Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/3/2024 - Minutes pOANO.F ROANOKE :COUNTY: PLANNING COMMISSION 1838•f :: ::." :: ... .. ... ... .. ... .• . ... MEETING.MINUTES September 3, 2024. Commissioners Present::- Mr. Rick James, Chairman Mr. Wayne Bower,:Vice-Chairman Mr. Jim Woltz Mr. Kelly McMurray Mr. Troy Henderson Staff Present: Mr. PhilipThompson, Secretary P ' _. Ms. Rachel Lower, Deputy County.Attorney Ms. Skylar Camerlinck, Planner:l Ms. Megan Cronise, Assistant:Director of Planning Mr. Jason Nowak, Planner Ms. Rebecca James, Zoning Administrator. .. . . . Ms. Cecelia Thomas, Recording Secretary Call to Order Mr. James called the meeting:to order at 7:00 p.m. Invocation Mr. Bower led the invocation and pledge of allegiance: Approval of Agenda Mr. Bower made:a motion to approve the agenda, which passed 5.-0. Approval of Minutes ' Mr. Woltz made a:motion to approve the:meeting minutes from July 2,:202.4:and August 6, 2024, which passed 5-0:. : : ': . Public earing 1. The petition of Dale Wilkinson to rezone:approximately 21.39 acres of land:zoned: I-I, Low Intensity Industrial District, to R-3, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential District, in order to:develop a 225-lot subdivision, located :at 7812 Sanderson Drive, Hollins Magisterial District. Ms. Skylar Camerlinck presented an overview of the petition, the current use, proposed use, and future land use designation: She relayed concerns from citizens that:attended the community meeting:.She noted that the primary ' concerns were traffic and the density of the development.:She explained:that the concept plan shown at the community meeting:is:no longer:being used. She presented the concept plan that was submitted to staff after the packet for the meeting had been . . . . sent out. Mr. James-asked Ms. Camerlinck to elaborate on how the Traffic:Impact Analysis (TIA) is based on.a:proposed left:turn that has not:been funded: Ms;: Camerlinck explained that there:is a conceptual left turn lane that the TIA is based on. ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 3, 2024 She explained that it has not been funded at any level, but the TIA was based on that ;conceptual left turn lane existing. Mr. Dale Wilkinson, 185 Park Drive, noted that he has lived in Roanoke County since 1991. He noted past projects his company helped develop. Mr. Bobby Wampler, with Engineering Concepts, provided a brief overview on the project and discussed the traffic impact analysis. Mr. Wampler noted the foothills also known as Stongegate Phase 3 is also under construction by this company. He noted that it would allow for interconnectivity between the developments. Mr. Wampler noted that the current zoning of the property is I-1, and stated he would not list`off things that could be built there by right as a scare tactic. However, he did emphasize that an Industrial development could be built there without a meeting with the Planning Commission. Mr. Wampler stated that they did not meet enough traffic requirements to require a Traffic Impact Study by VDOT, it was a request from Roanoke County to look at the area. He stated that was their purpose for going through with the study. He noted that the TIA was conducted under the original concept of 225 lots. Mr. Wampler noted that the TIA shows that the Shadwell Drive intersection is not great. Mr. Wampler continued saying that even if this project is not built there are still going to be issues at the Shadwell Drive intersection. Mr. Wampler stated that Roanoke County and VDOT are looking for ways to make that intersection better. He explained that part of the study does account for future growth. He noted that with concurrence of this study the development of this property with the proposed improvements would be better at built conditions then if this project is not built. Mr. Wampler noted that projection does include the left turn lane that is currently unfunded. Mr. Wampler noted that, as requested, the developer is willing to participate in a cooperative effort with VDOT to improve the intersection. He explained that is one of the ways that the developer is different from a by right I-1 use that would not be required to do anything to improve traffic. Mr. Wilkinson defined the cooperative effort that they would participate in to create a left turn lane. Mr. Wilkinson explained that they are willing to provide the right-of-way along Sanderson Drive for their portion of the proposed left turn lane to be developed. Mr. Wampler summarized his overview and noted that the current proposal is for 161 units, which is roughly a 28% reduction in the number of lots. Mr. Wampler stated as noted by Ms. Camerlinck, there have been no proffers offered at this point. Although, general conformance is something the developer is willing to proffer we would expect that. Mr. James clarified if that has been proffered at this time, which Mr. Wampler noted that it has not been put in writing. Mr. Wampler noted that there would be no intent to do more than what is on the plan. Mr. Dale Wilkinson opined that they are unfamiliar with the process of proffers, and are unsure of how to do that but that they would agree to them. Mr. Wilkinson noted that 88 people came to the community meeting, 29 from Roanoke County and 58 from Botetourt County. He noted that the two main areas of concern were density and traffic. He stated that they went back and reduced it to the lowest amount that they can afford. He noted that a Planning Commissioner asked if it made sense to connect Stonegate Phase 3 to the Beahm property. He noted that with no Page 2 of 11 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 3,2024 connectivity, there is minimum impact. He noted that they went back and asked their traffic engineer if they should take a lot or two and connect the proposed development to Stonegate Phase 3. The traffic engineer noted that it would lessen traffic by 14%. He noted that if the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors would like to see that then they would be happy to consider that. Mr. Brian Blevins, Resident Engineer at the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), noted that VDOT did concur with the TIA for the 225 units. He noted that the traffic study does show some impact at the Shadwell Drive intersection. He explained that if a right turn lane or a left turn lane were to be built it would reduce the traffic back down to roughly where it is today. He noted that in some situations, queuing will still occur. He noted that interconnectivity is a good thing. He noted that connecting Stonegate Phase 3 and the Beahm property was not part of the study, but it would help alleviate some traffic. He noted that you would probably get pushback from the other neighborhood. Mr. Blevins noted that VDOT can only require improvements along the frontage. He noted that the TIA was mainly to show what their impacts would be off site. Mr. James noted that the TIA was done for 225 units; the revised concept plan is for 161 units. Mr. James noted that he believes this would reduce some of the proposed traffic, which Mr. Blevins verified. Mr. James questioned if there was an industrial use came in by right would VDOT require a commercial entrance. Mr. Blevins confirmed they would require a commercial entrance. Mr. Blevins noted that they would be required to do a right turn lane and a left turn lane study and a commercial entrance would probably be required. Mr. Bower noted that a new road is being built in Stonegate Phase 3. Mr. Bower questioned if the TIA accounted for the new road being built in Stonegate Phase 3 and would the new road lessen the impact at Sanderson Drive and Shadwell Drive. Mr. Blevins noted that he does not believe that it was included, and noted that it would be probable to assume that it may lessen traffic slightly. Mr. Henderson questioned if it would be safe to say that if the TIA for this project did not require additional measures, that an industrial use on this site may also not require additional measures. Mr. Blevins verified that could be the case. The Planning Commission thanked Mr. Blevins for his time. Mr. James opened the public hearing. Rebecca Clark, 165 Post Oak Drive, noted that she lives in Botetourt County and attended the community meeting. She noted that she was glad to see that they took the input from the community meeting and reduced the lots to 161. However, she noted that even with the reduced density she is worried about the stress that it will place on the area. She commented that while they say that they do not want to threaten them with the industrial development, that really is not what they are facing right now. She noted that what they are currently facing is a huge influx of population and housing in their area. She noted that it will drop a lot of people and a lot of traffic in their area. She noted that VDOT and the TIA aside, it is affecting people and that is a different analysis that they will suffer every day. She noted that she is not sure that they are building 125 homes on Old Mountain Road which turns into Shadwell Drive. She noted that those homes are in Roanoke County but they are putting an additional 46 homes into the Page 3 of 11 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 3, 2024 Stonegate area. She believes that they are looking at a huge volume of traffic. She wondered about the ability to meet the amenities that the people moving into the area will need. Walking areas, public transportation-which she interjected does not exist out there, childcare- she mused where are they going to find childcare, and the schooling. She noted that they are talking about people with children; there is no childcare and schooling. She believes that those amenities are critical to how this housing will progress: She noted that she thinks that housing is important and essential, but she does think that traffic, density, and amenities are going to be what people are going to want to have—and those needs are going to be enormous. She noted that to build something that would ignore those amenities does not seem right to her. , James Norris, 452 Richardson Drive, he noted that he lives in Botetourt County. He explained that his concern is the traffic. He noted that there is already a traffic problem. He stated that he understands that this does not create a traffic problem. He noted that the traffic problem started a long-time ago with all of the other subdivisions. He stated that this just adds fuel to the fire. He noted that it is not helping anybody that the railroad at both ends of Sanderson Drive creates a backup. His opinion is that the only thing that would help this is to have traffic signals at both ends of Sanderson Drive, or by the grace of God to incorporate a mass transit system and convince people to use it. He thanked the Planning Commission for their time. Carol Leonard, 10 Cabel Court, noted that she is also concerned about traffic. She noted her biggest concern, and noted that this is also the biggest concern of other neighbors she has spoken with, is the density of the housing even with the reduction. She noted that it will still create more traffic, not just residential traffic but school buses, emergency vehicles, and post office vehicles. She stated that their mail truck is already delivering mail in her area as late as 8 o'clock at night. She noted that particular road is often a cut through road, not just for her residential area, but also for people who live in Apple Tree and the Hunters Glen Area. She noted that it is going to increase traffic considerably. She noted that there is already difficulty turning due to the railroad line. She noted that this will be a grand increase durind'peak points of the day, and it will only get worse. She noted that traffic will only increase with school bus stops in the morning. She noted that there is no mass transit in the area. She noted that she has had to sit 15-25 minutes to make a turn when there is a train. Her only other alternative is to go and turn at Old Mountain Road to get to Roanoke. She noted that the traffic turn lanes would be helpful, but she does not think it would totally alleviate the problem. She noted that the people living on the foothills may or may not use the exit onto Shadwell Drive, depending on where they live in the neighborhood. She explained that they knew_ that the land would not stay agricultural forever. She noted that many of them live on land that used to be agricultural. She noted that they would greatly appreciate residential over industrial. She noted that for some reason there is a no through trucks sign and is not sure if industrial development was to be put there if something would have to be done about that. She noted that they would not mind housing, but they would prefer single family homes with larger lots and not just,townhomes. She thanked the . Planning Commission for their time. Page 4'of 11 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 3,2024 Barbara Fitzyu, 40 Shadwell Drive, noted that VDOT have done their studies. However, she is not sure what time of day that they did their studies. She stated that Shadwell Drive is awful. She noted that adding 161 homes will cause major issues without a significant road improvement. She noted that at the community meeting who she spoke with from VDOT noted that people could anticipate a 2,000 car increase on these main roads. She noted that this did not factor in the development happening on Old Mountain Road. She asked that the Planning Commission please consider the traffic. She noted that they have many frequent visitors into their yard at night. She explained that there are accidents that come in. There are numerous police reports. She noted that many people run the stop sign at Hollins Road and come across Shadwell Drive and end up in their front yard. She noted that one time they had someone come from a high speed chase from Williamson Road and end up in their yard. She asked that the traffic study be reconsidered and look at different times of the day and different times of the night so that they account for what is actually going on. Jim Spradlin, 2676 Sanderson Drive, noted many people have spoken about the neighborhood as a whole. He noted that he has questions regarding the front half of his property that was proposed to be sliced off and turned into a left turn lane. He also has asked questions at the community meeting about how close these proposed homes would be to his property line and back yard. He noted that the intersection at Hollins Road and Shadwell Drive is awful. There are many days where hejust has to sit there and wait to get out. He does not think that is going to get much better. He noted that accidents on 1-81 are diverted traffic down Route 11 turns into Shadwell Drive being backed up on both ends which is only worsened when a train comes through. Mr. Blevins spoke to the potential VDOT project and whether it would take place regardless of this application. Mr. Blevins noted that it is a concept plan. He noted that it is not funded. It is something that VDOT had worked on to move forward with Roanoke County should they wish to move forward and assist with funding the project. He noted that to move forward with the conceptual project property would have to come from somewhere, but he emphasized that this is just a concept plan. Mr. Bower asked Mr. Blevins to speak to the time of day that the Traffic Study was done. Mr. Blevins explained the process for doing a traffic study. Mr. Blevins noted that the 2,000 trips that they heard about at the community meeting was 2,000 trips in a 24 hour period. Mr. James noted that in their packet it noted that conformance with the concept plan has not been proffered. Mr. James noted that he heard the applicant say something different this evening and asked the applicant to speak to that. Mr. James noted that customarily the Planning Commission sees substantial or general.conformance with the concept plan being presented. Mr. Wilkinson noted that they agree to proffer, he believes it is called in Roanoke County, general conformity with the concept plan. He noted that he would also be willing to proffer, based on one of the comments this evening, having the mail all come to one center to minimize the amount of time that would take. Mr. James noted that his concern is, hypothetically, if the plan is not proffered there is nothing stopping him from selling the land to another developer to do something that is not on the concept plan. Mr. Wilkinson opined that he is not familiar Page 5 of 11 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 3, 2024 with,the process of making proffers. Mr. Wilkinson opined that they are seeing a demand for housing due to the low cost of living in the area. He noted that they want to provide housing for teachers and police officers. He continued stating that they want to do more than what they are required to do. He stated that this is an extremely expensive project for them to do. He stated that they are still willing to do it. He noted that they have done this since 2000, it is important to them. Mr. Woltz noted that they have some examples of homes, but none are proffered in terms of this is what they are planning to build. Mr. Woltz questioned if this is something that they have built before, and if the examples are something that they are planning to be a part of this project. Mr. Wilkinson stated that they are willing to proffer building that type of home. Mr. Woltz questioned if they have already done their profitability study using that concept plan with those designs, which Mr. Wilkinson confirmed. Mr. Wilkinson noted that the homes are going to be $400,000 homes. Mr. Wilkinson noted to give some surety to this, that they expect the homes to be in the $400,000-$500,000 range'. He stated that they will be more than that, but that is a standard that they have projected. He noted to come in and build a $200,000-$300,000 home is not possible for him. Mr. Wampler noted that the applicant is willing to offer general conformance. He noted that he was not sure if they needed to bring that signed and notarized for the Board of Supervisors meeting. Mr. James noted that the proffers were a concern of his, and he had hoped that it would be resolved by tonight's meeting. Mr. Thompson commented on the process of proffer conditions. Mr. Thompson noted that in the state of Virginia the property owner has to sign the proffered conditions. Mr. James verified that Mr. Wilkinson is not the property owner. Mr. Wilkinson answered that they are the contract purchaser. Mr. Wilkinson noted that Mr. Beahm signed the application for the rezoning. Mr. Wilkinson stated that they are more than willing to comply with proffered conditions. He stated that he knows that the Planning Commission is not allowed to request proffered conditions, he is willing to offer general conformance with the concept plan. He continued that if that needs to be notarized that is the first that he knows of it. Mr. James noted that the comment Mr. Thompson made is very important. Mr. James noted that the Planning Commission is appreciative that Mr. Wilkinson is willing to offer proffered conditions but legally it has to come from the property owner. Mr. Thompson questioned if there was a sole person to sign.on behalf of the LLC. It was noted that there are three people in the LLC that own the property. Mr. Thompson questioned if all three people in the LLC need to sign the proffers. It was noted by Mr. Wilkinson that one person has the right to sign for the LLC. Ms. Lower advised that it would be required that the person sign to bind the LLC and sign to approve the proffers. Mr. James noted that Mr. Wilkinson has made some offers that have to be validated by the property owner. Mr. James noted that they can not consider those this evening, and they were not prepared by the time the packet was prepared. Mr. Bower questioned why Mr. Wilkinson would choose not to build an area like Sanderson Ridge. Mr. Bower questioned why Mr. Wilkinson could not put all single family homes there. Mr. Wilkinson stated that everything in the proposed development is single family. Some of them are single family attached and some are single family Page 6 of 11 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 3,2024 detached. Mr. Wilkinson noted that there are things that they can do as a developer to improve a row of townhouses. He noted that they can provide undulations and openings between five units so it is not all lined up in a row. He noted that is planning thing that will happen at the next step. Mr. Wilkinson informed the Planning Commission that he understands their role to be an advisory capacity to the Board of Supervisors. He continued saying that if there are technical issues here that need to be addressed it is the first they know about it. He will comply in their advisory role, and will not dictate what they all do, but as a developer he does not want to be held up on a technicality that they do not have a land owner who has signed the proffer. He stated that they will comply with that at the Board of Supervisors level. Mr. James noted that he does not want Mr. Wilkinson to think that he is being held up on a technicality. Mr. James noted that the proposed application is not consistent with the future land use designation, which has not even been addressed yet. Mr. James noted that is a little bit more than a technicality, as they have a plan for the area and it is inconsistent. Mr. James noted that it is important that if they are going to go against the comprehensive plan, that they do their due diligence to show that the project that they are representing to the Board of Supervisors is complete. He continued that the Board of Supervisors have let the Planning Commission know when an application has come to them in a way that they believe is incomplete. Mr. James noted that if they are to deliver an application to the Board of Supervisors that it is important that it is complete. Mr. Wilkinson stated that he agreed about the future land use designation. Mr. James noted that it is his understanding that there have been discussions about proffers with the applicant. Mr. Wilkinson noted that he was not aware of any. Mr. James read the emails from staff dated August 9, 2024, to the applicant requesting if they would like to meet regarding proffers sent to Mr. Wampler with Mr. Wilkinson copied. Mr. Wampler noted that he will speak to the proffers. He stated that obviously they are aware of proffers. He stated he would have to check what his response was, but he assumes it was "No, we have not discussed proffers". Mr. Wampler stated that typically unless they hear of a specific concern they do not come with proffers. Mr. Wampler continued that they are fully aware that for the Board of Supervisors to take action those would need to be in place. He stated that as an advisory body he is not sure if the Planning Commission is able to make a recommendation assuming that the developer stays true to their word. Mr. Wampler noted that if they come to the Board of Supervisors without a proffer he would not be there because that would be a waste of his time. He asked if they would consider Mr. Wilkinson's word that they would come to the Board of Supervisors with the proffers in place. Mr. James read the comments submitted to the Planning Commission from an email sent from Millie and Philip Stewart regarding the application. Mr. James summarized their concerns stating issues with traffic, people cutting through, large trucks on Sanderson, and the entrance to the neighborhood being on a curve. Mr. James noted that they referenced the concept plan with 225 units. He noted that it was very likely that Page 7 of 11 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 3,2024 they have not seen the 161 unit plan due to it not being submitted in time to go out with the packet. Mr. James asked Mr. Thompson for advice regarding proffers. Mr. James noted that they have had issues in the past with getting things completed between the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meeting in the past, which was confirmed. Mr. Thompson noted that the language would need to be figured out, and signatures from the owner would be required. Mr. Thompson stated that any proffers offered have to be offered before the Board of Supervisors meeting. He noted that the role of the Planning Commission is to work out as many details as possible before the Board rof Supervisors public hearing. Mr. Bower noted that this is a difficult one. He noted that there was a housing study done a few years ago that showed that we need more housing. He noted that he spoke to many people at the community meeting. He questioned what they believed that the density should be. He does not believe that the density would work at the lower level that people would prefer. He noted that he does not think that they have enough information this evening to pass this petition long to the Board of Supervisors. He does not believe that it would be prudent and that they would be doing their job. Mr. Bower noted that he heard that Mr. Wilkinson could break up some of the rows. Mr. Bower noted that he sees the new road and how it is taking some of the road off of the Shadwell Drive intersection. He noted that taking the number down from 225 to 161 units will also reduce the traffic. He noted that Mr. Wilkinson called him and talked to him about this application. Mr. Bower stated that he believes that Mr. Wilkinson is on the right track, but that he is not comfortable making a motion or standing behind a motion for approval this evening. Mr. Woltz noted that Mr. Wilkinson does not want the Planning Commission to dictate information that Mr. Woltz believes should have been provided prior to tonight. Mr. Woltz noted that there are other questions and conditions that they still need to figure•out. Mr. Woltz noted that he is unsure if these things could be figured out between now and the Board of Supervisors meeting. Mr. Woltz noted that he is not sure if he could make a motion to approve or deny at this point. Mr. James noted that he also would have liked to have seen some of these issues addressed prior to the public hearing. Mr. Henderson questioned what they lack rather than general conformance and a signature. Mr. James noted that the critical item is getting proffers completed. Mr. Henderson noted that it is the work of the developer to get sorted. Mr. James noted that there are further complications with the revised concept plan that was ,not in the public packet. He noted that there is the proffer from the,developer and not from the landowner. Mr. Wampler stated that the developer is willing to table the application for thirty days to work on the discussed conditions. Mr. Bower made a motion to continue the meeting until October 1, 2024, to provide the applicant time to consider proffered conditions, which passed 5-0. 2. Proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed amendments would: add an asterisk to retail sales indicating additional, modified or more stringent standards as listed in article `IV, use and design standards in the C-1 Low Intensity Commercial • Page 8 of 11 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 3,2024 District, C-2 High Intensity Commercial District, and I-1 Low Intensity Industrial District in Article III (District Regulations); and add a use and design standard for retail sales prohibiting the sale of tobacco products, vapor products, alternative nicotine products, or hemp products intended for smoking on properties located within 1,000 feet of a principal school building in Article IV (Use and Design Standards);. Mr. Thompson presented on the proposed zoning ordinance amendments. Mr. Thompson noted that the original amendments did not include all use types and places where tobacco and vape products can be sold. He noted the updated amendments that would include those use types and places were not included in the legal ad or the letters sent to citizens. Mr. Thompson also noted a letter from Jimmy Lewis noting his intent to open a premier cigar store in Promenade Park and how this ordinance could affect that. Mr. James noted that there is a legal age required to purchase these products. Mr. Woltz noted that he thinks that the police have enough to deal with and enforce. He believes that this will make it unnecessarily harder for businesses. He believes that parents have a certain obligation to watch their children. He noted that there are laws in place as to how old you have to be to purchase it. He believes that it is an overburden. Mr. Bower questioned how this is not redundant. Mr. Thompson noted that with it in the zoning ordinance it would be up to the Zoning Administrator to enforce it. Mr. Woltz noted that they have a lot to do already too. Mr. Thompson noted that it is his belief that this intended to limit any new businesses from being opened that sell tobacco or vaping products within 1,000 feet of a school. Mr. Bower noted that it feels like a feel good law for elected officials. It was noted that staff will reach out to Dr. Nicely to see if he would like to speak on it. Officer BUtts noted that he was a School Resource Officer(SRO) at W. E. Cundiff and noted that it opened his eyes to vaping in schools. He explained that it is not an issue in the elementary schools, but it is a problem in the middle schools and high schools. He noted that there are SROs who confiscate up to two vaping devices daily in the middle schools and high schools. Mr. Woltz asked Officer Butts if in his opinion if the distance of the store makes a difference, which he noted he does not believe that it does. Mr. James opened the public hearing. Jimmy Lewis, 3335 Glade Creek Boulevard, noted that he is the gentleman who would like to open a cigar lounge in the West Village Shopping Center. He noted that it would be great for them with traffic. Noting that they would only sell premium cigars- not cigarettes or vapes. He noted that he has worked in the cigar business for ten years. He noted that it is very rare that a premium cigar lounge gets dinged for selling to an underage person. He noted that he does not believe that this is aimed at him, but it could hinder him. He noted that he would like to see something hindering the ordinance down so it does not affect businesses like his. Mr. Woltz questioned what the price of premium cigar would be. Mr. Lewis noted that it is about $13 for a premium cigar. Mr. Woltz noted that he does not think you would have to worry about the average high school student purchasing those. Mr. James asked Officer Butts if he has guidance for the Planning Commission from a zoning perspective that should be considered. Officer Butts noted that from a zoning Page 9 of 11 ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES / SEPTEMBER 3,2024 perspective he has never taken a premium cigar off a middle schooler or a high schooler. He noted that it would make the most sense to focus on the main issue which is vaping. He noted that there will always be children who smoke cigarettes in schools but it is not nearly as common as vape products. Officer Butts noted that vape products are very easy to conceal. He noted that there are some vape products that look like ballpoint pens—some even look like calculators and are working calculators. The issue is that they are so easy to sneak into the schools because they can be concealed as so many different things. Officer Butts noted that across the Roanoke County he would estimate that there are at least five vaping devices taken by SROs everyday. Mr. James noted he would appreciate having a representative from the school come to the next meeting. Mr. James also thanked Office Butts for his service. Mr. James made a motion to continue to the October 1, 2024, meeting, which passed 5- 0. Citizen's Comments There were none. Comments of Planning Commissioner's and Planning Staff Mr. James noted that he attended the Route 460 meeting hosted by VDOT. He noted that there was significant interest in that meeting. Mr. Thompson noted that the Planning Commission has been provided a flier for the Safe Streets and Roads for All community meetings. Mr. Thompson noted that the Planning Commission has also been provided a flier for the Town of Vinton Comprehensive Plan community survey. Mr. Thompson noted that the next meeting for the Planning Commission is scheduled for September 17, 2024. He noted that staff does not have anything on the agenda for that meeting. Mr. Woltz made a motion to cancel the September 17, 2024, work session, which passed 5-0. Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Isaac Henry has been promoted to Principal Planner. Final Orders At the Board of Supervisors meeting on August 20, 2024, the Board voted to approve the request of Joel Calfee to obtain a special use permit to operate a short-term rental. At the Board of Supervisors meeting on August 20, 2024, the Board voted to approve the request of Reed Road Solar 1, LLC to operate a solar farm. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:33 p.m. Page 10 of 11 V ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 3,2024 Respectfully Submitted: Lath et C elia Thomas Reco g retary, anoke County Planning Commission cif. (1*• Philip Th pson Secretary, Roanoke Cou ty Planning Commission t),) ‘.2.0CzACHAr Rick James Chairman, Roanoke County Planning Commission Page 11 of 11