What's your take on the proposal to build an asphalt plant near Glenvar High School?

I do not live in the County, much less the Glenvar area, but as an observer, I have seen nor heard anything that makes this anything more than a NIMBY issue.  If I did live in Glenvar I would support the asphalt plant because (absent the passion) in the end, the reasons 'for' outweigh the reasons 'against'.

 Except for the additional traffic with the dump trucks going back and forth this is "much ado about nothing". Adams was a good neighbor for decades in North Roanoke County. Now a bunch of bored Glenvar housewives have found something new to whine about and this "issue' has drawn unwarranted attention. As to "health issues" I'm not sure how the slight smell of asphalt or a little steam is hurting anyone. B.O.S., get a backbone! geez

Actually, this is no longer just an issue about an Asphalt Plant.  There are 2 key concerns:

1) A rezoning request for the land in question to I2 industrial heavy use.  Rezoning this land for I2 heavy industrial use is an inappropriate use of land for anything on the North side of West Main Street between Salem and Dixie Caverns.   This land according to the County Future Use Zoning Plan is mostly transitional with one small area (including the site in question) zoned I1 light industrial.  This entire stretch of land provides a buffer between West Main Street and the residential areas surrounding.  Given the close proximity to two churches three schools two day care centers a library, large retirement center and 600+ residents this is clearly not the appropriate place for heavy industry. Rezoning this property for I2 industrial heavy use sets a precedent for other similar land use requests that would only further erode home values and quality of life in this part of the county while increasing health risks to surrounding schools, churches, day care, retirement centers, etc...

2) A rezoning process unfairly biased to the petitioner.  Rezoning issues ultimately come down to an assessment of "minimal adverse impact" to the area surrounding the proposed site.  But how is this determined?  Does the county do any independant research?  Does anyone look to see if property values would be negatively impacted by the proposed use of this land?  What about market values of these homes?  Does the county look at this in determining minimal adverse impact?  The answer is "No".  The county makes no attempt to determine whether the requested use of this property has any adverse impact on the surrounding community using any measurable standard.  Those who have invested in homes in this area based at least in part on future use plans published by the county are now left trying to defend their investment with a process that appears to be biased toward the petitioner.  Furthermore, the County Government does little to support those investors by independently conducting research to determine "minimal adverse impact" by any standard or measurable scale.  Rezoning this property I2 with 13 special provisions for an asphalt plant is not only inappropriate use of this land it is our county government not protecting the investment of its stockholders (those of us who purchased homes in this area, and pay property taxes on an ongoing basis).

I personally have no objection to Adams construction nor their right to petition for a zoning change.  My issue is with the our county govenrment decision making process that permits decisions based upon a subjective assessment of "minimal adverse impact" to the surrounding community.  My issue is with our county government decision making process and its lack of transparency with regard to several issues surrounding this specific rezoning request:  (Planning Commission member accepted a job with English Construction (part owner of Adams construction).  County Performance Agreement with English/Adams Construction to receive an additional 1 million dollars for moving their current asphalt plant from North Rke County by Dec 31, 2010, no measurable standard for assessing adverse impact to the community and its investors).  At what point will inappropriate land use so sway market forces in this area that home values are irreparably damaged?  At what point will irradic decision making by the county cause business and residential investors to determine the risk to their investment is to great and stop investing in this part of the County?   

One question: Who benefits from an asphalt plant on this property?  Why this plot of land?  The proposed use for this site is a business that produces asphalt to build roads for VDOT. Residents in the area will have no direct use for this business.  The petitioner suggests maybe 6-8 new "seasonal" jobs might be created.  But at what cost to the community surrounding this site.  50-85 ton trucks per day on average in and out of the site.  A plant operating up to 7 days per week, 24 hours per day during peak season.  Located In the middle of schools, churches, day care centers, retirement center, 600+ homes in the surrounding neighborhoods...  Hardly the best use of this land.  Hardly supportive of the residents in this part of our community.  Who benefits?  Certainly not the schools, day care, churches, retirement center, and 600+ residents.  So far, the only one who has said they will benefit is the petitioner.

Surely we as a community can find a better way to use our land resources to promote business development supportive of the surrounding area.  Perhaps the County Zoning Ordinance Purpose Statement provides the outline for making this decision (below)?  I think the choice is clear.  

Congratulations, you’ve done an excellent job of researching the appropriate zoning regulations in Roanoke County and applying them in a manner that best suits your concern. However it would be unfair to all parties to apply those ordinances to a zoning request without doing the appropriate research on the operation of the subject making the request or the use thereof. If you would actually follow through with that research you might find that 1) Asphalt plants run periodically only during warmer months, or not at all, depending on the demand for the product being produced. 2) Deterrent to anyone’s health working there would be minimal much less anyone in the surrounding community. 3) “50-85 ton trucks” I don’t think so, or at least I’ve never seen a tractor-trailer hauling asphalt maybe a dump truck. 4) “24 hours 7 days a week” I’m sure Adams wishes they had that much work but, I doubt it in this economy.

Your one-sided view of this petition is apparent. Personally I hope the County weights all sides of this issue and makes a rational decision, not an emotional one, based on the facts from both sides.

 Alrighty then, there is the solution to the whole matter. Since Adams was such a "good neighbor" for decades in North Roanoke County, let them locate this plant in North Roanoke County. 

 I am a resident of the Glenvar area.  I have grown up here and have also raised my children here.  I have heard the protests against the asphalt plant from the beginning.  People have mentioned concerns about the fumes and chemicals, etc that maybe a concern to the neighboring schools and daycares.  What about the interstate that runs through the area releasing exhaust from cars, trucks, semis, and etc. At least OSHA will be on top of the asphault plant and can monitor harmful releases of fumes and chemicals.  Little can be done about I-81  

Actually all I've done here is express my opinion and try to use the facts to demonstrate why I feel the way I do.  As someone who has invested in the immediate area I am rightfully concerned when I don't see an issue such as this being considered thoughtfully and equitably for all involved.  I I'm still trying to understand the argument in favor of this proposal?  I understand why the petitioner wants the land and what they have asked to do with it.  The potential for 24 x 7 operation is part of their petition.  The 50 - 85 ton trucks per day is part of their petition (or at least their stated estimate as to the truck traffic).  Their stated use of the land includes an explanation that they run seasonally.  However, their definition of seasonal is 9-10 months per year.  Hardly seasonal when you live in the area and consider things quality of life issues surrounding the truck traffic, additional noise, etc...  

So who benefits?  ...and why is there no other location for an industrial operation that requires special use permit?  By its very nature, the special use permit and I-2 zoning are considered inappropriate uses for land in close proximity to neighborhoods, schools, etc...   I was very surprised this issue got past the Planning Commission.  The planning administration specifically stated they do no research into impact on home values and ROI for the proposed use of the land.  I would have hoped our government officials and appointed stewards would have more regard for the taxpayers in the community than they have shown.  I would have hoped a decision with the potential for more than minimal adverse impact to the area would have garnered more questions and challenges to the petitioner than it did at that hearing.  

I would ask those who have not visited the site and surrounding area to do so.  Consider that homes in the surrounding area go from modestly priced to in excess of $500k.  Visit the asphalt plant off of Woodhaven Rd and visually transplant that operation to the proposed site.  Then ask yourself, "If you lived in close proximity to the proposed site would you be concerned about the impact to your investment and quality of life?".   

What's to stop the next industrial operation from coming into the area and petitioning for the location right next to it?  ...at what point in this process is an addition pound on an elephant too much?  At what point will the area be so tainted by the lack of thoughtful planning that it will cause other potential investors not to consider this area?  At what point will home values be so damaged that those of us who have invested in this area will no longer be able to realize that investment?  Who's responsibility is it to help home owners protect those investments?  ...I consider our County Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission to be the responsible parties.  Regardless of how the vote turns out I hope they will have the courage and responsibility for those of us who have invested in this community to at least provide a rational explanation as to why they voted the way they did.  Absent any independent research by the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors I think at a bare minimum they should have the integrity to explain their vote in detail and the effort they put forth individually and as a group to arrive at their conclusion.  

I too hope the County makes a rational and not an emotional decision regarding this issue.  I hope the BOS makes an effort to consider both sides carefully and is not swayed in any way by their relationship with the petitioner.

     1) Performance agreement with the petitioner w/regard to the Multi-Generational Center in North Rke County (1 million + dollar incentive).  

     2) Nor the fact that a planning commission member now works for the petitioner's parent company.  

     3) Nor the fact that the petitioner's attorney's husband helped announce the Board of Supervisor's bid for re-election.  

It will be very interesting to see how this turns out.  I sincerely hope for the best and want nothing but to see our community grow in positive ways that help us all realize a quality of life that supports the best interests of all.

 What is the noise all about?  The noise is a protest of human beings that do not want the noise and traffic and industry in this area. Who is responding to the people? Will the elected officials please listen to the noise of the people that are in direct opposition to this idea? Impact of this action will effect some people either way. How will it effect you? Will you sleep better at night without the noise of a guilty conscience? Who is going to be re-elected? Who will not be? Do you want an asphalt plant in your own personal front yard? Do you hear a noise? I don't think the people in this part of the county want this business in the area.

They ... we have said so. I don't live in Glenvar, but I go there and I know the people. I don't want this happening at this location either.  Who is going to benefit from the potential establishment of an asphalt plant here? Why are you fighting the people in Glenvar who will be most directly impacted? What is on Your agenda? Do you want this part of the county to shut up and become a more zoned industrial area than it already is?  What is your plan for the future of route 11? What is your plan for the Glenvar area? I hear a noice too. I wonder what it is? Please think before you change this property into something that will haunt your mind and the lives of the noisy neighbors. Your noise may be with the county for a long time.

 One would have to wonder what the controversey is over the  location of the asphalt plant that will hopefully be built in west county. A look at some facts might clear the air. The land across from the site is occupied by a railroad tie manufacturing facility, an auto salvage yard, and several acres of what could only be described as piles of scrap. To the east toward Salem the following facilities are either on Main Street or just off of Main Street: A heavy equipment dealership (John Deere), A brick manufacturing plant,  A distribution facility for industrial and commercial concrete products, A wood furniture manufacturing facility, at least 4 automobile or truck repair facilities, an industrial steel tank plant, a commercial mulch,wood & top-soil trucking company and last but not least an asphalt plant that apparently no one is even aware of even though it has been in operation for as long as I can remember.

  I do not here very much mentioned about the amount of jobs or the enormous revenue stream that would be generated either. You would think that any member of the Board of Supervisors would welcome these events in the light of these economic times, ecpecially after the millions of dollars spent on the new rec center that will produce no revenue or private sector jobs.

 No one wants a cell tower yet we all want cell phones. No one wants commercial development yet we all want to shop and have an office to go to. No one wants a manufacturing facility yet we all want the products  they produce. What are we going to do when no more of these facilities exist? Can you spell China?

One of the reasons zoning ordinances exist is to help protect citizens and businesses from spot zoning that would potentially endanger the existing investments of those that have purchased property and started businesses in a particular area.  The land across the street from the proposed plant is zoned differently and has businesses of which some are less than attractive from the street.  However all of the land on the North side of West Main from Dixie Caverns to Wildwood Road acts as a buffer to the ovef 700 residents in neighborhoods surrounding the proposed site.  While I do agree with you that another pound on an elephant is a hard thing to argue; as a homeowner in the area I don't know where the this issue starts making a significant difference to home values and marketability.  The petitioner has stated the new job opportunity for this plant is 6-8 seasonal jobs.  ...hardly a signigicant job growth.  The property taxes for residences within 1 mile that total ~1.2 million per year that could be negatively impacted by this sort of plant in close proximity.  Given the fact that this company has other choices for a location there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason why this would be a good idea and there are many reasons why their request for rezoning should not be granted.  If/when the petitioner's North Roanoke County Plant closes (which is the plan as they are awarded an addition 1 million dollars for moving that plant) the net gain/loss to Roanoke County is a wash.  

Since you likely don't have a vested interest in this issue I'd ask that you place yourself in our position and oppose this issue.  There are other options for the petitioner.  For those of us in the immediate area this decision could dramatically impact our investments and remove our options for moving out of the area without taking a significant loss.  The county future use plan did not have this area zoned I-2 heavy industrial use with special provisions for an asphalt plant when we invested in our homes.  Changing this zoning now considering all of the potential negative impact for the stakeholders in close proximity would not be in the best interest of the community.  It serves to benefit only the petitioner.