Sue Karr's Letter to the Editor - Roanoke Times March 30, 2011
All science is based on skepticism. When the wind industry salesman talked about how wind factories on Poor Mountain could reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, I had a strong hunch there was much to learn about industrial wind power, and the salesman wasn't going to be a reliable source of information.
We skeptics have sought the expertise of professionals in fields of electrical engineering, environmental science, acoustical engineering, medicine and wildlife biology. All have grave concerns about the efficacy of wind industry. Wind factories never produce anything close to their theoretical potential. Not a single coal-fired plant generating electricity has been shut down due to electricity produced by industrial wind. Wind power is inefficient and can't produce enough dispatchable electricity to replace fossil fuel generated power.
"Coal units that stop and start emit much more CO2 than units that operate at constant power. There has been no disciplined effort to verify that wind can reduce CO2 emissions systemwide. We do know that Denmark with 20 percent wind has not reduced its consumption of coal." (The American Scientist, The Scientific Research Society, vol. 98, 2010, Alex Pavlak).
Can gargantuan wind factories efficiently replace power produced by fossil fuels? No.
SUE KARR
BENT MOUNTAIN
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
An Open Letter the the Roanoke County Planning Commission
 |
| Crafting a zoning ordinance amendment to accomodate industrial scale wind turbines, protect public safety and provide for peaceful enjoyment of the lives of the community is NOT an easy task to get your brain around. |
Mr. Gary Jarrel, Chmn.
Mr. David Radford, Vice Chmn.
Ms. Martha Hooker
Mr. Rodney Mc Neil
Mr. Jason Peters
First, after attending your March 1, 2011 public hearing and your March 15, 2011 work session, I would like to express my appreciation to all of you for obviously studying the issues surrounding large and industrial scale wind turbines in much greater depth.
The size of these machines alone is difficult to comprehend without seeing them in person. Relatively few people have had such an experience with the 2.5 MW turbines that are being proposed for a Poor Mountain installation. The only 2.5 MW turbines I know of on the East Coast (if not the entire country) are in Lackawanna, NY. All other Eastern US installations are at least 40% smaller. So, to author an ordinance amendment that tries to accommodate such installations as accepted land use, while protecting the public welfare and providing our citizens with the continued peaceful enjoyment of their lives is no small undertaking.
You are obviously, as a commission, trying to define the design and use standards very carefully with the public welfare foremost in mind. It is not an easy task at all, particularly in our case with mountainous terrain, where our topographic conditions often magnify safety hazards.
Your latest draft revises the property line setback to 400% of the height of the turbine. Surely, you arrived at a “percentage of height” figure, with some height in mind, yet, you have chosen not to describe a maximum height, leaving that decision to the BOS. I am concerned that by using the Special Use Permitting (SUP) process, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors can modify (more or less restrictive) all of the use and design standards established to protect the public, arbitrarily, on a project by project basis. This allows for circumventing judicial reviews for variances to minimum standards, and thereby subjects public safety to politically influenced decisions.
I understand the SUP process as affording the governing body with the ability to become even more diligent in protecting the public interest on a project by project basis; not as a vehicle to relax minimum standards and thereby grant conveniences to applicants at the jeopardy of the public.
Thanks for listening.
Eldon L Karr
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Industrial Wind Turbines: Potential Spoilers of the Blue Ridge
A response to a Roanoke Times Op-Ed (Friday, March 25, 2011- Contributing to a good view) by Mark McClain, past chairman of the Roanoke Valley Chapter of FRIENDS, “2006-2008.”
Our Blue Ridge Mountain community has recognized for years that we might provide more opportunities for economic development through serving visitors; by becoming a Blue Ridge Destination for Rest & Reflection. During 1997, Bent Mountain actively participated in Roanoke County’s Comprehensive Plan “Vision 2010”.
So how can it be, that an entire community of nearly 900 “most directly impacted” residents, and nearly 30,000 others, in Roanoke County alone, should be marginalized and ignored for seeking to preserve, plan, and provide for their future?
Early this year, our community realized that by preserving, protecting and enhancing our naturally scenic landscape, repurposing our attractive school building to become The Bent Mountain Center, and forming a Bent Mountain Chapter of FRIENDS of the Blue Ridge Parkway, we could realize new parkway-oriented service opportunities.
We do not support Mr. McClain’s affinity for “blind-folding,” or “averting views” as acceptable mitigation of view impact, particularly when considering how many turbines would be required to produce as much electricity as the Glen Lyn Coal Fired Plant; one for each ¼ mile of the entire 479 mile length of the Parkway. Mitigation has become a corporate spin for “look the other way” in the interest of corporate profit.
END to Roanoke Times
The Blue Ridge Parkway hosted, at least, 8 million visitors through our area last year. That number of travelers, which is increasing due to people seeking more affordable adventures and discoveries closer to home, have needs and services that our community can provide. I don't think we should allow the wind industry to invade our Blue Ridge Mountains with its first strike on Poor Mountain in Virginia, without first proving that the verifiable benefit over an extended term of years, exceeds the environmental loss and reduced opportunity for peaceful enjoyment of our lives.
It certainly is the time to evaluate the effectiveness and viability of these mass electrical generation devices and their environmental degradation, to further service a physical electrical and communications grid that continues to industrialize our landscapes.
Friday, March 25, 2011
FAA Decision Re: Poor Mountain Proposal
4 down, 14 to go! oops, it's bigger than we think!
The vast majority of private and commercial pilots, flight instructors, and local aviation officials from and operating in and out of Roanoke have warned of increased air traffic hazards. The FAA, a politically influenced federal agency, has agreed that four of the 443' tall turbines proposed are in hazardous positions relative to air traffic and topographic elevation.
This would logically require the developer to re-assess his data collected at the site of one of the proposed turbines. Since it was near and next the highest classified wind area on the site, the remaining 14 sites are in wind class areas 2 and 3 levels lower. This signifies a reduced expection of energy production at a higher financial and environmental cost.
Still, the overwhelming majority of private and commercial pilots, flight instructors, and local aviation officials from and operating in and out of Roanoke remain concerned about the remaining 14 impediments to air safety and future economic development viability of our valley.
The vast majority of private and commercial pilots, flight instructors, and local aviation officials from and operating in and out of Roanoke have warned of increased air traffic hazards. The FAA, a politically influenced federal agency, has agreed that four of the 443' tall turbines proposed are in hazardous positions relative to air traffic and topographic elevation.
This would logically require the developer to re-assess his data collected at the site of one of the proposed turbines. Since it was near and next the highest classified wind area on the site, the remaining 14 sites are in wind class areas 2 and 3 levels lower. This signifies a reduced expection of energy production at a higher financial and environmental cost.
Still, the overwhelming majority of private and commercial pilots, flight instructors, and local aviation officials from and operating in and out of Roanoke remain concerned about the remaining 14 impediments to air safety and future economic development viability of our valley.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Review Comments of the draft of Roanoke County’s “Large/Utility Scale Wind Energy System Ordinance
Tuesday, March 15, 2011 (Edited Mar 17,2011)
Following are review comments of the draft of Roanoke County’s “Large/Utility Scale Wind Energy System Ordinance. These comments will be offered to Planning commissioners at tonight’s Work Session.
Article IV – Use and Design Standards
SECTION 30-87-7. Wind Energy System, Large; and Wind Energy System, Utility
3. Setbacks: Large wind energy systems and utility wind energy systems shall be set back a minimum distance of one hundred ten percent (110%) of the height of the wind energy system from all adjoining non-participating property lines. The Board of Supervisors may increase the minimum required setbacks as appropriate, based on site specific considerations during the special use permit process.
The setback requirement is inadequate. A 110% of the height setback requirement is identical to the setback requirement established for small wind turbines. Large industrial scale wind turbines are far more threatening to life & safety concerns for adjacent property owners by virtue of their size alone. When the 440’ + height is considered concurrently with the understanding that the ridges of mountains in our local terrain are the most attractive locations for wind developers, we must recognize in the interest of public safety that the minimum setback needs to be far greater than what your planning staff has proposed.
The fundamental purpose of the Planning Commission is to advise the Board of Supervisors. The draft states that BOS may increase setback requirements. This is an appropriate application of the Special Use Permit process.
4. Separation: The minimum distance required between towers shall be established during the special use permit process by the Board of Supervisors.
Again, the fundamental purpose of the Planning Commission is to advise the Board of Supervisors. The draft states that BOS shall establish separation requirements. This places the responsibility solely on the BOS to protect the public, with NO studied guidance. In either case this is an inappropriate application of the Special Use Permit process.
5. Noise: Large wind energy systems and utility wind energy systems shall not exceed 60 decibels (dba), as measured at the closest non-participating property line, except during short-term events such as severe windstorms. An analysis, prepared by an acoustical engineer with a professional engineering license in the Commonwealth of Virginia, shall be provided to demonstrate compliance with this noise standard. Based upon site specific considerations, the Board of Supervisors may increase the decibel level during the special use permit process.
The 60 decibel proposed minimum standard is far too high to protect adjacent property owner’s from nuisance and economic affect on property value in AG-3 and AG-1 locations. Bill Gregory, EIT, a professional engineer with an acoustics specialty advised in the last public hearing that to be effective in preventing negative impacts, particularly in regard to public health and safety issues, sound levels below 32 hertz should be addressed as well.
Regarding the “analysis, prepared by an acoustical engineer with a professional engineering license in the Commonwealth of Virginia,” the applicant should reimburse the County, who would be responsible for obtaining the expertise for such analysis. It should not be done under the guidance of the applicant.
As 60 decibels is on the high end of the sound spectrum between moderate and high levels, it is inconceivable why the ordinance would provide the BOS an opportunity to “increase the decibel level during the special use permit process.” This is an inappropriate application of the Special Use Permit process.
The adjacent graph was provide by County staff to the Board of Supervisors
13. Removal of Defective or Abandoned Large Wind Energy Systems or Utility Wind Energy Systems
(a) At such time that a large wind energy system or utility wind energy system is scheduled to be abandoned or discontinued, the owner shall notify the Zoning Administrator by certified U.S. mail of the proposed date of abandonment or discontinuation of operations.
(b) Within 180 days of the date of abandonment or discontinuation, the owner shall physically remove the large wind energy system or utility wind energy system. This period may be extended at the request of the owner and at the discretion of the County. Physically remove shall include but not be limited to:
i. Removal of the wind turbine and tower, all machinery, equipment, equipment shelters, security barriers and all appurtenant structures from the subject property;
ii. Proper disposal of all solid or hazardous materials and wastes from the site in accordance with local and state solid waste disposal regulations;
iii. Restoration of the location of the large wind energy system or utility wind energy system to its natural preexisting condition, except that any landscaping or grading may remain in the after-condition if a written request is submitted by the landowner to the County.
iv. Foundations shall be removed to a depth of three (3) feet below ground level or covered to an equivalent depth with fill material. At the time of removal, the site shall be restored to its pre-existing condition. If a written request is submitted by the landowner to the County then this requirement may be waived or altered for any other legally authorized use. Restoration shall be verified by the County.
(c) If the large wind energy system or utility wind energy system, or any part thereof, is inoperable for more than 180 days and the owner fails to give such notice to the County, then the large wind energy system or utility wind energy system shall be considered abandoned or discontinued. The County shall determine in its decision what proportion of the large wind energy system or utility wind energy system is inoperable for the wind energy system to be considered abandoned.
(d) Decommissioning:
i. If an applicant fails to remove a large wind energy system or utility wind energy system in accordance with this section of this ordinance, the County shall have the authority to enter the subject property and physically remove the facility. The County shall require the applicant, and/or subsequent owners of the property or large wind energy system or utility wind energy system, to provide a form of surety mutually agreeable to the applicant and the County to cover costs of the removal in the event the County must remove the facility.
ii. Prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy and Zoning Compliance from the County and on every tenth (10th) anniversary of the commencement of the commercial operation of the Project, applicant shall provide to the County an estimate of the projected salvage value of the turbines and other equipment to be removed from the Project site (“Salvage Value”), as well as the projected cost of removing the turbines and other equipment from the site as determined by an independent engineer mutually agreeable to the applicant and County (“Gross Decommissioning Cost”).
iii. Based on this determination, applicant shall post and maintain decommissioning funds in an amount equal to Net Decommissioning Cost, that being Gross Decommissioning Cost minus Salvage value.
iv. Decommissioning Funds may be in the form of a 100% performance bond and Labor and Materials Payment bond, surety bond, letter of credit, corporate guarantee or other form of financial assurance as may be mutually acceptable to the applicant and the county.
v. The Decommissioning Funds shall be posted and maintained with a bonding company or Federal or State chartered lending institution mutually agreeable to the applicant and County.
13. b. iv. As this ordinance is intended to apply “County-wide,” consideration must be given to the type of natural vegetation that might naturally occur at specific sites. In many cases 3 feet deep may be adequate to assure a natural restoration, however this could be inadequate in other locations. Fill material must also be further defined to match indigenous soils. Gravel and debris may not be suitable as natural restorative growth media.
13. c. “such notice” is not coherently referenced.
13. d. ii. Salvage value should not be a consideration required of Roanoke County. Such language serves only the interests of the project developer/owner in terms of reducing the amount of Decommissioning funds required to develop such projects.
Scenic views consideration is not addressed at all,
despite clear repeated directives from Roanoke County citizens to the Planning Commission through the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. View shed analyses conducted and documented, at considerable County expense, by Roanoke County Staff and the Blue Ridge Parkway in the mid 1990’s through the early 2000’s have not been provided to the current Planning Commission for consideration during the development of either the small or large wind turbine ordinances.
Article II, Section 3028
– Definitions
No amendments have been proposed to attempt to define Ridge Tops, View Sheds, Scenic views and other necessary definitions required to address these essential descriptions of elements of repeated concern of the citizenry.
This is not an easy concern to address. The Planning Commission’s most recent “on-the-fly” attempt to modify the “small scale wind turbine” amendment to address view shed concerns was totally misunderstood and invalidated by the Board of Supervisors.
The National Park Service via the Blue Ridge Parkway and its Chief Landscape Architect, Gary Johnson, has provided information to current Roanoke County staff and to this date, that information has only been provided to the Board of Supervisors according to Freedom of Information Act requests of Roanoke County government. The Planning Commission requested such information during your February 1, 2011 public hearing and was told by the Roanoke County Deputy Director of Planning and Zoning that “all that is available was a “wind-shield survey” done in the early 1990’s.
A request from one Supervisor, two weeks later revealed that a far more detailed study was accomplished. To date, no one has been able to demonstrate that such information has been provided to you for consideration.
In the interest of the economic future of our area and the repeated requests of the citizenry, please address scenic view impacts in your deliberations.
Following are review comments of the draft of Roanoke County’s “Large/Utility Scale Wind Energy System Ordinance. These comments will be offered to Planning commissioners at tonight’s Work Session.
Article IV – Use and Design Standards
SECTION 30-87-7. Wind Energy System, Large; and Wind Energy System, Utility
3. Setbacks: Large wind energy systems and utility wind energy systems shall be set back a minimum distance of one hundred ten percent (110%) of the height of the wind energy system from all adjoining non-participating property lines. The Board of Supervisors may increase the minimum required setbacks as appropriate, based on site specific considerations during the special use permit process.
The setback requirement is inadequate. A 110% of the height setback requirement is identical to the setback requirement established for small wind turbines. Large industrial scale wind turbines are far more threatening to life & safety concerns for adjacent property owners by virtue of their size alone. When the 440’ + height is considered concurrently with the understanding that the ridges of mountains in our local terrain are the most attractive locations for wind developers, we must recognize in the interest of public safety that the minimum setback needs to be far greater than what your planning staff has proposed.
The fundamental purpose of the Planning Commission is to advise the Board of Supervisors. The draft states that BOS may increase setback requirements. This is an appropriate application of the Special Use Permit process.
4. Separation: The minimum distance required between towers shall be established during the special use permit process by the Board of Supervisors.
Again, the fundamental purpose of the Planning Commission is to advise the Board of Supervisors. The draft states that BOS shall establish separation requirements. This places the responsibility solely on the BOS to protect the public, with NO studied guidance. In either case this is an inappropriate application of the Special Use Permit process.
5. Noise: Large wind energy systems and utility wind energy systems shall not exceed 60 decibels (dba), as measured at the closest non-participating property line, except during short-term events such as severe windstorms. An analysis, prepared by an acoustical engineer with a professional engineering license in the Commonwealth of Virginia, shall be provided to demonstrate compliance with this noise standard. Based upon site specific considerations, the Board of Supervisors may increase the decibel level during the special use permit process.
The 60 decibel proposed minimum standard is far too high to protect adjacent property owner’s from nuisance and economic affect on property value in AG-3 and AG-1 locations. Bill Gregory, EIT, a professional engineer with an acoustics specialty advised in the last public hearing that to be effective in preventing negative impacts, particularly in regard to public health and safety issues, sound levels below 32 hertz should be addressed as well.
Regarding the “analysis, prepared by an acoustical engineer with a professional engineering license in the Commonwealth of Virginia,” the applicant should reimburse the County, who would be responsible for obtaining the expertise for such analysis. It should not be done under the guidance of the applicant.
As 60 decibels is on the high end of the sound spectrum between moderate and high levels, it is inconceivable why the ordinance would provide the BOS an opportunity to “increase the decibel level during the special use permit process.” This is an inappropriate application of the Special Use Permit process.
The adjacent graph was provide by County staff to the Board of Supervisors
13. Removal of Defective or Abandoned Large Wind Energy Systems or Utility Wind Energy Systems
(a) At such time that a large wind energy system or utility wind energy system is scheduled to be abandoned or discontinued, the owner shall notify the Zoning Administrator by certified U.S. mail of the proposed date of abandonment or discontinuation of operations.
(b) Within 180 days of the date of abandonment or discontinuation, the owner shall physically remove the large wind energy system or utility wind energy system. This period may be extended at the request of the owner and at the discretion of the County. Physically remove shall include but not be limited to:
i. Removal of the wind turbine and tower, all machinery, equipment, equipment shelters, security barriers and all appurtenant structures from the subject property;
ii. Proper disposal of all solid or hazardous materials and wastes from the site in accordance with local and state solid waste disposal regulations;
iii. Restoration of the location of the large wind energy system or utility wind energy system to its natural preexisting condition, except that any landscaping or grading may remain in the after-condition if a written request is submitted by the landowner to the County.
iv. Foundations shall be removed to a depth of three (3) feet below ground level or covered to an equivalent depth with fill material. At the time of removal, the site shall be restored to its pre-existing condition. If a written request is submitted by the landowner to the County then this requirement may be waived or altered for any other legally authorized use. Restoration shall be verified by the County.
(c) If the large wind energy system or utility wind energy system, or any part thereof, is inoperable for more than 180 days and the owner fails to give such notice to the County, then the large wind energy system or utility wind energy system shall be considered abandoned or discontinued. The County shall determine in its decision what proportion of the large wind energy system or utility wind energy system is inoperable for the wind energy system to be considered abandoned.
(d) Decommissioning:
i. If an applicant fails to remove a large wind energy system or utility wind energy system in accordance with this section of this ordinance, the County shall have the authority to enter the subject property and physically remove the facility. The County shall require the applicant, and/or subsequent owners of the property or large wind energy system or utility wind energy system, to provide a form of surety mutually agreeable to the applicant and the County to cover costs of the removal in the event the County must remove the facility.
ii. Prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy and Zoning Compliance from the County and on every tenth (10th) anniversary of the commencement of the commercial operation of the Project, applicant shall provide to the County an estimate of the projected salvage value of the turbines and other equipment to be removed from the Project site (“Salvage Value”), as well as the projected cost of removing the turbines and other equipment from the site as determined by an independent engineer mutually agreeable to the applicant and County (“Gross Decommissioning Cost”).
iii. Based on this determination, applicant shall post and maintain decommissioning funds in an amount equal to Net Decommissioning Cost, that being Gross Decommissioning Cost minus Salvage value.
iv. Decommissioning Funds may be in the form of a 100% performance bond and Labor and Materials Payment bond, surety bond, letter of credit, corporate guarantee or other form of financial assurance as may be mutually acceptable to the applicant and the county.
v. The Decommissioning Funds shall be posted and maintained with a bonding company or Federal or State chartered lending institution mutually agreeable to the applicant and County.
13. b. iv. As this ordinance is intended to apply “County-wide,” consideration must be given to the type of natural vegetation that might naturally occur at specific sites. In many cases 3 feet deep may be adequate to assure a natural restoration, however this could be inadequate in other locations. Fill material must also be further defined to match indigenous soils. Gravel and debris may not be suitable as natural restorative growth media.
13. c. “such notice” is not coherently referenced.
13. d. ii. Salvage value should not be a consideration required of Roanoke County. Such language serves only the interests of the project developer/owner in terms of reducing the amount of Decommissioning funds required to develop such projects.
Scenic views consideration is not addressed at all,
despite clear repeated directives from Roanoke County citizens to the Planning Commission through the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. View shed analyses conducted and documented, at considerable County expense, by Roanoke County Staff and the Blue Ridge Parkway in the mid 1990’s through the early 2000’s have not been provided to the current Planning Commission for consideration during the development of either the small or large wind turbine ordinances.
Article II, Section 3028
– Definitions
No amendments have been proposed to attempt to define Ridge Tops, View Sheds, Scenic views and other necessary definitions required to address these essential descriptions of elements of repeated concern of the citizenry.
This is not an easy concern to address. The Planning Commission’s most recent “on-the-fly” attempt to modify the “small scale wind turbine” amendment to address view shed concerns was totally misunderstood and invalidated by the Board of Supervisors.
The National Park Service via the Blue Ridge Parkway and its Chief Landscape Architect, Gary Johnson, has provided information to current Roanoke County staff and to this date, that information has only been provided to the Board of Supervisors according to Freedom of Information Act requests of Roanoke County government. The Planning Commission requested such information during your February 1, 2011 public hearing and was told by the Roanoke County Deputy Director of Planning and Zoning that “all that is available was a “wind-shield survey” done in the early 1990’s.
A request from one Supervisor, two weeks later revealed that a far more detailed study was accomplished. To date, no one has been able to demonstrate that such information has been provided to you for consideration.
In the interest of the economic future of our area and the repeated requests of the citizenry, please address scenic view impacts in your deliberations.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Be Kind to Your Planning Commissioners and Board of Supervisors
It is a tough job, that very few of us are trained to handle.
I have ALWAYS been a voracious advocate of continuing self-education, and often, I find myself short on knowledge regarding current issues. This often results in a need to “hurriedly” expand my knowledge to enable me to identify options to resolve these issues. The result of hurried self-education sometimes, if not often, leads me to decisions and actions that may be premature and damaging to my relationships with my fellows. The same is true of County Supervisors, Planning Commissioners and local governmental staff.
Fortunately, for myself and my fellows, my premature activities are not nearly as potentially damaging as those of our elected and appointed representatives. Nonetheless, it is important to share this understanding, particularly in regard to the imposition of time constraints, in all of our activities.
Tuesday night, March 1, 2011, our Planning Commission wisely chose to slow down the process of drafting a proposed large and utility scale wind system amendment. After hearing from well over 50 public speakers from a rare overflow audience of over 130 persons, they realized that to address the issues raised with the ordinance amendment, they would be required to extend the term of the process without the imposition of a deadline for recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
As an architect, I have spent my career in land use planning and building design & planning under the weight of time requirements. I have often suffered criticism for refusing to offer premature solutions to my clients. I willingly accept and bear such criticism in exchange for the immeasurable satisfaction I experience by providing my clients with practical and emotional fulfillment of their needs and dreams.
Since the most recent public hearing of our Planning Commission, I sought advice from Dr. Michael Chandler, a widely accepted guru of Planning and Zoning Law in the southeastern US, and a teacher from whom I learned the most about fundamentals of the responsibilities of BZA members. I also consulted with an attorney with the law firm of Sands Anderson PC, Richmond Office, regarding my concern for using the Special Use Permit process for relaxing minimum design and use standards by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors This use of the Special Use Permit process avoids the “quasi-judicial” authority of the Board of Zoning Appeals, so as to grant such variances on more permissive grounds such as convenience and financial benefit.
The Special Use Permit process, when implemented and used properly, can be an extremely effective tool, allowing the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to impose even stronger conditions upon applicants than are set forth in minimum use and design standards. According to Dr. Chandler, the focus of both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors might be well directed toward establishing “well-grounded” design and use standards at the outset when establishing amendments that utilize this tool.
I found, through decisions and case study, that Planning & Zoning Law is a relatively “immature” field of legal experience. With this consideration and regardless of personal concerns, I will withdraw any outstanding or perceived request for a special meeting of the Roanoke County Board of Zoning Appeals. In my sense of commitment to the Roanoke County community, I reserve my standing to challenge any perceived threat to the citizens of Roanoke County as a BZA member and/or private citizen.
Eldon L. Karr
Member, Roanoke County Board of Zoning Appeals
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)