Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/3/1982 - Regular 5-3-82 40 1 Board of Supervisors County Administration Building 430 E. Clay Street Salem, Virginia May 3, 1982 I The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia met this day in open session in the conference room located in the County Administration building at 430 East Clay Street in Salem, Virginia, this being a special meeting of the Board, called for 5:00 p.m. this day. Members present: Chairman Edward C. Park, Jr., Vice-Chairman Athena E. Burton, and Supervisors May W. Johnson, Robert E. Myers and Gary J. Hinter. Members absent: None Others present: County Administrator Donald R. Flanders, Director of Finance John M. Chambliss, Jr., Fire and Emergency Services I Coordinator Thomas C. Fuqua, Director of Utility Engineering and Administration John R. Hubbard, County Attorney James E. Buchholtz, VVKR representative Dan Bolt, and about 20 County citizens from the Westward Lake area. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Park called the meeting to order at 5:08 p.m. He was advised that because it was a special meeting, it could not proceed until all five Supervisors were present. Those present then waited for Super- visor Minter, who arrived at 5:12 p.m. The Chairman recognized Mr. Danny B. Bolt from the architectural/ engineering firm of VVKR, who was present to discuss core drillings on site I of new County Courthouse. Mr. Bolt advised that his firm had obtained quotes from two firms, that both were good, reputable companies, and that he was recommending award of the contract for the sub-surface investigation , I i I I- I I I l...i work to Law Engineering Testing Company because their price was $300 cheaper than the other firm's proposal. ,....- 5-3-82 402 IN RE: RESOLUTION NO. 3127 ACCEPTING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CERTAIN SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AGREEMENT ON BEI~LF OF THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE FACILITY. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: I 1. That that certain proposal of Law Engineering Testing Company to provide certain subsurface exploration and testing of the site for the Roanoke County Courthouse Facility, upon all and singular the terms and conditions set out in a certain letter agreement on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors for a sum not to exceed $3,400.00 be, and it hereby is, ACCEPTED: and 2. That the County Administrator be, and hereby is, authorized and directed to execute on behalf of Roanoke County the aforesaid letter I I agreement with Law Engineering Testing Company upon form approved by the County Attorney. Adopted on motion of Supervisor Robert E. Myers and the following AYES: Supervisors Myers, Burton, }1inter, Johnson and Park I recorded vote. I I NAYS: None IN RE: EXECUTIVE SESSION At 5:15 p.m. Supervisor Johnson moved that the Board go into executive session to meet with legal counsel, so the County Attorney and other staff members could explain the provisions of the ordinance to be considered for adoption as an emergency measure, said ordinance providing for the inspection of water impoundment facilities in Roanoke County. Her motion was adopted by a unanimous voice vote. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER I At 5:40 p.m. and on motion by Supervisor Myers and a unanimous voice vote the session was again called to order. The Chairman called for discussion of the water impoundment ordinance. Supervisor Myers told those present, adoption of the ordinance ! I--- . was considered necessary to give the County the means of getting onto . I ~ll I I I ~ 5-3-82 403 t ", private property to make an inspection of the dam at Westward Lake Estates subdivision to see what is necessary to make it safe for those residents living below the dam. Supervisor Myers then moved for adoption of this emergency ordinance. IN RE: ORDINANCE NO. 3128 ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE TO BE DESIGNATED CHAPTER 8.3 ENTITLED WATER IMPOUNDMENT SAFETY CODE TO CONTAIN PROVISIONS FOR RIGHT OF ENTRY, INSPECTION OF WATER IMPOUNDMENT FACILITY AND STRUCTURES, PROVIDING FOR REMOVAL AND/OR REPAIR UPON DETERMINATION OF IMMINENT DANGER, PROVIDING FOR RECOVERY OF COST BY THE COUNTY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EMERGENCY. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County as follows: 1. That there be, and there hereby is, adopted a new Chapter of the Roanoke County Code to be designated Chapter 8.3 entitled Water Impoundment Safety Code to read and provide as follows; CHAPTER 8.3 WATER IMPOUNDMENT SAFETY CODE Section 8.3:1 Definitions. -As used in this code the following words shall have the meanings respectively ascribed thereto; 1. "Board" means the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County. 2. "Administrator" means the Roanoke County Administrator or his duly appointed designee. 3. "Impounding structure" means any structure or device, whether a dam across a watercourse or other structure outside a watercourse, used or to be used to retain or store waters or other materials. The term "impounding structure" shall not include: (i) dams licensed by the State Corporation Commission that are subject to a safety inspection program; (ii) dams owned or licensed by the United States government; (iii) dams constructed, maintained or operated primarily for agricultural purposes which are less than fifteen (15) feet in height or which create a maximum impoundment smaller than twenty-five (25) acre-feet; (iv) water or silt retaining dams approved pursuant to Section 45.1-222 of the Code of Virginia; (v) obstructions in a canal used to raise or lower water; (vi) nonagricultural dams which are less than fifteen (15) feet in height or which create a maximum impoundment smaller than twenty-five (25) acre- feet; or (vii) dams not more than six feet in height regardless of storage capacity or with a storage capacity of not more than ten (10) acre-feet regardless of height. I 4. "Height" means the structural height of an impounding structure which is defined as the vertical distance from the natural bed of the stream or watercourse measured at the downstream toe of the impounding structure to the top of the impounding structure. 5. "Watercourse" means a natural channel having a well-defined bed and banks and in which water flows when it normally does flow. 6. "Owner" means the owner of the land on which an impounding structure is situated, the holder of an easement permitting the construction of an impounding structure and any person or entity responsible for maintainin - ~ r 5-3-82 404 · an impounding structure, either by agreement or otherwise. Section 8.3:2 Promulgation of Rules and Regulations by the Board., -The Board shall promulgate all necessary rules and regulations no less stringent than those promulgated by the State Water Control Board to ensure that impounding structures in the County are properly and safely constructed maintained, repaired and operated. I I Ii I i I' Section 8.3:3 County Impoundment Safety Technical Advisory Committee. -The Board shall establish a County Impoundment Safety Technical Advisory Committee to advise the Board upon impoundments within Roanoke County. The County Impoundment Safety Technical Advisory Committee created and appointed by the Board shall consist of at least five (5) persons qualified by education, experience and professional training in the design, construction, maintenance, repair and safety characteristics of water impoundment structure or devices. The County Impoundment Safety Technical Advisory Committee shall provide both technical review, and make recommendations to the Board pursuant to any of the provisions of this code. I I' Section 8.3:4 Safety Inspections. -No one shall have a right to main- tain an impoundment structure which unreasonably threatens the life or property of another. The Board upon recommendation of the Administrator or any other duly authorized State or Federal agency shall cause safety inspecti DS, not to exceed that of a phase 1 inspection report as established by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to be made of impounding structures on such schedule as it deems appropriate, the time of the initial inspection and the frequency of reinspection shall be established depending on such factors as the condition of the structure and its size, type, location and downstream hazard potential. The owners of impounding structures found to have deficiencies which could threaten life or property if uncorrected, shall take the correcti'~ actions, which may include a phase II inspection report as established by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, needed to remove such deficiencies within a reasonable time. I I I, I I Section 8.3:5 Unsafe Impounding Structures Presenting Imminent Danger. -When the Administrator or any other State or Federal agency charged with such responsibility, finds an unsafe impounding structure constituting an imminent danger to life or property, the Administrator shall immediately notify the Board and confer with the owner. The owner of an impounding structure found to constitute an imminent danger to life or property shall take immediate corrective action, which corrective action shall commence no later than ten (10) calendar days following written notification of such unsafe condition. If the owner does not take appropriate and timely action to correct the danger found, the Chairman of the Board, or the Vice-Chairman in the Chairman's absence shall have the authority to authorize the Administrator to take immediate appropriate action, without the necessity for a hearing, to remove the imminent danger. The County Attorney shall bring an action against the owner of the impounding structure for the County'~ expenses in and about removing the imminent danger. There shall be a lien upon the owner's real estate for the County's expenses in and about removing the imminent danger. The owner may avoid the County's costs,and recover any damages, upon proving that the impounding structure was known to be safe at the time such action was taken, and that the owner had provided or offered to immediately provide such proof to the Administrator before the action complained of was taken. Nothing herein shall in any way limit any authority existing under the Emergency Services and Disaster Law of 1973, Chapter 3.2 of Title 44 of the Code of Virginia. I I' Section 8.3:6 Unsafe Impounding Structures Presenting Nonimminent Danger. -A. Within a reasonable time after completion of a safety inspection of an impounding structure authorized by Section 8.3:4 of this Code, the Administrator shall issue a report to the owner of the impounding structure containing findings and recommendations for correction of deficiencies, if any, which could threaten life or property if uncorrected. Owners who have been issued a report containing recommendations for correction of deficiencie~ shall undertake to implement the recommendations contained in the report. If an owner fails or refuses to commence or diligently prosecute the implementation of recommendations for correction of deficiencies according I I -I ! LI ~ 5-3-82 405 '" '- , , " I to the schedule of implementation contained in an issued report, the Administrator shall have the authority to issue an administrative order directing the owner to commence implementation and completion of such recommendations according to the schedule contained in the report with modifications as appropriate. Within thirty (30)days after being served by personal service or by certified mail with a copy of an order issued pursuant to this section, any owner shall have the right to petition the Board for a hearing. A timely filed petition, within the thirty (30) day period, shall stay the effect of the administrative order. The hearing shall be conducted before the Board or a majority of the members thereof. The Board shall have the authority to affirm, modify, amend or cancel such administrative order. Any owner aggrieved by a decision of the Board after a hearing herein provided shall have the right to appeal such final Board decision to the Circuit Court having jurisdiction in Roanoke County within thirty (30) days following such decision. B. The provisions of paragraph A of this section notwithstanding, if in the opinion of the Administrator, changed circumstances justify reclassi- fying the deficiencies of an impounding structure after issuance of the report as an imminent danger to life or property the Administrator may proceed directly under Section 8.3:5 of this Code for enforcement of his order, and the owner shall have the opportunity to contest the factual basis upon which the administrative order was issued. I Section 8.3:7 Right of Entry. -The Board and its agents and employees shall have the right to enter any property upon consent of the owner or custodian to perform such inspections and tests or to take such other actions as it deems necessary to fulfill its responsibilities under this chapter. If entry is denied, the Board may apply to any magistrate whose territorial jurisdiction encompasses the property to be inspected or entered for a warrant authorizing such investigation, tests or other actions. Such warrant shall issue if the magistrate finds probable cause to believe that there is an impounding structure on such property which is not known to be safe. Section 8.3:8 Impounding Structure Safety Coordination. -The Administr or shall coordinate all impoundment safety activities in the County, which shall include, but not be limited to: (i) the maintenance of an inventory of all impoundment structures, and of all other similar structures whether or not regulated under this chapter to the extent the Board deems necessary; (ii) the maintenance of a repository for record drawings of all such structures to the extent the Board deems necessary; (iii) the maintenance of an inventory of safety inspection reports by whomever made for each such structure to the extent the Board deems necessary; and (iv) the maintenance of a secondary repository for all impoundment structure safety emergency action plans which are primarily filed with the Office of the Coordinator of Fire and Emergency Services. The Board shall cause to be provided technical assistance in the preparation, updating and execution of such plans. It shall cause to be established uniform maintenance-of-records requirements and uniform inspection standards to be applied to all impounding structures i the County, and to be recommended for all other similar structures. It may cause to be inspected state-owned or state-licensed impounding structures on a cost reimbursable basis at the request of the state agency owning the state-owned impounding structure or of the licensor of the state-licensed impounding structure. I Section 8.3:9 Enforcement. -Any person or legal entity failing or refusing to comply with an order issued pursuant to this chapter may be compelled in a proceeding instituted in any appropriate court by the Board to obey the same, and the court shall require the owner to comply therewith. 2. That in order to immediately provide for the welfare and safety of the citizens of Roanoke County and their property an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage. Adopted on motion by Supervisor Myers and the following, recorded vote. AYES: Supervisors Myers, Burton, Minter, Johnson, and Park. NAYS: None ~ ~ 5-3-82 406 Those present were advised the County Administrator would commence work immediately to get in contact with the owners of the lake and that if there were any danger, there was a plan of evacuation and that they would be kept informed. Mr. Sid Crosswhite, 5045 Crest Hill Drive in Westward Lake Estates, asked if there were any governing bodies above the County Supervisors that would have jurisdiction in this situation. He was told Roanoke County was the only agency that could enforce the just-adopted ordinance. Mr. Cross- white was aware that a letter had been received from one of the Lake owners and asked what Mr. Frank Sellers said about what he would do to correct his part. Copies of Mr. Sellers's letter were distributed to those interested. I Chairman Park asked if there were any other comments from the citizens. An unidentified member of the audience asked if an inspection could be made by the County tomorrow. The County Administrator answered that it would be made as soon as possible. Chairman Park assured one of the women in the audience that if possible, the dam would be made safe so the water wouldn't have to be drained and would be available for later use because water already impounded is valuable. I Supervisor Minter commented that the purpose of the water impoundment ordinance was to give the County authority to take action to make the dam safe. An unidentified member of the audience asked that their situation be made safe and requested regular inspections in the future. Supervisor Myers told those present that if something wasn't done about their problem soon, to please come to one of the Supervisors' regular meetings and let the Supervisors know. I IN RE: CONCLUSION This hearing on the adoption of the water impoundment ordinance was finished at 5:52 p.m. The Board meeting continued as a work session on the County budget for 1982/83. ---- ~ I 5-3-82 407 IN RE: EXECUTIVE SESSION I At 7:25 p.m. Supervisor Minter moved that the Board go into executive session to discuss a personnel matter. His motion was adopted by a unanimous voice vote. IN RE: OPEN SESSION At 7:45 p.m. on motion of Supervisor Myers and a unanimous voice vote, the Supervisors returned to open session. A discussion was held relative to correspondence regarding tax rates and payment of taxes by renters. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT At 7:50 p.m. a motion was made by Supervisor Johnson to adjourn and the motion was adopted by a unanimous voice vote. I I