the elected Board of Supervisors to
please consider the impact, the disturbances that this proposed change will have to
everyone on Burlington Drive. Thank you for the opportunity to voice her concerns.
Dr. Verna Lewis stated she is the owner of Quality of Life Medical
Specialties located at 6149 Airport Road, which is at the intersection of Airport Road and
Burlington. This is a busy and congested site when turning left on Burlington Drive. In
2008, a rezoning was requested to amend the proffered concept plan to allow for access
along Burlington Drive. It was rejected. What is different now? The commissions were
concerned with the amount of cut-through traffic on Burlington Drive that would be
generated from Airport Road and Peters Creek Road. The Planning Commission felt that
because the plan was originally designed without a secondary entrance, the development
could be built according to the plan submitted in the December 2006 rezoning petition.
The commission expressed concerns that the access drive would disrupt the residential
neighborhood on Burlington Drive. The commission also determined that there should
be an analysis of the proposed development for any additional access points, which would
require VDOT permitting and review including a full review of the traffic impact analysis.
What will be the impact? Will additional footage be required from adjoining properties.
Please explain the possible potential impact. Currently, the traffic level is a safety hazard
for many of her patients who require walkers and canes due to their disabilities. Several
accidents have occurred at the intersection of Airport Road and Burlington; one occurred
this morning and you have heard from previous speakers three individuals were injured.
Another accident occurred on January 23, 2017, when one of her patients was rear-ended
by a commercial vehicle while turning left on Burlington from Airport Road. Due to injuries,
the patient was taken to the ER and has continued physical therapy due to persistent
pain. Approval of this access site is certain to cause an increase in similar accidents. As
a practicing physician, she is concerned for the safety and well-being of her patients and
her staff and must strongly object to this access site. A full review of the traffic impact
analysis is mandatory before approval of this access site is given. Thank you for
considering her comments.
Chairman McNamara closed the public hearing.
Supervisor Peters asked to hear from Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT). Brian Blevins stated the study only included the trip generation. No analysis is
required. No improvements would be made. The concerns about widths are standard
for that type of street. He does not recall any damage that required repairs.
May 23, 2017
240
Supervisor Hooker inquired of staff on what they are able to do now
regarding that entry way. It is her understanding that the driveway is allowed by right as
it is. Is that correct. Mr. Thompson responded if there were a use for a C-1 property
could be done today. Supervisor Hooker stated the driveway is allowed as it is now. Mr.
Thompson stated the connection based on the revised concept plan. The original concept
plan does not make that connection. Supervisor Hooker asked if the Board were to take
that a little further and if it was denied tonight then something else could come to that
property and have an office or something that could actually generate more traffic than
what we are anticipating from Bojangles. Mr. Thompson advised there are a variety of
uses within C-1 that could be developed on that site by right, i.e. bank, daycare center,
general office, medical office. There are about 33 uses that are allowed by right.
Supervisor Peters asked what would be the average trip generation by any
of those. Mr. Thompson stated in the analysis they used a 10,000 square foot office
building and what they showed would be 228 daily trips associated with that use.
Supervisor Peters asked how many we are expecting from the petitioner with Mr.
Thompson responding 289 trips.
Supervisor Bedrosian stated the land that is now for sale to the left side
were to be sold and it is a C-1 and it could connect into Burlington from the other side.
Mr. Thompson stated there are three parcels shown. The property in the back the only
access is on Burlington. The Bojangles access is a shared access. The front two parcels
probably not, the back is already Burlington. Supervisor Bedrosian stated if you are in
Bojangles and you want to take a right onto Peters Creek Road, obviously you are not
going the Burlington way to do that, but if you are going to make a left onto Peters Creek
Road, which sometimes is a safety hazard, you may want to come down on Burlington.
Supervisor McNamara asked if Mr. Thompson had any idea of the traffic
volume on Peters Creek Road in front of Bojangles. Mr. Thompson stated that when they
did the presentation in January, at Peters Creek and Williamson the traffic count was
roughly about 20,000 at that location.
Supervisor Bedrosian commented that they hear, If it was in your backyard”
and all of us obviously live in the County. It is not like we live somewhere else. A lot of
us have disruptions and he doesn’t know how else to say when you have change, there
is disruption. He lives down by the Blue Ridge Autism Center. It was a church before
then it changed to the Autism Center and there is a ton of traffic in the morning, afternoon.
We dealt with it, we lived with it. People are trying to get out when the Center is bringing
in students in so he totally understands. He just does not want to separate the Board
from the citizens. We are citizens of Roanoke County. We are also dealing with
disruption in our lives. It is not like we don’t; he just wanted to make that point. The other
thing based on a couple of things that were brought up. The biggest thing for him in
dealing with something like this, we are not starting at a point where nothing happens
there or something happens. It is not like if we don’t do this, that nothing will ever happen
there as we have said over and over again, a business can be put there without anybody
coming and giving opinions.
May 23, 2017
241
It can just happen and that is the way it was zoned and it could be done immediately. The
traffic on Burlington can happen and as we just heard, the same or more traffic can
happen without anyone putting forth a vote. They can do it by right. They are allowed to
put a business there, have a parking lot, fill it with cars and the cars will come on
Burlington without any of us saying a thing. So, it is not like if we say no here that nothing
will ever happen. It is open for business and that is just the way that location is. Someone
also made comments about lights shinning in the neighbors yards. Again, that can
happen without any of us talking today. Business can open there, cars can put in and
park in the parking lot and when they come out lights will shine in the neighbors yards.
It can happen without any of us giving any approval today. Property values increasing or
decreasing; he would think that is very hard to determine. In the future when the other
piece of property gets developed that whole area will become a business location. He
just sees it happening and then it becomes more valuable and the property values
increase. He lives across the street and does frequent Bojangles on his stop for
breakfast, usually, so he does see and gets a feel of the climate there. We cannot look
at this as if we don’t do anything there we are free, already you have property that is up
for sale and that will turn into a big commercial venture that will have access on Burlington.
He thinks what everybody is doing here is postponing the inevitable or trying to postpone
the inevitable, which will happen and it will not require any vote at all. He hears the
conversation but when he looks at it as everybody has rights, personal property rights to
do what they want unless there was some major issue that was disruptive and he does
not see it here. He sees a change of life and we all deal with that, but he does not see it
as something that is life threatening.
ORDINANCE 052317-13 REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.67 ACRES TO
AMEND A PROFFERED CONDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED C-2CS
(HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT WITH CONDITIONS AND
SPECIAL USE PERMIT), LOCATED AT 6065 PETERS CREEK ROAD
AND
REZONING 0.68 ACRE FROM C-1 (LOW INTENSITY COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT) TO C-2 (HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT), IN THE
6100 BLOCK OF BURLINGTON DRIVE, HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT
WHEREAS, in 2006, the Board of Supervisors approved a request to rezone
approximately 1.67 acres of property at 6065 Peters Creek Road (Tax Map No. 027.13-
05-01.00-0000) from C-1 (low intensity commercial district) to C-2 (high intensity
commercial district) with a special use permit, for the purpose of constructing a fast food
restaurant. Proffered conditions were applied to the special use permit, including the
condition of general conformance to the concept plan showing access only via Peters
Creek Road; and
WHEREAS, in 2006, the Board of Supervisors also approved the applicant’s
request to rezone a 0.68 acre parcel located in the 6100 Block of Burlington Drive (Tax
May 23, 2017
242
Map No. 027.05-02.00-0000), contiguous to the parcel located at 6065 Peters Creek
Road, from R-3 (medium density multi-family residential district) to C-1 (low intensity
commercial district); and
WHEREAS, this rezoning request seeks to amend the proffered condition on the
1.67 acre parcel to allow for additional parking and a secondary access point for the
existing restaurant from Burlington Drive; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on April 25, 2017, and the
second reading and public hearing were held on May 23, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on May 2, 2017 and subsequently recommended approval of the rezoning
application; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. The proffered conditions on 1.67 acres of property at 6065 Peters Creek Road
(Tax Map No. 027.13-05-01.00-0000), in the Hollins Magisterial District, are
hereby amended as follows:
a. The developer hereby proffers substantial conformance with the
"Lexington Falls, LLC – Access Drive", prepared by Balzer and
Associates, Inc. dated March 17, 2017.
2. The 0.68 acre parcel located in the 6100 Block of Burlington Drive (Tax Map
No. 027.05-02.00-0000), in the Hollins Magisterial District, is hereby rezoned
from C-1 (low density commercial district) to C-2 (high intensity commercial
district).
3. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final
passage. All ordinances or part of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning
Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change
in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Bedrosian to adopt the ordinance, seconded by
Supervisor Assaid and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker, Peters, McNamara
NAYS: None
2. The petition of Richard Rife, Rife + Wood Architects, to rezone
approximately 0.374 acre from R-1, Low Density Residential,
District to C-1, Low Intensity Commercial, District, located at 3722
Colonial Avenue, Cave Spring Magisterial District (Tax Map No.
077.18-03-31.00-0000) (Philip Thompson, Deputy Director of
Planning)
May 23, 2017
243
Mr. Thompson outlined the petition.
Supervisor McNamara asked if the beauty parlor leaves can a family move
in with Mr. Thompson responding not without a special use permit.
Supervisor Bedrosian inquired if Paycheck Plus was already zoned a C-1,
with Mr. Thompson responding in the affirmative. Supervisor Bedrosian stated they are
right next to each other and the only two on that side of the road. Supervisor Bedrosian
then asked if the Board had to rezone with Mr. Thompson advising in the affirmative.
So, the same issues were brought up. Mr. Thompson advised it was prior to his time, but
feels sure there were issues raised and there were several conditions associated with
that approval. Supervisor Bedrosian asked if they would have similar traffic to Paychecks
Plus with Mr. Thompson stating probably less and similar to LASH that is three doors
down and approved last year.
The architect, Richard Rife spoke on behalf of the Wagners.
Chairman McNamara opened the public hearing and the following citizens
spoke:
Margaret Sharpe of 3651 Cedar Lane in the Green Valley subdivision stated
she was here in opposition of this rezoning. As she heard from the prior rezoning as to
what is and isn’t expected, this is a residential piece of property. It wants to be rezoned
for commercial. The property between that property and Thompson’s Lane is a C-1,
Paychecks Plus. It is a business and operates form 8 until 5. It is not early and it is not
late; it is an accounting business. The properties past that have been there for well over
50 years and they are the C-2 more heavy traffic. Our issue with the Colonial Avenue
Corridor is that it is transitional and it is something that is to be enhancing to the
neighborhoods also. She knows that this property is to be left as looking as a piece of
property in a residential subdivision. We just went through the rezoning process with
LASH. We do not know how the additional traffic and the additional upkeep of another
business property on Colonial is going to affect them or Colonial Avenue. She is not
going to be one of those people that says, “you don’t want it in your backyard” because
she knows we all deal with the changes in our backyards. She is asking if we do take a
piece of property on Colonial into effect that we wait to see how each rezoning that the
Board chooses effects them. If you choose to make this a commercial property, she
would request that the Board not allow left turns off the property because right now if
traffic gets backed up because of an accident, people cut through their neighborhoods.
People do not go the 25 mph zoned because they are trying to get to someplace because
they have been inconvenienced because they are backed up from the Colonial Avenue
and Rt. 419 traffic. She requests that no parking can be done on Green Valley Drive
because as we have seen over the years, commercial is going to come but can we at
least have a little bit of a leeway to see how it is going to impact us before it snowballs
just because it is next to a piece of commercial property let’s go ahead and do this one
now.
May 23, 2017
244
April Moore of 4060 Crawford Road provided the Board with a copy of a
letter dated March 30, 2007 prepared by her representative who told them how to write
up the proposal. Paul Mahoney, our representative on the Planning Commission was not
there, so the only person representing us in our district was not there. He also wrote to
the Wagner’s. Chairman McNamara reminded Ms. Moore that all her comments needed
to be directed to the Board as a whole. She apologized and advised she found it very
biased. They have asked him to abstain from voting and he refuses. She feels he is
biased. She also wanted to say that the Board has made a point. There have been
changes along Colonial and people lighting in their yards are minor. She can tell you that
the store that has been there for years, she frequents all the time. There has been a lady
up there who has been on heroin that they have had trouble getting out of the store and
removed. Also, recently, she was walking her dog and the fireman at the end of the road
found hypodermic needles in our river and kids were going down there and doing this.
This was brought up in 2007, it was denied, but they said then that if they had the chance
they would get rid of the property but they could not. She believes that with LASH coming
in and Hairtrends right beside them that are both huge hair salons, LASH is a chain and
Hairtrends is on the other side and you are telling her that they are going to open this little
bitty shop that serves six people and will be able to maintain an income. What they are
going to do is take the property and flip it and we all know that is what is going to happen.
So, this thing at Colonial is this big long commercial thing and there hasn’t been any
problems is not true. If she is not mistaken, Paychecks Plus was broken into and robbed.
So, you can speak with the owners of the store that is there with the lady that they had to
remove, every time she was there she was shot up on heroin and asking for a ride home.
So, these little businesses that you think don’t have an impact on the neighborhood, they
go. She has been there for 20 years and she sees it increasing year by year by year.
This is just ridiculous to her that they have to keep coming back and fighting for something
that is so blatantly obvious. This little bit of property you are putting between two huge
hair salons and that is like putting Buffalo Wild Wings, Buffalo Wild Wings and Texas
Steak House all three together. It is obvious they are going to flip that property and then
what is going to come in. Maybe, like you said about your children, we all have to deal
with stuff, but she doesn’t know if the Board is finding hypodermic needles right down the
road in your creek where your little girls use to play. Luckily, hers is in college and the
other one is old enough and does not come out to play, but in the two adjoining houses
that the creek adjoins to there is a seven year old girl that the fireman has and there is a
four year old girl that the gentleman that works for the library has. Yes, this isn’t some
nice little thing that we are building up like Brambleton Avenue. This is a problem and
you might want to check into it because the fireman did call the police to have them come
out and check because there were still drugs and needles to see if they could find out
what they were using and get additional police support at night to try to catch them when
they are doing this.
May 23, 2017
245
Edward Carroll of 3591 Berryhill Drive stated he just moved there a year
ago from Arizona. He has a beautiful, wonderful, intelligent wife who gets very powerful
jobs and we moved here from Arizona because of her job. When they were looking for a
house, our agent took us down Colonial and then back into the neighborhood. When he
drove down Colonial, he felt it looks very cheesy; the gas station, etc. Obviously the
commercial development there had decreased the residential value of the properties on
Colonial because there is a distinct difference in character between the residential that
remains on Colonial and the residential that is in the development. When we got into the
development and looked at the community, it was like, “wow” and we bought the house.
It turns out that our neighbors are thirty-year residents, third generation. The first shock
he had was the train, he has a train running through his front yard and if had known that
he would not have bought the house, but like all the wonderful neighbors around him who
have been there for 30 years we have gotten use to it, but he has not gotten use to the
Colonial strip that is the entrance to this wonderful neighborhood. When he was working
he was in the PR business and one of the first thing he learned was, “What is in it for me.”
“What is in it for the County” is the neighborhood that is stable, safe and generates a good
income from its property taxes. What he sees is if this commercialization continues on
Colonial, it is going to lower the value of those houses and that means lower income for
the County. It also means that those people who have been there for 30 days and have
raised their children, raising their grandchildren are going to need to sell soon. So, all of
the life-equity that they have put into that property is going to be damaged. He thinks as
a witness to this dynamic, the reason that this rezoning request is being made is that the
residential value of that property has been decreased because of the commercialization
and also we are right around from Electric Road and that was one of the huge surprises
to me. We have huge commercial development right around the corner. Why do we need
to bring it onto this tiny Colonial Drive.
Ted Edlich of 3596 Parkwood Drive stated he wanted to begin by saying he
is a big fan of Roanoke County. You have done an incredible job of creating a wonderful
school system, real strong economic development and also has been very supportive of
strong residential neighborhoods as well as public safety. You have done a great job and
he does appreciate those of you who have elected to serve and to be elected in a local
office. It is probably the toughest office of any elected office in government in the
Commonwealth of Virginia. He stands in appreciation for what you have done. He and
his wife chose Green Valley residential community in 2001 and have enjoyed their life
there. His daughter, Eva, started at Green Valley School and had great preparation for
Hidden Valley Middle and High School and recently in the last couple of years graduated
from Radford University and got a top job in Northern Virginia. She was well prepared by
the Roanoke County School System. At the same time, he must say that rezoning the
property in question does not make a lot of sense. It doesn’t contribute to the overall
economic development of Roanoke County. It does not really help the strongly supported
Green Valley Elementary School and it does not make strong economic sense.
May 23, 2017
246
In fact, studies have said it would take five chairs to be economically feasible. Well, life
has not changed much in the hair business that you could reduce the number of chairs
and still make it economically feasible. Mr. Bedrosian really made the argument for him
when he said once it is commercial then in fact that is what it is going to be. He does not
see this in any way supporting the community. It is a great community to life in;
hardworking people who have been there for many years than he has and then his good
friend Ed Carroll, Lt. Colonel from the Air Force before he was in public relations and
moved in with his wife; just great people. It just doesn’t really seem helpful and the fact
that the architect wants to put a sign there or the option of putting a sign there tells you
what the future is. Thank you for the opportunity. His rule of life as yours is to do unto
others and they do unto you and don’t do unto others what you don’t want done to you.
He has worked for a large non-profit for about 40 years. We were always very concerned
about conflict of interest and even the appearance of conflict of interest and he would say
that if that fits the case to this situation, he hopes you would choose the same side to
avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest.
Pam Jones of 3646 Goodview Avenue in Castle Hills and she is opposed
to the rezoning and she has not had a lot of time to put a lot of thought into this because
she just heard about it this evening, but she too is curious as to why you would want to
start a business, especially a hair dressing business, when you are only going to work on
18-20 customers in a week and hire three employees. She has her hair cut and colored
and it takes an hour, so she is not sure what they are going to do with the rest of the time
during the week, how they are going to support the business. That is their business, but
she is curious about that. She would like to read some of the beauty parlors that are
within five miles of Green Valley: Hairtrends, Hair Plus, Hair Associates, Simply Hair,
Brambleton Studio, Beauty Bar, JC Penney, Vertical Color, Curl and Cut, Miles Ahead,
Oliver Twist, All about You, Blonde and Company, Rock of Ages, Black Diamond, Plaza
101, Savy Cuts, Smart Style, Sheer Perfection, Sheer Choice, Sheer Delight, Supercuts-
Cave Spring, Supercuts-Towers, Costcutters-Cave Spring, Costcutters-Towers, Roots,
Onyz, Bliss, Great Clips, Sport Clips, Paul Mitchell, Laurel Hill, Thomas Dunn, Edward
Grant, Rebecca on Brambleton, Country Hair Salon, Lee Salon, Phoenix Salon, Marston
Salon, Fushion Salon, Regis Salon, Salon Del Sol, Salon Bella, Salon Frame, Salon
Valor, Salon Solution, Salon Headquarters, Salon 3505, Bang, it’s a Hair Thing. So, we
have a lot of hair salons in the area. Also one thing she would like to restate something
that was already brought up. If this passes, if we could get no parking signs on Green
Valley Drive. We need to make sure the customers and the employees stay in the
driveway or the parking lot of the house that would be much appreciated.
Marilyn Henry of 3740 Green Valley Drive stated she was sitting here
counting the years. She was raised in Green Valley on Green Valley Drive and went to
college, lived away for awhile and then was offered the house next to the one she was
raised in. So, she has seen lots of changes in the area. She remembers when there was
no Rt. 419. So, she is opposed to this transition of zoning to C-1 and we have come
before the Planning Commission and talked about our concerns of traffic and accidents
and the impact of LASH and what is coming.
May 23, 2017
247
She thinks some of things that she is concerned about is she has just noticed some
clerical things that might not make any difference, but she was looking at the document,
the revised document and found something that was dated 2016. It was the application
for rezoning and it was dated February 14, 2016, so she is thinking that got missed by the
Planning Commission and she is concerned that the Cave Spring representative was not
involved. She understands that he was out of town. She is concerned because of his
experience and expertise and not having his input in the decision making process. With
the changes that have happened, she does not understand. This is something that should
go back to the Planning Commission with the proposed changes because it seemed like
they occurred where we did not have access to any of the discussion and she just
wondered if this was something that should be looked at again and maybe having the
opportunity of having Mr. Mahoney being involved in the planning. She travel also in the
Green Valley development because she works for Roanoke County schools and she goes
from school to school so as she is going through the neighborhoods. She is just
concerned about the change that is occurring and how to stun impact in her neighborhood
and also the neighborhood on the other side of Colonial Avenue. She is thankful that she
was able to speak tonight.
Denise Wills of 3829 Thompson’s Lane stated she had lived here for 33
years. This type of business would be more appropriate to go into the Rt. 419 Corridor
Plan instead of on Colonial Avenue. We do not need it. They are trying to do like they
are doing Rt. 419 making it more attractive to business. Why not put it there. Why put it
in our neighborhood. If it goes C-1, you cannot go back. Who’s to say what is going in
there next. These are her concerns.
Liz Edlich of 3596 Parkwood Drive stated that she had sent out more
information. This is the third time this property has been petitioned before the Board and
it has been defeated twice before. It is ironic that the new proposal offers fewer and
weaker protective proffers than the past submissions. It does not limit, like the ones that
were already denied, the use of the property to cosmetic services, including hair, nail and
skin treatment. It does not insist that the parking area be a permeable surface, it does
not have sufficient parking to worker/client handicap ratios and does not specify that there
be no other external building expansion and there is no limit to the days of service. There
are some new proffers that talk about something that was discussed as far as 14 hours.
Furthermore, it adds virtually nothing of value to the County tax base, while adding to the
depreciation of housing values in a strong residential neighborhood. Parking; the current
proposal is for a three-chair, beauty salon operating for 14 hours with the new proffer a
day with an average time per customer of 1.5 hours per Ms. Wagner with the minutes of
5/22 from the minutes of the Board County Board of Supervisors. The proposal includes
six parking spaces, one of which is for handicapped customers, which means that at any
given time the staff and three customers will fill the lot with their vehicles and one of them
must use the handicapped space in order for that to even happen.
May 23, 2017
248
So, it is very unlikely this will be sufficient since it will not allow for eventuality that new
customers will be arriving frequently before the former customers drive away in their
vehicles unless the beauticians are planning on occupancy down time, which will lower
the business profitability. Accordingly to the 5/22 minutes from this Board, Ms. Wagner
advised that five stations would be the break-even point for the business, however, they
are willing to reduce the stations, “to avoid more delays.” This is proof that the beauty
business financials have changed so that five is no longer the break-even point for the
Wagners or is this a bait and switch. The purpose of a C-1, low intensity commercial
district, “Is to provide for the development of attractive and efficient offices for commercial
uses in the urban service area, which serve both community and County-wide needs.” It
is difficult to see how this particular request for a beauty party, of which there are more
than 50 within a five-mile radius of her home and inadequate parking, creating more traffic
congestion, virtually no restrictions for subsequent reuse and it is difficult to see how this
would fit into the C-1 purpose; the very first thing in the book. While she can fully
understand a person wanting to pursue the dream of their choice and their chosen
profession, doing so while ignoring the current zoning set forth by the County to the
detriment of the homeowners in Green Valley is not what the Colonial Avenue Corridor
Study, which she has been informed that the Board all has and have read. She does not
know how that works into it. She is proposing new proffers that the parking spaces be
adequate for the total services and workers proposed, not including the handicapped
spots, which should be reserved for disabled individuals only per Virginia law and the
living quarter question should be spelled out. If the person is disabled, will they be using
the only handicapped spot. The services be limited to hair, skin and nail treatment, which
was on the denied proffers before. No tanning beds or massage parlor activity, which
might be constructed as skin care or treatment. Any other C-1 use should come before
the Board. They have not discussed the pervious surface in order to address the
stormwater management issues that are prevalent. They did not put down a day or time,
they put the time down, but Monday through Saturday is what she is proposing. No
dumpsters should be allowed and should be spelled out. Absolutely no parking on Green
Valley Drive and it that they will abide by the applicable Colonial Avenue Corridor Study
Guidelines as determined previously. As to their added proffers, just a couple of things.
Number 8, the proffer 8 is that they are going to have on-site parking. Really. She does
not understand.
Chairman McNamara requested that she wrap up her comments.
The summary to her message is that she asks once again to deny the
request for use of this property for a beauty salon based on the points outlined above and
that it does not meet the C-1 purpose as her letter to Supervisor Assaid states, she feels
there is a conflict of interest. The Board has received a copy of the letter he wrote in
March of 2007 and she does feel there is a conflict of interest and is asking him again not
to vote or participate in discussing the matter. Also, she was wanted to say that
Supervisor McNamara did recuse himself in 2006 and he did vote no in 2007, which this
one is weaker than the one he voted on and hope that he will look at that as well.
May 23, 2017
249
For reasons outlined, she would encourage all members of the Board to vote against the
rezoning as if it were taking place in their own neighborhood. She has more, but is out of
time. Chairman McNamara closed the public hearing.
Supervisor Assaid asked Ruth Ellen Kuhnel, County Attorney, if he has a
legal conflict of interest for voting on this item. Ms. Kuhnel stated they have worked
through this and at the risk of exposing attorney client privilege, she can certainly tell the
public was the analysis is. She advised that you look through three things in going
through the Code of Virginia: a personal interest in a transaction, which he does not have
at this point. Supervisor Assaid is not receiving any financial pecuniary gain from this
event and just as an aside for the benefit of the public. When the Board and herself do a
Statement of Economic Interest, the lookback period is six months and she believes that
the letter that was submitted tonight was in 2007 when he worked on this project.
Supervisor Bedrosian inquired of Mr. Thompson when looking at the picture,
there are six spaces and then he sees another indentation, which could be a couple. Is
it limited to six. Mr. Thompson stated in the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance there are
parking regulations and standards. Obviously, whatever the use is, which multiple uses
are allowed or potentially allowed, we would base it on the use to determine that number.
So, let’s talk about personal service. The requirement in our ordinance is one space for
every 300 sq. feet is the standard. So this site will have enough parking based on our
standards. It is currently showing six spaces, which are adequate.
Supervisor Hooker stated she wanted confirmation. She understands from
what Mr. Thompson was saying is that this zoning application is fully complying with the
Colonial Avenue Corridor Study. Mr. Thompson stated with regard to the permeable
paver. The permeable pavers essentially deal with the fact that when the plan was
developed, we did not have our current stormwater management regulations. Any
development on this site would have to be at the standards associated with stormwater
management. The amount of pervious surface is minimal. Supervisor Hooker then
inquired of Mr. Thompson if it was in compliance with Mr. Thompson responding in the
affirmative.
Supervisor Assaid inquired of Mr. Thompson and proffer number eight
“Parking for all uses on the property shall be located on the site.” Why is that written that
way and not to no parking on Green Valley Drive. Mr. Thompson stated proffer are done
by the property owner for property they control. They do not control the right-of-way for
VDOT. Supervisor Assaid then asked with regard for “No Parking” signs were to be
placed in that area, there is a process we go through with VDOT, is that correct with Mr.
Thompson responding in the affirmative. Supervisor Assaid then inquired about the uses
that are proffered. One of the things that we want to make sure, the application is more
restrictive that what was approved by the Planning Commission, with Mr. Thompson
responding in the affirmative advising the Planning Commission has recommended C-1
zoning.
May 23, 2017
250
There are 33 uses allowed by right under C-1 zoning. Since then, working with the
applicant, they have limited it to six uses. Supervisor Assaid inquired if any of those would
include a massage parlor, tattoo parlor with Mr. Thompson responding in the negative
stating they have limited it to a beauty parlor and personal services. Supervisor Assaid
reiterated they have cut down to two uses with Mr. Thompson responding in the
affirmative.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked for confirmation with regard to parking that
people are allowed to park on Green Valley with Mr. Thompson responding in the
affirmative by stating if you have a single family home and you want to park on Green
Valley, there is nothing that will restrict you from that. Supervisor Bedrosian stated that
is why you cannot say, “no parking” because you have the right according to VDOT. Mr.
Thompson stated you cannot limit parking on property that you cannot control. Supervisor
Bedrosian then stated the other thing that has come up a couple of times and he has
heard this before concerning the amount of hair salons. Is there a rule about that in
Roanoke County with Mr. Thompson responding in the affirmative.
Supervisor Assaid asked with regard to building expansion, what would be
required for the petitioner or if the property were sold somewhere down the road what
would need to occur. Mr. Thompson advised they would need to come back before the
Board due to general conformance and to amend the proffer.
Supervisor Peters inquired with only six parking spaces with three chairs
and a sister who lives there, so the total is four with no clients at all. Is this correct with
Mr. Thompson responding in the affirmative. So, the parking issue is the first thing that
“jumps off the page” when he looks at it. It almost feels like we are trying to make it fit on
whatever acreage; doing a whole lot on a very small space and then put a whole lot of
restrictions on it. Is this the highest and best use for this property if we are going to rezone
it.
Supervisor McNamara stated he was on the Board when Paychecks Plus
was rezoned and he would say it was the right decision. Paychecks Plus has been an
asset for the community and thinks it has been very well done. He would also say that a
lot has changed since Paychecks Plus was rezoning, specifically, he knows because he
has been in the C-1, C-2 type of business. In a C-2 rezoning, in 1995-1996 and he opened
an ice cream store right done the road and there were four people that were submitting
proposals for an open spot. Landlords in commercial strips love to have people
competing for their open spots today. At the same time, the amount of available C-1
down Rt. 419 was not there. There was a shortage of C-1 of C-2 property. Clearly, we
had to increase the quantity and quality of our C-1 and C-2 offerings and the logical place
for those to occur is on the main thoroughfares, Rt. 419, Colonial, Brambleton. So, how
do you do that and don’t, “turn it into Williamson Road.” How do you do it to blend in with
the community. So, we developed the Colonial Avenue Design Guidelines somewhere
around that timeframe. Someone at the time said, “eventually, every one of these houses
are going to turn into C-1.”
May 23, 2017
251
Supervisor McNamara remarked at the time, “well if it does it will be the prettiest street in
Roanoke because we are going to force every single one of those properties to
redevelops to be nice and of benefit to the community.” His basic philosophy is not
change unless important for the community. We have to take into consideration the
Roanoke Valley as well as Roanoke County. Currently, there is no shortage of C-2
property. There is no shortage of C-1 property. He does not see a shortage of C-1 or C-
2 in the future. Then he comes down to it is not something that is required to stimulate
economic development, economic growth, personal to people to pursue their dreams. So
now it comes down to improvement to the neighborhood. He does not think this is an
improvement to the neighborhood ten years ago. He does not think it is an improvement
today. He does not think that parking is sufficient and thinks there is going to be parking
on the streets. There is no space on this land to expand parking to any degree. The
question was raised, “what difference does it make how many hair salons there are”
because it is certainly not our position to tell people what kind of business to be in, but if
you want to rezone, you need to convince this Supervisor that this is something that is
going to be a good thing for the neighborhood, not only now, but three to four years from
now, potentially at C-1 property that is sitting vacant at the entrance to the neighborhood.
He does not see how that is good for the neighborhood. He does not see how that is
good for Roanoke County. Your response may be, “well you rezoned LASH right down
the street.” LASH was flat up against C-2 property and it had at least twice the space,
maybe three times what this property has. There was plenty, plenty of room to expand
parking and the structure probably wasn’t drastically different inside. It may have been a
little bigger, but there was a lot of space behind the building. In his opinion, as that
develops according to our plan will be an improvement to the neighborhood. So, he is
not going to support the motion.
Supervisor Bedrosian asked the petitioner to talk about the parking. Mr.
Rife outlined the concept plan. The County Ordinance for a beauty salon requires one
parking space for 300 sq. ft. of floor area. The structure on this property is a little under
1,500 square feet, so 4.8 rounded to 5. They have provided for six. Ms. Wagner’s
disabled sister, who does not drive, not mentally competent to drive will occupying 40%
of the structure. So, about 1,000 square feet is the actual amount of the structure that
would be utilized for the salon, which would be four spaces by the zoning ordinance and
they are providing for six. There have also been questions about working 14 hours a day,
etc. Ms. Wagner primarily does coloring and coloring takes longer. Typically, one of her
clients is about an hour and a half. She does not work a 40 hour week. She does not
have to financially. He knows that his wife, who is a red-head pays. Ms. Hooker may
want to weigh in on this as she is probably aware of an upper-end coloring job will cost.
Ms. Wagner has been doing this for nearly 50 years.
May 23, 2017
252
She can make the economics of this work. He thinks that if you look a little deeper, the
parking should be adequate. Supervisor Bedrosian asked if the green space on the plan
could be paved with Mr. Rife advising it could if the proffers needed to be amended. If
the rezoning is approved, in order to get a Certificate of Occupancy and a business
license to operate, certain improvements will need to be made to the property;
handicapped accessible and may have to add a handicapped toilet in order to qualify as
a commercial property and meet the building code requirements. The site plan
improvements as far as runoff and the County verifying that they did indeed put in the
landscaping on our site plan would all have to be approved before the Business License
and Certificate of Occupancy could be issued and Ms. Wagner could operate as a
business.
Supervisor Hooker stated this is just for discussion among her peers, she
wants to be real careful with the way we proceed because she never wants to be
perceived as picking winners and losers. Ms. Wagner has put together a petition and it
meets the requirements and it complies with the Colonial Avenue Corridor Plan. She has
a business that she wants to operate and continue to operate in this area. She thinks the
Board needs to be very careful about the way it proceeds and if we are not careful, they
are picking the winners and losers and she has a problem with that. She wants to operate
a business and she would say with the improvements that she is going to be making with
this landscaping that it is an improvement and it would add quality to that area and thinks
that it can be aseptically pleasing. So, she would like to caution the Board to be very
careful about the way it proceeds because they want to be open for business in Roanoke
County.
Supervisor Peters stated he did not have a problem with that and his history
speaks for itself on the Board; he is very pro-business and he wants people to go after
their dreams, but at the same time we have an obligation to look at this. The way he
looks at this is if there are three parking spaces that will be taken up by employees, and
there is six there one of which is handicapped. Ms. Wagner may be tied up with a hair
coloring for an hour and a half, but the other two could do men’s’ haircuts which would
take twenty minutes. He just doesn’t feel like it is the highest and best use for this
property. We are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. We are trying to put a lot of
things on this property and it has nothing to do with business. He is firmly supportive of
people having a business, pursuing their dreams, making money.
Supervisor Hooker stated the issue she has though is they are exceeding
the County Code. Will all three employees be working at the same time because
sometimes there are shifts or hours that they work as they have clients? It doesn’t mean
that all three will be working at the same time every day so there may be some leeway
with those parking issues because this is not the typical 8 to 5 situation. They are coming
in as their clients’ needs them.
May 23, 2017
253
Supervisor Peters stated he is trying to look down the road as well. We are
trying to pass this as presented to us and Ms. Wagner may decide 6 months from now
and want to retire and put someone else in that seat. Now, we have three people that
work 40 or 50 hours a week. He is looking down the road and now just to what is
presented to us now. What the Board is doing will have lasting effects not just in the next
three to six months.
Supervisor McNamara stated he does not see the Board picking winners or
losers. You want to be a winner, go somewhere that is zoned C-1 in his mind. If you
want a rezoning, the rezoning has to be beneficial to the County and to the neighbors and
it is a very small site, the smallest C-1 site on Colonial and you still have an accessary
apartment forever. Two to four years from now it could be vacant, two or three people
could be living in the accessary apartment and need two cars. He just does not see the
benefit. He does not see a benefit to Roanoke County or the neighborhood.
ORDINANCE 052317-14 REZONING APPROXIMATELY 0.374
ACRE FROM R-1, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, TO
C-1, LOW INTENSITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT
3722 COLONIAL AVENUE, CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT (TAX MAP NO. 077.18-03-31.00-0000)
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on March 28, 2017, and
the second reading and public hearing were held on May 23, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
this matter on April 4, 2017, and subsequently recommended approval of the rezoning
application with the submitted and proposed proffered conditions; and
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as required by law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
The proffered conditions on 0.374 acre of property at 3722 Colonial Avenue, in the
Cave Spring Magisterial District (Tax Map No. 077.18-03-31.00-0000) are as follows:
a. The property will be developed in substantial conformance with the
Concept Plan prepared by Certified Landscape Architect Dan Chitwood
dated May 15, 2017.
b. A 10’ wide right-of-way planting buffer will be established to screen the
parking area from Green Valley Drive.
c. A 20’ wide Type B planting buffer will be established along the rear
property line. The planting buffer will incorporate the planting schedule,
vegetation types and spacing as described within either option one or
two of the Type B planting buffer standards.
d. Any lighting installed around the parking area shall be bollard-type
fixtures no more than 4’ in height.
e. Signage will be installed and maintained as follows:
May 23, 2017
254
i. Any future freestanding sign shall be monument in style as
defined by the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. The sign
shall not exceed 24 square feet in face area, 5 feet in height and
7 feet in width. The sign shall be landscaped. The sign shall only
be lit from the ground and shall not cause glare onto Colonial
Avenue or adjacent properties.
ii. Attached building signage shall not cover more than 5 percent of
the building façade area.
iii. Neon signage shall not be allowed on the property.
iv. Message or interchangeable sign boards shall not be allowed on
the property.
v. Temporary signage shall not be allowed on the property.
f. Operating hours shall be from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM.
g. Permitted C-1 uses on the property shall be limited to the following uses:
Accessory Apartment; General Office; Business Support Services;
Consumer Repair Services; Personal Services (Beauty / Barber Salon
only); and Fine Arts Studio.
h. Parking for all uses on the property shall be located on the site.
4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final
passage. All ordinances or part of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are, repealed. The Zoning
Administrator is directed to amend the zoning district map to reflect the change
in zoning classification authorized by this ordinance.
On motion of Supervisor Assaid to adopt the ordinance, seconded by Supervisor
Hooker and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Assaid, Bedrosian, Hooker
NAYS: Supervisors Peters, McNamara
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Hooker stated she had one announcement regarding an
IMarketing workshop that is going to be held in the Roanoke County South Library on
June 22, 2017, from 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. It is available for registration online and is on new
marketing and advertising techniques that is free for anyone who would like to attend.
Supervisor Peters stated at the end of every meeting he likes to recognize
our employees and the awesome job that they do. He often feels they are the unsung
heroes as to what goes on behind the scene whether it is public safety, social services,
etc. As everybody knows, this past week he made it known he has been diagnosed with
thyroid cancer and he has been overwhelmed with support of our citizens, employees, of
the Board. People have reached out to him from all over and as he said earlier, he always
likes to recognize our employees but he realized during the past few days what an
May 23, 2017 255
awesome community we live in. He continues to ask for prayers as he is pursuing surgery
and treatment at John Hopkins. Again, he just asks for continued support and prayers.
Supervisor McNamara stated this Board is 100 to 150% behind Supervisor
Peters and we know everything will be fine and we are all praying for that. We are entering
the summer months and for the next three months we will have one meeting so there is
not a second and fourth Tuesday, so check the website for the calendar schedules for the
next couple of months. On June 6, 2017, we are going to have a work session with the
Planning Commission, a joint session at 5:00 p.m.
IN RE: ADJOURNMENT
Chairman McNamara adjourned the meeting at 9:02 p.m. to the June 6,
2017 joint meeting with the Planning Commission to be held in the 4th Floor Training Room
at 5:00 p.m.
• itted by: Approved by:
4 .61-,,-----\
....2_,,,_
4 ,e' ii' ` �'
D-borah C. J:' os h P. McNamara
Chief Deputy ' rk to the Board C irman
4
256 May 23, 2017
PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY