Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/4/2024 - Minutes ROANOKE COUNTY _ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES JUNE 4, 2024 Commissioners Present: Mr. Rick James, Chairman Mr. Wayne Bower,Vice-Chairman Mr. Jim Woltz (attended remotely via phone) Mr. Troy Henderson .. Mr. Kelly McMurray Staff Present: Mr. Philip Thompson, Secretary Ms. Rachel Lower, Deputy County Attorney Ms. Rebecca James, Zoning Administrator Ms. Skylar Camerlinck, Planner Mr. Isaac Henry, Transportation Planner Mr. Ross Hammes, Planner II Ms. Alyssa Dunbar, Planner II Ms. Cecelia Thomas; Recording Secretary Call to Order Mr. James called.the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. Remote Participation Commissioner Jim Woltz conveyed to the Secretary a request:to participate in the meeting remotely.There were no challenges to Commissioner Woltz participating remotely. Commissioner Woltz needs to participate remotely due a personal matter (travel), and he participated in the meeting remotely. The remote attendance passed 4-0-1, with Mr. Woltz abstaining. Approval of Agenda Mr. Bower made a motion to approve the agenda, which passed 5-0. Approval of Minutes Mr. McMurray made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from April 16, 2024. The motion passed 3-0-2 with Mr. James and Mr. Henderson abstaining. Mr. Henderson made a motion to approvethe meeting minutes from May 7, 2024, which passed 4-0-1, with Mr. McMurray abstaining. Mr. Bower made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from May 21, 2024, which passed 5-0. Consent Agenda 1. The petition of Brad Prescott to obtain_a special use permit to develop on a lot without public road frontage and to obtain a special use permit for custom manufacturing in a C- 2, High Intensity Commercial District, on approximately 1.44 acres of land located in the 4 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 4, 2024 2900 block of Peters Creek Road, Catawba Magisterial District. Mr. Ross Hammes presented the current use, proposed use, and future land use designation. 2.The petition of Jonathan Kenneth Burns-Carrera to obtain a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 1.42 acres of land zoned R-1, Low Intensity Residential District, located at 5909 Old Mountain Road, Hollins Magisterial District. Ms. Skylar Camerlinck presented the current use, proposed use, and future land use designation. 3. The petition of Trail Development Group, LLC to rezone approximately 9.67 acres from I-1, Low Intensity Industrial District, to C-2, High Intensity Commercial District, located near 3475 and 3801 Challenger Avenue, Vinton Magisterial District. Ms. Dunbar presented the current use, proposed use, and future land use designation. It was discussed that if the applicant wishes to hold events that would extend past the hours allowed in the noise ordinance, they will be required to obtain a waiver from the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Henderson made a motion to approve the consent agenda, which passed 5-0. Public Hearings 1.The petition of Franco and Dawn DeBartolo to obtain a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 2.99 acres of land zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, located at 3663 Chaparral Drive, Cave Spring Magisterial District. Ms. Camerlinck presented an overview of the petition, existing zoning and use, proposed use, the future land use designation, and suggested conditions. Mr. DeBartolo, 3663 Chapparal Drive, addressed the access road saying that they have a million-dollar insurance policy. They also use the company called evolve to help manage the property, and that all rentals go through them. Mr. DeBartolo noted that prior to the property being an Airbnb they had discussed helping maintain the property that the easement is on, and that they are happy to agree to that. Mr. James questioned how long the short-term rental has been in use. Mr. DeBartolo noted that it has been in use for a year. Mr. DeBartolo noted that they did not realize that they needed five acres to be allowed to operate the short-term rental. He believed that 3 acres would be sufficient, but that he did not do his due diligence in checking. It was verified that the DeBartolo's primary residence is the same address as the proposed short-term rental. Mr. Woltz questioned if they book the accessory structure when they are out of town. Mr. DeBartolo answered they do not. Mr. James opened the public hearing. Mr. Monsour's comments were summarized into the record by Ms. Camerlinck regarding the access easement and how the insurance would work if the property was ever sold in the future. Mr. James asked if Mr. Monsour was in attendance. He asked Mr. Monsour if he had any other questions regarding the petition. Mr. Monsour, 3739 Chapparal Drive, noted he was still confused on how the special use permit would carry Page 2 of 24 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 4, 2024 with the property. Mr. Thompson clarified how the special use permit would carry with the property. Mr. James closed the public hearing. Mr. McMurray made a motion to approve the application with the following conditions: 1. The short-term rental shall be limited to the existing accessory structure (approximately 890 square feet). 2. The number of overnight guests shall not exceed two (2) people. 3. One (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each guestroom in addition to parking spaces required for the principal dwelling. All parking shall be provided on-site and shall be located in driveways and other designated approved parking areas. 4. The property owner shall provide and maintain in good working order every' smoke detector, carbon monoxide detector, and fire extinguisher required by law. Exits required by law shall not be obstructed. 5. The property must maintain a residential appearance. No signage shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 6. No events such as parties, banquets, weddings, receptions, meetings, or similar events shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 7. A business license shall be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue for the short-term rental use. The motion passed 4-1, with Mr. Henderson opposed. 2.The petition of Evelyn Liu to obtain a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 2.04 acres of land zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, located at 4058 Keagy Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. Ms. Skylar Camerlinck presented an overview of the petition, the current use, proposed use, the future land use designation, and suggested conditions. Mr. James questioned if staff had any complaints from citizens prior to them requesting the special use permit. It was noted staff had not received any complaints. Evelyn Liu, 4058 Keagy Road, noted that she lives in the primary structure on the property. It was noted that she is the one that manages the property, and any Airbnb stays. Mr. James opened the public hearing. Denise Swanson, 5451 Lawns Dale Road, noted that it was said that there have not been any comments or complaints on this request. She explained that she spoke with Mr.Thompson about her concerns. She noted that this property has been on Airbnb for a year and has been operating. Mr. James clarified that the concerns or complaints was in regard to if any complaints had been received before the applicant applied for a special use permit. Mr. Thompson noted that he spoke with Ms. Swanson yesterday about the concerns she noted to the Planning Commission. Page 3 of 24 J ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 4,2024 Cecil Kelly, 1925 Maylin Drive, noted his concern with the property being rezoned. Mr. Thompson clarified that it is not a rezoning. It stays R-1 the R-1 S simply indicates that they are wanting to have a special use permit on the property. Mr. Kelly noted that the Airbnb has been operating for a year prior to the hearing. He noted his concern that this was a backway to having the primary residence operate as a short-term rental. Mr. James noted that would be a totally separate process. Mr. Thompson clarified that with a special use permit, staff can recommend conditions if it is approved. One of the conditions on this special use permit,_if it is approved, is that the short-term rental would only be for the accessory structure. He noted that if someone wanted to rent the primary residence, someone would have to come back and go through the entire process again to change that. Mr. Kelly noted that he has been in the neighborhood for 48 years. He noted that it's a beautiful property and if he was coming to town, he would be happy to stay there. He would just have objections against the main house being rented. Mr. Bower noted that one of the recommendations is that the rental shall be limited to the accessory structure. Mr. Kelly noted that on the other hand there is no one that monitors these special use permits at all, and that is also a concern. Mr. Thompson noted that some of these uses have been happening, and many people did not know that they needed a special use permit. He explained that three years ago there was nothing in the ordinance about short term rentals at all. The reason that Evelyn Liu is here, is that there have been issues with short term rentals in Roanoke County as a whole. He explained that Skylar Camerlinck, one of her main functions, is to monitor websites for short term rentals in Roanoke County to let them know they need to go through this process. He noted that Ms. Liu is here because she received a letter from Skylar informing her, she needed to go through this process. Mr. Woltz noted that this process has actually help Roanoke County to have input with these short-term rentals, as now they are able to put conditions and ensure they are operated properly. Toni Aulst, 2524 Keagy Road, noted she is here because she is a concerned neighbor. Noted all this time, she has been concerned about what was going on. She noted that she saw the signs posted on the property. She noted that she looked up the information on the sign, not fully understanding the terminology or the steps that have to be done. She noted that she was the person that left comments saying that she was not for it or against it because she did not have enough information to have an opinion. She stated that her concerns were originally that the property was being rezoned, but she believes that has been explained now. She noted that she called Mr. Thompson and left a message and Skylar called her back and answered her questions. She noted that it is a beautiful piece of property, and she is sure that people would enjoy that. She noted that in the back of your mind, you see the small house being rented and that you worry that the rental is going to move to the big house. She was thankful for the clarification. She thanked staff and the Planning Commission for their explanations. Mr. James read in the comments of Nathan Webster. He lives at 5332 McVitty Road, noted that they have no issues with their neighbor renting the accessory building on their property. They have not seen any issues, or where this could be an issue. He hopes that she is permitted to continue operating. Page 4 of 24 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 4, 2024 Scott Balwin, 4046 Keagy Road, noted that he bought the property back in 1977. He explained that he and his wife are hoping to downsize in the future and move back to Keagy Road. He noted that he and his wife like to go to bed at 9:30 p.m. He noted that he did not want to see any entertainment venue there. As long as they are held to the no parties, weddings, etc. he is satisfied with the answers he received this evening. Philip noted that the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors held a joint work session recently where they discussed conditions that they would like in place regarding short term rentals. He noted that there are no events to be held in association with short term rentals. Mr. Bower also noted that the applicant also has fourteen house rules, the first being no parties or events. Larry Adams, 5319 McVitty Road, explained that he noticed some comings and goings from the property. He explained that he is directly across the street from her house, and her gorgeous pond. He noted that none of her guests have interfered with anything in the neighborhood. He explained that he does not know Mrs. Liu. He has lived in the house across the street for little over a year. However, he can observe that she is a quiet person. He noted that two Christmases ago when the power went out in the big storm, the people coming into fix the power were from out of state. She gave them all meal tickets to her restaurant. He explained that is the type of thing he appreciates in a neighbor. Her property is well lit, well taken care of. He noted there are some concerns he has. The direction and the topography to the road makes her driveway hidden. He noted that there is a row of cedar trees that makes it harder to see. He noted that there is a post at the end of her driveway where a little fisheye mirror would make it much easier for people coming down the road or leaving her driveway to see safely. He noted that they have a great deal of wildlife due to her pond. Those of them that live in the neighborhood know to slow down when they approach that curve in the road. He noted anything that could help make that safer would be appreciated. He noted that she is the kind of person who will be easy to deal with and that he does not foresee any issues. People who are hard to deal with do not light their property the way she does, treat their pond the way she does, put up signs for the ducks like she does, maintain a property gorgeously like she does. He noted that he comes from a resort community where every single separate dwelling got used for Airbnb. He noted that they had to pass ordinances so that people that lived there could find somewhere to live. He cautioned the Planning Commission to not allow too many Airbnb's that people will struggle to find somewhere to live. Patricia Spangler, 4032 Keagy Road, noted that they are the neighbors closest to the Airbnb. She noted that it has been rented the last year and a half and it has been very quiet. She noted that Ms. Liu maintains her property beautifully, and that they have no complaints. Mr. James closed the public hearing. Ms. Liu noted that the mirror was a good idea, and that she will do that. She explained that the main reason she does not know her neighbors well is that even though she has Page 5 of 24 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 4, 2024 lived there for three years is that she owns a restaurant and is home at around ten or eleven at night. She explained that she does not rent the accessory structure when she is not home. Ms. Liu noted that she does a lot of work to make the home nice, and she worked very hard for this house. She loves it. She noted that she does not have time to take vacations, this is her vacation house. Mr. Bower made a motion to approve the application with the following conditions: 1. The short-term rental shall be limited to the existing accessory structure (approximately 1,095 square feet). 2. The number of overnight guests shall not exceed six (6) people. 3. One (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each guestroom in addition to parking spaces required for the principal dwelling. All parking shall be provided on-site and shall be located in driveways and other designated approved parking areas. 4. The property owner shall provide and maintain in good working order every smoke detector, carbon monoxide detector, and fire extinguisher required by law. Exits required by law shall not be obstructed. 5. The property must maintain a residential appearance. No signage shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 6. No events such as parties, banquets, weddings, receptions, meetings, or similar events shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 7. A business license shall be obtained from the Commissioner of the Revenue for the short-term rental use. The motion passed 5-0. 3.The petition of Robert and Jerri Jackson to obtain a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 0.5768 acre of land zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, located at 1727 Mountain Heights Drive, Catawba Magisterial District. Ms. Dunbar presented an overview of the petition, the current use, proposed use, future land use designation, and suggested conditions. Mr. James asked if staff was aware of any complaints prior to the applicant submitting for a special use permit, it was verified that staff had not received any complaints. Mr. Robert Jackson, 1727 Mountain Heights Drive, noted that they do not live at the property. However, they live seven minutes away in Salem. He noted that they do have a main resident at the location and has been there since they moved to that residence. Mr. Jackson noted that their tenant, James, is well aware and would call him if there were any issues. Mr. James questioned if they rented the property when they were not in town. It was noted that.they do, and that James has the authority to deal with any issues. However, if Mr. Jackson is out of town his brother would be able to step in, as he lives only fifteen minutes away. He noted that they have been operating this short- term rental for six years. Mr. Bower asked if Mr. Jackson has had any complaints from the neighbors. Mr. Jackson noted that he has not had any complaints. He explained that he tried to walk around and speak to all of them and have them sign a document saying they were aware of the short-term rental. He noted that the main concern seems to be Page 6 of 24 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 4,2024 that they do not know who is staying there. He explained that is not entirely true. Airbnb verifies your guest, and that they are able to approve or deny guests. He noted that if there were to be any issues you are able to uninvite guests and ask them to leave. If they refuse to leave, police would be able to remove them from the property. However, they have never had to do that. He reminisced that the first four years when they lived on the property, they would often go and sit at the firepit with their guests. He explained that oddly enough many of their guests are traveling from Pennsylvania to Atlanta, hiking our trails, going to Roanoke College, or going to the park and ride at the base of the subdivision that takes you to Virginia Tech. The house rules were reviewed. He noted that in the past they had one instance where their long-term rental resident complained, and they now no longer allow anyone to book on December 31st. Mr. James opened the public hearing. Vance Moore, 1759 Mountain Heights Drive, noted he has been at the residence for 15 years. He mused that this was the first time he believes he has ever seen Mr. Jackson. He noted that he has never been approached about an Airbnb. He commented that it is not a single-family residence, it's a four-unit apartment building. Mr. James that lives upstairs lives in an apartment, not a single-family residence. As far as problems, there are people pulling up and shining their lights into his living room at night. Even stopping to ask where the rental is because it does not come up on GPS. He continued that there was one gentleman who was belligerent enough that he wanted to step out of the car. He noted that this is a residential neighborhood, this is not a business facility. There are hotels on Route 419. If you wanted to do this, why did you not have the courtesy and respect to let the neighbors know. In his opinion, he sees what Mr. Jackson wants to do, he wants to turn it into four Airbnb's. Susan Diane Bowles, 1751 Mountain Heights Drive and, 1737 Mountain Heights Drive, noted that she wants to speak more to the traffic in the area. She noted that it is a danger for many of the elderly people in the neighborhood walk their dogs, and at night. She noted that the driveway to Airbnb is illuminated by solar stake lights. She noted that Mr. James that lives in the apartment upstairs of the proposed Airbnb is an eighty-year- old man that is small with unwell health. She repeated Mr. Jackson's earlier claim that James will take care of any complaints and will call if there are issues. She noted that she is not comfortable with that arrangement, and she is not sure that Mr. James is either. She noted that she has been living at her house since 1978. She explained that she has not been informed in any way about the Airbnb until she received the letter from Roanoke County saying that she was running an Airbnb. She let staff know it was in fact the address next to her that was running the Airbnb. Mr. James questioned if she had noticed any issues with traffic. She noted that one evening a U-Haul vehicle quit on who was driving it right in front of the Jackson's property. She noted that the vehicle stayed there all that night, and most of the next day. It was blocking the narrow street. Whoever was driving it stayed at the Airbnb. The tow truck that came to haul the U-Haul, broke down and blocked her upper driveway. She noted that the broke down tow truck stayed there another day, until another vehicle could tow both broken down vehicles the next day. She noted that his cul-de-sac is a bus route, and that the bus has to turn around in Page 7 of 24 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 4, 2024 the cul-de-sac. She noted that this was a menace. She thanked the Planning Commissioners for their time. Mr. James questioned if she had been approached about the location of the Airbnb, it was noted she had. Wayne Adleton, Mountain Heights Drive,. noted that he is legally deaf, so he apologized if he repeated anything that has already been said. He noted that he built his home on Mountain Heights Drive in 1979. The neighbors that he spoke to are opposed to short- term rentals. He noted that he was a landlord of the property for 30 years. He explained that when he rented a property to somebody, he always did background checks. He wants to know who is responsible for background checks for short term rentals. How are they supposed to know who is coming in and out of their neighborhood. With a long- term rental, you have someone who stays for a while and normally becomes part of the neighborhood. Short term rentals, they do not know who they are. They could be sex offenders/criminals. They have a relatively low crime neighborhood, and he would like to keep it that way. He reiterated that his main concern is who is going to be responsible for checking these people out before allowing them into the neighborhood. He closed by asking the Planning Commission that if they were to live next door, would they okay it. Linda Oliver, 1672 Mountain Heights Drive, noted that their neighborhood is a family residential neighborhood. There have been many elderly people that live there and have lived there for a long time. She has lived there over 25 years, it's a quiet neighborhood. She noted you can sit outside at night and hear the birds and bugs. She noted that she remembered Mr. Sturgill lived in that house and he died. She is not sure who bought it after him, maybe Mr. Jackson. She is not sure if it was grandfathered in, like Mr. Jackson said, into a three-family rental house. Nobody knew about that, until all of a sudden everybody guessed that there is a rental house there now. Now it is like an Airbnb with two cars and up to four people. What happens if the other two units become Airbnb's and they have 6 cars and up to 10 people. There are children that play in the neighborhood. People like to walk up and down the street at night. Kids like to • play. Because it is near the interstate, they have stray people who get lost. She knows people who could not attend the meeting because of prior engagements, but she knows that they are not in favor of a short-term rental. They are not happy with an Airbnb. They want to keep their neighborhood quiet and safe, where everybody knows everybody, where kids can play with each other. Airbnb is going to bring more traffic. You just rent the Airbnb for two days and people come in and they do not connect with the people in the neighborhood. She noted that no one contacted her. She questioned if he had an Airbnb in this place for six years. She does not know. She even has a neighbor who did not receive a County notice. She had to give them a copy of hers. She can think of three or four people who were not present who would not want an Airbnb. She noted that she knows James. She has given him rides lots of times because he does not drive. She noted that they just tried to get rid of a hotel at the end of the street because of traffic. She did not even know that it was a three-family house, until it was a three-family house that has been grandfathered in. Luckily, she got a notice saying that it could be an Airbnb. She does not think it is a neighborhood for an Airbnb. It is a residential neighborhood. What happens if he gets an Airbnb and older people die and other people are going to be operating Airbnb outside of their houses. Salem has certain Page 8 of 24 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 4,2024 locations where Airbnb's are allowed. She knows because she thought about doing it herself to pay for her New Jersey taxes. Kendall Johnson, 1830 Rudley Lane, lives directly behind the property in question. He reiterated that there are some people who could not attend the meeting in opposition to this. He noted that Mr. Jackson was correct, that the biggest concern is the safety of the community in their residential neighborhood. He noted that they have been renting it out for some time. He noted that Mr. Sturgill owned the house and Mr. Jackson purchased it from him. He noted that Mr. Jackson was grandfathered in for basement apartment rentals. He noted that Mr. Sturgill had two, sometimes just one, but the same people would stay a while. People in the neighborhood knew who they were. He noted that when Mr. Jackson bought it, he kept those rentals going in the bottom apartments. He noted that Mr. Jackson keeps up the property well. He believes that he has been renovating the bottom apartments. He noted in talking with Mr. Jackson, he has not been approached by Mr. Jackson about it, but he had spoke with Mr. Jackson in his driveway about it. He noted that due to his profession he does not sleep much, so he sees everything that is going on night and day. He explained that Mr. Jackson had said that he was considering making the upstairs a short-term rental with the two underneath but was letting it remain a long-term rental for now. He noted that he also gives James rides because he does not drive. He noted that James is 83 years old and goes to bed with the chickens. He might answer his phone if he can hear it. He noted that there is no on-site management there. He noted that he had concerns with the upper- and lower- units being Airbnb's. He noted that this is a quiet neighborhood. There is no through traffic. It is a cul-de-sac. He noted that it is quiet, and everyone within earshot of this location is retired. There are lots of people walking the streets, and he does not know if they are ready to deal with the increase in traffic. The increase of people coming through. He does not know how much vetting he could possibly do, but he believes it to be limited. After talking with County police officers, the number one call out is for hotel/motel/motor lodge parking lots. He noted after talking with them there are lots of opportunities for criminal activities. After criminals realize how convenient Airbnb's are they will use them. He does not know what the future will hold. They could go really well or go poorly. He noted there may be areas where they are more suited. He noted that he talked to Tom Bower, who stated that your real estate value goes down with these operating in your residential community. He noted that he has never appealed his tax assessment, but he probably will if this continues. He noted that he is R-1, residential, single family only. He noted that coming and going all hours of the night, pulling a trailer-not a U-Haul, and realized he could not park it down there. Sat there for two hours with his lights shining into his home trying to get turned around, getting in and out of the vehicle, making lots of noise, and finally turned off the vehicle and left it there. He went and checked in and left it there. He noted that it was disconcerting in their quiet neighborhood. Mr. James closed the public hearing. Mr. James noted that when looking at GIS there are four addresses for the parcel in question. Ms. Dunbar noted that the four addresses were noted by staff but there are no Page 9 of 24 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 4, 2024 permits on file. GIS was contacted to see if they had any record of when those addresses were added, but no records were able to be located. Mr. James questioned if the zoning ordinance as written, allow apartments in R-1. She also noted that it is only one short term rental per a property. Ms. Dunbar noted that it would not be by right by today's standards. It was also noted that Roanoke County does not regulate long term rentals. Mr. Woltz questioned if anything has been done to establish that it is currently a triplex. Ms. Dunbar noted that there is nothing established, but there are non- conforming sections of code that states that the nonconformity cannot be increased. Mr. Woltz questioned that due to it being a nonconforming use there would be no parking standards for the triplex, which was confirmed by Ms. Dunbar. Mr. Jackson noted that upstairs it is not four apartments. The upstairs apartment is 1,700 square feet with 3 bedrooms and a den. They are not renting any additional Airbnb's; the upstairs is a long-term rental. Downstairs, there is the potential of two apartments. However, they are only looking to make one of the downstairs apartments a short-term rental. Mr. Jackson noted that he believes the gentleman who owned the property before him used the 1727 Mountain Heights Drive address as the main address. He believes that the upstairs unit, that is now long-term rental, was 1727 Mountain Heights Drive, Unit A. Then the downstairs units were 1727 Mountain Heights Drive, Units B and 1727 Mountain Heights Drive, Unit C. Mr. Wotlz questioned if there are three separate internal structures. Mr. Jackson noted that all three are separate. He noted that he called the zoning office before he bought it, and the lady he spoke to said that it was grandfathered in. Otherwise, he would not have bought it. He noted that James has been living there and renting since before he purchased the property. He noted that they have continued to work with him, and James is retired now. Mr. Jackson described the layout of the three units. He noted that one of the downstairs apartments is being used as a short-term rental, and the other is partially under renovation, and they do not intend for it to be used as a short-term rental. Mr. Jackson clarified that they are wanting to get one special use permit for one 800 square foot short term rental downstairs. Mr. Woltz questioned typically how many cars are parked in the driveway if. there is a rental. Mr. Jackson noted that they allow up to 4 people and limit it to 2 vehicles. You could potentially fit 3, but they only allow 2. Up top, you could probably park 3 or 4 vehicles. Mr. Jackson commented on other concerns mentioned that he noted that when they lived there and operated, they didn't have any issues. He disagreed with the comments made about James. He noted that he just spoke to him today and they were talking about going out and fishing. Mr. Jackson noted that James tends to stay up late and not sleep much. Mr. Jackson noted that he does keep an eye on the property for them. Mr. Jackson continued that James has not had to call about any complaints from the Airbnb but has called about maintenance upkeep on the property, and that he believes James does a good job keeping an eye on the place. Mr. • Henderson verified how long the property has been operated as a short-term rental which was confirmed as operating for six years. Mr. Jackson noted that they do not have many complaints about the Airbnb at the County. He explained that Mrs. Bowles talked to him about the truck. He was not aware of it when it happened or else he would have contacted them and told them it was not allowed. He explained that they do not want moving trucks. He has only allowed two exceptions to that for military families that Page 10 of 24 _ I ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 4, 2024 were moving from one base to another base. Mr. Jackson noted that he believes that the Planning Commission is aware of how the Airbnb platform works for vetting guests. Mr. Jackson noted that he spoke to their immediate neighbors regarding the short-term rental. He believed that they had many talks about this and the advantage of short-term rentals over long term. He noted that he has had issues with long term rentals in the past where they damaged the property and stopped paying rent. He noted it took forever to have them vacated from the property. He noted that the reason James is there is that he is a neighbor and a friend, and he trusts him. Mr. Jackson noted that he was not aware of guests asking other neighbors for directions. He noted that they send all of their guests instructions as to how to get to the property. He noted he also was not aware of the trailer getting stuck and shining their lights in his neighbor's window. Mr. Bower questioned if Mr. Jackson could think of something that would make it easier to locate the short-term rental. Mr. Jackson noted that he would be happy to place something decorative or large house numbers to make it easier to locate. Mr. Woltz questioned if street parking is available in that area. Mr. Jackson noted that you can legally park there, but it is a two-lane road that is very narrow. However, he does not believe that will be an issue because they provide enough parking based on the number of guests. Mr. Jackson clarified that there was an owner between Mr. Sturgill and himself, but they did not stay there long. Mr. Thompson asked Mr. Jackson if the intent of the other apartment downstairs is intended to be rented long term. Mr. Jackson asked if he would be allowed to rent it out long term because he is now not sure. Mr. Thompson noted that staff would have to look at what was grandfathered in. Mr. James questioned how they would distinguish the apartment being requested for a short-term rental to make it clear which of the two apartments would potentially be approved. Mr. James questioned if it is apartment B or C. Mr. Jackson noted that the apartment being requested is distinguishable from the other based on the floor plan, and the pictures provided as part of the presentation that are listed on the Airbnb platform. Mr. Henderson noted that it was operated as an Airbnb for six years and many people did not even realize it. He believes that speaks to how the property is operated. He noted that it was clarified to be three units and not four. Mr. Henderson made a motion to approve the application with the following conditions: 1. The short-term rental shall be limited to the lower level of the existing residential dwelling (approximately 800 square feet). 2. The number of overnight guests shall not exceed four(4) people. 3. One (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each guestroom in addition to parking spaces required for the principal dwelling. All parking shall be provided on-site and shall be located in driveways and other designated approved parking areas. 4. The property owner shall provide and maintain in good working order every smoke detector, carbon monoxide detector, and fire extinguisher required by law. Exits required by law shall not be obstructed. 5. The property must maintain a residential appearance. No signage shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. 6. No events such as parties, banquets, weddings, receptions, meetings, or similar, events shall be allowed with the short-term rental use. Page 11 of 24 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 4,2024 7. A business license shall be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue for short-term rental use. The motion failed, 1-4. Mr. McMurray made a motion to deny the special use permit, which passed 4-1, with Mr. Henderson voting no. Citizens Comments There were none. Comments of Planning Commissioners and Staff There were none. Adjournment Mr. James adjourned the meeting for dinner at 6:46 p.m. EVENING SESSION Mr. James called the evening session to order at 7:10 p.m. Invocation Mr. McMurray led the invocation and pledge of allegiance. Public Hearings 1.The petition of Neil Aneja to obtain a special use permit to operate a short-term rental on approximately 0.30 acre of land zoned R-1, Low Density Residential District, located at 2726 White Pelican Lane, Cave Spring Magisterial District. Ms. Rebecca James noted that the house was built in 1971 and is located in the Penn Forrest subdivision. White Pelican Lane is one way and is one way out. It is 0.3 acre in size, the existing use is single family dwelling, and the proposed use is short term rental. She noted that the application is for the entire five-bedroom house. She noted that the driveway can serve up to 2-3 vehicles. She defined short term rental as listed in the Roanoke County zoning ordinance. Ms. James noted that there are additional standards should this application be approved. A zoning permit being required which includes the property information as well as who is the responsible party that would handle any concerns. If there is any change in ownership, they would need to let the County know. If any of the conditions/standards are not met the County would be able to void out the permit. She noted the current surrounding zoning and the future land use designation. She reviewed the history of the application noting that in 2022 the Board of Supervisors denied this application. Since then, the applicant continued to list the property on various platforms that advertised for the short-term rental use. Roanoke County started their enforcement in the spring of 2022. Numerous cases have been heard in both courts. There was some difficulty in getting the applicant served which explains the gap between April of 2022 and today. Neil Aneja is the son of the owner of the property, Shama Kakar, so there were two cases heard in court. Both of those cases are pending Page 12 of 24 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 4, 2024 and have been taken under advisement. One of their options is to go back through the special use permit process to acquire approval. Ms. James explained that is why this case is back before the Planning Commission. Ms. James reviewed staff recommended conditions, and noted that the legal representative of the applicant, Michael Massey, is ' present to answer any questions. Mr. James questioned if there is anything different about this application, than the one they heard in 2022. It was noted that there are no changes. Mr. Michael Massey, the legal representative of the applicant, noted that he had spoken with the Deputy County Attorney, Rachel Lower, and the County Attorney, Peter Lubeck. He apologized that both of the applicants are out of town but did want the application to go forward. Which is why they are moving forward without either of the applicants being present. Mr. Massey explained that on behalf of Mr. Aneja, especially since he has been involved, wanted to apologize to the neighbors and the Board for issues that have arisen involving citations. He explained that since his involvement those issues have been resolved. Mr. Massey noted that it is his belief and hope that there would be no more of those. He noted that Mr. Aneja has taken it off of Airbnb, and that it has been taken off of Airbnb since his involvement. Mr. Massey noted that he has not been renting it. He explained that Mr. Aneja's hope would be that there would not be any future problems and that there would not be any of these issues in the future again. One of the things they have been considering is if the Planning Commission would be willing to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to make something like a six-month conditional approval. Then return in January of 2025. If all seems well, if there are no issues with the neighbors, if there are no additional problems, then maybe the Board of Supervisors would consider advising to make it a more permanent permit. Mr. Massey presented a document with fifteen steps in the house of things that Mr. Aneja and his mother have done things such as: sensors in the house to notify them of decibel levels in the house, smoking detectors, quiet hours for those that attend, and no outdoor patio usage after 10:00 p.m. To ensure that this property is usable for the neighborhood and not a harm to the neighborhood. Mr. Massey explained that they are very willing to go forward with the six recommendations in the staff conditions if the Planning Commission would be willing to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Henderson questioned if Mr. Massey helped Mr. Aneja format the fifteen items. Mr. Massey clarified that Mr. Aneja wrote them, and that he is just presenting them on Mr. Aneja's behalf. Mr. Massey reviewed other documents in the packet presented to the Planning Commission. One of which was his phenomenal reviews from Airbnb. Mr. Massey noted that Mr. Aneja is a superhost. He continued saying that Mr. Aneja has been an Airbnb host for over ten years and has been successful with other properties and would hope that he could do that here on his mom's behalf. Mr. James questioned when the petition was filed. Mr. Massey noted that Mr. Aneja filed for this petition in January of 2024. Mr. James questioned that Mr. Aneja remains unavailable. Mr. Massey explained that they set this on an earlier date, but there was an issue with publication. Mr. Massey noted that Mr. Lubeck and he set this so that his client could be here but were unaware that it was going to be set on this date. Mr. Massey noted that they were going to push it to August so that his client would be back, as he is gone for two months as is his mom. However, Page13of24 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 4, 2024 in discussions with Mr. Lubeck, his clients were not in any way wanting to snub the Planning Commission and wanted to move this forward as best as possible. Mr. Massey explained that if the Planning Commission wanted to move the hearing to August when his clients would be back, that they would be willing to do that. Mr. James clarified at what point Mr. Massey became involved and that the property came off the Airbnb platform, which Mr. Massey noted that it was around January-February of this year when Mr. Aneja filed the new petition. Mr. Bower questioned Mr. Massey if Mr. Aneja and Ms. Kamar had operated in violation up to that point, which Mr. Massey stated he did not know if he could speak to but noted that there were allegations of that. Mr. Massey noted that there were citations that he was charged with, that he went to Mr. Aneja with that were taken under advisement until January 2025 with a promise to the court that there would be no more violations whatsoever. If there are no other violations, then the existing violations will be dismissed. If there are future violations before that time, then he could be convicted of all those pending before the court. Mr. Woltz questioned when that violation was heard and notice was given, why there was a blatant continuation of something that was clearly shown to be in violation. Mr. Woltz noted that he appreciated Mr. Massey's promise that it won't happen again, but he struggles to understand how it happened to begin with. Mr. Massey noted that he is not sure how clearly he can speak to that, but much like a father would chastise his son, he had some very difficult conversations with Mr. Aneja. This should never have happened, and it was completely unacceptable. It does not help his case or his mother's case. Mr. Massey noted that he does believe that this will not happen again. He'noted that he cannot promise that, but he does believe the message has gotten through to Mr. Aneja. Mr. Massey noted that all he can say on his behalf is that it was foolish and that he should not have done it. Mr. Thompson questioned if there are five bedrooms or four bedrooms, it was noted that there are five. Mr. Thompson noted that there is a condition to provide on-site parking, non-street parking, for each bedroom. Mr. Thompson questioned if Mr. Aneja has the ability to do that. Through discussion, Mr. Massey answered that Mr. Aneja would be able to provide five off street parking spaces. Mr. Thompson wanted to confirm, because he did not want Mr. Massey agreeing to a condition that Mr. Aneja cannot meet. Mr. James questioned if the general district court made a ruling, and it was noted that an agreement was made between Mr. Massey and the Commonwealth Attorney. Mr. James questioned Mr. Massey if this is the same petition that had previous come before the body, which Mr. Massey confirmed this is largely the same application. Mr. Thompson noted that if the special use permit is approved, the legal advisement goes away. If the application is denied, it would only be if Mr. Aneja illegally operates that there would be an issue with the advisement. Mr. James opened the public hearing. John Bingham, 2725 White Pelican Lane, lives immediately across the street from the' short-term rental. He noted that he wanted to provide some clarifications to things he just heard. He noted that he wished that Mr. Aneja was as friendly with his work on the property as his attorney was. He noted they would have probably met much better luck. He noted that the last record of a rental he had was on March 7th, from when he took information over to the Commonwealth Attorney and presented it to them. He Page 14 of 24 ROANOKE COUNTY'PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 4, 2024 noted that he had a photo with seven vehicles parked at the house on February 15th. He noted that rental was 14 days long. There were seven cars at that home every night. He added that there was one night where there were 12 vehicles one night when he came home. He is saying all these facts that the Planning Commission have and all the other things that were at the court does not count the 91 rentals he has witnessed since February 2023-February 2024. He reiterated that he has seen 91 overnights stays and does not think he has them all counted. He continued saying that is not what he is here to speak about tonight. He noted that he is in attendance mainly to say as a resident of the neighborhood, and as a homeowner on the street— as most of the others-they bought their homes to have a place to go to, to reside and enjoy peace and tranquility after a long day's work. He noted that this business really cranks up around the time they get home, so that is part of the reason he is here. He does not think it is fair to the other property owners surrounding this one, or to the people on the street, to have a commercial business essentially take over the street. He reiterated that it is not fair. The proximity of the house that is on a smaller lot 0.3 acre—at five acres the County does not really question whether or not you want a special use permit. They'll grant you one if you have that big of an acreage. He reiterated that it is a very small lot, and that the houses next to it are within 20-25 feet of this house. They are very close in proximity. He also wanted to inform the Planning Commission that safety is an issue. He explained that if you go down their street, one side has a very sharp incline. Children in the neighborhood play in the street. People bring their children there to learn how to ride their bikes because it is a cul de sac. He noted that it is a safety concern when you have that many people coming and going. Not only is it a nuisance that the neighbors put up with. He stated that Mr. Aneja lives in Roanoke City, so he is not aware of all of the noise and commotion going on at the short-term rental. He shared all of this because he believes that this neighborhood was planned to be a residential neighborhood. The people who purchased properties there bought into it thinking that is what I want when I come home. They did not say I want a commercial property next to me so that I can enjoy.them coming and going. He noted he was going to leave the. Planning Commission with an example, and he wanted them to look at the photo of the seven cars parked at the short-term rental that lasted fourteen days. He noted that there were seven young men, who were all unrelated, that were selling solar panels. He noted that some of the cars parked were muscle cars, and they kept running up and down the street everyday quickly. He noted that is when the safety thing becomes a hassle and a concern. He reiterated the-day that there were twelve cars parked out on the street and were all up and down people's mailboxes. He noted one neighbor even had her driveway partially blocked. He was surprised she did not call the police and have them towed. He noted that Mr. Aneja does not control, and unfortunately even if he does have control by the covenants of the contract—what is he going to do—ask them to leave. Then the neighbors are still stuck with the nuisance that created the problem. He noted that he did talk to some of the people of the company that was renting the house. He asked the people renting the house how their stay was going. The renter informed him that the stay had been great because they had been upgraded. They have been in Roanoke City for a while. Mr. Bingham explained that he knows why they got upgraded, they did not have enough parking in Roanoke City to manage seven vehicles. He wanted to use this as an example because it happens and there is more than one example where the Page 15 of 24 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 4,2024 house has been rented by more than one person and has had more than 5 vehicles. He asked the Planning Commission to deny the request. Holly Delaney, 2702 White Pelican Lane, noted that she has been there for fifteen , years. She explained that this has been going on for a long time. She noted that this is her second time speaking against this application. She noted that she agrees with everything that John said. She does not think that Mr. Aneja should be allowed a special use permit for a short-term rental. Especially with all the commotion it has caused. He has been fined and continues to rent without following the rules. She does not think he is going to change if he was given a chance. She does not know why we would give him a chance when he has not shown them any good will. He has gone against what he is supposed to do, and the neighbors suffer. Nobody is gaining here, except for him and it's because he is breaking the law. He is going against the ordinances and is doing his own thing. Whereas the law-abiding citizens in the neighborhood are the ones that are suffering. She continued saying that there is no good reason for this to get passed. It needs to get shut down. He should not be renting to anybody. Unless it is six months to year. She noted that is different, but that is not what he is using it for. Karen Mitchell, 2743 White Pelican Lane, noted that she has lived there since 1977. She stated that this, for several years now, has really been a problem for the street. She noted that she does not quite understand. She noted that Mr. Thompson said that Mr.( Aneja would be required to have five off-street parking spaces, which Mr. Thompson verified. She noted that it is impossible to fit five off-street parking spots. She noted that they all have about the same size lot. She noted that her driveway is a little bit bigger than Mr. Aneja's and at the most she can fit three. She reiterated that their driveways are similar in length, so there is no way he can fit five cars there. She opined that there is no way he can fit five cars. He has a narrow driveway. She continued that if he is not allowed to park on the street, she does not understand how he is going to fit five vehicles. She reiterated that she is a little confused on that and his defiance of the rules. She knows the other neighbors feel the same way, and that it is a little intimidating coming before a public body like this. She noted that she appreciated the Planning Commission hearing'what she had to say and asked that it take all of the comments into consideration. Mr. James closed the public hearing. Mr. Henderson noted that as a body, the Planning Commission has adjusted to figure out what works and developed more consistent conditions since doing short-term rentals. He noted that the items that the Planning Commission are requiring are not new, in regard to the off-street parking. He continued saying that is something the Planning Commission consistently requests now. Mr. Henderson noted he was curious if you can fit five cars on the lot. Mr. James noted that he was looking at the aerial of the parcel, and while it is not to scale, but on the aerial, there is a vehicle in the driveway. He noted you could probably fit one more vehicle comfortably. He assumes the garage is for a single car due to the driveway width. Mr. James does not see how, unless someone is parking in the grass, that fitting five cars off street can be Page 16 of 24 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 4, 2024 'accomplished. Mr. Woltz noted that while looking at the aerial and knowing the condition requiring a parking spot per each bedroom, he also does not see how you can fit five cars. He noted that if you have five cars, it will be difficult to accommodate that, and they will probably park on the street. He recalled the first time they reviewed this application, when the Planning Commission was new to short term rentals. He noted that the neighborhood has gone through a fair number of problems with this. He noted the issues with parking are not going to go away. The track record shows that they may have to engage in the same issues they had before, with nothing but a promise from someone who is not the owner. He continued saying that the Planning Commission needs to look seriously at the history of this and the regulations about having the parking off the street. Ms. Lower informed the Planning Commission that Mr. Massey spoke with his client, and it only fits three vehicles off street. She noted that Mr. Aneja would be agreeable to a condition limiting the parking to three vehicles on site. Mr. Woltz questioned if Mr. Aneja could just not make the meeting tonight. Ms. Lower answered that it was her understanding that he is out of the country and Mr. Massey is his legal representative here on his behalf. Mr. Henderson verified that Mr. Aneja is now offering three instead of five parking spots, which was verified. Mr. Bower requested clarification, that Mr. Aneja was in court in January. It was clarified that Mr. Aneja was in court in March. Mr. Bower asked if he continued to operate up until that point, which Mr. Massey noted he could not speak to anything leading up to court. However, since court, Mr. Massey can verify that he has not been operating. Mr. Bower noted that he wished that Mr. Aneja was present, because Mr. Bower did not want to say something that may not be true that he cannot speak to. He recalled the previous hearing for this application, he went back and looked at his notes, there was a lot of back and forth between him and the neighbors. Mr. Bower recalled that he asked Mr. Aneja if he would be willing to provide the neighbors with his phone number so they could get in touch with him regarding issues. Mr. Bower noted that Mr. Aneja had said of course I would be happy to give my phone number to anyone, and they could call him anytime. Mr. Bower noted that he thought that was a nice gesture. Mr. Bower continued that after the hearing was over, he heard Mr. Aneja speaking to the neighbors saying I can just turn it into Section 8 housing or a halfway house if you do not like what I am doing. At that point, he really regretted his vote, and he really has not changed that decision. Mr. Bower wished that Mr. Aneja was here. Mr. Bower noted that it is his opinion that they table it or deny it. Mr. Thompson requested clarification from Mr. Massey of what Mr. Aneja was offering in regard to parking. Mr. Massey noted that Mr. Aneja is willing to limit guests to three cars. Mr. Thompson noted that enforcement is already difficult, and that it is going to be a hard thing to enforce if people are parking on the street. Mr. Thompson noted that is the biggest issue that they have. Mr. Massey restated that they would request a conditional permit for 6 months, or whatever time frame the body is happy with, and if Mr. Aneja violates then he would return to the Planning Commission to be denied a permit. Mr. Henderson requested clarification of a discussion he heard between Mr. Massey and Ms. Lower. Mr. Massey noted that he was informing Ms. Lower that he texted Mr. Aneja to verify the parking. Mr. Aneja verified that the parking area would only fit three vehicles. He continued saying that it was he who misspoke not Mr. Aneja. Mr. Aneja will agree to a condition that only three cars be permitted. Mr. James noted that he has some concerns because the ordinance states that they must Page 17 of 24 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DUNE 4, 2024 have one parking spot, per each bedroom being rented. Mr. Thompson clarified that it is not the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance. Recently, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors held a meeting on short term rentals. Staff had reviewed other localities requirements on short term rentals. It was discussed about amending the ordinance, however there was a change in state law that come into effect July 1, 2024. Now if you amend your ordinance after December 31, 2023, if the applicant lives on the site you have to approve the application by right. The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance was in a place that the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission preferred to add more conditions, rather than make a zoning ordinance amendment. Mr. Thompson noted that when looking at other localities, it seemed to be a common standard to require one parking spot per bedroom. Mr. Thompson questioned if then you would limit the number of bedrooms available for rent to match the available parking spaces. You need to have five parking spaces for five bedrooms. Otherwise, you are changing the standard of the condition. He continued saying that is the whole point. Parking has been an issue that has been raised for short term rentals. What staff is trying to do is eliminate that issue by making it a standard to have guests park on site. Mr. Thompson noted that even if you can fit three cars there, they are going to have to be moved all the time for people to get out. People will probably end up still parking on the street. Mr. Massey apologized to Mr. Bower for what his client said. Mr. Massey noted that it was a foolish thing to say and was just dumb. Mr. Bower noted he is not sure if anyone was present that heard that. Mr. Massey reiterated it was a foolish thing to say. Mr. Bower noted that he saw three hands raised to indicate they were present when Mr. Aneja said it. Mr. Bower noted that it is very frustrating for them as a body and for the County as it will have to be enforced someway. Mr. Bower wondered how Roanoke County can expect that Mr. Aneja is going to respect and comply with the zoning ordinance that they have in place if he has not shown a willingness to do so up to this point. Mr. Massey answered that if it helps the body that the application be tabled until the future, and if there are violations it would be outright denial. Mr. Massey noted that if there are new citations, Mr. Aneja would be in trouble with the criminal court at that time but tabling it would be another option. Mr. Woltz asked for clarification on if Mr. Massey is asking that the Planning Commission table the application. Mr. Massey noted that he was asking for some insight. If the Planning Commission believes it will deny the application in October or November if it was tabled, then he would recommend they go ahead and deny it. If there is a chance that the Planning Commission would consider a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors, then he would ask that they table it so Mr. Aneja can prove himself to the Board of Supervisors and the neighbors. Ms. Lower noted that the new information that the Planning Commission could have if it was tabled was for Mr. Aneja to prove that he can comply and perhaps Mr. Aneja being present. That is the only information that the Planning Commission could have that may change their opinion. Mr. Henderson questioned to table what to see if he will comply, is he not operating it now anyway. Mr. Massey noted that Mr. Aneja is not currently operating the short-term rental. Mr. Henderson noted that he has never had a permit to operate it to begin with, what would the Planning Commission be tabling. Mr. Massey answered they would be tabling giving him the permit. It was clarified that the reason the Planning Commission may want to consider tabling their Page 18 of 24 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 4,2024 decision on whether or not to recommend Mr. Aneja for a permit would be to gather the additional information previously summarized by Ms. Lower. Mr. McMurray made a motion to deny the application, which passed 5-0. 2. The petition of Roanoke Valley Holdings LLC to remove a proffered condition on approximately 50.8 acres of land zoned R-1 C, Low Density Residential District with conditions, in order to develop a residential subdivision, located near the 6200 block of Crumpacker Drive, Hollins Magisterial District. (POSTPONED BY APPLICANT) 3. The petition of Reed Road Solar 1, LLC to obtain a special use permit for a major utility service (solar farm) on approximately 36.48 acres of land zoned AR Agricultural/Residential District, located at 9150 Reed Road, Windsor Hills Magisterial District. Mr. McMurray made the following statement: The petitioner, Reed Road Solar 1, LLC, is a direct competitor of the company which I am employed by. In order to avoid any appearance of impropriety, I have decided to abstain from any discussion and from the vote on this matter. Mr. Isaac Henry presented an overview of the property, current use, proposed use, future land use designation, and suggested conditions. It was noted that some information was received the Friday before the meeting. Quintin Wood and Jessie Robinson with New Leaf Energy spoke on behalf of the applicant. Ms. Robinson provided a background on New Leaf Energy. She noted that there are several types of projects that can exist in Virginia. She noted that what they are proposing is a part of the shared solar program. She noted that Community Solar is new for Appalachian Power territory. She noted that those projects can be 5MW or less. The purpose is to provide solar power benefits to those that would otherwise not be able to have them. She noted that the owner of the property used to use the property for apple orchards before switching to hay and cattle. She explained that the reasons for choosing the site were: distribution lines to interconnect with and a substation that has the capacity for the project, it is in Appalachian Power territory, and it is zoned Agricultural/Residential which the County recognizes as a potential zoning for this project with a special use permit. The road in their design will not affect streams or wetlands for this project. There will be minimum tree clearing needed as the site is already mostly cleared. The slope of the property helps with shielding the project from view. Mr. Wood explained the logistics of the site. He noted that the facility equipment was relocated due to concerns from neighbors, so it is further away from adjacent properties. He provided clarity regarding noise levels, he noted that has an estimated noise level of 53 decibels which is the average of someone having a normal conversation while standing relatively close. Mr. James questioned if the noise level is constant, it was clarified that the noise would not be present at night just while the solar panels are Page 19 of 24 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 4, 2024 absorbing solar energy. He noted that construction of these facilities normally takes 6-8 months. Regarding the operation maintenance of the facility, the facility should run for about 40 years with biweekly visits to ensure everything is operating properly. He noted that a bond with the County would be in place to help with decommissioning costs should anything happen. He noted that the bulk of these facilities is recyclable. He reviewed DEQ standards for runoff standards. He reviewed the concerns regarding leeching, stating that the EPA regulates what materials can be used for solar panels. He noted that solar panels emit the same amount of EMF as a toaster in your kitchen. Ms. Robinson noted the benefits of the project. Residents would be able to subscribe to benefits of the program for free. Solar projects are subject to real estate tax and personal property tax. Over the lifetime of the project, she averages that the County would bring in $470,000 in revenue over forty years. She also noted the voluntary payment they are proffering that could go towards the fire department. It is the opportunity to bring revenue to the County without burdening infrastructure. Mr. Woltz questioned the total cost of the project, Ms. Robinson answered approximately 7-9 million. Mr. Woltz questioned the time to construct which was clarified as 6-8 months. Mr. Woltz questioned the difference in tax options. Ms. Robinson noted that it is different based on the County. She noted that they would be happy to pay whatever is higher. She noted that for her calculations she used revenue share since there were less assumptions in that calculation. Mr. Woltz questioned the depreciation schedule they are using for this. Ms. Robinson noted that the depreciation rate is up to the County with M&T tax. She noted that the M&T is by default how personal property tax would be calculated. If the County wanted to do revenue share that would need to be adopted in the ordinance, which could happen after project approval and just set the effective date. Mr. Woltz questioned if two years for bond renewal would be unreasonable. Mr. Wood noted that it depends on how much paperwork you want to do. They are happy to agree to two years, but the smallest they have done is five. Mr. Woltz requested a description of tier 1 panels, which was provided by Mr. Wood. Mr. Woltz questioned where the panels are made. Ms. Robinson noted most panels are made in southeast Asia. Mr. Woltz questioned if there are any hazardous materials inside the solar panels. Mr. Wood noted that while some solar panels have minimal materials like lead in them, they are at minimal levels to the point that the EPA does not consider them hazardous. It was noted that with these being considered non-hazardous waste, these could be sent to any landfill safely. However, they foresee most of the panels being recycled. Mr. Woltz questioned if a project like this would survive without the tax credits and incentives. Ms. Robinson noted that it would, but with lower economics. Mr. James opened the public hearing. • Jeff Scwar, 4860 Catawba Valley Drive, noted that the Planning Commission received his letter. He noted that he would be hitting points from his letter. He noted that on a personal level with solar energy he had an 8600-kilowatt system put in place at his home. His summer electric bill is $10 a month. On a professional level, he works for a local school division that is installing six solar rays at six of their schools. He wanted to Page 20 of 24 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 4,2024 share the net savings of this. Year five they are saving $340,000, year 15 $1.4 million, year 25 $3.4 million. They also have the environmental impact in year 1 of reducing 1.62 megatons of CO2 emissions, and by year 25 reducing it by 38,000 metric tons. As far as economic benefits, it helps reduce energy costs for the residents. It helps reduce fossil fuel dependency, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It helps create a sustainable future, by switching to solar we contribute to a cleaner healthier environment. He noted that this serves as a practical education tool for students and adults promoting environmental awareness. These projects create a sense of responsibility among young learners. Investments in solar projects helps prepare us for a sustainable future. He noted that this shared solar project will allow others to participate in the benefits of solar that cannot have their own solar system installed like he had. Dan Crawford, 2311 Kipling Street, noted that he is chair of the Sierra Club Roanoke group. He noted that for decades the Sierra Club has given top priority to addressing rapid climate change, knowing that if they fail nothing else will matter. Reducing the burning of fossil fuels is absolutely necessary and renewable energy is the most effective means to that end. From a global perspective, wind is the most productive but solar is making impressive gains due to falling prices. He has had many conversations about this topic, is that they do not need acres of solar panels or turbines on our mountains. Distributed solar will fill all of our needs. He noted that the largest solar project in the area is at the veteran's administration in Salem whose capacity is 1.6MW. Life choices matter and every little bit helps, but if they are to meet the greenhouse reduction goals, they need big energy producers. Here is the opportunity for Roanoke County to step up to the plate on this extremely important issue to help the area and mankind address this most difficult and pressing issue of our time. Time, we are running out. It is time to support renewable energy. Kenneth Deel, 9731 Tinsley Lane, noted that he is the person who bought the 11 acres a few years ago-when he relocated his family. He noted that when he first purchased this property, they lived in Roanoke City, 4 minutes away from Lewis Gale medical center for about 20 years. He noted that when he first moved into Roanoke, he was young and tolerant. Then he got old and intolerant and moved to the country. He noted that he moved out to Tinsley Lane and bought 11 acres off of Mr. Reed. He noted that he bought 11 acres so that they could have peace and quiet. He wanted the agriculture and residential, not commercial uses. He noted that by trade he does anesthesia. He noted his son Zachary Deel is a paramedic. His daughter is a critical care nurse. His wife is an RN who worked in labor and delivery for 26 years. So now they are on this property that they are planning to turn commercial. All of the slides they saw a few minutes ago, all that green, they look at that every day. That's why they bought land out there. He questioned what they are going to be looking at. The solar panels are going to be making noise all day when they are producing. They are not going to be making noise at night when you are sleeping, and you do not care. He continued saying that if you walk out on the porch now you hear quiet. You hear the wind blow, occasionally you hear a truck go by. He noted that they are talking just over his fence. He noted they were kind enough to move the switch to try and get the decibels down. He stated that a Page 21 of 24 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 4,2024 decibel can be a lot when you are used to having absolute quiet. No matter what they do, they are taking the quiet away and turning it commercial. He wishes he had known it; he would not have bought it. He noted concerns about property impact and property value. He noted concern of rainwater ponds running off into his daughter's well. He noted that this is agricultural and residential. He noted they are going to keep putting junk up there and there is not going to be anywhere worth going. Zachary Deel, 9741 Tinsley Lane, noted that he has a few concerns. He does have concerns about their well. He is a solar customer. He did buy solar panels, but he did have the negative impact. They got struck by lightning within six months of having their solar panels on the mountain. The system had to have all of the internals replaced. The company he purchased them from went out of business within a year. So, he has $57,000 of panels and he is lucky if his bill is down to $80 in the summer. He commented on the donation to the fire departments. He noted that he was worked with the fire department since he was fourteen years old. Bent Mountain is a voluntary fire department. With so much construction and electrical issues will it make it take longer for emergency services. Bent Mountain was the closest to home he could get, they could not afford to stay where they lived. He noted the mountain has been devastated enough by the pipeline. He noted concerns with protecting the land. He worries that people may use their property when trying to steal things from the solar panels. Glenn Reed, 9175 Reed Road, the owner of the parcel. He noted his father used the land as an orchard to grow apples. He noted that he bought the farm from his father and kept growing apples. He noted the market declined, and apples were shipped in and there was not any money in the business. So now he uses the land for hay and cattle, and the solar project is the first opportunity he has had to make good money in the last twenty years. He asked the Planning Commission to approve this project. He submitted photos of his neighbor's property in response to their concerns about the view. He thanked the Planning Commission for allowing him to speak. Jessie Baker, 9610 Apple Orchard Drive, noted that he is a disabled veteran. He noted that he moved to his home once he separated from the military. He noted that he wanted somewhere close to home. If it was not for Bent Mountain, he probably would have moved back to Colorado. He noted that Bent Mountain gave him beautiful views, higher altitude, and more snow. He noted that three years ago he bought his dream home. He noted that the views from his home have been shared online multiple times. He noted that these proposed solar panels would mess with these views. He noted that the point of this is that he wants this to be done right. He is all for clean energy but does not believe that this is the way to do it. He does not think that this is viable. He noted a previous speaker talked about solar being put on schools. The number he noted they would save in year five is more than what is projected to be saved from this location in forty years. He does not believe these are viable. If it was a good investment long term these companies would be buying these lands. He questioned the $50,000 donation. He questioned if this is meant to be for just the fire department on Bent Mountain or across the County. He noted that he would pay $50,000 over forty years to not have the solar Page22of24 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 4,2024 farm. He noted that all of the photos are from the southwest. They never once showed the southeast where multiple residences can be seen. Mr. Woltz noted his worries with the decommissioning process. Mr. Thompson noted that this is the first solar project in the County. He noted that there are a lot of things to consider when doing this. He noted that the Planning Commission may want to consider that there was a new set of plans that was submitted late Thursday. The plans got posted yesterday. New information that he is not sure that the public as a whole has had the opportunity to look at. Second, the state law allows them to accept a donation. However, the donation has to somehow be related to the solar facility. He noted staff just got this information on Friday, which Peter Lubeck commented on it and noted he was struggling with the language in the email from Ms. Robinson related to the donation. Mr. Thompson noted that the wording is for training of fire and rescue staff related to solar energy systems. He noted there is a lot of information with that, that has not been evaluated. Mr. Thompson continued saying there is some discrepancy on the tax value. In the handout presented at the community meeting, they said they are expecting $664,000 in taxes. In the slideshow presented tonight, they listed they projected $470,000 in taxes. He noted that he believes it would be good to have a more detailed breakdown of what the revenue is on an annual basis, and how they arrived at that, would be beneficial. Mr. Thompson noted that the Commissioner of the Revenue was looking for a breakdown of the proposed annual tax revenue that he does not believe has been received. Mr. Thompson noted that it should be noted that there is a chain link fence around the whole project. He noted that he believes that there is some additional information, and that there is some more review that may be pertinent to do from a staff perspective. Mr. James noted that he still has a number of questions of certain items. He noted that to him it would not be appropriate to not give the public the opportunity to comment on newly collected information. Mr. Bower noted that a lot of the information is new. He noted that the County does not have a solar energy ordinance. He noted that he is not for or against it at this point. He believes that they should continue it. Mr. Bower asked for clarification from Mr. Scwar about the savings he noted in his comments. Mr. Bower questioned if that took into account tax credits. Mr. Scwar noted that it was through a Public-Private Agreement.. Mr. Bower questioned what happens if they produce enough power and there is extra. Ms. Robinson noted that they are happy to table this to provide more information so that everyone feels well informed. Ms. Robinson noted that after the power is collected it goes through the grid to the substation and sends any extra power elsewhere, but she does not believe that scenario would play out because APCo keeps an eye on the transmissions and the loads that they are able to carry. . Mr. Woltz made a motion to continue the public hearing to August 6th in order for a more thorough review and consideration of(1) the revised application, (2) the legality of the $50K donation, (3) a potential revenue share agreement, and (4) the revenue sources generally. The Motion passed 4-0-1 with Mr. McMurray abstained from discussion or vote on the application. . Page 23 of 24 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 4,2024 Citizen's Comments There were none. Comments of Planning Commissioner's and Planning Staff Mr. Thompson noted that at the community meeting Mr. North proposed that the Planning Commission attend the Board of Supervisors Work Session regarding solar. To do so, the Planning Commission would need to call a special meeting. Mr. James made a motion to hold a special meeting with the Board of Supervisors on June 11, 2024, which passed 5-0. Mr. Jason Nowak, Planner I, was introduced to the Planning Commission. Final Orders The Special Use Permit requested by Ramseys and Jesica Sandoval was approved at the Board of Supervisor's May 28th meeting with the seven conditions that the Planning Commission recommended. The rezoning requested by ABoone Real Estate was approved at the Board of Supervisors May 28th meeting, as the Planning Commission recommended. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Respectfully Submitted: ),Lette_6( jtu044,(a celia Thomas Rec ng Sec -tary, Roanoke County Planning Commission r ,AO C� Philip Tho la son Secretaryi'oanoke County Planning Commission .6 4 MI6\iNis Rick James Chairman, Roanoke County Planning Commission Page 24 of 24