HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/28/1988 - Regularof aOANO~'F
~~ • e
z p
~ ~
~ a= ~~ ~
SFSQUICENTENN~P~ ROANOKE COUNTY BO
A-Beauti~ulBegim~ing ARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
JUNE 28, 1988
Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
meetings are held on the second Tuesda
p•m• Public Hearings will be heard at x:00 meeting. Regular
y and the fourth Tuesday at 3:~
of each month. Deviations from this schedule•will the fourth Tuesday
AFTERNOON SESSION be announced.
3:00 P.M•
A• OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 p•M•)
1• Roll Call.
2• Invocation: The Reverend Charles R. Doyle
Hollins Road Baptist Church
3• Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Fla
B- REQUESTS TO POSTPONE ~ g•
ITEMS. ' ~D. OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA
C• PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND Aye
ARDS
D- NEW BUSINESS
1• Approval of Length of Service Benefit for
Volunteer Fire, Rescue and Auxiliary Sheriff's
Deputies
2• Authorization to
improvements to BeaveroLaneond funds for
Hor:~ Circle. . Elizabeth Drive and
3• Request to Virginia Department of Transporta '
for change to highway marker on Route 221• tion
4• Request for contribution from D-Day Exhibit
Committee.
5• Resolution approvin
Roanoke Regional Airport Commissionaget for the
6• Report on Information Systems and presentation
long term systems plans, of
~• APProval to proceed with flexible merit pa
system.
Y
8• Proposed improvements to Bandy Road (Route 66
6) .
E• REQUEST FOR WORK SESSIONS
F• REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
G • APPOINTMENTS
1• Building Code Board of Adjustments and A
2- Court Service Unit Advisor PPeals.
Family Services Advisor Y Council/Youth and
y Board
3• Fifth Planning District Commission
4• Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
5• Planning Commission
6• Regional Solid Waste Management Board
H- REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
I• CONSENT AGENDA
ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARC'
CONSIDERED BY THE Bpi TO BE ROUTINE
ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM AND WILL BE
BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED OR FORMS LISTED
REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA ~ THAT ITEM WILL BE
SEPARATELY. AND WILL BE CONSIDERED
l• Confirmation of committee a
Industrial Development Authop~tntments to the
Commission, the Social ServicesyBoard Paadning
Regional Solid Waste Management Board, the
2• Acceptance of water and
Buckland Forest sewer facilities serving
Section 4.
2
3• Acceptance of water and sewer facilities servin
Canterbury Park, Section 2, g
4• Resolution of Su
pport for the rerouting of the
Cardinal New York to Chicago AMTRACK
train through the Roanoke Valley• passenger
5• Acceptance of 0.06 miles of Sutherland Circle int
the Secondary System by the Va. Department of o
Transportation.
J- CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
K• REPORTS
1• Financial Statement for the eleven months ended
May 31, 1988
2• Capital Fund - Unappropriated Balance
3• General Fund - Unappropriated Balance
4• Reserve for Board Contingency Fund
5• Report on calender for audit and year-end work.
L• WORK SESSION
1• Flood Control.
M• EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia
2.1-344 (a) ,
EVENING SESSION 7;OQ P.M.
N• PUBLIC HEARINGS
(688-1 AND 688-2 WERE HEARD ON JUNE 14, 1988)
688-3 Petition of Hop-In Food Stores Inc
2.85 acre tract from R-1, Residentialttorg?2ne a
Business to develop a complex including office
building, convenience store
located north of the intersectiondofuWoodoHaven
Road and Peters Creek Road in the Hollins
Magisterial District. (PETITION ORIGINALLY HEARD
ON APRIL 26 1988)
3
688-4 Petition of
Cha arral Forest Associates to rezo~
a 2.97 acre tract from R-1
Residential to construct townhomesntlocatedRon~t
north side of Chaparral Drive a
feet west of its intersection wpphoBeaconlDrive
the Cave Spring Magisterial District.
TO JULY 26 1988 AT THE RE UEST OF THECONTINUED
PETITIONER.)
688-5 Petition of A•
the proffered condWtionsmonOallCom an to amend
construct a convenience store with acre tract to
located on the east side of Bramble tonoAvenueumP~
aPProximately 0.3 mile south of its intersection
with Electric Road in the Cave Spring Magisterial
District.
688-6 Petition of Starke
acre tract from M_2 Associates to rezone a 6.5
to construct a sho ~ Industrial to B-2, Business
Aping center, located on the
north side of Starkey Road (Route 904)
aPProximately 100 feet west of its intersection
with Crescent Boulevard (Route 632) in the Cave
Spring Magisterial District.
688-7 Petition of Elva B.
Future Land Use ma Russell Beard to amend the
tract from PrincipaldIndustrial to RuralOVille
and to rezone said property from M-2 age
to A-1, Agricultural to construct a singaesfalal
dwelling located on the south side of West Rivery
Road (Route 639) approximatel
its intersection with Dr y 0.34 mile east of
in the Catawba MagisterialHDistriRoad (Route 649)
688-8 Petition of Namron Inns
conditions on a Inc. to amend the
construct a motePortion of a 2.04 acre tract to
Electric Road a located on the south side of
intersection wiphrStarkeely 300 feet east of its
Cave Spring Magisterial DistractRoute 904) in the
688-9 Petition of S r'
p inawood Associates to rezone a 2.25
acre tract from B-1, Business and R-1
to B-2, Business to construct an officeRanddretail
park located immediately west of the intersection
of Brambleton Avenue (Route 221
Avenue (Route 720) in the WindsoraH~llslonial
Magisterial District.
688-10 Petition of Victor R,
portion of a right-of wa man II to vacate a
y located at the terminus
4
of Buckingham Circle in the Windsor Hills
Magisterial District.
688-11 Petition of Bennett E.
Exception Permit to operatetaflandfillcfor
construction debris on 1.50 acres of a 8.55 acre
tract located east of South Indian Grave Road
(State Route 845) a
its intersection wiphrgackaCreekSRoadeet south o
676) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District,Rou
688-12 Public Hearin
g on the adoption of a resolution
concerning acquisition by Roanoke County of an
aPProximate fifty (5p) foot strip located adjacer
to Kenworth Road for the relocation of Kenworth
Road for the completion of the Valleypointe
Project, located in the Hollins Magisterial
District.
688-13 Public Hearin
amendin g and First Reading of Ordinance
g and reenacting Sections 21-151, Le-~f
Tax• Amount and 21-153
Gene_~ V of the RoanokeRCounts and Remittance
Section 21-165 of the Roanoke Countde and adding
Severability, y Code,
688-14 Public Hearin
amendin g and Second Reading of Ordinance
g Chapter 20, "Solid Waste"
County Code by the repeal and reenactment oRfanoke
Section 20-24 "Rates and Char es"
the establishment of certain regulationsviding for
concerning curbside refuse collection
refuse collection, and increasin ' premium
for premium refuse collection servicetain charges
O• FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1• Ordinance authorizin
real g the execution and assignment of a
estate contract to acquire a
of real estate located in the VinponoMamately 600 acres
District from the heirs of James E, gisterial
Palmer.
I' • SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1• Ordinance amendin
Practices g Chapter 2, Article II, Procurement
concerning the Purchasing Agent and small
purchases.
2• Ordinance accepting an offer and authorizin t
conveyance of a right-of-way and easement to he
APPalachian Power Company.
5
3• Ordinance authorizin
g the conveyance of certain real
estate for economic development purposes (Valley oini
p
C2• CITIZENS' COrIIyENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
R• ADJOURNMENT
-~
.~.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY , VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKESCOUNTYS~MIOF ROANOKE
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 28 NISTRATION
1988
RESOLUTION 6288_1 OF CONGRATULATIONS TO ALFRED
C• ANDERSON UPON BEING ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE
TREASURERS' ASSOCIATION OF VIRGINIA
BE IT RESOLVED J~
y the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia as follows:
WHEREAS, County Treasurer Alfred C.
his fourth term as Treasurer of Roanoke Co Anderson is serving
WHEREAS unty; and
he has been involved in
Association of Virginia since 1972 the Treasurer's
serving as Secretary-
Treasurer, 2nd Vice-president and 1st Vice Preside
WHEREAS nt% and
in recognition of his outstanding
contributions, he was recently elected President of
Treasurers' the
Association of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, this honor is an
indication of the respect by
Treasurers throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia
abilities, for his
THEREFO~~ BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of
of Roanoke Count Supervisors
y, Virginia, extends its congratulations to
Alfred C. Anderson for receiving this high honor f
and rom his peers;
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke Coun
wishes to express its dee ty
P appreciation for his many years of
service and dedication to our County citizens.
On motion ~f Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Su
Nickens, and upon the followin pervisor
g recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson
McGraw, Nickens, Garrett
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Robers
A COPY TESTS:
~~ ~~~
Mar g, ~
Roanoke County BoardyoflSupervi
6/30/88 sors
CC: File
Resolutions of Congratulations File
Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
COUNTY , VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMI
ROANOKE
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1988 NISTRATION
RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS TO ALFRED C•
ANDERSON UPON BEING ELECTED PRESIDENT OF THE
TREASURER'S ASSOCIATION OF VIRGINIA
BE IT RESOLVED b
Y the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia as follows:
WHEREAS, County Treasurer Alfred C.
his fourth term as Treasurer of Roanoke C Anderson is serving
ounty; and
WHEREAS, he has been involved in the Treasurer's
Association of Virginia since 1972, serving as Secr
Treasurer etary-
2nd Vice-president and 1st Vice President•
WHEREAS and
in recognition of his outstanding
contributions, he was recently elected President of
Treasurer's Association of Virginia; and the
WHEREAS, this honor is an indication of the res ec
Treasurers throughout the Commonwealth of Vir inia p t by
abilities. g for his
J
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervi
of Roanoke Count sors
Y. Virginia, extends its congratulations to
Alfred C. Anderson for receiving this hi h
and g honor from his peers;
FURTHER, the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County
wishes to express its deep appreciation for his m
service and dedication to our Count any years of
y citizens.
ACTION # A-62888-3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE
MEETING DATE: June 28, 1988
ITEM NUMBER ~
OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
AGENDA ITEM: Road Improvements for Beaver Lane, Elizabeth Driv
and Horn Circle, Foxfire Subdivision e
COUNTY A~DjM~INISTRATOR'S,~~lCOMMENTS : ~
a' '"" ~' ti~~ oti/~Jl/' ,/~/'T _ b~, ~~Grv~ ,~/`~~ ..~Vt'~~t~/•y-~'
jf .-~ ~ / 0
.~~ .~'o~o~.tLz l
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
On June 1, 1988, Staff met with residents on Beaver Lane,
Elizabeth Drive and Horn Circle of the Foxfire Subdivision
discuss the status of roadway improvements for this nei hborh
The concerns expressed by the residents included the to
the road surface, several drainage concerns and the s °od.
takin quality of
g the roads into the State Secondar tatus of
roads were placed on the priority list a Y Road System. These
Supervisors for 1985 Road Bond Fund, pproved by the Board of
improvements was $25,000 (50$ County and 50~ Virgindia De of the
of Transportation matching funds) and included repairs to
curb and partment
gutter, drainage facilities and road surface requiredtto
have these roads taken into the State Secondary System.
During the past six months
Staff has been working with
the developer of Foxfire Subdivision to have these improveme
completed. At this time
of the roadwa all of the improvements with exception
Department of Transportationehascnow i didCatnd the
willin P Virginia
g to acce t these roads into the State Seconddarat they are
no cost to the County. The Board of Su ervisors a
required Resolution re p Y System at
June 12, 1988, meeting questing these road acceptancesratetdheir
Staff believes that it would be desirable to fulfill the
previous commitments made to the
discussions of the roadway improvemenPsoperty owners during
take the roads into the State Secondar With VDOT proposing to
major concern of the propert Y System, the remaining
pavement surface. Y owners is the quality of the
estimated Therefore, the Staff would request that an
$6,000 be authorized from the unmatched fund of the
1985 Road Bond to provide for these improvements.
improvements would consist of necessary repairs to the
These
road and
one application of slurry seal to the surface of the three ~
streets. If the Board of Supervisors a
Staff believes that the slurr seal coupdrbeea this request,
July-August period of 1988 b y pplied during the
similar work under a Virginia DepartmentoofwT~ansporbationpleting
contract.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds for these improvements would come from the 1985
Road Bond. Since the original estimate for the improvemen
Foxfire Subdivision roads was
at a cost of $25,000, the is on
$6,000 would release an additionaPosed improvements
improvement to other projects on the 1985 Road Bond,000 for
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternative 1;
Bond FundPpforeroadwaylsurface om x6'000 of unmatched 1985 Road
Elizabeth Drive and Horn Circle, P ovements to Beaver Lane,
Alternative 2;
The Board of Supervisors would not authorize any
additional funds to these roadways beyond the limits s ecif'
required for the Virginia Department of Transportation to acc
the roads into the P ically
State Secondary Road System, ept
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff would recommend that the Board of Supervisors
approve the use of $6,000 of unmatched 1985 Road Bond Funds to
complete roadway improvements to Beavers Lane, Elizabeth Drive
and Horn Circle to fulfill commitments made to the propert
owners of the subdivision during the preparation of the priorit
list of roads to be improved usin y
g the 1985 Road Bond money, y
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
_-Gu~f
P i liP Henry, ,E,
Director of Engineering
/,
.~t~LGl~~
Elmer C. Ho ge
County Administrator
2
- -~~
APProved (X) Motion by;ACHapN -----------------------------
Denied ( ) Johnson to a y C' Nickens/Bob L. VOTE
pprove No Yes Ab~
Received ( ) erna ive Garrett
Referred Johnson X
To X -
-----_ McGraw X -
Nickens X -
Robers
X
cc: File
John Hubbard
Don Myers
Phil Henry
Diane Hyatt
Reta Busher
3
~ _
^ .~.
L
~ . t ~„ 66 ~ R ].7 j 68 b ~ r . ..
~ u70 71 ~~
].
a
t 49 ~i ~ ~ 3 6 t . 7 ' {3 ~7 ~6 " 2
a a t ~e
~ s '~ ~.. ,
i, a ~. I rlo az .. 37 • '2
. $ j
~ - 11 • i A .,u ~ 37 tl
C4~ ,~ ~ ••
I ~ ~
- ~ I] ~ 6 ]s . • s s0
II s6 a ~O ~' ~ ~ -
~ ~ z~ t.
N I `h~' 7 ]2 ~I' 39
r .3 t ~ ~ C`
j ~ ~Ttt~ roy 30 ,.
.6 ~ ~ ~ y 23 O
~ 4 ~~
V/O 71.10_7_1 ~ ~ 17 .. t
~ ~ ~ ,
1 ~ ' 21 a 27 n 5.. loop 71-00
_.. ~ ° IB S ~ ~ ,. a t .r 23 I'. sop'
i ,y t ' P 19 I r' ~, 13-0~ ~~
3] •'
' >t 29
_ ~ ]O • 2B ~ I
F. 33 r~ , ,
No.n' Cv. elf' ~,y.
1-1 ~ __ J7~ ~ •2~ 23y y26 -O I
1~ ~ u P 2J- . ... . ..n -f..-
yl1 12 j;
.C ~
j
- r ?` ~'
_. ~o - r,
(. ~r,..u • 7 II' 'i
_ h - ?o ~ i
tl +'P~~ • j 'p~
,2 lr I6gti '17 t 9•
o.~ 7 i ~
714oe.ln ~ O` i
7 y z r ~~~ r. ~ ~~
]
f ~ 7 / p~ I
n 3 6
.. _ ~ I ~ \
n
/$
Road Improvements for Beaver Lane,
COMMUNITY SERVICES Elizabeth Drive and Horn Circle
- & DEVELOPMENT Foxfire Subdivision
4
Y ~ +
ACTION N0.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERV ITEM NUMBER1IJ __
ISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTR
MEETING DATE: ATION CENTER
June 28, 1988
AGENDA ITEM: Request to Virginia Department of Trans or
for change to highway markers on P tation
Route 221
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
~~
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
On Route 221 there are two
areas located highway markers designatin
mileage si ns off Route 221. Included g mileage to
originall g t° a communit in these markers are
y the location of y known as Airpoint. Airpoint was
located there in a Post office which has
known over 20 years. There is not been
as Airpoint. This no communit
~~
misread the sign as Air ortlgn has also confused trav lersllwho
p
The residents on Bent Mountain have re
markers be changed and the Quested that these highway
be included mileage to the Bent Mountain community
instead. This is the p
office. In addition, there is resent location of the post
school and at least a fire and rescue department, a
residents feel tw° businesses located in
Airpoint would that a sign desi the area. The
be a gnating Bent Mountain rather than
more appropriate designation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Su
prepared resolution pervisors adopt the attached
Transportation removertheeSting that the Virginia Department of
to "Airpoint" which highway markers designatin
designatin no longer exists, and replace themtwithlsiage
g the mileage to the Bent Mountain community.
gns
,~}
~..
Elmer C. Ho ge
---------------------------------------County Administrator
ACTION -------------------- _
Approved ( ) Motion by:
Denied ( ) VOTE
Received ( ) Yes No Abs
Garrett
Referred Johnson
To:
----- M c G r a w
Nickens
Robers
'.`
~`
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF R
COUNTY VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINIS
OANOKE
CENTER ON TUESDAY,JUNE 28, 1988 TRATION
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION TO CHANGE HIGHWAY MARKERS ON
ROUTE 221
WHEREAS, on Route
221, there are highway markers
designatin
g mileage to certain areas located off
Route 221, and
WHEREAS, these markers include mileage to Air oint
community which was p a
once the site of a federal post office, but
no longer exists, and
WHEREAS, this marker
is confusing to travelers on Route
221, and residents who reside in the Bent Mountain
community, and
WHEREAS, a to ical destination to be
g~
markers on included on the
Route 221 would be
that of Bent Mountain, the resent
location of the federal p
post office, as well as a fire and rescue
department, school businesses and residences.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervis
of Roanoke Count ors
y, Virginia request that the Department of
Transportation remove the highway markers that desi
to Airpoint gnate mileage
and replace them with markers that designate the
mileage to Bent Mountain, the
present site of a post office, fire
and rescue department, a school, businesses and reside
nces.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY , VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 28 MINISTRATION
1988
RESOLUTION 62_884 REQUESTING THE VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRA1VSpORTATION TO CHANGE HIGHWAY
MARKERS ON ROUTE 221
WHEREAS, on Route 221, there are highway markers
designating mileage to certain areas located off Rou
WHEREAS to 221, and
these markers include mileage to Airpoint, a
community which was once the site of a federal post offi
no longer exists, and ce, but
WHEREAS, this marker is confusin
221, and residents who reside in the Ben g to travelers on Route
t Mountain community, and
WHEREAS, a logical destination to be included on the
markers on Route 221 would be that of Bent Mountain t
location of the federal ' he Present
post office, as well as a fire and rescue
department, school businesses and residences.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Superviso
of Roanoke Count rs
y, Virginia request that the Department of
Transportation remove the highway markers that desi
to Airpoint gnate mileage
and replace them with markers that designate the
mileage to Bent Mountain, the present site of a
and rescue department a Post office, fire
school, businesses and residences.
On motion of Supervisor Garrett, seconded by Su ervi
McGraw, and upon the followin P sor
g recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson
McGraw, Nickens, Garrett
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Robers
A COPY TESTE;
Mar H '~
Roanoke Count Deputy Clerk
6/30/88 Y Board of Supervisors
CC: File
Va. Department of Transportation
Phillip Henry, Director of Engineering
John Hubbard, Assistant Count
Boyd Overstreet, Bent Mountain Cidvic1l,eague r
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINIOSTROANOKE
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 28 RATION
1988
RESOLUTION 62888-9 REQUESTING THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION APPRO
A "NO BUILD" OPTION FOR ROUTE 666 V E
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECT ANO Y 0 6 6D O 8 g U G1 NIA
C-503 69,
BE IT RESOLVED b
y the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1• That this matter
came this day to be heard upon the
proceedings herein
and upon the application for Bandy Road,
Route 666 - Virginia Department of Transportation
066-0880-169 Protect No.
C-503.
" 2• That it
appears to the Board of Su
NO-BUILD" pervisors that a
P
option is appro riate when consideration is
potential disruption of the neighborhood, the cost b 91ven to
of the enefit ratio
project, as well as safet
Y considerations; based on
concerns expressed Burin
g the public hearing on this project
which was held June 6, lggg-
3• That said road is on the
present Six-Year Construction
Plan for Secondar
y Roads, which was a
Section 33.1-70.01 of the Virginia State pporoved in accordance to
de.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded b
McGraw and carried b y Supervisor
y the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson
McGraw, Nickens, Garrett
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Robers
cc: File
Phillip Henry
Arnold Covey,
John Hubbard,
A COPY TESTE:
~~%/ ~~~/ ,y j ~] ~ / Jay
Mary,-- H, Ailen, r Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Director,
Director,
Assistant
Engineering
Dev. & Inspections
County Administrator
2
4
ACTION N0. -A-62888-5
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE
MEETING DATE: June 28, 1988
ITEM NUMBER•L
OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
AGENDA ITEM: Request for Contribution from D-Day Exhibi
Committee t
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
~2L t~ /~ .~cu/~ a
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Attached is a letter from
Exhibit Committee, a group
involvement of the men and
Virginia who were involved
This committee, in cooperation with
Museum, is requesting a contribution
which will include an exhibit at the
Museum and a video documentary being
WBRA Television.
the Roanoke Valley History
to help fund this effort
Roanoke Valley Historical
produced in conjunction with
They have received contributions totaling $14,000 which
commitments of $2,000 from the City of Roanoke and $1,000
the Town of Vinton, includes
from Roanoke County. They are requesting a similar contribution
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS:
Alternative #1: Deny the request of the D-Da
Roanoke County has already allocated funding for Roanok
cultural events in the amount of y Exhibit Committee.
the Square where this exhibit wi112be0heldhich includeseCenteryin
Alternative #2 Authorize the allocation of a
contribution for this effort from the 1987/88 BoardOConti
Fund.
ngency
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative 1,
requests for funding of special eventsothroughoutrtheives many
e year. With
/~ U
L6~z r2.-e/' ~ --~~ft ~.~L~'w~. ~~~
Bob Slaughter, a member of the D-Day
formed to tell the story of the
women from the Roanoke Valley and
in the D-Day Invasion.
the limited funds available for fiscal ~ ~
year 1988/89 a /
this request will set a precedent for future, equests PProval of
Elmer C. Hodge
---------------------------------------County Administrator
APProved ACTION -------------------------
Denied (x) Aotion by: Harry C. Nickens/Steven VOTE
( ) McGraw to approve A ternative Yes No AAb
Received ( ) o eny Garrett x
Referred Johnson x -
To: McGraw x
Nickens x
Robers x
cc: File
Don Myers
Diane Hyatt
Reta Busher
:D-SAY EXHIBIT .COM
RGANOhE VALLEYiwESTERN VIR M ITTE E
GINIA
Milton L. Aliff
William B. Bagbey
James P. Brice
Jack B. Coulter
C. Richard Cranwell
Norman E. Elmore
Robert N. Fishburn
William B. Hopkins
Daniel E. Karnes
Howard E. Musser
John R. Slaughter
Steve Stinson
A. Victor Thomas
Coordinating sponsor:
Roanoke Valley
Historical Museum
Mr, Elmer Hodge
County Administrator
P.~. BOX 29800
Roanok-, Virginia 2 40 1 8-0 798
Dear Mr, Hodge,
~_y
Friday, June 3, 1988
Enclosed is a brochure that pretty much states our
case, We estimate that our total cost to put this over
will be approximately $20,000, So far we have commitments
totaling $14,000 which includes $2,000 from the City of
Roanoke and $1,000 from the Town of Vinton. Since this is
a Valley project we think it appropriate that all of the
Governments participate.
If I can be of help in answering questions, Please
call me anytime, Thank you very much.
Sincerely
,~
Bob Slaugh~£~,+r
4372 Kirkwood Dr. , S.W,
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Phone; 989-6512
Member of:
Company D, 116th Infantry
29th Division
June 6th, 1944
Help us tell this
fascinating story
In the summer of 1944, the men of
the Roanoke Valley were among the
leaders of the assault on the beaches of
Normandy. This assault, now famous as
the D-Day Invasion, turned the tide of
World War II.
Because it
was the only National
unusual.
tes, this unit
ay, the cadre
which hit
units, which
red from
Virginia.
Guard unit to land on D-D
in the 116th Combat Team
bloody Omaha beach was
Unlike other regular army
consisted of soldiers scatte
throughout the United Sta
was made up of men from
~-y
exhibit in one of the most prominent
locations in the museum. There it will be
seen not only by adult museum goers,
but by the many schoolchildren who
visit. Part of the exhibit will also be in
the school outreach program. It is of
immeasurable educational value.
A television program
Our committee is also producing in
conjunction with WBRA Television a
video documentary combining
interviews with D-Day survivors and
archival footage of the invasion. Our
search for survivors turned up many
who served in other branches of the
armed forces. Research in national and
private archives for live footage has
already begun.
Portions of this valuable oral history
will run continuously at the exhibit site.
It, too, will be part of the school
outreach program.
What you can do
We are seeking underwriters for the
exhibit and for the television program.
We have enough money to start the
project, but we don't have enough to
finish it. Contributions are tax
deductible gifts to the Roanoke Valley
History Museum. If you can contribute,
please note on your check that the
money is for the D-Day exhibit so it can
be routed to this project.
Further information
Questions about the video should be
directed to Steve Stinson, Roanoke
Times & World-News, P.O. Box 2491,
Roanoke, Va. 24010, 981-3325.
Questions about contributions should
be directed to Mitchell Bowden,
Executive Director, Roanoke Valley
History Museum, 342-5770.
Because of this, the men of the Roanoke
Valley landed together. Many more men
and women from the Roanoke Valley
who didn't actually hit the beach that
day were involved. And there were
others in different branches of the
armed forces.
The price for Omaha Beach was high.
The National Guardsmen from Virginia
lost 341 men that day. More than 20
Roanokers lost their lives on June 6,
1944.
We would like to tell their story and
other stories from Western Virginia,
notably that of Bedford, which lost 23
men that day. ;
A museum exhibit
The Roanoke Valley History
Museum will open an exhibit on the
Normandy Invasion this June 6. This
exhibit started small, but has grown as
publicity about it has brought forward
more veterans and significant historical
objects.
The working design now places this -
J7 - y
;,
OF ROANp'YF
a ~ %
a, ~
2 ~_
~ 2
J a
150 R
1 $ YEA 0.S H V
V
SESQUICENTENN~P
A Benu~ifulBeRinrrinR
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
Mr. Bob Slaughter
D Day Exhibit Committee
4372 Kirkwood Dr., S. W.
Roanoke, Va. 24018
Dear Mr. Slaughter:
June 30, 1988
LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
E~OB L. JOHNSON
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
STEVEN A. MCGRAW
CATAW BA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS
VIN TON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
On June 28, 1988, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
considered your request for funds for the D-Day Exhibit. While
they support activities such as this, they are unable to make a
contribution at this time and denied your request. Roanoke
County allocates $20,000 to cultural enrichment activities each
year. Unfortunately, the funds for 1988 have already been
appropriated. If you are still iestethatfyounmake aorequesteatnt
in the spring of 1989, may I sugg
that time.
My best wishes for a successful event. I regret that we
were not able to assist your committee at this time.
Sincerely,
-~~
r
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
ECH/mha
CC: Board Reading File
(~nun~~ n~ ~a~tnnke
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER ~ ~"
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 28, 1988
AGENDA ITEM:
Approval of the Fiscal Year 1988-89 Operating
Budget for the .Roanoke Regional Airport Commission
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
In accordance with the requirements of the Roanoke Regional
Airport Commission Act, the Commission transmitted its 1988-89
budget to the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County by letter dated
February 12, 1988. Since the budget did not include any
deficits, neither participating political subdivision formally
approved this budget.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Commission has been advised by its Bond Counsel that,
although not required, formal approval by Resolution of the
Commission's budget would be appropriate. Attached are copies of
the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission budget for fiscal year
1988-89 and budget revisions which were approved on April 20,
1988 and May 18, 1988.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS:
Because the attached operating budget for the Roanoke
Regional Airport Commission for the fiscal year 1988-$9 does not
produce a deficit, there is no fiscal impact to the County of
Roanoke.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adopting the attached Resolution approving
the fiscal year 1988-89 operating budget for the Roanoke Regional
Airport Commission.
Respectfully submitted, Approved by,
~V ,C,Ctn^c.t~
Diane D. Hyatt Elmer C. Hodge
Director of Finance County Administrator
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
To
Motion by:
ACTION
Garrett
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
VOTE
No Yes Abs
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1988
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FISCAL
YEAR1988-89 OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE
ROANOKE REGIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION.
WHEREAS, Section 17 of the contract between the City of
Roanoke and Roanoke County, Virginia requires the Roanoke
Regional Airport Commission to prepare and submit its operating
budget for the forthcoming fiscal year to the Board of Super-
visors of the County and the City Council of the City prior to
February 15 of each year; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission trans-
witted its 1988-89 budget to the City of Roanoke and Roanoke
County by letter dated February 12, 1988; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission
adopted its fiscal year 1988-89 annual operating budget at its
February 12, 1988 meeting, said budget was revised on April 20,
1988 and on May 18, 1988; and,
WHEREAS, since estimated expenses do not exceed
estimated revenues, neither participating political subdivision
has formally approved said budget.
NOW THEREFORE it is hereby resolved by the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia as follows:
1. That the annual operating budget for fiscal year
1988-89 of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission is hereby
approved.
~-~
2. That the Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this resolution
to the Chairman of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission, and
to Jack Spain, Jr., Esquire, Hunton ~ Williams, Richmond,
Virginia.
Airport Commission
. W. Robert Herbert, Chairman
Lee Garrett
Joel M. Schlanger
Bob L. Johnson
1635 Aviation Drive
Roanoke, Vrginia 2~
(703) 981-2531
Kit B. Kiser ~ _
Robert C. Poole, Airport Manager
^
DATE : May 18 , 19 8 8 A I~prY~1
TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Roanoke Regional
Airport Commission
FROM: Joel M. Schlanger
SUEJECT: Amendment to the 1988-89 Airport Budget
The Commission adopted the fiscal year 1988-89 annual
budget for the Airport at its February 12, 1988, meeting. The
budget was revised on April 20, 1988, in order that the Airport
could hire its own custodians. This resulted in a net savings to
the Commission of $25,549.
That budget included funding to provide Airport
employees a 5~ merit increase. The City of Roanoke adopted its
annual budget for fiscal year 1988-89 on May 12, 1988. It
included funding to provide City employees a 5.7~ merit increase
based on the mid-point of their salary range. In order to provide
Airport employees the equivalent raise, the proposed 1988-89
budget needs to be increased $3,310 for salaries and fringe
benefits to provide the necessary funding for the additional .7$
raise (see Exhibit I).
Attached is a budget resolution reflecting the April 20
revisions and also the proposed revision to provide for pay
-~
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Roanoke Regional Airport
Commission
Page 2
May 18, 1988
increases. The combination of these two revisions results in a
net reduction of $22,239 of the fiscal year 1988-89 budget as
adopted on February 12, 1988. I recommend the resolution for your
approval.
JMS:dp
Exhibit 1
ROANORL~REGIONAL AIRPORT
BUDGET
FY1988-89
Approved
2/12/88
1988-89
Revised
4/20/88
(custodians)
1988-89
Operations and Maintenance $ 484,302 $ 558,838
Salaries, Wages and Benefits 478,200 494,400
Operating 763,221 646,936
Total Operations & Maintenance $1,725,723 $1,700,174
Non-Operating Expenses
Interest $ 107,412
Depreciation 593,465
Total Non-Operating $ 700,877
Capital from Revenue
Equipment $ 3,400
Projects 120,000
$ 123,400
Total Expenditure Projections $2,550,000
REVENUE PROJECTIONS
1988-89
$ 107,412
593,465
$ 700,877
$ 3,400
120,000
$ 123,400
$2,524,451
Revised
1988-89
Airline Landing and Parking Fees $ 495,000 $ 495,000
Building Rentals & Related Charges 412,000 412,000
Concessionaires 1,563,000 1,563,000
Interest on Investments 80,000 80,000
Total Revenue Projections X2,550,000 $2,550,000
~J
Proposed Revision
5/18/88
(pay raises)
1988-89
$ 562,148
494,400
646,936
$1,703,484
$ 107,412
593,465
$ 700.,877
$ 3,400
120,000
$ 123,400
$2,527,761
Proposed
Revision
1988-89
$ 495,000
412,000
1,563,000
80,000
$2,550,000
~-5
ROANOKE REGIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION
AN AMENDMENT to certain sections of the 1988-89 Airport
Fund Appropriations.
WHEREAS, by action of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission
the 1988-89 Airport Fund Appropriations are amended as follows:
Appropriations
Airport Operating (1-10) ........................... $1,703,484
1) Salaries
2) Retirement
3) F.I.C.A.
4) Hospitalization
Insurance
5 ) Life Insurance
6) Wearing Apparel
7) Building Maint.
8) Expendable Equip.
9) Fees for Prof.
Services
10) Custodial Services
(004-056-4401-1002) $ 60,500
(004-056-4401-1105) 6,863
(004-056-4401-1120) 4,289
(004-056-4401-1125) 5,616
(004-056-4401-1130) 578
(004-056-4401-2064) 1,200
(004-056-4401-2050) 6,000
(004-056-4401-2035) 3,000
(004-056-4401-2010) 6,000
(004-056-4401-7075) (116,285)
1
~- ~.,.
_ ~ ,, J ~ . ~ -~.
" ~'~'TTEST
i , . ~:
-~ '' ,i
S. ~
u~;-~~'.:P~
S~e retard
Adopted at the P4ay 18, 1988 meeting of the Airport Comnissib4~:"'~~
\ ~
". ~ S
Roanoke, Virginia
February 12, 1988
Honorable Chairman and Members
Roanoke Regional Airport Commission
Dear Members of Commission
Subject: Roanoke Regional Airport Budget FY 1988-89
The Airport budget for fiscal year 1988-89 is attached for your review
and consideration.
The budget fully funds all operating expenses including depreciation
and the addition of two full time laborer/operator positions to the airport
staff. A position reclassification of the administrative secretary to
executive secretary is also included. The budget has been subjected to
review by a budget committee composed of the City's budget committee plus
Mr. Garrett and Mr. Kiser from the Commission and Ms. Diane Hyatt from
Roanoke County.
Section 17 of the contract between the City and Roanoke and Roanoke
County requires-the Commission to prepare and submit its operating budget
for the forthcoming fiscal year to the Board of Supervisors of the County
and the City Council of the City.
Respectfully submit d,
- ~j'
~, J
Robert C. Poole
Airport Manager
RCP-: csp
Attachment
~-
~"
FY 88-89
ROANOKE REGIONAL AIRPORT
BUDGET
Expenditure Projections
1987-88 1988-89
1. Operations and Maintenance
A. Salaries, Wages and Benefits $ 432,595 $ 484,302
B. Operating 488,700 478,200
C. Internal Services 713,500 763,221
Total Operations and Maintenance $1,634,795 $1 ,725,723
2. Non-Operating Expenses
A. Interest $ 111,218 $ 107,412
B. Depreciation 571,800 593,465
Total Non-Operating $ 683,018 $ 700,877
3. Capital from Revenue
A. Equipment $ 42,300 $ 3,400
B. Projects 97,000 120,000
Total Capital from Revenue $ 139,300 $ 123,400
TOTAL EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS $2,457,113 $2 ,550,000
Revenue Projections
1987-88 1988-89
1. Airline Landing and Parking Fees $ 439,000 $ 495,000
I
~ 2.
Building Rentals and Related Charges
$
417,000
$ 412,000
3. Concessionaires $1,497,000 $1,563,000
4. Interest on Investments $ 100,000 $ 80,000
5. Miscellaneous $ 5,000
TOTAL REVENUE PROJECTIONS $2,458,000 $2,550,000
T~
~,/` -
Equipment
2 each 2-way radio units
Projects
Terminal Roof Repairs
Repaint Runway and Taxiway Markings
Overlay Taxiway Alpha
Unidentified Replacement
Repairs to Hangars
Sheet 2 of 2
$ 3,400
$ 10,000
10,000
25,000
50,000
25.000
$120,000
...J "'
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1988
RESOLUTION 62888-6 APPROVING THE FISCAL
YEAR 1988-89 OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE
ROANOKE REGIONAL AIRPORT COMMISSION
WHEREAS, Section 17 of the contract between the City of
Roanoke and Roanoke County, Virginia requires the Roanoke
Regional Airport Commission to prepare and submit its operating
budget for the forthcoming fiscal year to the Board of Super-
visors of the County and the City Council of the City prior to
February 15 of each year; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission trans-
mitted its 1988-89 budget to the City of Roanoke and Roanoke
County by letter dated February 12, 1988; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission
adopted its fiscal year 1988-89 annual operating budget at its
February 12, 1988 meeting, said budget was revised on April 20,
1988 and on May 18, 1988; and,
WHEREAS, since estimated expenses do not exceed
estimated revenues, neither participating political subdivision
has formally approved said budget.
NOW THEREFORE it is hereby resolved by the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia as follows:
1. That the annual operating budget for fiscal year
1988-89 of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission is hereby
approved.
2. That the Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this resolution
to the Chairman of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission, and
to Jack Spain, Jr., Esquire, Hunton & Williams, Richmond,
Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor
McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Robers
A COPY TESTE:
~)~c~
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Don Myers, Assistant County Administrator
Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance
Reta Busher, Director, Budget
W. Robert Herbert, Chairman, Roanoke Regional Airport
Commission
The Honorable Lee Garrett, Vice Chairman, Roanoke Regional
Airport Commission
Clerk, Roanoke City Council
Jack Spain, Jr., Esquire, Hunton & Williams, Richmond,
Virginia
2
O~ ROANps.~
~..~
~. .~
Z
J a
~8~$ E50 $$
sFSQU1CENTENN~P~
A Beauti~ulBeginning
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
C~n~tn~~ nf~ ~n~tnnk~e
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
June 30, 1988
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, Chairman
Roanoke Regional Airport Commission
215 Church Avenue
Roanoke, Va. 24011
Dear Mr. Herbert:
LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE•CHAIRMAN
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
BOB L. JOHNSON
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
STEVEN A. MCGRAW
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 62888-6 concerning
approval of the 1988-89 budget for the Roanoke Regional Airport
Commission. This resolution was adopted by the Board of
Supervisors at their meeting on June 28, 1988.
If you need further information, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
`~)~f~ ~~
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Attachment
CC: The Honorable Lee Garrett, Vice Chairman
Roanoke Regional Airport Commission
Clerk, .Roanoke City Council
Jack Spain;;. Jr. Esquire, Hunton & Williams, Richmond, Va.
Diane Hyatt, Director of Finance
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004
ACTION NO. A-62888-7
ITEM NUMBER ~ - c!~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 28, 1988
AGENDA ITEM:
Report On Information System and Presentation of
Long Range System Plan
COUNTY ADMINISTRA~T~OR' S COMMENTS
BACKGROUND
The Director of Management Information Systems and the
Roanoke County Systems Council have completed an evaluation of
the effectiveness of our computer hardware and software systems
in light of current and future county needs and available
technology. This effort was started in November 1987 and has
resulted in the nucleus of a total long-range information systems
plan for the county.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Our Hewlett Packard 3000 computer is over 6 years old. It
is a good machine and has served us well, but is now operating at
the upper limits of capacity. Response time is no longer
consistently acceptable and, during critical periods of heavy
activity, response time in excess of one minute is not unusual.
The growth of complex applications such as personal property
proration, the Treasurer's cashiering system, and real estate
assessments has greatly increased capacity requirements. A
computer hardware upgrade is needed not only to accommodate the
implementation of new and up-to-date applications, but to satisfy
current needs as well. A letter of intent has been written to
Hewlett Packard for the purchase of an HP3000 Model 950 computer.
Delivery is tentatively scheduled for mid August. Our existing
HP3000 will be used for records management for law enforcement
and fire and rescue.
In terms of software, our existing systems lack integration,
do not provide needed functionality or interactivity, and do not
offer a foundation to build on for the future. An evaluation of
individual applications reveals the following statistics: Out of
16 total County applications, 8 are badly in need of replacement.
Included are major systems such as real estate, finance,
purchasing, accounts payable, budget and utility billing. Of 10
systems in the Schools, 6 should be replaced, among them:
scheduling, attendance, grading, payroll and personnel.
~.[~ '- ~a
In addition to the requirement for an upgrade of current
systems there is a need for new applications, the most
significant of these being Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD), a
Geographic Information System (GIS), and a Computer Assisted Mass
Appraisal System. The CAD system was supported by an earlier
bond issue and is the first project on our list of priorities. A
summary of the major projects in the system plan is included as
an attachment.
Total cost for the county system is approximately $450,000
(see page 8). Cost for the CAD System is approximately $300,000.
Funding for the project for 1988-89 is incorporated in the
approved county budget. Financing would be through a 5 year
lease purchase and subsequent years payments would be within
current MIS budget levels. Funds for the CAD system have been
accumulated from the 911 telephone tax. Project planning is
being done on the basis of hiring 2 additional
programmer/analysts in July 1989. (Please see attached project
implementation schedule).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests permission for:
o Purchase of HP3000 Series 950.
o Purchase of a CAD System including necessary hardware.
o Authorize the County Administrator to execute
the necessary documents.
R/es~pectfully submitted, Approv d b ,
Don C. Myers Elmer C. Hodge
Director of MIS County Administrator
Approved (x )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
To
ACTION
Motion by: Bob L. Johnson/Steven
A. McGraw to approve staff Garrett
recommendation Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
VOTE Absent
No Yes Abs
X
x
_ x
_ x
x
cc: File
Don Myers
Diane Hyatt
Keith Cook
Jack Council
2
- CfJ
INFORMATION SYSTEMS COUNCIL ROLE
o Coordinate the issuance and future updates of the Long Range
Information Management Plan.
o Establish and conduct effective communications relative to
information system plans and actions on a regular basis.
o Review and resolve any major problems related to resource
allocation, information systems support and commitment.
o Review, at least annually, the information systems resource
allocation plan.
o Meet, at least annually, with key personnel to review overall
direction of information systems relative to the Long Range
Plan.
MEMBERSHIP
Commissioner of Revenue
Sheriff
Treasurer
Two Representatives from Schools
Director of Finance
Director of Utilities
Director of MIS
3
" C~
projects Included in Long Range Plan
o CAD o Development/GIS
o School Attendance o Automated Assessment
o Interactive Student Database o Utility Billing.
o Real Estate Redesign o Payroll/Personnel
o Integrated Financial System o Library System
Also-----o Create Master Name & Address File
o Expand End-User Computing
o Develop an Information Center
o Expand and Upgrade Office Automation
o Computer Aided Drafting
o Facilities and Maintenance System
o Investigate 24-Hour City Hall
4
`;
• ~~
r-,
d.
r
c•)
a•.
„1
_I
r7
?-
Ct:r
.a-i
CL
G
A
C
0
.j
F-
Vl
ar
Vt
Q
c v
ro u
a. ~
- v
~ ~
C al L
O Jl U'1
C.~ 7,
Cfl
Cr C
1 CJ O
O O'r ' -r
C
^J ~
Ll'
Ct. C
O~ 2)
C ~
O ~
J --•
a_
E
~:
~i
C''-1
1
U'
J
r"7
.7
r~
rn
I
C~
O~
_J
J
=J
r" ~
C•
G-
1
a-.
w
~.I
:_ i
r~
_J
r-n
O-.
~J
r
rte
J
'_r
r~
ro
u
,.. .n
~ a
.s ~
w
G.i
! 1
Ul
U~J
U
CJ U7
u
(~1
C1'1
V
UJ
U"r
U7
M
u
CJ
~~
`!J
CJ
y
r-,
.-•J
,a. n ~, .~ o r-. r-. r. u•. .-. c ~
~ cr r'•.
s:
au a.
N I./_. CJ L
G CJ w C7 u7 "` ~ N "'
C ~ Z7 V) U7 CP 41 O'1 C C
'~ ro 7 aJ N •-.~ G] C C 0.r
N TI Q:: U Yr ~ O L 1 N
~ C U7 TJ A \ N VI ..-~
0, II/ ~ ¢ L C v)
~ ..
Jo Vr
u.7 C
~ C
~ • 4.
cr --
io ~-
-• b
F ..
L
~ ..
~
o
~ z ro
~.r a. o w --• aJ a, -• ~, c.
O t ~ C 6J to C) 0.) ~ p C
~
J
5
CJ/
--
HARDWARE/SOFTWARE ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
HARDWARE/SOFTWARE
o IBM 4381 - VM/VSE
o IBM 4381 - MVS/XA
o IBM 9370 - VM/VSE
o IBM System 38
o HP3000/950 MPE/IMAGE
6
_ __ n L_ L_ M_~ L
Alternatives:
Desired Objectives:
ROANORE COUNTY
HARDWARE VENDOR STRATEGY
What is the most viable central computer alternative to
meet the County's needs?
HP3000 Series 950
IBM 4381 using VM/VSE Operating Software
0
0
o Acceleration of implementation of long-range plan
o Minimized overall risk
o Ease of user implementation - minimum complexity
o Availability of training
o Minimize need for training
o Reliability of hardware
o Demonstrated vendor support
o Availability and variety of software packages
o Ease of implementing future enhancements
o Cost of ownership
o Minimize staffing requirements
o Minimize need for vendor technical support
o Ability to attract personnel
o Cost of obtaining qualified/trained people
o Long-term viability of vendor
o Solidify foundation for the long term
o Project an image of professionalism
o Project an image of progress and aggressiveness
o Size of user base (probably changing)
o Promote cooperation with City of Roanoke
o Ability to integrate all functions (MIS/OA/EUC)
(1) (2)
WEIGHT SCORE
HP IBM
9 10/90 7/63
7 10/70 7/49
7 10/78 7/49
9 9/81 10/90
7 10/70 5/50
8 10/80 10/80
7 10/70 9/90
9 7/63 10/70
9 10/90 7/70
6 10/60 6/36
7 10/70 6/42
7 10/70 5/35
7 7/49 10/70
7 10/70 8/56
7 9/63 10/70
8 9/72 10/90
7 8/56 10/70
7 8/56 10/70
8 10/80 10/80
4 7/28 10/40
9 10/90 8/80
1448 1350
(1) Weights developed by systems council
(2) Scoring by D. C. Myers
7
.U - ~D
W
H
H
zi
a
w
E
a
W
a
3
~i
x
W
O
"Z
0
H
a
~i
a
0
U
H
0
U
G4 M M M M N N i9 L9 Ol
~ F
W cn d~ d~ ~ ~ ~ d~ t~ (~ rn
~O Nl0 ~OL9 Nl0 NlD ifl
U Mao rn~ rn~ ~r-I ~
~ ~ ~
d~ Z9 00 d~ oo d~ ~-I (~ ~
M H N Ul l0 lG I~ ZS L9 01
Ol ~M ~ l(1 lfl 01 01 M M 01
I
N
C9 00
ZSl 00
ZS1 00
M r-I
r-1
Q~ r-I r-1 l0 lD i'9 Z9 00 Ol Ol
M N d~ M N ~-I r-I
d' i9 d~ Z4 00 ~M rl I~ 'd~
N r-I N r-I N Lfl l0 l0 l0 41
Ql 'd~ d~ d' d~ Lfl lf1 N N Ol
I
r-I
N C9
N L9
ul M
l~ lf1
~-'I
Ol r-I N Ol Z51 Z9 rl M ~i+ 01
M N ~ ~ N r-I ~
M 01 M 01 dl ~fl 00 d~ d~ i9
r-I Ol d~ Ol Ol Ul l0 l0 I~ 01 Z9
Ql Z9 L4 C9 Z9 01 01 Lfl L(1 Ol L9
L9 d~ N d' N d~ N N ZSl r-I L9
Q1 M d~ ~ N ~ Ol ~--I N 01 M
N ~-i ~M M .-1 r-I
M O1 tll r-I V~ ZS N CO ~ Z51
[9 Q1 al 61 Z9 N M lf1 l(1 01 t9
01 N N l0 [~ l0 l0 lIl 111 Ql Z9
I
Ol
l~ ~fl
Ql l~
l0 d~
00 l0
r~
Z9
00 M d+ t9 rl l~ [~ Ql Ql M
N r-i M N ~-I
~n r-I u'1 r-I irl r-1 irl r-I d~ is
rn m .-~ ts~ ~-+ ~n ~o ~o I~ rn t9
00 r~ r-I l0 l0 ~ rl M M Ol Lfl
I
00
Z4 00
f~ Ul
l0 ~
Lfl M
r-I
Q1
00 M M 00 Q1 lp I~ Ol Ol N
N rl N .~ r-1
W ~ W
~ x ~
~ \ ~
\ ~ \ 2
~ ~ ~ O
~ E ~
W
I I I ~ U
~n z ao
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
00 0o t` ao ~ Z ~
M M M M ZSl W~
~ v~ rn v] is H is
L9 2 Z4
£ ~ ~ ~ M H M
oU Cq pq W a ~ a
H H H H x ~ x
8
~...L/ ""
HARDWARE RECOMMENDATION
o IBM 4381 - VM/VSE Eliminated
- Price
- VSE not a strategic IBM product
- Need for a conversion
o IBM 9370 - VM/VSE Eliminated
- Same reasons as above
- Concern over need for future upgrade
o IBM 4381 - MVS/XA Eliminated
- Cost is prohibitive
*o IBM System 38 using New World Software
- Still under consideration, however concern over
viability of generic solution from one vendor.
- Concern over having all eggs in one small vendor
basket.
- But Still need to look further.
o Recommendation is HP3000/950
- *Pending further review of S58/New World
*This alternative has since been eliminated.
9
C!J
W
H
w
E
a
H
w
z
w
H
z
0
a
w
a
H
0
U
z z
Ho off
zH Hz
W H H W
£ ~ ~ ~
W ~ C] £ ~7
~azac~
~o~o~
zw wz
~z z~
H H
H
H
H
H
U
Q
O
a
a
~ ~ x ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ x
k k X k k
~C >C >C 9C ~C >C >C
~ ~
~ ~ ~
-~ ~ v v
UI N ~ ~ t1I ~
vl +~ u~ •~ ~ ~ cn C
~ v ro ~+~ ~~ +~ ~ v ro
roU +~ ou v vv v cn ..o
?-I C U U1 O ~ !A U ~ CT .C ~ ~ ~
cn v o ro -~ ~ ~ •~+ v c +~ ro v o
~ v ~ ~ v o o ~.-, o mz~•~
v o ro v ~+ a o w i vra +~ N -~ N~~
ro A C ro U G -+~ ~ ~ tr •~ ~ ~ 3 v~ O
oro a v ro v ,~o wo v ro-~ s~sycn
~ ?-1 O N {,Z,~ O~ N VI O •~ +~ ~ v •~•~ 'D r0
,
UI ••-~ N VI ~-i •~ J~ ~ U r-i r-i ~ G ro N w w v '~ ~ v
-•~ ~ v ~+ ro ~ v s-i o O v a v 3 •~ 0 0 v ro~~
r+ c-o v a ro ~ o ~+a o ~ro ~ +~+~ ,-~ U roro
A N~ w O ~ ro w .o O Ei v ~+ v ~+-~ ~ N O O .0 3
ro ro -~ •~ 3 w +~ •~ ro ~ r+ o v ~ -+~ N U cn ~
~n ov ~ cn ro ~ ~n cnro c G~ w ~ o~ .~co
w •~ ~ ~ v U o v~ v ow ~ v v c i 3 v m
i ro v v+ o i .,~ o +~ ~ •~ u •~ a a~ v
~~ a ~ o •~~ o ro~ i u~•~ ~+~ o ro~~+
c o -mo w ~n o v a rc ~ UV ~~ aro v~ -~+ r-+roro
•~ ~ +~ ~ v ~ r0 -N A = ~ ~ U1 v O U •~ -~ ~ ro v ~O
+.+ ro o .c ro ro •~+ ~ ro v w~ U v .u a o ~+ o ~o ~+
ro O N ~ x U ~+ w~ to Q wN •~ .~ w ro ~ 3 ~
~
~ ..
~ ~ U -~+ a ~ roov ro ~ ~~ u~ ~ v -
~
o v .~ ro cn c ro r+ o o U ro N a v ~+ -~ •~+ ~ v -u .+~ ~
+, N ro a ro o a w ~ U ro o •~ cn v 3 v ~ G o y o ro ro`o
~v ~ v ro ~+ ro v •~+vro ro ~+ v v~ ~ ~ro ro cn voro
v ro +~ cn +~ a-+ ro ~ cn +~ ~ •~ U v U z7 3 0 ~, o ++ U ~ ~ ~+
U z3U V ~ v~ 3 o v a a~ro •~.no •~ o~+ o Uro o v vv~tr
-~+ a v w a x +~~ ~ ~ awe ~~-~ w aa ~ ro~ ,-~ ~ ~~ v
u-+ ro ~ o E ~+ ~ c v ~a ~ ~ •+-~ ~ w +~ ~ wv.~
w .,~•~ ~ o o o v ,~ a ooo ~o ~ roo ~ roa ~-+ Svc
O ~'O wU 3 ~n ~ 3 w U U •r-+ ~ o+~ O ~ ~+-~ v Ll•~ o cn •~ C•~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10
A-62888-8
ITEM NUMBER `~/
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 28, 1988
AGENDA ITEM:
Approval of Flexible Merit Program
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
(/ '"" "~ l'YN'~~il~r .~~ ~ L7~2 ~~Gt~/ I/", ~~~7/~' Wt~~!/'r/Y` .~~`~~I
~~
BACKGROUND
On May 10, 1988, the Board of Supervisors approved the
Classification Plan for the 1988-1989 fiscal year. At that time
the staff requested permission to proceed with some form of pay
for performance with the understanding that such a plan would be
worked out with the county staff prior to implementation. The
Human Resources staff has done considerable research into these
kinds of programs for local governments, and a number of them are
in use by localities in Virginia. The complexity of the plans
range from very simple to extremely complex. The preferred
approach for Roanoke County is to proceed with a simplified plan
of flexible merit increases which would evolve as the staff is
prepared to administer the program.
Last year, a pay for performance task force was formed of
representatives from all ranges of county employment. The task
force was formed to assist in development and implementation of
some type of pay for performance system. After considerable
discussion, it was felt that Roanoke County is not ready for a
complex pay for performance system at this time. The committee
was agreeable to working on it further but emphasized the need
for plan funding and objective and consistent performance
evaluation ratings throughout the county.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
At this time, the staff is prepared to move forward with a
transitional program of flexible merit increases for executive
level personnel and a meritorious component for the rest of the
staff. The board may recall that at the present time there is a
flexible merit program in place for department heads and the
assistant administrators. Next year's program is essentially an
extension of that to include assistant departments heads and
professional staff at that level. It is important that all staff
have opportunities to earn additional monies as do the executive
level staff. For that reason we are requesting permission to
implement a meritorious step (2.5$) for other employees in the
county. This approach has been discussed with the Employee
Advisory Committee and the Pay for Performance Task Force. Both
of which were in agreement with the flexible merit and
meritorious increase programs, with the understanding that
training courses would be conducted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the flexible pay system for the
1988-89 fiscal year as outlined:
A. Those employees on grade 25 or above will remain on a
flexible merit program and will be eligible to receive
approximately 2.5~, 5~, 7.5~ or 10~ on the anniversary
date, based on job performance. In addition, those
exempt employees below grade 25 who assist in the manage-
ment of a department or those highly professional exempt
employees may also be included upon request of the
appropriate department head or constitutional officer.
B. Employees not eligible to participate in the flexible
merit program will receive the 5$ or two step salary
increase on the anniversary date, based on satisfactory
performance. These employees could also receive an
additional 2.5$ meritorious increase in cases of docu-
mented outstanding performance.
C. The Department of Human Resources will conduct
training for supervisory personnel to assist in
evaluating job performance.
SUBMITTED BY:
.~
D. K. Coo
Director o Human Resources
APPROVED BY:
~ -~G'
Elmer C. Hodg
County Administrator
--------- --------------------------------
ACTION -------- ------------------
VOTE Absent
Approved (x) Motion by: Lee Garrett/Steven No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) A. McGraw to approve sta f Garrett x
Received ( ) recommen anon wit t e Johnson x
Referred addition o an eva uation McGraw x
To review concurrence Nickens x
monitoring sys em Robers x
cc: File
Assistant County Administrators
Keith Cook
Lee Linkus - Employees Advisory Committee
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER ~ -
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 28, 1988
AGENDA ITEM: Proposed Improvements - Route 666, Bandy Road -
Virginia Department of Transportation Project
No. 066-0880-169, C-503
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
On June 6, 1988, the Virginia Department of Transportation
held a public hearing concerning the subject project. The
proposed project is for an approximate distance of 0.7 miles
starting at the corporate limits of the City of Roanoke. The
estimated cost for the improvements was $1.24 million.
Bandy Road, Route 666, is one of the projects on the 1988 - 1994
Secondary Highway Six Year Construction Plan which has been
approved by the Board of Supervisors and the Virginia Department
of Transportation. The project was originated during the early
part of 1973 and was first approved by the Board in 1977.
Approximately $55,000 has been spent on the project for
preliminary engineering. These funds came from the Secondary
Road Allocation for Roanoke County. The Board of Supervisors
will have an opportunity to consider any reallocation of
Secondary Road funding during the early part of 1989, should the
status of the Bandy Road project change.
During the public hearing, citizens of southeast County were
given the opportunity to express their views concerning the
proposed improvements. The views expressed were primarily
negative and dealt with such issues as potential safety problems
due to the poor alignment of Bandy Road within Roanoke City, the
cost benefit of the project due to significant disturbance of the
residential area, and the potential damage to individual
properties along the proposed improvements. Harry C. Nickens,
Supervisor of the Vinton Magisterial District, attended the
public hearing and in response to the concerns expressed has
written the attached letter to the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funding for the Bandy Road project is included within the
Secondary Highway Six Year Construction Plan, allocated by the
Virginia Department of Transportation for roadway improvements in
Roanoke County. Therefore, no County funds are directly involved
in a decision on this project.
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternative l:
The Board of Supervisors could
Department of Transportation approve
project, which would stop the
acceptance of this proposal.
Alternative 2:
request that the Virginia
a "NO-BUILD" option on this
proposed project upon VDOT
The Board of Supervisors could request that the Virginia
Department of Transportation proceed with final preparation of
plans and incorporate concerns expressed during the public
hearing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve the
attached Resolution which would request that the Virginia
Department of Transportation concur in the the "NO-BUILD" option
for the proposed Bandy Road improvements (VDOT Project No.
066-0880-169, C-503).
SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED:
Phillip T. Henry, .E. Elmer C. odg
Director of Engineering County Administrator
------------------------------------------------------------------
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
To
Motion by:
ACTION
VOTE
No Yes Abs
Garrett
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
2
OF ROANp,Y~
~ ~~
°v' a?
183$ E50 i~88
CSQUJCENTENN~p
A BeautiuJBeginning
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
'y/
0 (J ~C+--t.l a
C~ALtn~,~ D~ ~A~I1~LtI2F
_- g
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Mr. B. W. Sumpter
District Engineer
Virginia Department
and Transportation
P. O. Box 3071
LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
June 7 , 19 8 8 _ BOB L. JOHNSON
- _ HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
STEVEN A. MCGRAW
- CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS
'+; VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
t
f,
of Highways _.___. ~ "- "
Salem, Virginia 24153-3071
Dear Mr. Sumpter:
On behalf of
given the opportunity
proposed improvements
you and your staff. Wt
session, I think all
opportunity to speak.
the citizens of Southeast County who were
to express their views regarding the
to Route 666 (Bandy Road), I want to thank
file I realize this was an abbreviated
interested persons were afforded the
On this date, I have asked that the County
Administrator prepare an appropriate resolution to be considered
at the June 28, 1988, Board of Supervisors' Meeting which would
recommend to the Highway Department the no-build option. I think
the cost benefit ratio as well as the safety consideration
dictates this no-build option.
As always, we are most appreciative of the quality of
public hearings that are conducted by you and your staff and
particularly, I am appreciative of the positive working
relationship that continues to be maintained between myself and
those on your staff whom I call on a regular basis.
Sirs rely 1
!/ T•
Harry C. Nickens, Supervisor
Vinton Magisterial District
HCN/bjh
cc: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004
3
.. ~ _ ~'
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1988
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION APPROVE
A "NO BUILD" OPTION FOR ROUTE 666, BANDY ROAD, VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECT N0. 066-0880-169,
C-503
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the
proceedings herein, and upon the application for Bandy Road,
Route 666 - Virginia Department of Transportation Project No.
066-0880-169, C-503.
2. That it appears to the Board of Supervisors that a
"NO-BUILD" option is appropriate when consideration is given to
potential disruption of the neighborhood, the cost benefit ratio
of the project, as well as safety considerations; based on
concerns expressed during the public hearing on this project
which was held June 6, 1988.
3. That said road is on the present Six-Year Construction
Plan for Secondary Roads, which was approved in accordance to
Section 33.1-70.01 of the Virginia State Code.
4
~J
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 28, 1988
SUBJECT: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
1 Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals
Four-year term of Norman Eugene Jarrett, Hollins Magisterial
District. His term expired January 22, 1988.
2 Court Service Unit Advisorv Council/Youth and Familv Services
Advisory Board•
One-year term of youth member Emily Reaser, Northside High School.
Her term expired November 13, 1987.
Two-year terms of Marilyn Morehead, Hollins District; Dr. J.
Andrew Archer, Vinton District; and Sherry Robison, Windsor Hills
District expired 3/22/88.
One-year term of Tracy Rothschild, youth member from Cave Spring,
expired 3/22/88.
APPOINTMENTS TO THIS COMMITTEE HAVE BEEN POSTPONED ~7NTIL IT IS
REACTIVATED.
3 Fifth Plannincr District Commission
Three-year term of Citizen Representative Lee Eddy. Mr. Eddy's
term expires June 30, 1988.
4 Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
Three-year term of Paul Bailey, Windsor Hills Magisterial
District; His term will expire June 30, 1988.
5 Planning Commission
Unexpired four-year term of Carolyn J. Flippen, Hollins
Magisterial District. Her term expires on 12/31/91. Attached is
a copy of Ms. Flippen's letter of resignation.
6 Roanoke Valley Regional Solid Waste Manactement Board:
Four-year term of Howard R. Keister, Jr. His term expires July
31, 1988, and does not wish to be reappointed. See attached
letter.
Supervisor McGraw has nominated Mikeiel Wimmer to a four-year
term. Confirmation of her appointment is listed on the Consent
Agenda.
SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY:
~~~ ~. h
Mary H. Allen Elmer C. Hodge
Deputy Clerk County Administrator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( ) Motion by: Yes No Abs
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
To:
Garrett
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
~._7
~-~
BUILDING CODE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
A. COMPOSITION:
To be comprised of five (5) members;:appointed by the Board
of Supervisors. Members may be reappointed, and terms should be
staggered so that less than half of the terms expire in any one
year. The Board of Supervisors may appoint alternate members who
may sit on the Board in the absence of any regular members, and
shall have the full power and authority of the regular member.
Board members shall be selected on the basis of their ability to
render fair and competent decisions regarding application of the
code, and shall to the extent possible, represent different
occupational or professional fields. At least one member should
be an experienced builder. At least one member should be a
licensed professional engineer or architect.
B. DUTIES:
Shall act on application for appeals as required by Section
~ 36-105 of the Code of Virginia; or it shall enter into an
agreement with the governing body of another county or
municipality or with some other agency, or a State agency
approved by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development.
C. MEETING SCHEDULE:
The Board shall meet upon notice of the chairman or at
stated periodic meetings if warranted by the volume of work. The
Board shall meet within ten working days of the filing of an
appeal.
~ =2
COURT SERVICES UNIT ADVISORY COUNCIL/YOUTH AND
FAMILY SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD
A. COMPOSITION
Board to consist of two members from each magisterial
district, and one youth member from each high school. Governing
bodies of each county and city served by a~court service unit may
appoint one or more members to a citizen advisory council.
B. DUTIES:
Advises and cooperates with the court upon all matters
affecting the working of this law and other laws relating to
children, their care and protection and to domestic relations;
Consults and confer with the court and director of the
court service unit relative to the development and extension of
.the court service program;
Encourage the members selected by the council to serve on
the central advisory council to visit as often as the member
conveniently can, institutions and associations receiving
children under this law and to report to the court the conditions
and surroundings of the children received by or in charge of any
such persons, institutions or associations.
~. The Council should make themselves familiar with the work
of the court. Makes an annual report to the court and the
participating governing bodies on the work of the council.
As the Youth and Family Services Advisory Board:
Establish goals and priorities for County-wide youth
services; assist in coordination and planning for comprehensive
youth services within the private sector. Serve in an advisory
capacity and to otherwise assist the Board of Supervisors to
establish goals and objectives in compliance with all "minimum
Standards of the Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development Act
of 1979". Assist in conducting an assessment of the needs of
youth every five years and to assist in~developing an annual
Delinquency Prevention Plan, further to participate in evaluating
the implementation of the plan and making a report thereon to the
Board of Supervisors. Provide a public forum where concerns
about youth may be expressed and to receive recommendations and
raise concerns of public and private organizations at any regular
advisory board meeting upon proper notice. Advocates necessary
legislative amendments to improve community conditions for youth
development and to support the development of needed services
both public and private for youth in the community.
C. MEETING SCHEDULE:
One a quarter, the third Tuesday, beginning January; time
and place determined at meetings.
,,;~•
FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION
A. COMPOSITION
Commission to consist of five (5) representatives of
Roanoke County based on population, three representatives who
shall be elected members of the governing bodies, and two members
who shall be non-elected citizens. The term of office shall be
three years.
One of the members shall also serve on the Executive
Committee.
The Fifth Planning District Commission represents
participating local governments included in the geographic area
.delineated by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The commission is
composed of 21 elected and citizen representatives of the
participating jurisdictions.
B. DUTIES
The purpose of the commission as defined by the Virginia
Area Development Act is "...to promote orderly and efficient
development of the physical, social and economic elements of the
District by planning, encouraging and assisting governmental
subdivisions to plan for the future."
The general management program category provides the
basic organization and management of commission activities and
routine administrative functions. Because general management
supports the entire operation of the commission's work program,
costs allocated to the program activity are generally considered
as administrative or indirect costs and charged to other program
categories in accordance with the Commission's Cost Allocation
Plan .
C. MEETING SCHEDULE
Fourth Thursday of each month; held in Commission
Conference Room, at 3:00 p.m. (time subject to change.)
~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~ 7~
145 W. CAMPBELL AVENUE P. O. BOX 2569 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24010
(703)343-4417
May 16, 1988
Ms. Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
P.O. Box 29800
Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798
Dear Ms. Allen:
.~ ...
G
3
According to our record of appointments, the term of Mr. Lee B. Eddy,
non-elected representative of Roanoke County on the Fifth Planning District
Commission and Executive Committee, expires June 30, 1988. The Commission
Bylaws state that all appointments are for three-year terms. Mr. Eddy is, of
course, eligible for reappointment.
Please notify the Commission of Roanoke County's official action in filling this
upcoming vacancy on the Commission and Executive Committee. Thank you.
Yours truly,
w ~ ~ . s.-~
Wayne G. Strickland
Secretary to the Commission
WGS/pdp
cc: Mr. Lee B. Eddy
Mr. Harry A. Walton, Jr. , SPDC Chairman
Alleghany County - Botetourt County -Craig County -Roanoke County
City of Clifton Forge -City of Covington City of Roanoke -City of Salem -Town o1 Vinton
- ~/
PARRS & RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION
A.
COMPOSITION: (Resolution 85-151.N, September 10, 1985)
To be composed of two (2) members from each magisterial
district and one (1) member at large from the County. All
members to be appointed by the Board of Supervisors.
Original terms shall be staggared. Upon expiration of
their original terms, each succeeding term-shall be for three (3)
years, expiring on June 30th.
B. DUTIES:
The Commission shall serve as the advisory body to the
Director of Parks and Recreation of Roanoke County.; the
Commission shall suggest policies to the County Administrator and
the Board of Supervisors through the Director of Parks and
Recreation, within its powers and responsibilities as stated in
this resolution. The Commission shall serve as a liaison between
the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Board of Supervisors,
and the citizens of the community. The Commission will work
through the Parks and Recreation staff on all related matters.
The Commission shall consult with and advise recreation policies,
programs, personnel, finances, and the need for acquiring and
disposing of lands and properties related to the total community
recreation program, and to its long-range, projected program for
recreation.
The Commission shall assume duties for the recreation
purposes as follows: Make recommendations (1) for the
establishment of a system of supervised recreation for the
County; (2) to set apart for use as parks, playgrounds,
recreation centers, water areas, or other recreation areas and
structures, any lands or buildings owned by or leased to the
County and for approval by the Board of Supervisors and may
suggest improvements of such lands and for the construction and
for the equipping and staffing of such buildings and structures
as may be necessary to the recreation program within those funds
allocated; (3) and advise in the acceptance by the County of any
grant, gift, bequest or donation, any personal or real property
offered or made available for recreation purposes and which it
judges to be of present or possible future use or recreation.
Any gift, bequest of money or other property, any grant, devise
of real or personal property so acquired shall be held, by the
County, used and finally disposed of in accordance with the terms
under which such grant, gift or devise is made and accepted; (4)
and advise in the construction, equipping, operation and
maintenance of parks, playgrounds, recreation centers and all
buildings and structures necessary or useful to the Department
function, and will advise in regard to other recreation
facilities which are owned or controlled by the unit or leased or
loaned to the unit.
ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
A. COMPOSITION:
(Summarized from State Code 15.1-437)~~
To consist of not less than five (5),nor more than fifteen
(15) members, appointed by the Board of Supervisors; all shall be
residents of the county or municipality, qualified by knowledge
and experience to make decisions on questions of community growth
and development. One members may be a member of the governing.
body, and one may be a member of the administrative branch.
B. DUTIES:
To exercise general supervision of, and make regulations
for the administration of its affairs; Prescribe rules
pertaining to its investigations and hearings; Supervise its
fiscal affairs and responsibilities, under rules and regulations
C prescribed by the governing body; Keep a complete record of its
proceedings and be responsible for the custody and preservation
of its papers and documents; Make recommendations and an annual
report to the governing body concerning the operation of the
commission and the status of planning within its jurisdiction;
Prepare, publish and distribute reports, ordinances and other
material relating to its activites; Prepare and submit an annual
budget in the manner prescribed by the governing body of the
county; If deemed advisable, establish an advisory committee or
committees .
C. MEETING SCHEDULE:
Third Tuesday of each month at 7:30 p.m., Roanoke County
Administration Center.
May 17, 1988
-.`
f
~~
MAY ~.7 19~~
-'111 ht!~ ~~ -
Mr. Waylon Winstead, Chairman ~~~;,~~,;~~ ;_•~, -~-~ .;f5
Roanoke County Planning Commission (~_•::,;;~ ~~•
3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W. -
Roanoke, Virginia ~ - 5
- Dear Waylon: -
' This is formal notice to you that as of June 6, 1988, I will be a resident
of the Town of Vinton; therefore, I must tender my zegistration to the
Roanoke County Planning Commission effective the 1st of June.
I have enjoyed my time bn the Commission and feel that the County has
made great progress and is moving in the right direction for all
its citizens.
I wish to thank the County Planning Staff for alI its hard work and long
hours and to the other Commissioners my heartfelt thanks for their con-
sideration and cooperation on planning decisions for my district of
Hollins.
Sincerely,
~~ ~~
Mrs. Carolyn J. Flippen
Hollins District Representative
. , - ~.
~~~
ROANOKE VALLEY REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD
A. COMPOSITION -
(Summarized from Contract of July 29 ,` 1975)
The Board makeup shall consist of six (6) members; two
(2)members from the County; three (3) members from Roanoke City
and one (1) member from the Town of Vinton; to serve four year
terms; appointed or elected by the respective governing bodies,
none of whom shall be elected officials of the political
subdivision.
The local governing body within whose jurisdiction the
facilities are located shall be authorized to appoint one
additional ex-officio member, who may or may not be a member of
such governing body, nor shall be entitled to a vote.
At intervals of five years the composition and size shall
be redetermined and there shall be one member from each political
subdivision owning an interest in the real estate used as a
landfill, but at no time shall the Board consist of more than
eleven (11) members excluding the ex-officio member.
B. DUTIES
The Board shall administer the operation of a regional
landfill and make policy. The Board shall hire or employ all
persons necessary to operate the landfill; all employees shall
be under direct control of the Board for all matters except for
the payment of wages, salaries, workmen's compensation benefits
and other fringe benefits which shall be contracted. The Board
shall have the responsibility of purchasing all supplies,
materials and equipment necessary for the proper operation of the
landfill.
C. MEETING SCHEDULE
Second Wednesday of each month at 8:30 a.m.;held at the
Sewage Treatment Plant Conference Room.
~: ~ .,
Howard R. Keister, Jr.
442$ Fontaine Dr. S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 240 i8
D
~ ~
~~
~ / ~ .-fie ~ ~^~-~ ~~
~ ~
~°~
~ ~ ~
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~-
//~~ ~-- ~/A~ Q
~~
~ ~~ s~~ ~
~~ ~~~~z
~ ~~~~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1988
RESOLUTION N0. APPROVING AND
CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH
ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA
FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I -
CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That that certain section of the agenda of the
Board of Supervisors for June 28, 1988, designated as Item I -
Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to
each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 5, inclusive, as follows:
1. Confirmation of committee appointments to the
Industrial Development Authority, the Planning
Commission, the Social Services Board, and the
Regional Solid Waste Management Board.
2. Acceptance of water and sewer facilities serving
Buckland Forest, Section 4.
3. Acceptance of water and sewer facilities serving
Canterbury Park, Section 2.
4. Resolution of Support for the rerouting of the
Cardinal New York to Chicago AMTRACK passenger
train through the Roanoke Valley.
5. Acceptance of 0.06 miles of Sutherland Circle into
the Secondary System by the Va. Department of
Transportation.
2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized
and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said
items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to
this resolution.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1988
RESOLUTION N0. 62888-10 APPROVING AND
CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH
ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA
FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I -
CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That that certain section of the agenda of the
Board of Supervisors for June 28, 1988, designated as Item I -
Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to
each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 5, inclusive, as follows:
1. Confirmation of committee appointments to the
Industrial Development Authority, the Planning
Commission, the Social Services Board, and the
Regional Solid Waste Management Board.
2. Acceptance of water and sewer facilities serving
Buckland Forest, Section 4.
3. Acceptance of water and sewer facilities serving
Canterbury Park, Section 2.
4. Resolution of Support for the rerouting of the
Cardinal New York to Chicago AMTRACK passenger
train through the Roanoke Valley.
5. Acceptance of 0.06 miles of Sutherland Circle into
the Secondary System by the Va. Department of
Transportation.
2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized
and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said
items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to
this resolution.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor
Johnson, and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Robers
A COPY TESTS:
~~C %~2_..~ ~v .
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
6/30/88
CC: File
Phillip Henry, Director of Engineering
Clifford Craig, Director of Utilities
John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator
A-62888-10.a
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE June 28, 1988
SUBJECT: Confirmation of Committee Appointments
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS•
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The following nominations were made at the previous board meeting
and must now be confirmed by the Board of Supervisors. The
nominee has agreed to serve.
Industrial Development Authority
Charles Saul has been nominated by Supervisor Robers to serve a
another four-year term. The term will expire on September 26,
1991.
Planning Commission
A. Kyle Robinson has been nominated by Supervisor Nickens to
serve the unexpired four-year term of J. R. Jones representing
the Vinton Magisterial District. His term will expire December
31, 1990.
Social Services Board
Betty Jo Anthony has been nominated by Supervisor Garrett to
serve another four-year term. Her term will expire July 19,
1990.
Regional Solid Waste Management Board
Mikeiel T. Wimmer has been nominated by Supervisor McGraw to
serve a four-year term. Her term will expire on July 31, 1992.
SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY:
~~~
Mary H. Allen
Deputy Clerk
~~~1~
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE AbsE
Approved (x) Motion by: Harrv C. Nickens/Bob Yes No Abs
Denied ( ) L. Johnson to approve Garrett x
Received ( ) Johnson x
Referred McGraw x
To• Nickens x
Robers x
cc: File
Industrial Development Authority File
Planning Commission File
Social Services Board File
Regional Solid Waste Management Board File
r
A-62888-10.b
ITEM NUMBER ~ -
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 28, 1988
SUBJECT: Acceptance of water and sewer facilities serving
Buckland Forest, Section 4
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The developer of Buckland Forest, Section 4, Buckland, Ltd.,
has requested that Roanoke County accept the deed conveying the
water and sewer lines serving the subdivision along with all
necessary easements.
The water and sewer lines are installed as shown on
Engineering plans prepared by Matterrn & Craig entitled Buckland
Forest, Section Number 4, dated May 22, 1985, which are on file
in the Engineering Department. The water and sewer line
construction meets the specifications and the plans approved
by the County.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The values of the water and sewer construction are $37,146
and $93,798, respectively.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept
the water and sewer facilities serving the subdivision along with
all necessary easements, and authorize the County Administrator
to execute a Deed for the transfer of these facilities.
SUBMITTED BY:
'/'~
Phillip Henry, .E.
Director of Engineers
APPROVED:
~~~
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
~_""
------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE Absent
Approved fX) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens/ Bob No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) L. Johnson to approve Garrett x
Received ( ) Johnson x
Referred McGraw x
To Nickens x
Robers x
cc: File
Phillip Henry
John Hubbard
Cliff Craig
Diane Hyatt
2
a
~'
NORTH
Acceptance of Buckland Forest, Section 4
COMMUNITY SERVICES
& DEVELOPMENT 3
~,
A-62888-10.c
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 28, 1988
SUBJECT: Acceptance of water and sewer facilities serving
Canterbury Park, Section 2
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Developers of Canterbury Park, Section 2, Boone, Boone &
Loeb, Inc., have requested that Roanoke County accept the Deed
conveying the water and sewer lines serving the subdivision along
with all necessary easements.
The water and sewer lines are installed, as shown on plans
prepared by Buford Lumsden & Associates entitled Section No. 2,
Canterbury Park, Development Plans, dated July 30, 1985, which
are on file in the Engineering Department. The water and sewer
line construction meets the specifications and the plans approved
by the County.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The values of the water and sewer construction are $54,490 and
$139,145, respectively.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the
water and sewer facilities serving the subdivision along with all
necessary easements, and authorize the County Administrator to
execute a Deed for the transfer of these facilities.
SUBMITTED BY:
~~~:.~~
Phillip Henry, .E.
Director of Engineering
APPROVED:
~~~
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
i •
t
ACTION VOTE Absent
Approved (x) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens/ Bob No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) L. Johnson to approve Garrett ~
Received ( ) Johnson .~
Referred McGraw _~
To Nickens _~~
Robers ~_
cc: File
Phil Henry
John Hubbard
Cliff Craig
Diane Hyatt
2
~~ _
a cx~
s '~P. v ~y~\~ f
$ t.OQF f111
a ~' 1
po ~~.. \
4 ~ /
o~
ON FARMS, `, ~
'o~
~~lv1 ~j~ \
_1~.
HOM(vf
.~.. ~~ ~~
P/W~\ ~~1, p.
jp,,~~ ('~~ ~,M.
)N HILL \' ~
,vomNr~ 419
~, ~~ cwcsluJ
_~ u..o«
o ' 770
9
~O~ifdt7l ~'.
~_
~.
--L - ,~
NORTH
Acceptance of water and sewer
COMMUNITY SERVICES Canterbury Park, Section 2
& DEVELOPMENT 3
ACTION NUMBER
ITEM NUMBE~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 28, 1988
AGENDA ITEM: Resolution of Support for the rerouting of the
Cardinal New York to Chicago AMTRACK passenger
train
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
At the June 14, 1988 meeting, the Salem/Roanoke County Chamber of
Commerce presented to the Board of Supervisors a resolution
requesting support for the rerouting of one of AMTRACK's
passenger trains through the Roanoke Valley. This train serves
the Chicago to New York areas.
At that meeting the board members expressed their support of this
action and requested that a resolution of support be placed on
the agenda for this meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached
prepared resolution, and that copies of this resolution be sent
to the appropriate AMTRACK officials and other Roanoke Valley
governments urging their support.
SUBMITTED BY:
Mary H. A len
Deputy Clerk
APPROVED BY:
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
..L.-
y
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
TO:
ACTION
Motion by: _
VOTE
Yes No Abs
Garrett
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
r-
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
SALEP~4/ROANOKE COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE HELD .ON THE
6th DAY OF JUNE 1988
WHEREAS., the Salem/Roanoke County Chamber of Commerce
is vitally interested in the transportation system serving the
Roanoke Valley and Western Virginia; and
WHEREAS, we believe that passenger train service is
a necessary element of any first class transportation network;
and
WHEREAS, there is a possibility that AMTRAK may change
the route of one of its passenger trains serving the Chicago -
New York areas to include a train through the Roanoke Valley;
and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley is the financial, cultural,
medical and transportation center for a large portion of
Western Virginia and Southern West Virginia, including the
Appalachia Region;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Salem/
Roanoke County Chamber of Commerce urge that the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK) seriously consider
rerouting its Cardinal, New York - Chicago passenger train
through the Roanoke Valley in order to serve the citizens of
the region.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chamber urges that
the Salem City Council and the Roanoke County Board of Super-
visors adopt similar resolutions to promote this cause.
Adopted on unanimous voice vote:
~, ~^
.C ~ ,< ~ ~
irley Lay President
.z- y
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY , VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1988
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT AMTRACK REROUTE THE
CARDINAL CHICAGO TO NEW YORK PASSENGER TRAIN
THROUGH THE ROANOKE VALLEY
WHEREAS, on June 14, 1988, the Salem/Roanoke County
Chamber of Commerce appeared before the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors requesting support for the rerouting of the Cardinal
Chicago to New York passenger train through the Roanoke Valley,
and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia endorsed this change in the AMTRACK system, and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley is the financial, cultural,
medical and transportation center for a large portion of Western
Virginia and Southern West Virginia, and passenger train service
is a necessary element of any transportation network.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia that copies of this resolution be sent
to the appropriate officials at the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation (AMTRACK) urging them to consider rerouting its
Cardinal, New York to Chicago passenger train through the Roanoke
valley, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution
also be sent to other Roanoke Valley localities requesting their
support for this cause.
o~ ROANp~.~
~ '~ ~
Z
J a
~ $ ~ E50 $$
SFSQUICENTENN~P~
A Bcauti~ul Beginning
C~n~tn~~ ~~ ~nttrtvk~e
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE June 30, 1988
Mr. Wick Leatherwood
Manager, State and Local Services
AMTRACK
400 N. Capitol Street N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20001
Dear Mr. Leatherwood:
LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
E30B L. JOHNSON
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
STEVEN A. MCGRAW
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS
VIN TON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 62888-10.d concerning
support for the rerouting of the Cardinal New York to Chicago
AMTRACK passenger train through the Roanoke Valley. This
resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their
meeting on June 28, 1988.
If you need further information, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
~`~`
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Attachment
CC: Salem/Roanoke County Chamber of Commerce
Roanoke Valley Chamber of Commerce
City Clerk, Roanoke City Council
Town Clerk, Vinton Town Council
City Clerk, City of Salem
Clifford Black, AMTRACK Governmental Affairs
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004
O~ POANpkF
~ F
~. A
Z
°a ._~ a
18 8 r .E50 88
S~SQVICENTENN~P~
A Beauti~ul Be~innin~
C~n~tnt~ of ~vttnn~e
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HO~e 3O, 1988
Mr. B. W. Sumpter, District Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
P. 0. Box 3071
Salem, Virginia 24153
Dear Mr. Sumpter:
LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
BOB L. JOHNSON
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
STEVEN A. MCGRAW
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 62888-4 concerning a
request to the Virginia Department of Transportation for a change
to a highway marker on Route 221. This resolution was adopted by
the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on June 28, 1988.
If you need further information, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
~/
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Attachment
CC: Mr. Boyd Overstreet, President, Bent Mountain Civic League
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY , VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1988
RESOLUTION 628$$-10.d REQUESTING THAT AMTRACK
REROUTE THE CARDINAL CHICAGO TO NEW YORK
PASSENGER TRAIN THROUGH THE ROANOKE VALLEY
WHEREAS, on June 14, 1988, the Salem/Roanoke County
Chamber of Commerce appeared before the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors requesting support for the rerouting of the Cardinal
Chicago to New York passenger train through the Roanoke Valley,
and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia endorsed this change in the AMTRACK system, and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley is the financial, cultural,
medical and transportation center for a large portion of Western
Virginia and Southern West Virginia, and passenger train service
is a necessary element of any transportation network.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia that copies of this resolution be sent
to the appropriate officials at the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation (AMTRACK) urging them to consider rerouting its
Cardinal, New York to Chicago passenger train through the Roanoke
valley, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution
also be sent to other Roanoke Valley localities requesting their
support for this cause.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor
Johnson, and upon the following recorded vote:
1
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Robers
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
6/30/88
CC: File
Salem/Roanoke County Chamber of Commerce
Roanoke Valley Chamber of Commerce
Clifford Black, AMTRACK Governmental Affairs
Wick Leatherwood, Manager, State and Local Services
AMTRACK
Clerk, Roanoke City Council
Clerk, Salem City Council
Clerk, Vinton Town Council
ACTION N0. A-62888-10.e
ITEM NUMBER "'
AT A REGULARAMHELDNATOTHEHROANOKE oOUNTYEADMINISTRATI0N0ENTER
COUNTY, VIRGINI
MEETING DATE: June 28, 1988
AGENDA ITEM: Acknowledgment from Va. Department of
Transportation of additions to the Secondary System
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The following additions to the Secondary System have been
approved by the Va. Department of Transportation effective June
$, 1988
0.06 miles of Route 1192 (Sutherland Circle) from Route 1190 to a
north cul-de-sac.
SUBMITTED BY:
~~ .~
Mary H. Allen
Deputy Clerk
APPROVED BY:
~ G~
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
-------------
--------------------ACTION --- VOTE
Abse~
~rkanG/Bob L. YeS NO Abs
Approved (x) Motion by: Harrv C N' - x
Garrett _~
Denied ( ) Johnson
Received ( ) _~
McGraw ~_
Referred Nickens
-~-
To• Robers
cc: File
Phil Henry
Arnold Covey
., ~~
,~
c~ ~ G'-R~o ~I~.~,~
r-s
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219
RAY D.PETHTEL
COMMISSIONER
June 8, 1988
Secondary System
Additions
Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors
County of Roanoke
P.O. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018
Members of the Board:
OSCAR K. MABRY
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
As requested in your resolution dated August 11, 1988,
the following addition to the Secondary System of Roanoke
County is hereby approved, effective June 8, 1988.
TnnTTT(l>\T
LENGTH
CAMPBELL HILLS - Section 3
Route 1192 (Sutherland Circle) - From Route 0.06 Mi.
1190 to a north cul-de-sac.
Sincerely, T~~
~~~1 ry /
Oscar K. Mabry
Deputy Commissioner
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 S"I" CENTURY
`~ P P E A R A N C E R E Q U E S T
PUBLIC HEARING ON ~ .e..u
r~~,~•c.~-~, ~ s
0
I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to
recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter so
that I may comment. I agree to follow the
guidelines listed
below. WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM, I
WILL GIVE MY NAME AND
ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
1• Each speaker will have between three and five minutes
available whether speaking as an individual or
representative. The chairrnan will decide the time limit
based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and
will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majorit of
the Board to do otherwise. y
2- Speakers will be limited to a
view only. Questions of claripicationtman of their point of
the Chairman, y be entertained by
3• All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate b
a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowedeen
4. Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtes
times, y at all
5- Speakers are requested to leave an
and/or comments with the clerk, y written statements
6• INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED GROUP
FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP HALL
ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM.
P L E A S E W R I T E L E G I B L Y
NAME : ~ p n ~~
2 Y j Y1 '~O Yl
ADDRESS : ~~• O , ~jp~ ~ ~
PHONE : G ~ Z ` 3 ~4 d
PLEASE NOTE: (After fillin
Clerk, g out, give to the Deputy
Thank you.)
y,J - C~
A P P E A R A N C E R E Q U E S T ~~
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - \ v
~; ~~
PUBLIC HEARING ON ~~ ~~r'
I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to
recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter so
that I may comment. I agree to follow the guidelines listed
below. WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND
ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
1. Each speaker will have between three and five minutes
available whether speaking as an individual or
representative. The chairman will decide the time limit
based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and
will enforce. the rule unless instructed by the majority of
the Board to do otherwise.
2. Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of
view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by
the Chairman.
3. All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between
a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed.
4. Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all
times .
5. Speakers are requested to leave any written statements
and/or comments with the clerk.
6. INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL
FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP
ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM.
P L E A S E W R I T E
NAME : ~ ~/;~ ' I~ . , i ~ ~ ) ,,
L E G I B L Y
~~~' ;
~ ~ w, E~ HA ~~ tJ~ ~
you ref2-~s- fi ~~~y~"
ADDRESS : `'~; ~rjF.: ) p J~ `) 1'Y~' ~ ~ ~
PHONE:
PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy
Clerk. Thank you.)
.~'--/
£Gi1MTY ~ iiDANGKf
-~OF-EXPEt~i1'ft1RE
---
' ~
fi.EVEft }fCJ$'fi45 Qt~3 ~Y 3i, i~3$$
~~ 2
3
a __ - __ _ ~ __-- --
(~ S
s
~EkflL ADISItiiSfRATiOrt
t i4 ,'2 ~
i
~
e 13i1 f1F
C€3~E3Y fiDllitiFa~fRATi3fl ib$, bJ'`$
5 i 4'~, 3b5
i$3 477 ~
,~,
>a 3£L
' (3
2GO, i
12b, 423 ~
i ib, 2i~}
, o
„ Rfif~lEY
tL1UtiY A
fAliMl~Ii~R i3F f~EVEi~IE 44$, 704 42$, 4$3
'
'fe
;{~~ 574,542 2
530 b3
12
a'ESfl4iiCi~i'iEtiftlAE. !
f 05, i 4$ ~
;t
t a
,a
s
~ipE$Iit{~iDEIFT t~ fi9CPi_ ~MFiiT $~ b.~
, i0b, b42 i32
~
~~ „ CCrE~1TY fi<s9E95Yift 603,b40 503, i3$
,e
19
~
~f3,0i3
i~,~
~
~t 20 ~~
136ElE.i~f i I~ ~ $i,~ 7~f1A32 V ~
~ 2, s
22
~' ~ ~it:ifL RDIfiNis~"3i~TiDi
( 2a
~
z6
flE. 43~I~ ~
~
25~Ob0
'~i~ ~
!
5+~~
~b7 ~~~
~
x 4$ #
~
~ ' ~ ::.
;: .,.~'. ~ 27
~
F~..~ {~ ~iRti3i'i (~E3RT 470,0$2 4IO,~i9
5
` ~
'~0
29 ~-TH~S RTfffRNEY 2$4,105 ,,47
25`
3U
ViCii14 itITiJESS
!
,
;~. ~>.
(~ 32 ~ ~_ ;
33
34
iCFH6 d iNVES"FI$#iING
Pfii 3$65 I'33
+ 4 3, 47b, 5$4 '~
3s .
#iii~itdi4Y ~FETY CiM~EFb5i0N 960
36
~~~ 3}
!
, ,
.,
38
i~ SEti4'1£ES d 3i~3T fi~f7 RED
°34,717 y
~-,
3s
ao
-'~}iri-~L CflN'fAfJL ,i , f
i4i,~f3 , ,
123, 204
$7
~ , a,
~a2
._. ~43. D
lYif$dllEtif OF iii f#'•Ii..t?ifb
6E3
P
E
rt
i~ 7J 212
an
i i t
~
e~
~
~. E,I~'ST~J ~ J7,ii7
t- ~
i 4e'
'a,
E<tlitiyihiii d BROEA6D5
' $b$,4$i
~ii
9`,13 b74,5i4
$it5,{~65 7$
~
fiGFi
~f~9 d i~CRE1 , __
,4s
_ a
T~I.iBt.iC Ti~f3SfCtRTi~f it]t3
' ~
~'!
^s83
$73 4b,fJi
793,549 ~
_ ray
~
fEt~ttCE
BRtiitdif~s I~Riti , _
s , ~
C_ 2•.~_
_..._ -- .__..__.___ ~___--
~ ~53
1
54~
_
-.-_. ______.__-
i
.
'I ___--.___-
6~
`K .~.
_._..___.__
~~
f -_.
C.( 41 ~rf~
42 3~~~ ~~ ~~~7 .l~~J~1~s~=!6 ~J~J~4~~
43
~ ~~
47
~'
48
4fl
l ~ SO ~ :..
S1
32
~ 53
54
55
56
`. ~
~ ~ r ( ( t ( {
r r ( ( _______
• yy yy yy yy y y yy yyt~ N~y NN ~~uy ~[,!1~ ~N1 O O O J O p A W N C Y m J 0 V A W N
J ~ u+ ~ Y N ~ O O O J P p • W N~ p 0 0 V P U =_W M N N._
-1
~~ ~~
~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~m~~~ ~~
~ ~~~ ~ M
JryR ~ ~ ~ m
0
~~
~_
n N
y ~~ V cN ~~ a ~ r ~ r
~ a ~' a ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~a ~~ ~~ ~~
~.i'a++~ rocs ~ ~'~
y.x.j' ~~ ~~ ~~ u~ ~~ a~ ~w ~
ra ..' ~
~ roN
.;~ ~^ ,. O w fV
1t..
~~ 5~ ~
o~ ~
oa ~~ ~~ '~~ ova ~~ ~~+ ~a ~~
o _p
I I 4 ~J v .J ~ Qt ~ N ~ N Gn Oi +J i QW ~ i _~_
O M. .N W a ~ i
~~ ~~ ~~+~o ~~ ~~ ~~ ~
a ~ ~a ~~ ~ M
_ I
~~d; ~~ ~~
a e o ~
~~ _ p~`
~,.
v e u • U N~
~_
Q
B
O
~Q
3
Q
a
yy yy y N N ~u ~~ n- J O 1~ T
O b= P Y_! U N u _. ". _._ - _
~ G_ C ., a_C~ _ _._ ~
I
~ i
~ ~~ ~~ 8~ ~~ ~6 1~~~~A
~ ~
~~ ~ ~ Q~ ~~ ~~ = ~ N~ ~
~ p ~ ~~ ~ a
,~ ~ ~~ ~~
~ ' ~ ~., ~
'. ~ N
t~
M
r ' ,
` J ~v N W ~
r ~ _k 8Y ~~r ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~M ~~
~' J
d.'Se+ +aWWWQ +p~~+~+ ~Cqp Oa +O ~p~q~ ~ ~ ~ Yom. ~" ~ m `~ .. ~n ~cp~~ (W,) U _~.
1.!~T~ W + ~j ~ N ~ r W a0 O ~ t OM W ~ 41 ~ a0 O~ O~
~ r
nr ry is „ ~ y~~ ` ~.
~o : i_: c w rv c
~i
,K
p J ~ W ~~ ~ 00 C ~~ m W ~ m O
... O' ~':. ~,
: N
25 .., •. w
;~ p I ` W ~ i +Ob! +/ ~ O~ ~ rv f_h fli ~ GF 6i t. J i u~i V ; µ
o I c
~ ~ ^ _ ry~1 ui a i r C1
y _ _ ~- ~~I ~
pp.. ~y _{
'~ `~ ~ ~ i + T J ~ Q Oa J O'~ mn ~ c~ Q C
~ ~+ ~ ~r
~ I
-Il
7y
N
` ' - -~G .
COUN`T'Y OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
CAPITAL FUND - UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE
Beginning Balance at July 1
1987
,
July 14, 1987 Sale of Courthouse Revenues Reclassified
from General Fund to Capital Fund
August 25, 1987 Sale of Mountain View Technological Park
Tract
October 13, 1987 Net Proceeds from VDOT for Easement in
Front of Vinton Library
March 8, 1988 Renovations to Public Safety Building
May 18, 1988 Survey Work Related to Old Courthouse
(Approved Administratively)
May 18, 1988 Screening for Mountain View Technological
Park (Approved Administratively)
Balance as of June 28, 1988
Submitted by
Diane D. Hyatt
Director of Finance
$ -0-
25,000
107,207
6,180
(130,000)
(4,350)
(2,400)
1 637
~~
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE - GENERAL FUND
Unaudited Amount at July 1, 1987 $1,010,687
June 23, 1987 Additional Revenues from Septic Tank Fees 29,000
July 14, 1987 Reappropriate Revenues from Sale of (25,000)
Courthouse (Memo: An Additional
$150,000 for Sale of Land is budgeted
as General Fund Revenues, but will not
be Realized by General Fund) (42,793)*
July 28, 1987 Revise Budget for Victim/Witness Grant (1,000)
August 11, 1987 Storm Sewer Construction - Ogden Road (10,200)
*August 25, 1987 Sale of Mountain View Technological Park
Tract Reclassified to Capital Fund (107,207)
October 27, 1987 Completion of Starkey Park (67,010)
December 1, 1987 Valleypointe (198,937)
December 15, 1987 Excess Revenues over Expenditures as
Presented in the Audit Report for the
Year Ended June 30, 1987 1,052,806
January 12, 1988 Acquisition of Ida Mae Holland Estate (260,000)
Balance as of June 28, 1988 $1.380.346
The recommended level for fund balance for 1987-88 is $1,597,756, which
is 3 percent of the total General Fund budget.
Sunbmitted by
ICJ LG1v-.-+~L. ~ . ~~~
Diane D. Hyatt
Director of Finance
f-s'- y
COUI~TrY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGE~
1, 1987
Original Budget at July
$13,942
August 18, 1987 Regional Airport Expenses
roved Administratively)
(App
(3'772)
October 13, 1987 Valleypointe Project - Binder (1,000)
for Land Purchase
November 17, 1987 Land Acquisition Monies No Longer
ropriated
A
b 49,390
pp
e
Needed to
November 17, 1987 Purchase of 2 Vehicles
(19,233)
December 9, 1987 Purchase of Microwave
(Approved Administratively) (244)
88 Restoration of Courthouse Portraits
(8,350)
February 9, 19
(3,400)
May 10, 1988 Wellness Program
(11,500)
May 10, 1988
Meals Tax Expenses
May 24, 1988 Appraisal for Palmer Property
(4,250)
1988
24
Vinton Rescue Squad - 50th Anniversary
(3,000)
,
May
May 24, 1988 Information and Referral - Council of (1,500)
Community Services
June 22, 1988 Deposit on Real Estate Contract for
Palmer Property
(Approved p,~inistratively) (5,000)
$ 2,083
Balance as of June 28, 1988
Sulxnitted by
~ ~~ ~~
Diane D. Hyatt
Director of Finance
-5
SPECIAL REPORT
JUNE 28, 1988
From: Diane D. Hyatt, Director of Finance ~ c,Q,r,;~,
Subject: Calendar for Audit and Year End Work
The County Finance staff and our independent auditors, Peat Marwick Main
& Co., are beginning work on the year end closing for the County. Below is a
brief outline of the closing and audit calendar for the County.
June 20 - July 8 Interim audit work - Peat Marwick Main & Co., performs
transaction tests on revenue and expenditure programs
of the County. New systems are reviewed.
July 1 - Sept. 9 County Finance staff prepares summaries and workpapers
of activities during the year. Year end balances are
analyzed and confirmed. Revenue and expenditure
accruals are made.
Sept. 9 - Sept. 30 County Finance staff prepares Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report (CAFR).
Aug. 22 - Sept. 30 Peat Marwick Main & Co., reviews schedules prepared by
County staff, completes audit work, and reviews CAF'R.
Oct. 1 - Oct. 7 Special reports required by State are prepared.
Oct. 1 - Nov. 4 Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports are printed,
including the review of two drafts of the printers
documents.
Nov. 30, 1988 Deadline to submit CAFR and special reports to State.
Dec. 31, 1988 Deadline to submit CAFR for Award for Excellence in
Financial Reporting.
An audit committee meeting will be scheduled in the near future to
discuss any changes that Peat Marwick Main & Co., anticipates for this year's
audit, and to determine if the Committee members have any additional concerns
or .requests .
ITEM NUMBER ~ /
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 28, 1988
SUBJECT: Drainage/Flood Control Work Session
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Attached is the detailed report for the drainage/flood
control work session. The staff will be making a presentation to
the Board and will provide an overview of the report.
The work session will consist of:
1. Status of Corps of Engineers' Studies on Roanoke River
Tributaries,
2. Options for the Sun Valley/Palm Valley areas adjacent
to Carvin Creek,
3. Recommendations.
Please review the report and if you need additional
information, please contact Phillip Henry so that it can be made
available at the work session.
SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED:
~/L
Phillip T. Henry, P. Elmer C. Hodge "
Director of Engineering County Administrator
------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
To
Garrett
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
~--/
WORK SESSION: DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL OUTLINE
I. INTRODUCTION
II. UPDATE ON CORPS OF ENGINEERS' STUDIES
III. CARVIN CREEK
A. SUMMARY OF REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT WITHIN FLOOD-
PRONE AREAS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
B. CORPS OF ENGINEERS' REPORT TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
IN MAY, 1980
C. CORPS OF ENGINEERS' OPTIONS AND COSTS
D. BUYING HOUSES
E. IMPLICATIONS OF SUN VALLEY
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
V. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
WORK SESSION: DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL
I. INTRODUCTION
At their meeting of May 28, 1988, the Board of Supervisors
heard a report from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding
the status of several studies on tributary flooding in Roanoke
County. After hearing this report, the Board directed Staff to
research options that have been studied and discuss these options
with them at a work session scheduled for June 28, 1988.
Included in this report are a brief summary of the status of
the Corps of Engineers' studies in Roanoke County, specific
recommendations and related costs for the Sun Valley/Palm Valley
areas along Carvin Creek, a brief history of flood plain
regulations as related to Sun Valley and Palm Valley, general
implications of Board action, and discussion of a Storm Water
Management Plan for any future actions the Board would consider
related to drainage and flooding in Roanoke County.
2
II. UPDATE ON CORPS OF ENGINEERS' STUDIES
In November, 1985, the Board of Supervisors requested that
the U. S. Army Corps study certain tributaries to determine
feasibilities and costs of flood control measures and potential
Federal involvement. Listed below are updates on the status of
those studies:
Peters Creek:
Currently in the feasibility study stage, but at the present
time the project is at a standstill.
This project has no impact on Roanoke County.
Mason's Creek:
This project is funded for reconnaissance studies (100
Federal cost) and is scheduled to be complete in June of 1989.
Two options are currently being considered:
l.) a dry dam in the vicinity of the Mason's Cove area in
Roanoke County;
2.) levees at the trailer park near G.E, in the City of
Salem.
This project has potential impacts on Roanoke County from the
Mason's Cove area downstream to the Salem City limits.
Tinker Creek and Glade Creek:
Presently being studied along with Lick Run (in the City of
Roanoke) as one project, currently in the reconnaissance phase.
Tinker and Glade Creeks in the County will not be affected by
this study and therefore will have no impacts on Roanoke County.
3
Back Creek, Bowman Hollow, Paint Bank, Butt Hollow, Murray Run,
Mii.7 7. i n4 .
Not considered to have sufficient average annual damages to
justify Federal flood control measures. The Corps has concluded
that there is no further Federal interest in studying these
tributaries as a result of their September, 1986, Interim
Preliminary Report on Roanoke River Tributary Streams.
III. CARVIN CREEK
A. SUMMARY OF REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT WITHIN FLOOD-PRONE
AREAS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
In an effort to aid in the administration of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) initiated a Flood Insurance
Study on certain major tributaries in Roanoke County
with an effective date of October 17, 1978. The
purpose of the National Flood Insurance Program is to
encourage state and local governments to adopt sound
flood plain management programs in conjunction with the
administration of flood insurance by the Federal
Insurance Administration.
Currently, the enforcement of regulations relating
to development within flood plains is administered
through the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance with
specific reference to the Flood Insurance Study of 1978.
4
The Board of Supervisors enacted an amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance in August, 1987, which requires an
engineering analysis on any proposed development
adjacent to a watercourse that drains 100 acres or more.
In addition to this, the County has requested that FEMA
study areas of the County that are not currently
covered by the 1978 flood insurance study. Plans for
proposed subdivisions are now required to show
compliance with all flood plain regulations and steps
are taken to insure that houses are built where the 100
year flood plain will have little or nb adverse
impacts.
Prior to the 1978 Federal Insurance Study the only
restrictions for development within flood plain areas
appear to come from the Zoning Ordinance of February 1,
1970, which states that no development shall be
permitted in flood plain areas as designated by the
governing body except for agricultural and recreational
uses. However, the Zoning Ordinance makes no specific
reference to any specific flood plain maps where the
flood plain would be delineated. There was a flood
plain information report published in October, 1970, on
Tinker and Carvin Creeks prepared for the City of
Roanoke by the Corps of Engineers at the request of the
Roanoke Valley Regional Planning Commission. The
purpose of the report was to aid in the solution of
local flood problems and in the best utilization of
5
land subject to overflow. The following excerpt best
explains the intent of the report at that time:
"The report contains maps, profiles, and cross
sections which indicate the extent of flooding
that has been experienced and that which might
occur in the future in the vicinity of Roanoke.
This should prove helpful in planning the best use
of the flood plains. From the maps, profiles, and
cross sections, the depths of probable flooding,
either by recurrence of the largest known floods
or by occurrence of the Intermediate Regional or
Standard Project Flood at any location, may be
learned. With this information, flood levels for
buildings may be planned high enough to avoid
flood damage or, if at lower elevations, with
recognition of the chance and hazards of flooding
that are being taken.
The report does not include plans for the solution
of flood problems. Rather, it is intended to
provide the basis for future study and planning on
the part of the local governments in arriving at
solutions to minimize vulnerability to flood
'~ damages. This might involve local planning
programs to guide developments by controlling the
type of use made of the flood plain through zoning
and subdivision regulations, the construction of
flood protection works, or a combination of the
two approaches."
Prior to the February, 1970 Zoning Ordinance,
there is no record of regulations regarding development
within the flood plain.
The two subdivisions that are most affected in the
Sun Valley area are Sun Valley Section 2 (recorded in
1960) and Brookside Section 4 (recorded in 1969). The
review of these plans would have been done prior to the
adoption of the 1970 Zoning Ordinance and thus not
subject to any flood plain regulations. Of the
fourteen houses that were originally targeted by the
6
Corps for raising and evacuation, eleven were built
prior to 1970, and three were built in 1970, 1971, and
1972, respectively. The delineation of the flood plain
is now required on recorded subdivisions and flood
plain locations are reviewed as part of the building
permit application process.
B. CORPS OF ENGINEERS' REPORT TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
IN MAY, 1980
At the request of the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors, the Army Corps of Engineers made an
analysis of the flooding situation along Carvin Creek
that included a complete inventory of flood plain
development, an assessment of the magnitude of
flooding, and an identification of possible
flood-damage reduction measures.
After analysis of several damage-reduction
measures, such as a dry reservoir system, dikes,
channel improvements, flood proofing existing
structures, and evacuation of existing structures, only
three alternatives were considered economically
feasible:
1. floodproofing by raising 14 residential
structures at a cost of $410,000,
2. permanent evacuation of 10 residential
structures by relocation outside the flood
plain at a cost of $540,000,
3. raising the service road at Hollins College
to create a dike at a cost of $320,000 (this
alternative would not benefit the Sun
Valley/Palm Valley area).
7
It was noted in the report that the flood-damage-
reduction measures identified as feasible during this
study would not qualify for consideration under
existing Corps of Engineers' Flood Control Authority at
the time. The report stressed the fact that the impact
of flood damages could be lessened by the purchase of
Flood Insurance to cover damage to existing development.
It also mentioned that financial assistance might be
available from other Federal agencies such as the U. S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development and
possibly the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
C. CORPS OF ENGINEERS' OPTIONS AND COSTS
Initially studied by the Corps of Engineers in
1980 with several updates in 1987, the total cost of
the study to date is approximately $100,000, which is
all Federal money. Some of the options and associated
costs are listed below:
1. channelization at a cost of $4,400,000 (B/C
ratio=0.4);
2. stream diversion, diverting Carvin Creek to
Tinker Creek was not physically possible;
3. dry dams/detention at four sites at a cost of
$6,400,000 (B/C ratio=0.1);
4. dike/earthen levee costing $2,100,000 (B/C
ratio=0.8);
5. floodwalls:
a. sheet piles @ $2,700,000 (B/C ratio=0.6);
b. reinforced earth @ $3,600,000 (B/C
ratio=0.5);
8
c. anchored T-wall @ $2,900,000 (B/C
ratio=0.6);
d. masonry wall @ $2,500,000 (B/C
ratio=0.7).
The project cost would have to be lower than
$1,400,000 to obtain a benefit/cost ratio of 1.0, which
is the cutoff for any participation by the Corps of
Engineers.
D. BUYING HOUSES
The purchase of houses within the 100 year flood
plain in Sun Valley has been mentioned as a local
option, with no Federal participation in cost-sharing.
There appear to be three ways that the purchase of
flood-prone houses can be accomplished:
1. Purchase of houses for resale. This action
would not solve the problem of flooding and
could have serious implications in terms of
County liability.
2. Purchase of houses for relocation. The County
could purchase the houses and move them to
locations outside of the flood plain. Houses
could then be resold in an effort to recover
some of the initial costs.
3. Purchase of houses for demolition. The County
could purchase the houses with the intent of
razing or selling to a third party for removal
from the lot. The vacant land could then be
sold, dedicated as a storm water management
easement, or used as a park.
9
COST OF MOVING AND REBUILDING HOME
Item Cost
Purchase of existing house and lot $50,000
New lot 12,000
Moving contractor 13,000
New foundation/basement construction & utilities 13,000
Miscellaneous and contingency 4,000
Cost $92,000
Recoverable cost (resale of house on new lot)
@ 80$ of original value $40,000
Net cost $52,000
10
E. IMPLICATIONS OF SUN VALLEY
It is important to consider the impacts of any
action taken in the Sun Valley area in terms of the
effects on the entire County. While the Sun valley and
Palm Valley areas are among the worst in terms of flood
damages, there are many other areas in Roanoke County
that are subject to flooding. Recent reports from the
Corps show that there are 101 residential and
commercial structures that incur damages just within
the Carvin Creek Confluence Area. Further
investigation shows that there may be as many as 150
structures that could be moved and that the potential
cost could be as high as 12 million dollars.
Regardless of what action the Board might take,
consideration has to be given to the following: a)
what precedents are established? b) what are the
potential legal implications and liabilities? c) can
the requirements be administered equitably? d) what
financial commitments are implied? and e) is the
action in the best interest of the citizens of Roanoke
County?
11
* CARVIN CREEK CONFLUENCE AREA DAMAGES
Probability of Flood Damage Number of Location of
in Any Given Year
------------------------------- Structures
----------------- Structures
----------------
0.50 21 Sun Valley
0.25 16 Sun Valley
1 Greenway Drive
1 Darby Road
0.125 10 Sun Valley
1 Greenway Drive
0.10 1 Sun Valley
0.066 7 Sun Valley
3 Greenway Drive
0.05 8 Sun Valley
' 1 Greenway Drive
0.04 1 Sun Valley
0.033 3 Sun Valley
1 Greenway Drive
0.02 16 Sun Valley
1 Greenway Drive
6 Darby Road
0.01
------------------------------ 18
----------------- Sun Valley
-------------------
Total 101 Sun Valley
8 Greenway Drive
7 Darby Road
* Information furnished by Corps of Engineers.
12
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We see four options available to the Board with respect to
the Sun Valley/Palm Valley area:
1. No further action beyond the scope of what has been
completed by the Drainage Program.
2) Consider the possible purchase of houses with the intent
of demolition or relocation of the houses.
3) Develop a Storm Water Management Plan for the County
with the intent of addressing the problems similar to
Sun Valley/Palm Valley on a County-wide basis.
4) Proceed with one of the options studied by the Corps of
Engineers at 100 County cost.
Staff recommends option 3) because the advantages of having
,the Storm Water Management Plan are the identification of the '
scope and magnitude of flooding and drainage problems for the
entire County and the potential ability to fund corrections
either through developer contributions and/or the establishment
of a revenue-producing Drainage Utility.
13
V. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
The lack of management of runoff of storm water resulting
from development throughout a watershed increases flood flows and
velocities, contributes to erosion and sedimentation, overtaxes
the carrying capacity of streams and storm sewers, greatly
increases the cost of public facilities to carry and control
storm water, undermines flood plain management and flood control
efforts in downstream communities, reduces ground-water recharge,
and threatens public health and safety. A comprehensive program
of storm water management, including reasonable regulation of
development and activities causing accelerated runoff, is
fundamental to the public health, safety and welfare and the
protection of the people of Roanoke County, their resources and
the environment.
After adoption and approval of the watershed Storm Water
Management Plan, the location, design and construction within the
_ •watershed of storm water management systems, obstructions, flood
control projects, subdivisions and major land developments,
highways and transportation facilities, and facilities for the
provision of public utility services would be conducted in a
manner consistent with the watershed storm water plan. Storm
water regulations would be consistent with zoning, subdivision
and development, building code, and erosion and sedimentation
ordinances, as necessary to regulate the impacts of development
within the watershed.
The importance of the Storm Water Management Plan to Roanoke
County is the fact that a comprehensive plan is a prerequisite to
14
establishing developer contribution and a Storm Water Management
Utility under current requirements of the Commonwealth of
Virginia. Once the plan has been adopted, the groundwork is
established that allows the County to establish a Storm Water
Management Utility that could operate similarly to the current
Utility Department and become a revenue-producing, self-funded
entity. Maintenance and construction within the framework of the
Storm Water Management Plan could be tied to a user-fee concept
or other funding mechanism that would transfer•the economic
burden to the sources of storm water problems.
Good planning is the key to success in the area of Storm
Water Management. After an assessment of the problems, the
development of criteria and alternatives, and a determination of
financial obligations, a fiscal plan can be selected. The fiscal
plan could include any of the following: County funds, State
funds, Federal funds, sale of bonds, institution of developer
contributions, or (the establishment of a) self-funding drainage
utility. The answers to long term problems are proper planning
and the implementation of long term solutions.
15
X88- ~
i ~ _ ~ g'
~ ~ -- 3
A P P E A R A `N C ~ R E Q U E S T
PUBLIC HEARING ON .
I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to
recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter so
that I may comment. I agree to follow the guidelines listed
below. WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND
ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
1. Each speaker will have between three and five minutes
available whether speaking as an individual or
representative. The chairman will decide the time limit
based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and
will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of
the Board to do otherwise.
2. Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of
view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by
the Chairman.
3. All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between
a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed.
4. Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all
times .
5. Speakers are requested to leave any written statements
and/or comments with the clerk.
6. INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL
FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP
ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM.
P L E A S E W R I T E L E G I B L Y
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NAME : .~ . j'a ~'~°~f
ADDRESS : ~ - , , , ;~ ,µ, ~.. ~..
;^* •~
PHONE:
w ; ..
PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy
Clerk. Thank you.)
A P P E A R A 'N C E R E Q U E S T ~ S ~'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PUBLIC HEARING ON
I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to
recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter so
that I may comment. I agree to follow the guidelines listed
below. WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND
ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
1. Each speaker will have between three and five minutes
available whether speaking as an individual or
representative. The chairman will decide the time limit
based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and
will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of
the Board to do otherwise.
2. Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of
view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by
the Chairman.
3. All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between
a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed.
4. Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all
times .
5. Speakers are requested to leave any written statements
and/or comments with the clerk.
6. INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL
FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP
ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM.
P L E A S E W R I T E L E G I B L Y
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NAME:
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy
Clerk. Thank you.)
~~g'_ ~
A P P E A R A iQ C F. R E Q U E S T
PUBLIC HEARING ON - ~~ C--S-vJ1/ ~N ~`
I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to
recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter so
that I may comment. I agree to follow the guidelines listed
below. WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND
ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
1. Each speaker will have between three and five minutes
available whether speaking as an individual or
representative. The chairman will decide the time limit
based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and
will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of
the Board to do otherwise.
2. Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of
view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by
the Chairman.
3. All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between
a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed.
4. Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all
times .
5. Speakers are requested to leave any written statements
and/or comments with the clerk.
6. INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL
FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP
ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM.
P L E A S E W R I T E L E G I B L Y
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NAME: ~~~~~ ~ J ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~'
T
ADDRESS: 7~~d L-D/U~L~~~ f V~ ~ / V • ~'.
PHONE: ~~~ - )~~Z
PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy
Clerk. Thank you.)
~ ~t8-~
A P P E A R A N C E R E Q U E S T
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PUBLIC HEARING ON
.~ ,. ,
I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to
recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter so
that I may comment. I agree to follow the guidelines listed
below. WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND
ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
1. Each speaker will have between three and five minutes
available whether speaking as an individual or
representative. The chairman will decide the time limit
based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and
will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of
the Board to do otherwise.
2. Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of
view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by
the Chairman.
3. All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between
a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed.
4. Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all
times .
5. Speakers ar.e requested to leave any written statements
and/or comments with the clerk.
6. INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL
FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP
ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM.
P L E A S E W R I T E L E G I B L Y
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NAME:
ADDRESS: ~'
~_
i c'
y ~ .-~t~i
a
1 ~~ r~ t,,~--- ~~~:
~ G-'r'te-*-c~-~~ ~/ <'~'~.
,..
PHONE : ..~ ~-, ~, --- ~` ~ ~ ~'~' --~'
PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy
Clerk. Thank you.)
~ ~~-
A P P E A R A N C E R E Q U E S T
PUBLIC HEARING ON
_c nJ ~ c~J L-
~ rr~~~ ~ ~v~ ~r~
I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to
recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter so
that I may comment. I agree to follow the guidelines listed
below. WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND
ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
1. Each speaker will have between three and five minutes
available whether speaking as an individual or
representative. The chairman will decide the time limit
based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and
will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of
the Board to do otherwise.
2. Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of
view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by
the Chairman.
3. All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between
a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed.
4. Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all
times .
5. Speakers are requested to leave any written statements
and/or comments with the clerk.
6. INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL
FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP
ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM.
P L E A S E W R I T E L E G I B L Y
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NAME:
ADDRESS:
~ V~
S
R w L L-Z
PHONE : _ ~~(.~ ~ - ~~ ~}
PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy
Clerk. Thank you.)
~.
bar lw THE UNCEF~.~, I C~ftiII=D d
agreement for the rezoning of a
the irytersect ion of Peters Creek
fr>r the purpose of cor~struot inch
offic-,e bui Iding ory said pi°operty.
Ni-~9 E
~2~ ____.._.,_._
G~~-3
o hereby indicate our
parcel of land situate at
Road and 'JJoodhaven Gar i ve
a donut shop, Hop- I n anc!
.~IJ[3R E S 5
. ~ ~__
~._..~ ~a ~_i__..~.4_ wa------ --- ~,
--,
.:,, ,;
--
.~, ~.
x:1__1_-_. p.,,~~, ~_.._~~ ~~~~________
~` ~`
-~
~~
~~..__._e._._. _,__.-~~------~_~_..__.. __-_-_-___
f ~~~r~,r, ~ _
., ~,
~~__~- foL~-.~ ~~ yL~c. pry ~^
_.~.~,~.
``7D /~ ~ , `iU d~ ~ ~-f`
~~~~~ ~~~~.eZC~~~/lc/ _,.r.~e
.- <~ r
_~~`~
~~ ~ ~ ~
,~
~f p
._~
ly 4,~
1
M_ ~n .• ~._ t~.~:w
~kC,1~1'I~ti~ ~ - 1~ EU~
CHARLES H. OSTERHOUDT
MICHAEL S. FERGUSON
EDWARD A. NATT
MICHAEL J. AHERON
G~STEVEN AGEE
MARK D. KIDD
LAW OFFICES
OSTERHOUDT, FERGUSON, NATT, AHERON ~ AGEE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
1919 ELECTRIC ROAD. 5. W.
P. O. BOX 20068
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
24018-16~J9
June 24, 1988
Board of Supervisors
County of Roanoke
P. O. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018
Re: Chaparral Forest Associates
Gentlemen:
TELEPHONE
703-774-1197
This is to request a continuance in the above public
hearing until July 26, 1988. Following the Planning Commission
meeting, my client has undertaken additional studies on traffic
and density and, because of a variety of reasons, these studies
are not complete. We would like to have an opportunity to
complete them prior to the public hearing.
Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
Very truly yours,
OSTERHOUDT, FERGUSON, NATT,
AHERON 8 AGEE, P.C.
Edward A. Natt
EAN/pc
cc: John Langhammer
Fabricated Metals Industries, Inc.
P. O. Box 8336
Roanoke, VA 24014
Dan i e I V~J. Horner
Horner 6 Associates
110 W. Campbell Avenue
Roanoke, VA 24011
~~:.-~
C~O ~b -
PETITIONER: CHAPARRAL FOREST ASSOCIATES
CASE N[~IBER: 33-6/88
Planning Commission Hearing Date: June 7, 1988
Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: June 28, 1988
A. RD~UEST
Petition of Chaparral Forest Associates to rezone a 2.97 acre tract from R-l,
Residential to R-5, Residential to construct townhanes, located on the north side
of Chaparral Drive (Route 800) approximately 300 feet west of its intersection
with Beacon Drive in the Cave Spring Magisterial District.
B. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
There were 22 present in opposition to the request. Robert Turner voiced the
following concerns: increased traffic; minimal sight distance on Chaparral
Drive.
C. SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FACTORS
1. Comprehensive Plan: 1985 Comprehensive Development Plan has placed this area
within a Neighborhood Conservation land use category. This designation
discourages development of middle to high density residential (6-12 units per
acre). Proposed density of development is 7.4 units per acre.
2. Site Layout: Proffered concept plan violates the following County zoning
ordinance requirements: (1) minimum setback regulations; (2) minimum building
separation requirements; (3) minimum rear yard regulations; Other potential
site plan problems: (1) inadequate minimum travel lane width; (2) grade at
entrances approximates 5~; (3) inadequate turnaround area for emergency
vehicles. Proffered concept plan does not comply with exceptional site
planning techniques needed for attached residential development (policy
NC-8), nor does it avoid residential development having a significantly
higher density frcam that of adjacent developed parcels (policy NC-7).
3. Circulation: Proposed central parking area indicates a steep climb followed
by a sharp descent into west entrance and onto Chaparral Drive. East
entrance is similarly situated. Staff recommends maximum 5$ grade at
entrances/exits and minimum 24- foot travel lanes within project boundary.
D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS
1. Development will be in substantial conformity with the revised site plan
prepared by Horner & Assoc.
2. Building downspouts and pavement drainage to be discharged to a detention
facility.
3. Owner to design water system to meet minimum fire flaw requirements for R-5
zoned properties.
4. All existing natural vegetation shall be salvaged to maximum extent possible.
5. All exterior lighting shall be arranged so as to light only the subject
property and no interior light poles shall exceed 10 feet in height.
E. C'ANIl~~iISSIONER' S MOTION, VOTE AND .REASON
Don Witt moved to deny the petition with proffered conditions, stating the high
density of the project is not consistent with the Neighborhood Conservation
designation and the poor sight distance. The motion carried with the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Gordon, Jones, Witt, Winstead
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE
None.
G . ATTACHNIENTS
Concept Plan (8~" x 11")
Vicinity Map (8~" x 11")
Staff Report
Other:
Jon tley, Alter,(~ate Secretary
Roan County Planning CcHrnnission
- 2 -
~1--
E
- 3 -
u
z
a
o
e
~~
1.~~ <
i--r
~ W
S~ ~
5--~
Q
K
L__ IL >
~ (
V ~ ~ z.
Q
t
~~
W '~ .o
k
~
(~ ~~~
~
~
V~ ~
f ,.
„ ~~
D
~IADTLI
~~vn ~ ~~
- 4 -
A ~ ROANOKE COUNTY Chaparral Forest Associates
'Z~ i R-1 to R-5 .:
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT ,Tax Map ~~',87.10 =.03 - O1
1c
. :~
F:r~ ~ ~ ...p; _ .
. .,
^~v~n~~~ ntn~
~ 8~-`f
STAFF REPORT
CASE NUMBER: 33-6/88 PETITIONER: CHAPARRAL FOREST ASSOC.
REVIEWED BY: TIM BEARD DATE: JUNE 7, 1988
Petition of Chaparral Forest Associates to rezone a 2.97 acre tract from
R-l, Residential to R-5, Residential to construct townhomes, located on
the north side of Chaparral Drive (Route 800) approximately 300 feet
west of its intersection with Beacon Drive (Route 1540) in the Cave
Spring Magisterial District.
1. NATURE OF REQUEST
a. Conditional request to construct five buildings containing a
total of 22 units on individual lots.
b. Attached concept plan and vicinity map describe project more
fully.
2. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
a. R-5 District permits townhouse construction and units for sale.
Petitioner has proffered the concept plan indicating that five
buildings (three of which contain four units each and two of
which contain five units each) would be constructed within a
2.97 acre parcel.
b. Site plan review will be required to ensure compliance with
County regulations.
c. VDOT commercial entrance permits will be required.
3. SITE CHARACTERISTICS
a. Topography: Property slopes sharply downhill from southwest to
northeast and includes a centrally located ditch draining
northeastward.
b. Ground Cover: Densely wooded with deciduous trees and
undergrowth. Several tall evergreens dot the interior.
4. AREA CHARACTERISTICS
a. Future Growth Priority: Situated within the Cave Spring
Community Planning Area. Designated as a stable growth area,
currently receiving urban services.
b. General area is developed with single family and multifamily
residential and recreation uses. A very limited amount of
undeveloped woodland remains.
5. LAND USE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Rating: Rate each factor according to the impact of the proposed
action. Use a scale of 1 through 5.
1 = positive impact, 2 = negligible impact, 3 = manageable impact,
4 = disruptive impact, 5 = severe impact, and N/A = not applicable.
- 5 -
~ ~~--y
RATING FACTOR
COMMENTS
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
4 a. Comprehensive Plan: 1985 Comprehensive Development Plan has
placed this area within a Neighborhood Conservation land use
category. This designation discourages development of middle to
high density residential (6-12 units per acre). Proposed
density of development is 7.4 units per acre.
3 b. Surrounding Land: Heavily traveled secondary highway,
multifamily and single family residential, developed recreation
(Forest Hills Swim and Racquet Club) and woodland.
3 c. Neighboring Area: Single family and multifamily residential.
5 d. Site Layout: Proffered concept plan violates the following
County zoning ordinance requirements: (1) minimum setback regula-
tions; (2) minimum building separation requirements; (3) minimum
rear yard regulations; Other potential site plan problems: (1)
inadequate minimum travel lane width; (2) grade at entrances
exceeds 5~; (3) inadequate turnaround area for emergency
vehicles. Proffered concept plan does not comply with
exceptional site planning techniques needed for attached
residential development (policy NC-8), nor does it avoid
residential development having a significantly higher density
from that of adjacent developed parcels (policy NC-7).
3 e. Architecture: Concept plan calls for varied front setbacks.
Facades, roof lines and exterior building material type not
specified.
3 f. Screening and Landscape: Per ordinance.
2 g. Amenities: Minimum parking requirements per ordinance (to be
provided by a combination of individual garages and driveways
and common parking areas).
3 h. Natural Features: Parcel features steep north and south walls
bordering a central natural drainageway terminating at northeast
corner of property.
TRAFFIC
3 i. Street Capacities: 1986 ADT for Chaparral Drive (VA 800) is
6,428 vehicles. Anticipated additional ADT is 132 vehicle trip
ends per day. Two accidents occurred from 1/87 to 2/88 on this
0.6 mile segment of Chaparral Drive.
4 j. Circulation: Proposed central parking area indicates a steep
climb followed by a sharp descent into west entrance and onto
Chaparral Drive. East entrance is similarly situated. Staff
recommends maximum 5$ grade at entrances/exits and minimum 24-
foot travel lanes within project boundary.
- 6 -
<<%~~-
UTILITIES
3 k. Water: Adequate source and distribution for domestic purposes
anticipated. (See Fire Protection.)
3 1. Sewer: Adequate treatment and transmission anticipated.
DRAINAGE
2 m. Basin: Murray Run.
3 n. Floodplain: Not located within FEMA flood hazard zone.
Detention facility serving all building downspouts and pavement
drainage requested to aid natural drainageway at northeast
corner of property.
PUBLIC SERVICES
3 0. Fire Protection: Within established service standard. Fire
flow requirements would be increased and are exilected to be met
by extending a 10-inch water line at the intersection of
Chaparral Drive and Kelly Lane and possible looping or
interconnecting with existing 6-inch lines in Chaparral Drive.
Maintenance of adequate fire flow requested through design work
conducted by private owner.
3 p. Rescue: Within established service standard. Insufficient
interior turnaround areas for emergency vehicles.
3 q. Parks and Recreation: No on-site recreation facilities shown or
proposed.
2 r. School: If 22 townhouse units are
that there will be four school age r~
Cave Spring High is near capacity.
four children per year is $14,860
funded. The difference between
revenue is +$16,091.
built, it can be anticipated
~sidents. Of area schools,
Estimated cost of educating
of which $7,184 is locally
total local cost and total
1 TAX BASE
s. - Land and Improvement Value: Estimated $2,023,800
- Taxable Gross Sales/Year: None
- Total Employees: None
- Total revenue to the County/Year: Approximately $23,275
New Revenue: Approximately $23,000
ENVIRONMENT
2 t. Air:
2 u. Water:
2 v. Soils:
2 w. Noise:
3 x. Signage: Not specified.
areas are limited.
Signage options within residential
- 7 -
r ~~- ~~
6. PLAN CONSISTENCY
This area is designated as Neighborhood Conservation. Petitioner's
request is consistent with the land use plan map and with Policy
NC-5 (encourage infill of vacant lots in residential neighborhoods).
The request is inconsistent with Policy NC-7 (avoid significantly
higher residential densities compared to adjacent development) and
with Policy NC-8 (permit limited density attached residential
development when exceptional housing design and site planning
techniques are employed to achieve compatibility).
7. STAFF EVALUATION
a. Strengths: (1) Positive impact on the tax base. (2) Consistent
with policy NC-5 (vacant lot infill). {3) Proposal provides
direct access onto a major collector.
b. Weaknesses: (1) Ordinance violations of minimum setback,
minimum building separation, and minimum rear yard regulations.
(2) Maximum grade at entrances exceeds five percent. (3)
I,n~d~-q~ua.te .t~r,a~ro~~nd -a..r..ea <..fo~r ..em,er.g,gn,o~, ,,v:~.}~ i,.o,l:,e,~., , {.~..).
Inconsistent with policy NC-7 (avoidance of significant
residential density increases). (5) Inconsistent with policy
NC-8 (provision of exceptional site planning techniques).
c. Proffers Suggested: (1) Withdrawal of or modification of
proffered concept plan ensuring zoning ordinance compliance. (2)
All building downspouts and pavement drainage to be discharged
to a detention facility and to natural drainageway at northeast
corner of property. (3) Owner to design water system to meet
minimum fire flow requirements for R-5 zoned properties. (4)
Existing natural vegetation shall be salvaged to maximum extent
possible. (5) All exterior lighting shall be arranged so as to
light only the subject property and no interior light poles
shall exceed 10 feet in height.
- 8 -
C p~
VIRGINIA:
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
~r
H
z
w
H
z
0
U
O
H
A
w
0
a
a
a
IN RE: )
FINAL ORDER
----- -----
A 2.97 acre parcel of land, generally )
located on Northside of Chaparral Drive )
(Route 800)within the Cave Spring )
Magisterial District and recorded as )
Parcel #87.10-3-1 in the Roanoke County )
Tax Records. )
TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY:
WHEREAS, your Petitioner, CHAPARRAL FOREST
ASSOCIATES, did petition the Board of County Supervisors to
rezone the above-referenced parcel of land from R-1 District
to R-5 District, for the purpose of constructing 22
townhomes with lots for sale.
WHEREAS, after due legal notice, the Planning
Commission did hold a public hearing of the petition on June
7, 1988, at which time, all parties in interest were given
an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, after full consideration, the Board of
County Supervisors determined that the rezoning be approved
with the proffered conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED that the
^STERHGUDT, FERGUSON
NATT, ANERON & AGEE
ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
RGANOKE, VIRGINIA
24018-1699
aforementioned parcel of land, which is contained in the
Roanoke County Tax Maps as 48B1 and legally described below,
be rezoned from R-1 District to R-5 District.
A 2.97 acre parcel of land, generally
located on the North side of Chaparral
Drive (Route 800), within the Cave Spring
- 9 -
~ g~ ~- ~/
Magisterial District and recorded as
Parcel No. 87.10-3-1 in the Roanoke County
Tax Records.
OSTERHOUDT, FERGUSON
NATT, ANERON & AGEE
ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
14 01 8-16 9 9
with the following conditions:
(1) Development will be in substantial conformity
with the site plan prepared by Horner 8 Associates, P.C.,
presented to the Planning Commission.
(2) All building downspouts and pavement drainage
to be discharged to the detention facility at the northeast
corner of the property.
(3) Natural vegetation shall be salvaged to the
maximum extent possible.
(4) All exterior lighting shall be arranged so as
to light only the subject property and no interior light
poles shall exceed 10 feet in height.
(5) Petitioner to design water system to meet
minimum fire flow requirements for R-5 zoned properties.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this order
be transmitted to the Secretary of the Planning Commission
and that he be directed to reflect that change on the
Official Zoning Map of Roanoke County.
ADOPTED on motion of Supervisor
seconded by Supervisor _________________, and upon the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYES:
- 10 -
VIRGINIA:
~8~-Y
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
--------------------------------------------------
w
N
2
w
H
z
0
U
0
H
Q
w
0
a
a
a
IN RE: ) SEC_O_N_D_
AIN1ENDED
A 2.97 acre parcel of land, ) PROFFER OF
generally located on the North side of ) CONDITIONS
----------
Chaparral Drive (Route 800), within )
the Cave Spring Magisterial District )
and recorded as Parcel No. 87.10-3-I )
in the Roanoke County Tax Records )
TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY:
Being in accord with Sec. 15. I-491. I et seq. of
the Code of Virginia and Sec. 21-105 of the Roanoke County
Zoning Ordinance, the Petitioner, CHAPARRAL FOREST ASSOCIATES,
hereby voluntarily proffers to the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, the following conditions to the
rezoning of the above-referenced parcel of land.
(1) Development will be in substantial conformity
with the site plan prepared by Horner 8 Associates, P.C.,
presented to the Planning Commission.
(2) All building downspouts and pavement drainage
to be discharged to the detention facility at the northeast
corner of the property.
(3) Natural vegetation shall be salvaged to the
maximum extent possible.
(4) All exterior lighting shall be arranged so as
OSTERHDUDT, FERGUSDN
NATT, AHERON & AGEE
ATTDRNEYS-AT-LAW
RDANDKE, VIRGINIA
24018-1699
to light only the subject property and no interior light
poles shall exceed 10 feet in height.
(5) Petitioner to design water system to meet
minimum fire flow requirements for R-5 zoned properties.
- 12 -
X 88-5
~S'8~- S
~,
A P P E A R A N C E R E Q U E S T
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
j
PUBLIC HEARING ON ~ ',._,.~~",~,~
I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to
recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter so
that I may comment. I agree to follow the guidelines listed
below. WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND
ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
1. Each speaker will have between three and five minutes
available whether speaking as an individual or
representative. The chairman will decide the time limit
based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and
will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of
the Board to do otherwise.
2. Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of
view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by
the Chairman.
3. All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between
a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed.
4. Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all
times .
5. Speakers are requested to leave any written statements
and/or comments with the clerk.
6. INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL
FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP
ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM.
P L E A S E W R I T E L E G I B L Y
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NAME : .. _ ~ t`
.,
ADDRESS:
PHONE : I l `~'" ~' ~ `~~~~ '~ ~ ~
.~
PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy
Clerk. Thank you.)
~" , r-
PETITIONER: STARKEY ASSOCIATES
CASE NIAKBER: 35-6/88
Planning Commission Hearing Dater June 7, 1988
Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: June 28, 1988
A. RD~UEST
Petition of Starkey Associates to rezone
B-2, Business to construct a shopping
Starkey Road (Route 904) approximately
Crescent Boulevard (Route 632) in the Cav
a 6.5 acre tract from M-2, Industrial to
center, located on the north side of
100 feet west of its intersection with
e Spring Magisterial District.
B. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Howard Miller and Nicholas Munger, adjacent property owners, voiced their support
of the request. 'Ifiere was no opposition to the request.
C. SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FACTORS
1. Street Capacities: Estimated traffic generation for the proposed shopping
center, as shown on the concept plan, would be approximately 4,800 vehicle
trip ends per day, excluding the out parcels. Development of the out parcels
would further increase traffic generated by the proposal depending on the
specific use. For example, a convenience store would generate approximately
1,500 average daily trips (ADT) while a drive-thru bank would generate 920
ADT. In 1986, the ADT along Starkey Road (Route 904) at this site was 3,722.
There were six (6) accidents on this section of Starkey Road in 1987.
2. Circulation: The concept plan sutmitted indicates four access points within
970 feet of frontage on Starkey Road. In commercial areas, the staff has
consistently recommended a minimlun spacing of at least 300 feet. Since the
concept plan has not been proffered, the number of access points to Starkey
Road, including the industrial access, should be proffered.
D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS
1. The B-2 permitted uses for this portion of the property will be restricted to
those as currently stated in the current Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance,
Section 21-23-2-A; (1), (2), (4), (6) but only for bowling centers (7), (10)
but for clinic only.
2. The access points onto Starkey Road excluding any industrial access roadway
be limited to a maxim~un of three.
3. The projected parking areas be aesthetically treated with landscaping and/or
planting areas.
4. All dumpsters will be screened.
5. The maximum light pole height will be 30 feet and directed inward onto the
parking areas, and the maximum light level at the property lines adjacent to
residential property will not exceed 1 foot candle.
6. No billboard advertising.
~' ~\
E. COMMISSIONER'S MOTION, VOTE AND REASON
Mr. Jones moved to approve the petition with proffered conditions. The motion
carried with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Gordon, Jones, Winstead
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Witt (conflict of interest)
F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE
None.
G . ATTACHI~NTS
Concept Plan (8~" x 11")
Vicinity Map (8~" x 11")
Staff Report
Other:
Jon tley, Alternate Secretary
Roar}]e County Planning Commission
- 2 -
r I I:
(,-il •• ~ 1.-~ ~... jy.k'J;~ar,.;•lV.
s
z ~ t a °" `~~~~ 1
-
• . ~
.
i. ~
~ ~
~: ~ ~ ~ ~
«f ~ II
.11 i1) IMti X~+Mi r n /IYWY ~ V
NrL 1~39N?~ r
~a5a
%
,,\
I I ~,~,~, may. .(I,YYV~9
~
1 ~
\ ~ ~ ~ ! r
\ ,, ~ ~
1
~y ~
~ i ~ ~ o
If ~ ~~ 1 ~ Q ~ ~ ~ i5
_~
~ <
~
.
`
` ~
I
i
O
~ C
'
! [
eo ~ I
~
~ / ~ ~ ~
~ ~ --•~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ I I ~
~~ `
i -fir /~ ~
/' \
\ `
~` ~ ~ ,~
~ ~ ~ ~
~
'
~
p
~
v-7
'
~. X
1. 3 Q
¢ ~ 0` Q.
E
\ ~f
^
!3
{i \
~
e
t
I t \
~\
•'
~
\
Jr
N
~..~
a 3
a
V ~
\ 00 y
Guu
e
~ • '~ td N
a~.-1 41
C]. U N
t
~
~
\ ~ yN
u
~ N
'b of
ai ~ -+
m v ~.
\ a'~ ~
o ~ .-. ,
NiJNi
- 3 - acnrna
unpru
- 4 -
A
k` ROANOKE COUNTY Star:cey Associates
d DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT `f-2 to 13-2
"Cax Map 1l 87. 18 - 02 - 24
,,~
STAFF REPORT
CASE NUMBER: 35-6/88 PETITIONER: Starkey Associates
REVIEWED BY: Jon Hartley DATE: June 2, 1988
Petition of Starkey Associates to rezone a 6.5 acre tract from M-2,
Industrial to B-2, Business to construct a shopping center, located on the
north side of Starkey Road (Route 904) approximately 10+0 feet west of its
intersection with Crescent Boulevard (Route 632) in the Cave Spring
Magisterial District.
1. NATURE OF REQUEST
a. Unconditioned request to rezone 6.5 acres in order to construct a
neighborhood shopping center. The remaining portion of the 17.9
acre tract (11.4 acres) will be developed as'industrial sites.
b. Attached concept plan and vicinity map illustrate the project more
fully.
2. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
a. The B-2, General Commercial District permits a wide variety of
commercial and office uses (see enclosed listing of permitted
uses). No limitation or restriction on the uses has been
proffered as a condition by the petitioner.
b. Site plan review will be required to ensure compliance with County
regulations. As part of the site plan review process, petitioner
will be required to submit documentation establishing the 100 year
flood elevation for the building site, pursuant to Section 21-61,
as amended.
c. The Virginia Water Control Board may require the petitioner to
make application for a 401 Certification in order to relocate the
drainage way which traverses the proposed site. The 401
Certification is to ensure that appropriate steps are taken in
relocating the stream channel.
d. Commercial entrance permits will be required from the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
3. SITE CHARACTERISTICS
a. Topography: Site is generally flat.
b. Ground Cover: Site is covered with light brush.
4. AREA CHARACTERISTICS
a. Future Growth Priority: Situated within the Cave Spring
Community Planning Area. The growth initiative far this area is
to stabilize growth. Urban services are available.
b. General area is developed with a mixture of industrial, commercial
and residential uses, and vacant land and open space.
- 5 -
5. LAND USE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Rating: Rate each factor according to the impact of the proposed
action. Use a scale of 1 through 5.
1 = positive impact, 2 = negligible impact, 3 = manageable impact, 4
disruptive impact, 5 = severe impact, and N/A = not applicable.
RATING FACTOR
COMMENTS
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
3 a. Comprehensive Plan: 1985 Comprehensive Development Plan has
placed this area within a Principal Industrial land use category.
Policy I-11 discourages retail development in industrial areas
unless supportive of the area needs. The petitioner's request is
consistent with both the land use plan map and policies, since th
proposed shopping center is in conjunction with the development o
proposed industrial sites and would serve an area where no simila
retail facility presently exists.
2 b. Surrounding Land: Adjoining the petitioner's property is a
construction company office and storage lot, tire store and auto
repair shop, and open space. Single family residences adjoining
the remaining 11.4 acre portion of the property.
2 c. Neighboring Area: The neighboring area consists of a combinatio
of light and heavy industrial, commercial, low and high density
residential uses and open space.
3 d. Site Layout: According to the concept plan submitted, the
petitioner proposes approximately 40,000 square feet of retail
space in the shopping center with as many as three additional
commercial retail sites as out parcels. The petitioner has
indicated a reluctance to proffer as a condition substantial
conformance with the concept plan in order to permit flexibility
in locating the industrial access road and positioning the
buildings to suit prospective tenants.
2 e. Architecture: Not specified.
2 f. Screening and Landscaping: Since surrounding uses are more
intensive than those proposed, no screening and buffering would )r
required by the zoning ordinance other than landscaping along
Starkey Road. Plantings in the parking area should be proffered.
N/A g. Amenities: N/A
3 h. Natural Amenities: The waterway, which traverses the property
will be relocated and channelized through the property, as
discussed under applicable regulations above.
TRAFFIC
4 i. Street Capacities: Estimated traffic generation for the propose
shopping center, as shown o-i the concept plan, would be
approximately 4800 vehicle trip ends per day, excluding the out
parcels. Development of the out parcels would further increase
traffic generated by this proposal depending on the specific use,
- 6 -
v ~ ~w
For example, a convenience store would generate approximately 1500
average daily trips (ADT) while a drive-thru bank would generate
920 ADT. In 1986, the ADT along Starkey Road (Route 904) at this
site was 3722. There were six (6) accidents on this section of
Starkey Road in 1987.
4 j. Circulation: The concept plan submitted indicates four access
points within 970 feet of frontage on Starkey Road. In commercial
areas the staff has consistently recommended a minimum spacing of
at least 300 feet. Since the concept plan has not been proffered,
the number of access points to Starkey Road, including the
industrial access, should be proffered.
UTILITIES
3 k. Water: Proposed rezoning would have....no, affect on water service.
However, the present system is inadequate in terms of fire flow
requirements for both the present zoning (M-2) and proposed zoning
(B-2). The County plans to install storage tank in vicinity which
would correct this problem, but no timetable has been set.
2 1. Sewer: Adequate treatment and collection. Sewer main, which
presently follows drainage way, may require relocation at
petitioner's expense to accommodate proposed development.
DRAINAGE
2 m. Basin: Located on a minor tributary of the Back Creek drainage
basin.
2 n. Floodplain: Since the drainage basin upstream from the project
site exceeds 100 acres, the 100 year flood elevation must be
delineated during site plan review process. Should the drainage
way require relocation, County, and possibly state and federal
approval will be necessary to insure adequate capacity of the new
stream channel.
PUBLIC SERVICES
2 0. Fire Protection: Within established service standard.
2 p. Rescue: Within established service standard.
N/A q. Parks and Recreation: N/A
N/A r. Schools: N/A
TAX BASE
2 s. - Land and Improvement Value: New
- Taxable Gross Sales/Year: New =
- Total Employees: 35
- Total Revenue to the County/Year:
ENVIRONMENT
2 t. Air:
2 u. Water:
_ $1,623,600
$6,000,000
Approximately 578,681(new
- 7 -
~~~ r _ .,
2 v. Soils:
2 w. Noise:
3 x. Signage: Not specified. Current ordinance would permit up to
2910 square feet based on the frontage (three feet per linear foot
of frontage). Since previous studies of permitted signage have
shown the current signage permitted to be excessive, a proffer of
conditions limiting signage, such as o,ne foot per linear foot of
frontage, should be considered.
6. PLAN CONSISTENCY
This area is designated as Principal Industrial. The petitioner's
request is consistent with the land use plan map and policies, and in
particular Policy I-11 which discourages r.e-tail development in
industrial areas unless supportive of the area needs.
7. STAFF EVALUATION
a. Strengths: (1) Proposed project would improve the local tax
base. (2) Would provide services presently not available in the
vicinity of the project. (3) Proposal is part of a larger
planned industrial park.
b. Weaknesses: (1) Proposal would convert land currently zoned for
industrial uses to business retail uses. (2) No proffer of
conditions have been offered restricting uses, site layout, number
of access points, signage or other aspects of the project.
c. Proffers Suggested: (1) The use of the property should be
restricted to those uses listed in Section 21-23-2 A. (1), (2),
(4), and (7) of the zoning ordinance. In no case shall a
convenience store be permitted. (2) Access to Starkey Road
(Route 904), including the industrial access road, should be
limited to no more than three points, and preferably two points,
along the frontage of this property. (3) Signage should be
limited to no more than one foot per linear foot of frontage.
(4) Parking area should include landscaped planting areas at
reasonable intervals.
- 8 -
`VIRGINIA: -
BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
A 6.5± acre parcel of land, )
generally located on Starkey Road )
200' west of its intersection with Crescent Blvd.
within the Cave Spring ) RDC,'C~IQDATION
Magisterial District, and )
recorded as parcel # 87.18-2-24 )
in the Roanoke County Tax Records.
TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY:
WHEREAS, your Petitioner Starkey Associates
has filed with the Secretary to the Planning Commission a petition to rezone the
above-referenced parcel of land fran
M-2
District
to B-L
District for the purpose of developing a retail
sho in center.
WHEREAS, the petition was referred to the Planning Ccxnnission which, after due
legal notice as required by Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended, did hold a public hearing on June 7 19 88 and
WHEREAS, at that public hearing all parties in interest were afforded an
opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due consideration has recom<~nded to
the Board of County Supervisors that the rezoning be approved with proffered
conditions
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the
Board of County Supervisors that the above-referenced parcel of land
B-2 District, with proffered conditions.
The above action was adopted on motion of J. R. Jones
following recorded vote:
be rezoned to
and upon the
Ay~• Gordon, Jones, Winstead
~yS; None Respe tfu y bmitted,
ABSENT; None
ABSTAIN: Witt Al rnate Se retary
Ro noke County_Planning Commission
VIRGINIA:
BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUN`T'Y
A 6,5± acre parcel of land, )
generally located on Starkey Road 200')
west of its intersection with Crescent)
nlva.)
op Within the Cave Spring
~ Magisterial District, and )
~ recorded as parcel # 87.18-2-24 )
in the Roanoke County Tax Records. )
~T~Tnr. nRnFu
~ THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUN`T'Y:
E~
Z
W
F' WHEREAS, your Petitioner Starkey Associates
z
~ did petition the Board of County Supervisors to rezone the above-referenced parcel
H f rom M-2 District to B-2 District
cn for the purpose of developing a Retail Shopping Center.
L1
W
.~
O
x WHEREAS, after due legal notice, the Planning Commission did hold a public
a
~ hearing of the petition on June 7 , 19 88 at which time, all parties
in interest were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, after full consideration at the public hearing held on June 28,
19 88 the Board of County Supervisors determined that the rezoning be ~ Fi rnvP d
on June 28, 1988, with proffers.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED that the aforementioned parcel of land, which is
contained in the Roanoke County Tax Maps as Parcel 87.18-2-24 and recorded
in Deek Book
Page and legally described below, be rezoned from
District to
District.
- 9 -
Legal Description of Property: ~ ~~
Being 6.938 acres situated along the north side of Virginia .Route
119 (Starkey Road) in Cave Spring Magisterial District, Roanoke
County, Virginia, said 6.938 acres, more particularly described
as follows:
BEGINNING at a point com
Starkey Associates, A Vi
Deed Book 1282, Page 138
Court of Roanoke County,
Virginia Route 119, and
Virginia Corporation, a~
the aforesaid Clerk's Of
the north right-of-way 1
15° 05' S9" E,~440.32 fe
.acres and said Inland Pr
four zoning lines the fc
59" E, 29.39 feet to a ~
point. S 890 14' 58" E,
non to 17.908 acres as conveyea Lo
rginia General Partnership recorded in
3, in the Clerk's Office for the Circuit
Virginia, the right-of-way of said
property of Inland Properties, Inc., A
recorded in Deed Book 886, Page 652 in
five, said point also lying in a curve on
ine of said Virginia Route 119; thence N
et along the line common to said 17.908
operties, Inc. to a point; thence along
llowing courses and distances; N 15° 05'
oint, N 73° 03' 34" E, 191.11 feet to a
229.02 feet to a point, S 76° 14' 47" E,
257.04 feet to a point; thence_ 5 .i5` 5~ ~ L~ ~~ ~, you. ~o LCCI~ Q1Vily
the line common to said 17.908 acres and map of Cresent Heights
Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 256, in the
aforesaid Clerk's Office, to a point; said point being the corner
common to said 17.908 acres, said Cresent Heights Subdivision and
the right-of-way of said Virginia Route 119; thence along the
line common to said 17.908 acres and said Virginia Route 119 the
following courses and distances; S 75° 30' 29" W, 144.39 feet to
a point; S 78° 46' 38" W, 99.50 feet to a point, S 77° 37' 08" W,
99.35 feet to a point; S 75° 08' 44" W, 100.12 feet to a point, S
78° 00' 29" W, 439.50 feet to a point, said point being the
beginning of a curve to the left; thence 90.34 feet along the arc
of said curve to the left whose radius equals 741.20 feet, delta
an~le equals 06°. 59' Ol" and chord bearing and distance equals S
74 30' S8" W, 90.29 feet to the point of BEGINNING and
containing a computed acreage of 6.938 acres.
BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be transmitted to the Secretary
of the Planning Commission and that he be directed to reflect that change on the
official zoning map of Roanoke County.
ADOPTED on motion of Supervisor Johnson and upon the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett
I~,YS: None
~~= Supervisor Robers
`yrZ~ ~. Depu~,yCl.erk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections
.Dale Castellow, Acting Director, Planning,& Zoning
John Wiley, Director, Real F~,stl~t~ Assessment
~~'~'_~
VIRGINIA:
I3[:[~OR[: TfIG L3OAftD OR SUPL•'l2VISORS OL~ ROANOKB COUNTY
A ~, , ,-I- acre ik-~rcel. of Land, )
generally locatednn Scarlcey Rorid 200' )
west ~~f ` i.ts intc~r~c~~ct icon wi tl~ Crrsc•enC ) 1?I2O[~1~'IIt
within the --- ~ - --- I3 l v ~I . -----------
~ M~igisterial Distr.ict_, and ) r"~pNDl'CIONS
-~n recorded as parcel II £37.1£3-2-2~, )
~ )
in the Roanoke County Tax Records. )
Z~-
`Ili 'I'flf? 1IONORAI3LG SUPI.RVISORS OC RUANOKG COUN7.'Y:
C~
W l3ei.ng in accord with Sec. 15.1-~I').l.l et sed. of the Code of- Virginia and Sec.
H
0 21-1051: of the Roanoke County 7.oni.nc~ Ordinance, tl~e Petitioner Starkey Associates
U
o hereby voluntarily proffers L-o the
F+ Board of SupLrvisors of Rck-~noF;e County, Virginia the following conditions to the
~ rezoning of the al)ove-r_eforencoc] parcel of land:
Q
~ (1) That the 13-2 permitted uses for this portion of the property will be restricted
~ to those as currently stated in the current Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, Section
6Y
a
~ 21-23-2-A; (1), (2), (4), (6) but only Lot Bowl-ing Centers, (7), and (10) but for
Clinic only.
(2) That the access points onto Starkey Road excluding any industrial access roadwa
be limited to a maximum of- three (3) such accesses.
(3) That the projected parking areas be aesthetically treated with landscaping
and/or planting areas.
(4) That all dumpsters will be screened.
(5) That the maximum light pole height will be thirty feet (30') and directed
inward onto the parking areas and that the maximum light levels at the property lines
adjacent to residential property will not exceed one (l) foot candle.
(6) That there will be no billboards or similar outdoor advertising.
Respectfully sul~nitted,
STf?1~l(ey /fsso~. Ch's
3Y ~(
- 1]Petition
S~ - ~O
A P P E A R A N C E R E Q U E S T
_ --
PUBLIC HEARING ON ~ -~ j ¢' ~-~ ~ ~`
I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to
recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter so
that I may comment. I agree to follow the guidelines listed
below. WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND
ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
1. Each speaker will have between three and five minutes
available whether speaking as an individual or
representative. The chairman will decide the time limit
based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and
will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of
the Board to do otherwise.
2. Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of
view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by
the Chairman.
3. All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between
a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed.
4. Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all
times .
5. Speakers are requested to leave any written statements
and/or comments with the clerk.
6. INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL
FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP
ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM.
P L E A S E W R I T E L E G I B L Y
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NAME : `.~ ~ rY~ I--- ~ o vim, ~~ '~ ~ ~ ~
ADDRESS : !~' O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (2_ u~ ~ ~; ~---'c~ (L~ ~ ~ ~Y1'
PHONE : ~ ~ `"[
PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy
Clerk. Thank you.)
C~ ~'
A P P E A R A N C E R E Q U E S T
_-- ~ ~ r -
PUBLIC HEARING ON ~ J ~ ~f ~ ~' ~ ~ ~~~ S~ ~ c-' ~ ~ ~~ ~'
I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to
recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter so
that I may comment. I agree to follow the guidelines listed
below. WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND
ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
1. Each speaker will have between three and five minutes
available whether speaking as an individual or
representative. The chairman will decide the time limit
based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and
will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of
the Board to do otherwise.
2. Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of
view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by
the Chairman.
3. All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between
a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed.
4. Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all
times .
5. Speakers are requested to leave any written statements
and/or comments with the clerk.
6. INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL
FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP
ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM.
P L E A S E W R I T E L E G I B L Y
~~
NAME : ~ ` ^'~
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy
Clerk. Thank you.)
w O ~ "- ~jj
A P P E A R A N C E R E Q U E S T
~~
PUBLIC HEARING ON
I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to
recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter so
that I may comment. I agree to follow the guidelines listed
below. WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND
ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
1. Each speaker will have between three and five minutes
available whether speaking as an individual or
representative. The chairman will decide the time limit
based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and
will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of
the Board to do otherwise.
2. Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of
view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by
the Chairman.
3. All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between
a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed.
4. Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all
times .
5. Speakers are requested to leave any written statements
and/or comments with the clerk.
6. INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL
FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP
ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM.
L E G I B L Y ~ ~,~'~~
P L E A S E W R I T E ____ G
Q L~:
I~
NAME:
c.
ADDRESS : ~ 2~ S C-- ~ -~,? ~ `~, ~-- ~ ~ ° `~`~
PHONE:
PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy
Clerk. Thank you.)
~~~-/
PETITIONER: ELVA B. RUSSELL BEARD
CASE NtA~~BER: 26-5/88
Planning Commission Hearing Date: June 7, 1988
Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: June 28, 1988
A. RD~UEST
Petition of Elva B. Russell Beard to amend the Future Land Use map designation of
a 1.5 acre tract from Principal Industrial to Rural Village and to rezone said
property from M-2, Industrial to A-1, Agricultural to construct a single-family
dwelling, located on the south side of West River Road (Route 639) approximately
0.34 mile east of its intersection with Dry Hollow Road (Route 649) in the
Catawba Magisterial District.
B. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
No one in opposition was present at the Planning Cce[mission Public Hearing.
C. SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FACTORS
1. Comprehensive Plan: 1985 Comprehensive Development Plan has placed this area
within a Principal Industrial land use category. Rural residential uses are
prohibited with no compatibility and agricultural uses are discouraged with
low compatibility in Principal Industrial areas. Therefore, a land use
amendment is required. The petitioner has su)~mitted a request to amend the
future land use plan .from Principal Industrial to Rural Village to
accommodate the proposed residential/agricultural uses. The Rural Village
designation prescribes certain locations for residential, agricultural and
related community uses. Staff analysis of petitioner's proposed amendment to
the Future Land Use map follows.
D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS
1. Only one single family residence will be constructed on the parcel of land to
be rezoned.
E. CONINSISSIONER'S MOTION, WTE AND REASON
Mr. Witt moved to deny the amendment to the Future Land Use map and to deny the
rezoning with proffered condition. The motion was defeated by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Witt, Winstead
NAYS: Gordon, Jones
ABSENT: None
F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE
Mr. Gordon stated that the petitioner should be allowed to build a residence on
the property.
G . ATTACL-II~NTS
Concept Plan (8~" x 11")
Vicinity Map (8~" x 11")
Staff Report
Other:
Jon rtley, Alte to Secretary
R ke County Planning Commission
~ ,
__
~}~
M
Y
~ ~
Y
'° ' ~
.--~
:%'j'~
F"
~~,~o
III ~~i ~
1!
O
- 2 - 8
~p
ill W U ..
1/
`\
iI~
•
---~
~~BQ
~. ~N
~-+..~
r
~• ~
e
~l
„~
\ j\
,j ~
~
O z~ ~
!
~ ~ ~ ~
a r_ c
a > •
M
Z ~
~~„ }
Q ~""
u Ti
,~ ~ W g
F
~O' s `
'
.
z
tO -.
6 L~
r Y
~ O
K
~~
W z °
d ~
O Q
C Q'
a
og
4 ~
C
°
O
~..
i
J~ C. t
C(OI Z
N5 r7
'O LIJ
~'
k
C~~
= V
~~
--^-_
0
u ~
o L
< _
¢ ° T u
J p
,~
° f
< ~ z _
~ " ~ W
r a j <
'~ t t' °
°
v
W,Wr
< ~ V W J
U ~ O V
}-c- ~c
Q
t O
Z Y R
u° ° - r v
Jo °
y O J u J
~
J J
u < < u L
r
o ~
~
s
~ d <
J ~ L 3
~~~~)
i
1~1r'i
__
J
Y F,
~ ~ n
T '~ O
W „ ~
W s u 7 <
J ~ J = J
~
J
r k
: ~~~~:
~ta~y
_ ~_ C_
~
s' ,~
~: ll;.,r
,,._
~~'~~~
I .
- 3 -
r~
D
a
un~ru
r. ~ ~. ~ ~~
" ~* Elva B. Russell Beard
`i ROANOKE COUNTY M-2 to A~1
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT Tax Map 4~ 64.03-1-37
ee
^ ~vrn~ ~ r ~nn~
~;% ~'
STAFF REPORT
CASE NUMBER: 26-5/88
REVIEWED BY: TIM BEARD
PETITIONER: ELVA B. RUSSELL BEARD
DATE: MAY 3, 1988
Petition of Elva B. Russell Beard to amend the Future Land Use map desig-
nation of a 17.04 acre tract from Principal Industrial to Rural Village
and to rezone said property from M-2, Industrial to A-l, Agricultural to
construct a single-family dwelling, located on the south side of West
River Road (Route 639) approximately 0.34 mile east of its intersection
with Dry Hollow Road (Route 649) in the Catawba Magisterial District.
1. NATURE OF REQUEST
a. Conditional request to construct a dwelling and conduct
agricultural activities. No concept plan has been submitted.
b. Petitioner`s request requires an amendment to the Future Land
Use map from Principal Industrial to Rural Village. The land
use amendment and the rezoning proposal will be reviewed
simultaneously by the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors.
c. Vicinity map indicates neighboring zoning designations.
2. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
a. A-1, Agricultural District permits a wide variety of rural
residential, agricultural, and limited commercial uses.
Petitioner has proffered "residential and farming/agricultural
use only."
b. Site plan review will not be required.
c. Private entrance permit will be required from VDOT.
3. SITE CHARACTERISTICS
a. Topography: Predominantly flat; property is bisected by an un-
named tributary of the Roanoke River flowing in a northerly
direction, lying 500'-2000' east of the Dry Hollow drainage
basin.
b. Ground Cover: Pasture grass with shelterbelt of hardwood trees
paralleling western and southeastern borders and tributary.
4. AREA CHARACTERISTICS
a. Future Growth Priority: Situated within the Glenvar Community
Planning Area; designated for high growth. The site is located
within the urban service boundary, although urban services are
not currently available.
b. General area is sparsely developed with rural residential and
agricultural uses. Forest uses dominate the general area.
5. LAND USE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Rating: Rate each factor according to the impact of the proposed
action. Use a scale of 1 through 5.
1 = positive irnpact,l = negligible impact, 3 = manageable impact,
4 = disruptive impact, 5 = severe i~pact, and N/A = not applicable.
,, ,
~~~:..~
L~
RATING FACTOR
COMMENTS
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
5 a. Comprehensive Plan: 1985 Comprehensive Development Plan has
placed this area within a Principal Industrial land use category,
Rural residential uses are prohibited with no compatibility and
agricultural uses are discouraged with low compatibility in
Principal Industrial areas. Therefore, a land use amendment is
required. The petitioner has submitted a request to amend the
future land use plan from Principal Industrial to Rural Village
to accommodate the proposed residential/agricultural uses. The
Rural Village designation prescribes certain locations for
residential, agricultural and related community uses. Staff
analysis of petitioner's proposed amendment to the Future Land
Use map follows.
Excluding portions of Roanoke River 500-year floodplain, the
Principal Industrial designation encompasses :all parcels located
between the nortizern and southern tracks of Norfolk Southern
Railway property for a distance of approximately 1.25 miles.
Few industrially designated parcels of such size offer rail
accessibility (along the entire 4 mile southern boundary) and
such a high percentage of flat ground (greater than 95~ of
entire 17 acre tract is flat).
This Rural Village designation, which includes those properties
south of both the petitioner's site and the rail line, extends
east to the Roanoke River, south to near the terminus of VA 649
(Dry Hollow Road), west to the Montgomery County line and north
to VA 778 (Twine Hollow Road). All told this Rural Village
currently includes approximately 2,000 acres. If approved, this
request will extend the Glenvar Rural Village northward into a
rarely found, flat, rail-available site.
The staff does not favor extending the Rural Village land use
designation further north into industrial reserve land. Long-
term industrial development will render this region most
suitable for manufacturing firms (see also "Traffic" and
"Utilities").
2 b. Surrounding Land: In addition to one residence to the north, a
minor collector and railroad tracks are located immediately
north and south of subject site, respectively. Rural
residential and vacant properties lie to the east and west,
respectively.
2 c. Neighboring Area: Scattered low-density rural residential,
limited agricultural, woodland, floodplain, and vacant tracts.
2 d. Site Layout: Not submitted or required.
N/A e. Architecture:
2 f. Screening and Landscape: Existing thin belt of hardwood trees
and underbrush along western, southeastern, and north-central
property lines and tributary.
N/A g. Amenities:
- 5 -
~ ~ ,, ~ J~
3 h. Natural Features: Majority of northern half of subject site
lies within the 500-year floodplain. Such a designation should
be observed, although no special building permit limitations are
imposed.
TRAFFIC
2 i. Street Capacities: Current ADT for this segment of VA 639 (West
River Road) is 297. Anticipated additional ADT is 10 vehicle
trip ends per day, based on average weekday trip ends per unit
for single-family detached dwellings.. 1987 VDOT accident data
indicated three crashes within ~ mile of petitioner's property.
Improvements to VA 639 are anticipated before 1990.
3 j. Circulation: The private access road serving petitioner's
property also serves three existing residences south of Norfolk
Southern property and access easement must remain open for those
landowners.
UTILITIES
3 k. Water: The 1985 Community Facilities Plan indicates that this
site lies within a proposed water service area for horizon year
2003.
3 1. Sewer: The 1985 Community Facilities Plan indicates that this
site lies within a proposed sewer service area for horizon year
2003.
DRAINAGE
2 m. Basin: No negative effect.
3 n. Floodplain: As previously stated (see Natural Features), a
significant portion of the site is located within the 500 year
floodplain. Such a designation corresponds with Zone B on FEMA
Flood Insurance rate maps. Zone B is defined as an "area
between limits of the 100 year flood and 500 year flood; or
certain areas subject to 100 year flooding with average depths
less than one (1) foot or where the contributing drainage area
is less than one square mile; or areas protected by levees from
the base flood."
PUBLIC SERVICES
2 0. Fire Protection: Not within established service standard.
2 p. Rescue: Not within established service standard.
? q. Parks and Recreation: Green Hill Park is located five (5) miles
northeast of petitioner's property on VA 639 (West River Road).
3 r. School: If one three-bedroom single-family home is built, it
can be anticipated that there will eventually be one school age
resident. The estimated cost of educating one child per year is
$3,715 of which $1,796 is locally funded. The difference
between the total local cost and total revenue is -$1,348.
- 6 -
r~ ~#
y ,, .u
TAX BASE
2 s. - Land and Improvement Value: Currently $29,000; future total
$99,000
- Taxable Gross Sales/Year: 0
- Total Employees: 0
- Total revenue to the County/Year: Approximately $1,138
$805 new revenue)
ENVIRONMENT
2 t. Air.
2 u. Water:
2 v. Soils:
2 w. Noise:
2 x. Signage:
o. PLAN CONSISTENCY
This area is designated as Principal Industrial. The petitioner's
request is inconsistent with the Land Use Plan map and stated poli-
cies, specifically policies I-3 (expand new locations for industrial
growth, particularly the Glenvar industrial area) and I-10 (prohibit
residential growth in designated Principal Industrial areas).
Therefore petitioner has submitted a request to amend the Land Use
map designation from Principal Industrial to Rural Village. Staff
does not support petitioner's request and recommends the Future Land
Use map designation remain Principal Industrial at this location.
7. STAFF EVALUATION
a. Strengths: (1) Petitioner has proffered that development will
be limited to one residential structure and agricultural uses.
(2) Proposed use will not disrupt adjoining uses.
b. Weaknesses: (1) Inconsistent with Principal Industrial land use
category. (2) Proposed use would yield very limited tax revenue.
(3) Petitioner's proposal would remove a valuable potential
industrial site from future consideration.
c. Proffers Suggested: (1) Due to future industrial possibilities
at this site, it may be reasonable to rezone only a limited
portion (that area east of the tributary) upon which the
petitioner could build her home and support a few cattle.
- 7 -
~~~-~
VIRGINIA:
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
--------------------------------------------------------
IN RE:
A 1.5 acre parcel of land,
generally located between the Norfolk
Southern Right of 4Vay and the Roanoke
River off of State Route 639, within
the Catawba Magisterial District and
recorded as Parcel #64.03-1-37 in the
Roanoke County Tax Records
RECOMMENDATION
TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF RUANOKE COUNTY:
WHEREAS, your Petitioner, ELVA B. RUSSELL BEARD,
has filed with the Secretary to the Planning Commission a
petition, pursuant to Section 21-105 of the Roanoke County
Land Use Plan and in accordance with the Code of Virginia of
1950, as amended, to amend the Land Use Plan of Roanoke
County and to redesignate the 1.5 acres designated in the
cross-hatched area portion of the property on the attached
Identification Map 64.03 of the County of Roanoke, Virginia,
from Principal Industrial to Rural Village under the
County's Land Use Plan, for the purpose of permitting a home
to be built thereon with some farming.
WHEREAS, the petition was referred to the Planning
OSTERHDUDT, fERGU50N
MATT, AHERON & AGEE
ATTD RN EYS-AT-LAW
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
24018-1699
Commission which, after due legal notice as required by
Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended, did hold a public hearing on June 7, 1988; and
~ ~~-7
VIRGINIA:
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
----------------------------------------------------------
IN RE:
A 1.5 acre parcel of land,
generally located between the Norfolk
Southern Right of Way and the Roanoke
River off of State Route 639, within
the Catawba Magisterial District and
recorded as Parcel #64.03-1-37 in the
Roanoke County Tax Records
RECOMMENDATION
TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY:
WHEREAS, your Petitioner, ELVA B. RUSSELL BEARD,
has filed with the Secretary to the Planning Commission a
petition to rezone the 1.5 acres designated in the
cross-hatched area portion of the property on the attached
Identification Map 64.03 of the County of Roanoke, Virginia,
from M-2, Manufacturing District to A-1, Agricultural
District for the purpose of permitting a home to be built
thereon with some farming.
WHEREAS, the petition was referred to the Planning
OSTERHDUDT, FERGUSON
NATT, AHERON & AGEE
ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
24018-Ib99
Commission which, after due legal notice as required by
Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended, did hold a public hearing on June 7, 1988; and
WHEREAS, at that public hearing all parties in
interest were afforded an opportunity to be heard; and
,~. ,~ _ ,°
VIRGINIA:
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS_OF_ROANOKE_COUNTY
F
z
w
H
z
0
U
O
H
rn
Q
w
0
a
a
a
^STERHOUOT, FERGUSGN
NATT, AHERON & AGEE
ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
RGANGKE, VIRGINIA
Z4G18-1fi99
IN RE: )
FINAL ORDER
A 1.5 acre parcel of land, )
generally located between the Norfolk )
Southern Right of Way and the Roanoke )
River off of State Route 639, within )
the Catawba Magisterial District and )
recorded as Parcel #64.03-1-37 in the )
Roanoke County Tax Records )
TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY:
WHEREAS, your Petitioner, ELVA B. RUSSELL BEARD,
did petition the Board of County Supervisors to rezone the
1.5 acres designated in the cross-hatched area portion of
the property on the attached Identification Map 64.03 of the
County of Roanoke, Virginia, from M-2, Manufacturing
District to A-1, Agricultural District, for the purpose of
permitting a home to be built thereon with some farming.
WHEREAS, after due legal notice, the Planning
Commission did hold a public hearing of the petition on June
7, 1988, at which time, all parties in interest were given
an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, after full consideration, the Board of
County Supervisors determined that the rezoning be approved
with the proffered conditions, on June 28, 1988.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED that the
~~ aforementioned parcel of land, which is contained in the
Roanoke County Tax Maps as Parcel No. 64.03-1-37 and legally
described below, be rezoned from N1-2, Manufacturing District
to A-1, Agricultural District.
- 8 -
A 1.5 acre parcel of land, generally
located between the Norfolk Southern Right
of Way and the Roanoke River off of State
Route 639, within the Catawba Magisterial
District and recorded as Parcel
#64.03-1-37 in the Roanoke County Tax
Records extending 255 ft. along St. Rt.
639 in an easterly direction from the
interstion of the creek and extending in a
southerly direction 255 ft. from the
intersection of the creek.
with the following conditions:
(1) That only one single-family residence will be
constructed on the parcel of land to be rezoned.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this order
be transmitted to the Secretary of the Planning Commission
and that he be directed to reflect that change on the
Official Zoning Map of Roanoke County.
ADOPTED on motion of Supervisor __McGraw_________~
seconded by Supervisor Johnson _______, and upon the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett
NAYES: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Robers
~~_ _ _ __
Deputy Clerk, Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors
OSTERHOIJGT, FERG4I~G File
NATT, AHERGN & AGES ~ri'n~~~ C~vey, Director, Development & Inspections
ATTGRNEYS-AT-LAW ale as ellow, Acting Director, Planning & Zoning
ROANGKE, YIRGfNIA John Wiley, Director, Real Estate Assessment
$4018-1699
- 9 -
\~..
..
H
2
W
H
2
0
U
0
H
0
w
0
x
a
a
OSTERHGU~T, FERGUSGN
NATT, AHERON S AGEE
ATTURNEYS-AT-LAW
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
14018-1699
VIRGINIA:
BEFORE_THE BOARD OF COUNTY_SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
IN RE: )
FINAL ORDER
A 1.5 acre parcel of land, )
generally located between the Norfolk )
Southern Right of Way and the Roanoke )
River off of State Route 639, within )
the Catawba Magisterial District and )
recorded as Parcel #64.03-1-37 in the )
Roanoke County Tax Records )
TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY:
WHEREAS, your Petitioner, ELVA B. RUSSELL BEARD,
did petition the Board of County Supervisors to amend the
Land Use Plan of Roanoke County and to redesignate the 1.5
acres designated in the cross-hatched area portion of the
property on the attached Identification Map 64.03 of the
County of Roanoke, Virginia, from Principal Industrial to
Rural Village under the County's Land Use Plan, for the
purpose of permitting a home to be built thereon with some
farming.
WHEREAS, after due legal notice, the Planning
Commission did hold a public hearing of the petition on June
7, 1988, at which time, all parties in interest were given
an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, after full consideration, the Board of
County Supervisors determined that the request to amend the
Land Use Plan of Roanoke County be approved, on June 28, 1988.
- 10 -
r' ~ ~, 4
VIRGINIA:
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
w
M
~,
H
2
w
N
z
O
U
0
H
Q
w
0
a
a
a
OSTERHOUDT, FERGIJSON
NATT, AHERON & AGEE
ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
14018-1699
IN RE:
A 1.5 acre parcel of land,
generally located between the Norfolk
Southern Right of Way and the Roanoke
River off of State Route 639, within
the Catawba Magisterial District and
recorded as Parcel #64.03-1-37 in the
Roanoke County Tax Records
PROFFER OF
CONDITIONS
TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY:
Being in accord with Sec. 15.1-491.1 et seq. of
the Code of Virginia and Sec. 21-105 of the Roanoke County
Zoning Ordinance, the Petitioner, ELVA B. RUSSELL BEARD,
hereby voluntarily proffers to the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, the following conditions to the
rezoning of the above-referenced parcel of land.
(1) That only one single-family residence will be
constructed on the parcel of land to be rezoned.
Edward A. Natt, Esquire
Osterhoudt, Ferguson, Natt,
Aheron ~ Agee, P.C.
1919 Electric Road, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24018
II r1.etOh.c
Respectfully submitted,
ELVA B. RUSSELL /B}EARD
By- -n e~ ---
Of Cou s
DAT E : ~ ~ g g ----------
---~---
- 12 -
cr,/' - ~ .
PETITIOb~R: N INNS, INC.
CASE NCMBER: 32-6/88
Planning Co~m-ission Hearing Date: June 7, 1988
Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: June 28, 1988
A. RD~UEST
Petition of Namron Inns, Inc. to amend the conditions on a portion of a 2.04 acre
tract to construct a motel, located on the south side of Electric Road (Route
419) approximately 300 feet east of its intersection with Starkey Road (Route
904) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District.
B. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
No one in opposition was present at the Planning Con~nission Public Hearing.
C. SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FACTORS
1. None
D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS
1. The parcel will be used for the construction and operation of a motel.
2. The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the concept
plan dated May 6, 1988.
3. Signage shall conform to the McSleep Inn standard approved sign package.
E. COMMISSIONER'S MOTION, VOTE AND REASON
Don Witt moved to approve the petition with proffered conditions. The motion
carried with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Gordon, Jones, Witt, Winstead
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE
None.
G. ATTACI~]ENTS
Concept Plan (8~" x 11")
Vicinity Map (8~" x 11")
Staff Report
Other:
Jo Hart ey, Al'Eernate Secretary
noke County Planning Commission
• ~ ~~
.t ~~ : r tp ~~ ~ ~
at•Y Z
3: %~;~,
• y+ yh~:_ ' t• ~_~~_ ~ K~~' ~~~G ,P tom: ;~
c..~ S 1 r' 3
r~ ~, • ''n ~_ 7r ,' . ~ t F. •j s~ to y , ~ ~ i ~'': , w~ rte,;+~, ~ • ~- ~
~~'r ~ t}Y ~ ~ a~u4.Yif ~1 '~$ r' .sz•oQt •MTPy,'+~.94 ~`.` '
'~ K ~ 4-0t ~ W ~~
~ ,~n B
~ ! V J
`~il \' ",
., ~ ~ ~
r ~~r
..
A ~ti~ ~ $
... .....,,.. N ~
I ~ V ~ . ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~~ t fy
)J'
.
c Sti
l~ww
{~
~ , ~ O
'~
N h ry V~
~ ~ I ,
(
+W
~ ~
x e m a CI
~
6 ~ / ~
~
~
~
~
i
~
\ 9
I~
~~~
~
4
a
i ~' , I ~ Q ~
.ai
'~-erd
w~
b z~~..so+o/ ~~ ~I I
4 `° fy
~
.
.
rrr!
OlZ 9~" ~' i0! I
-7.ZZ.4/.t1 N ~ nj
':Si '
'`'y I.~I
cto~, ~~rlo
j ~~
e ~' s
6/O niY ~ ~~
,~~,
~ 1~
~ ~ ~
N `~
~ ~ ~
--
~. ~ W M ~
°
Q _
~`" `~
Ci i fn Z ~ X
'. ~ ~ Y U ~~
~ OQ p ~~~
~ d z ~-~~
e
>-
Q ~
~ ~ w •n
~~! J
'~ '' D
4 p
~
~' a
i
c
~ O
1 z ~ -~~
Z
~ ~ ~~
1 ~~~,`
1 1 ~ ~ Y
~11tt
tt f
1, C
+~' ~ \,
~. ~[} R~•
Z
Z
O
G
a
- 2 - S b~NI~JI~
~ a~, ~ ~',
0
- 3 -
,,... ,
t:~ r~ r'j-... j~
'V1/ail-Mount Signs
The MI-98 wall-mounted Regent
signs are quite versatile when used
as supplementry property signage.
~~~-yzs H5r 10- x g,
Single-face cabinet nnly
~ ~ ~~ ~~
.~ a .ph
~~ ~q~
0
s~ `~ Il/~ic!-Rise Sign
The MI-144 Regent sign is the pri-
mary identification for a McSleep
Inn. This sign is installed at a height
~ of approximately 25 to 30 feet.
MODEL # SIZE
MI-144 GRM 12' x 11'
Double-face cabinet, mon~meni
base, steel
`3~', ~cl ~~ ,Y'4y.
i "'
;{~x' ~
•" :C~
. ~~
`~ t ~ ^
~~
Z`~ - ''
i
,a,yye. ~,'a.
• "La.
~ `~
i
~V
~~ o
~ ~,
D
a
un~ru
- 6 -
- -_
r
_ ROANOKE COUNTY Namron Inns, Inc.
E 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT' Amendmcn t o f Coed i t inns
Portion of 'fax Ma~~ /t 87.07 -Oi-44
se
^ ~~~~.~ ~ ~ mgr
~;= ~,. ~.
~.,.
STAFF REPORT
CASE NUMBER: 32-6/88 PETITIONER: NAMRON INNS, INC.
REVIEWED BY: ROB STALZER DATE: JUNE 7, 1988
Petition of Namron Inns, Inc, to amend the conditions on a portion of a
2.04 acre tract to construct a motel, located on the south side of
Electric Road (Route 419) approximately 300 feet east of its
intersection with Starkey Road (Route 904) in the Cave Spring
Magisterial District.
1. NATURE OF REQUEST
a. Conditional request to amend conditions to construct and operate
a motel consisting of 104 rooms. The total building size will
be 13,700 sq.ft. Driveway and parking area will be 35,300 sq.ft.
The walks and landscaping will be 39,862 sq.ft. Approximately
55 percent of the total 89,000 sq.ft. of lot area will be
covered by either the building or paving. Petitioner's request
to amend conditions pertains only to the rear portion of the
total tract. The front portion adjoining Route 419 is currently
zoned for B-2 with no conditions. The proposed use is permitted
on this portion of the property. However, the conditions that
are being proposed by the petitioner will pertain to both the
front and rear portions of the property.
b. Attached concept plan and zoning vicinity map describe proposal
more fully.
2. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
a. B-2 zoning allows for a variety of commercial and retail service
uses. Petitioner has proffered that the property will only be
used for construction and operation of a motel, that the
property will be developed in substantial conformity with the
concept plan dated May 6, 1988, and that the signage will
conform to the McSleep Inn standard approved sign package.
Copies are attached to the staff report.
b. Site plan review required to ensure compliance with County
regulations.
c. VDOT commercial entrance permit required.
3. SITE CHARACTERISTICS
a. Topography: The property to be rezoned slopes towards Route
419.
b. Ground Cover: Low growing scrub vegetation.
4. AREA CHARACTERISTICS
a. Future Growth Priority: Situated within the Cave Spring
Community Planning area. Designated as a stable growth area,
currently se r.ved by urban services.
b. General ar.r~a i.s densel_y developf~d with commercial and o~Eice
uses. Property adjoins heavily traveled Route 419 corridor.
- 7 -
5. LAND USE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Rating: Rate each factor according to the
action. Use a scale of 1 through 5.
1 = positive impact, 2 = negligible impact,
4 = disruptive impact, 5 = severe impact, and
RATING FACTOR
COMMENTS
~.. ,. F.
...
'~...~ ~
impact of the proposed
3 = manageable impact,
N/A = not applicable.
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
2 a. Comprehensive Plan: 1985 Comprehensive Development Plan has
placed this area within a Core land use category. Petitioner's
proposal complies with both the land use plan map and defined
policies.
2 b. Surrounding Land: The property is surrounded on two sides by
intensive commercial development including a new car dealership;
VA Route 419; and steep slopes to the rear.
2 c. Neighboring Area: Intensely developed commercial, office, and
residential uses. VA Route 419 corridor.
2 d. Site Layout: Access to property will be gained from single
entrance off of Route 419. Shared access road within existing
right-of-way to be constructed by petitioner and will serve
future development that may occur to the rear of petitioner's
property and adjoining car dealership.
2 e. Architecture: Motel will consist of both a three-story and a
two-story section. Specifics of architecture have not been
proposed at this time; however, accompanying materials
describing signs depict a general architectural concept.
2 f. Screening and Landscape: As per ordinance.
3 g. Amenities: Adequate parking proposed.
2 h. Natural Features: No negative effect.
TRAFFIC
2 i. Street Capacities: Current ADT on Route 419 between Route 220
and Route 904 (Starkey Road) is 42,110 vehicles. Current ADT on
Route 419 between Route 904 and Route 221 is 29,470 vehicles.
Anticipated vehicle trip ends generated by proposed use will be
358 during the weekday and 293 on the weekends. Between January
1987 and February 1988, there were six accidents at the
intersection of Routes 419 and 904; ten accidents at the
intersection of Route 419 and Route 681 (Ogden Road); and 12
accidents between Routes 681 and 904.
? j. Circulation: Single entrance via shared access road onto Route
419. Access road will be privately maintained. Westbound
traffic on Route 419 will be able to access the property from an
entrance proposed to be located on the east side of petitioner's
parcel .
UTILI`PIES
2 k. Water: Adequate supply and distribution.
2 1. Sewer: Adequate treatment and transmission.
- 8 -
2 m,
N/A n.
2 0.
2 p,
N/A q,
N/A r,
2 s.
DRAINAGE
Basin: No foreseeable problems.
Floodplain:
~` ~'~ ~'.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Fire Protection: Within established service standard.
Rescue: Within established service standard.
Parks and Recreation:
School:
TAX BASE
- Land and Improvement Value: Approximately $2.2 million
- Taxable Gross Sales/Year: $766,000
- Total Employees: 28
- Total revenue to the County/Year:`.` Approximately $50,460.
New revenue: $44,910
ENVIRONMENT
2 t. Air:
2 u. Water:
2 v. Soils:
2 w. Noise:
3 x. Signage: Limited to one directional sign which will be a
monument sign 2' x 3' in size; one wall-mount sign which be 10'
x 9' in size; one double-face cabinet, monument sign which will
be 12' x 11' and approximately 30' in height.
6. PLAN CONSISTENCY
This area is designated as Core. Petitioner's request is consistent
with both the land use plan map and with the defined policies.
7. STAFF EVALUATION
a, Strengths: (1) Proposal conforms with land use plan map and
defined policies. (2) Proposal will limit access to Route 419 to
one entrance by using existing right-of-way. Development of
this frontage road will also serve adjoining properties to the
side and to the rear. (3) Traffic generation will be moderate.
(4) Petitioner has proffered as conditions substantial
conformity with concept plan, restricted use to a motel only,
and limited the amount of signage. (5) Adequate utilities
currently in place.
b. Weaknesses: None.
c. Proffers Suggested: (1> None.
- 9 -
VIRGINIA:
BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
A 1.0715 acre parcel of land, )
generally located on the Southbound )
side of Va. Route 419, Roanoke Co., Va)
within the Cave Spring )
Magisterial District, and )
recorded as parcel # portion of tax )
_ map parcel #87.07-1-44 )
in the Roanake County Tax Records. )
RECOA'~"IENDATION
'It'} THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY:
_. ~:
,~ ~`°.
~_':;~
WHEREAS, your Petitioner Namron Inns, Inc.
has filed with the Secretary to the Planning Commission a petition to rezone the
above-referenced parcel of land from B-2 with conditions District
to B-2 with conditions District for the purpose of amending the
roffered conditions
WHEREAS, the petition was referred to the Planning Commission which, after due
legal notice as required by Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, a s
amended, did hold a public hearing on June 7 1988 ; and
WHEREAS, at that public hearing all parties in interest were afforded an
ooportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due consideration has recornrrended to
the Board of County Supervisors that the reao+~-iag_be___ amPnriPC~ nrnF~or~
be approved
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Comrnis.sion recommends to the
Board of County Supervisors that the above-referenced parcel of land
zoned B-2, subject to amended proffers be approved
The above action was adopted on motion of and upon the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Gordon, Jones, Witt, Winstead
NAYS ~ Non e
ABSENT: R fully submitted,
None
Alte ate Sec tary
Roan P_ Cc~llntV D1 anni n., ~+~,,,.„;
- --. ., ~:~S1G7
VIRGINIA:
BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
A 1.0715 acre parcel of land, )
generally located on the Southbound )
side of Va. Route 419, Roanoke Co., V)a.
~ within the Cave Spring )
M Magisterial District, and )
~ recorded as parcel # port ion of tax )
map parcel #87.07-1-44 )
in the Roanoke County Tax Records. )
FINAL ORDER
~ THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUN`T'Y:
2
W
E~
~.a ' t, r'
~ WHEREAS, your Petitioner Namron Inns, Inc.
v did petition the Board of Count Su
o y pervisors to rezone the above-referenced parcel
H f rom B-2 with conditions District to B-2 with conditions District
~ for the purpose of amending the proffered condition
Q
w
0
x
WHEREAS, after due legal notice, the Planning Commission did hold a public
hearing of the petition on June 7 19 88 at which time, all parties
in interest were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, after full consideration at the public hearing held on June 28,
19 88 the Board of County Supervisors determined that the rezoning be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED that the aforementioned parcel of land, which is
contained in the Roanoke County Tax Maps as ParcelPart of 87.07-1-44 and recorded
in Deek Book 1189 page 1240 and legally described below, be rezoned from
B-2 with conditions District to B-2 with conditions
District.
- 10 -
_ ,
Legal Description of Property:-
Beginning at a point at the southeast corner of the property of Trans-World
Enterprises (Bojangles); thence leaving said point with the west line of the
property of Montague-Betts Company, Inc. S 45° 45' 50" E 144.48 Ft. to a
point; thence with a new division line thru the property of Atalantis Group,
Inc. S 48° 32' 40" W 288.22 Ft. to an angle point of a 50 Ft. private road;
thence with east line of said road N 40° 29' 47" W 100.38 Ft. to a point;
thence N 42° 11' W 87.71 Ft. to a point; thence N 57° 34' 36" E 280.28 Ft.
to the place of beginning and containing 1.0715 Acres.
BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be transmitted to the Secretary
of the Planning Commission and that he be directed to reflect that change on the
official zoning map of Roanoke County.
ADOPTED on motion of Supervisor Garrett
following recorded vote:
Ay~• Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett
NAYS: None
~S~' Supervisor Robers
and upon the
°-~' , Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections
Dale Castellow, Acting Director, Planning & Zoning
John Wiley, Director, Real Estl~te Assessment
M
~o
~.
H
z
w
H
2
0
v
0
H
Q
w
0
a
a
a
VIRGINIA:
BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
p, 1.0715 acre parcel of land, )
generally located on the Southbound )
side of Va. Route 419, Roanoke Co., Va). PROFFER
within the Cave Spring ) OF
Magisterial District, and ) CONDITIONS
recorded as parcel # portion of tax )
map parcel #87.07-1-44 )
in the Roanoke County Tax Records. )
TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY:
(~~~ ~'
Being in accord with Sec. 15.1-491.1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia and Sec.
21-105E of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, the Petitioner
Namron Inns, Inc. hereby voluntarily proffers to the
Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia the following conditions to the
rezoning of the above-referenced parcel of land:
1. The parcel will be used for the construction and operation of a motel.
2. The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the concept plan
dated May 6, 1988.
3. Sinage shall conform to the McSleep Inn standard approved sign package. (Copies
are attached hereto)
Respectfully submitted,
1
'~ ~ c~Nr
etit' er Namron Inns, Inc.
Norman A. Andersen, President
- 12 -
A P P E A R A N C E R E Q U E S T
PUBLIC HEARING ON
~~ ~
I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to
recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter so
that I may comment. I agree to follow the guidelines listed
below. WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND
ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
1. Each speaker will have between three and five minutes
available whether speaking as an individual or
representative. The chairman will decide the time limit
based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and
will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of
the Board to do otherwise.
2. Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of
view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by
the Chairman.
3. All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between
a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed.
4. Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all
times .
5. Speakers are requested to leave any written statements
and/or comments with the clerk.
6. INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL
FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP
ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM.
P L E A S E W R I T E L E G I B L Y
NAME:
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
PLEASE NOTE;
(After filling out, give to the Deputy
Clerk. Thank you.)
^/us - ~{PS" ~/~ ~
~ ~~- 9
PETITIONER: SPRINCydOOD ASSOCIATES
CASE NCI~QBER: 31-6/88
Planning Commission Hearing Date: June 7, 1988
Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: June 28, 1988
A. REQUEST
Petition of Springwood Associates to rezone a 2.25 acre t
and R-l, Residential to B-2, Business to construct an of
located immediately west of the intersection of Brambleton
Colonial Avenue (Route 720) in the Windsor Hills Magisteria
B. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
ract from B-1, Business
fice and retail park,
Avenue (Route 221) and
1 District.
There were 8 present in opposition to the request and 3 in support of the request.
Glenn Torre, John and Sandra Lewis voiced the following concerns: increased
traffic from retail sales and commercial development; types of businesses to
locate on the site unknown.
C. SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FACTORS
1. Street Capacities: Due to the speculative nature of the proposal, it is
difficult to assess its potential traffic impact on existing highway
facilities. Assuming the site is developed entirely as a retail complex
(worst case scenario), the proposal could generate as many as 2,600 vehicle
trip ends per day. As an office complex, the site would generate
approximately 390 vehicle trip ends per day. Depending on the ultimate use
of the site, it will most likely generate traffic volumes somewhere between
these two estimates.
In 1986, ADT on Brambleton Avenue was approximately 12,910 vehicles. 1986
ADT along Colonial Avenue (Route 687) was approximately 5,049. Between
January 1987 and February 1988, one accident was reported at the intersection
of Colonial and Brambleton avenues.
D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS
1. Architecture and materials to be used in the buildings to be constructed on
the subject property will be in a colonial style and will be in harmony with
the adjacent neighborhood properties. The exterior of the buildings will
consist of a combination of brick and siding.
2. The purpose of the rezoning is for the construction and operation on the
subject property of a retail and office park. The subject property will not
be used for any of the following uses, all of which are permitted uses in a
B-2 district: residential, hotels or motels, theaters, car dealerships (new
or used>, undertaking establishments and/or funeral homes, public billiard
parlors and pool rooms, bowling alleys, golf driving ranges, animal
hospitals, clinics or commercial kennels, flea markets, public dance halls.
3. Interior landscaping in each parking facility.
4. On-site lighting to be focused on the interior of the site so as to avoid the
impact of the lighting on adjoining properties. Lighting will not exceed 1
foot candle measurable below the light at the base of the stand. Exterior
light poles shall be limited to no more than 14 feet in height.
5. No billboard advertising.
\~ ~ ~ 1
E. CONA4ISSIONER' S MOTION, VO`!'E AND REASON
Mike Gordon moved to deny the petition with proffered conditions, stating that
the concept is too vague. 'The motion carried with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Gordon, Jones, Witt, Winstead
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE
None.
G. A'I'I'ACEIlKENTS
Concept Plan (8~" x 11")
Vicinity Map (8~" x 11")
Staff Report
Other:
ley, Alternate Secretary
County Planning Commission
- 2 -
~zs ~ ~~ ~~
' ~ ~ ~ lYb7d 1d.3JNOJ ° b b ~
e ~' - b ~ E . Y
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ SNO/~c/Gc/OJ .~H1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ' W
,~~F ~ry~Y
,~
~~
GO~ro ~~Oi ~A~N/1 Ni _- ~~
ova y`~NpJ G
2ppygt b ,
c ;; Z~v ; jR~'
Ua°3.
~ ~
,.,~\1
' . 'c o. /
~~,.
` Ni.Id' 1
i. ~ s
~ -' -
I
~~- -" E~~
O-' ~ 'fJ'~\ ~ (~
~ ~ z" ~ \;
~ wm ~ ~
ro - ~ ~ ~}0,
N 'l
. ~ w
O _" . 4 -
_ _) ~
~ d . _ ~ ~- e
of ~ 4 ~ o~ ~-.
84Z( .- r ^- m,~1 ~j e
WfA W ~- ~ ~ ~- V V 4 I ~F ~ ~
a4 4 ~ e~' ~41n I ;Q o
,~
w
- ~ ~
_~ ~
_ _~ ~ --
- -_
o
- ` .~
N -`- -8 ~ u
--- -- h ~ - 4 g ~ c W tip 4i .
W W ---- ~ ----- r ~' z z o
m
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~
~~ ~~
JW U'~
Q U~
•p ~~ Gvy
ti+LO ~~w3 ))r^ J iG_~
! GG.f[.6G N
~ ro 1
' ~v w~
• h~t~ ~ M1
- 3 -
D
1lADTIJ
nvn ~ ~~
a n
6
18 I7
+, O
u 19 ' E
4 ~,.
r 16100
J~
~ ~
"r 3 1
i~ 20 0
s n 15
8 .„u
.+' ~ ,.rr
~z 14 ,
.,t t,!
13 6
t 1 ? b ~o
a'? % 12
' ' 3 0 '~~ ~ __ ` /~
^ 4 tl t ~
r, g
I O /~
~ ly I)t~ /
1.04Ac
C~ t 2 10
d ~
-T .O ~
r ~ 6 ~ s
E
/~\ ~
1 :111 parcels are zoned R-1
~' r unless othertaise noted.
/„' u•I /13
4~~t -~
~.o ~ 81 `
3 ~ BL
x.26 Ac \ ~~\
1C C~`,~,0 2~ ////f 4
I / ~ 1~ 4C
~ to / / !\~
~~ /
116 K O'
b i~~b
o ~° n ~ /
•~ tl 8 5 /
/ /
u~a ,oo
.--- R I. 687
~ ,6w
,~ 35
.c, ~ K B1 ,}~ 62 /
• y y 0 toe 162 / C BP le ieon~
O / p i
Lont C/po 21
p 34 ^ o/ Corr plinp ' 1 75 A[
/ B,2 Di,/. nc.
/ ~ , ~~~. ^ 1.~8 Ac /
''. / o E3~ ~
33 / R 1 r', .
E3 2 Q /
Et 2 / / 20
i l ,~' .. /
~ f I9
32
/ L20AC / p / ` 18 6 12
R / 3tR
v ~ ' / d t f ot, got ~ ' Q`+'
7 ^/ ~ 1~ b 13
- 4 -
ROANOKE COUNTY SprinR~•/ood Associates
OEPARI"MENT OF DEVELOPMENT ~~ ~ " 13-1 to 13-2
'1'as Map 11 86.08 - U4 - 07
~ ~V~~~11 1 IIIHr
~~- ~'
STAFF REPORT
CASE NUMBER: 31-6/88 PETITIONER: Springwood Assoc.
REVIEWED BY: Dale Castellow DATE: June 7, 1988
Petition of Springwood Associates to rezone a 2.25 acre tract
from B-l, Business and R-1, Residential to B-2, Business to con-
struct an office and retail park, located immediately west of the
intersection of Brambleton Avenue (Route 221) and Colonial Avenue
in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District.
1. NATURE OF REQUEST
a. Conditional request to construct an office and retail park
consisting of five structures totaling 21,000 square feet.
Existing single family structure would be incorporated
into the project as a commercial structure. Petitioner
advises that this structure would be remodeled in an
architectural style consistent with the new buildings.
b. Attached concept plan and zoning vicinity map describe the
project more fully. Petitioner has not proffered the
submitted concept plan as a condition of development.
2. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
a. The B-2, General Commercial District, permits a wide
variety of commercial and office uses. Petitioner has
proffered conditions which prohibit future development of
the site as residential; a hotel or motel; a theater; a
car dealership (new or used); an undertaking establishment
or funeral home; a public billiard parlor or pool room;
a bowling alley or golf driving range; an animal hospital,
clinic or commercial kennel; a flea market or public dance
hall. Petitioner has also proffered that the complex will
be constructed in "harmony" with the adjacent neighborhood
properties (see Architecture for comments).
b. Site plan review will be required to ensure compliance
with County regulations.
c. Commercial entrance permit will be required from VDOT.
3. SITE CHARCTERISTICS
a. Topography: Moderately sloping toward Brambleton Avenue.
b. Ground Cover: Mature trees, grass, low growing underbrush
and an existing single family structure.
4. AREA CHARACTERISTICS
a. Future Growth Priority: Situated within the Windsor Hills
Community Planning Area, it is designated for stable
growth. Urban services are available.
b. General area is developed with mixed commercial uses along
- 5 -
~o~r-_
Brambleton Avenue (Route 221). An existing large lot
subdivision abuts the site to the west.
5. LAND USE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Rating: Rate each factor according to the impact of the
proposed action. Use a scale 1 through 5.
1 = positive impact, 2 = negligible impact, 3 = manageable
impact, 4 = disruptive impact, 5 = severe impact, and N/A ~ not
applicable.
RATING FACTOR
COMMENTS
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
2 a. Comprehensive Plan: 1985 Comprehensive~Development Plan
has placed this area within a Transition land use category.
Petitioner's request is in conformance with both the land
use plan map and applicable policies. Office and retail
uses are encouraged in Transition areas when clustered or
developed within planned office parks or. .shopping centers.
The petitioner's proposal maintains direct arterial
frontage and access.
Specifically, the proposal is consistent with policies TR-2
(encourage new retail uses to develop in planned shopping
centers or in planned groupings of independent buildings),
TR-3 (where opportunity exists, reserve frontage strips for
major office facilities) and TR-7 (provide shared access
and parking where possible, and limit the frequency of
driveway openings). Policy TR-5 is also applicable since
an existing single family structure is being utilized as a
commercial structure to create a unified development
project.
2 b. Surrounding Land: Property abuts existing strip commercial
uses, single family residences, and Brambleton Avenue
(Route 221), a major arterial highway.
2 c. Neighboring Area: Strip commercial, institutional, single
family residential and Brambleton Avenue (Route 221).
3 d. Site Layout: Attached concept plan has not been proffered.
Actual development could deviate significantly from the
submitted concept plan. Proposal includes 5 new buildings
each approximately 4,200 square feet in size. An existing
single family residence would also be incorporated into the
development. Buildings would be placed in a unified group-
ing which would include shared access and parking.
Proposed interior circulation is somewhat hampered by the
fact that internal drives would be constructed as dead
ends. Petitioner will be required to provide turn-around
space at the end of each drive for emergency vehicles.
Staff recommends that the petitioner proffer interior
landscaping within the proposed parking facilities. Staff
also recommends that the petitioner proffer that all on-
site lighting will be focused on the interior of the site
so that it does not impact neighboring properties.
- 6 -
O ; ~ - ;r
it ~ .. ~f
Specifically, staff recommends that exterior lighting
should be limited to 14 feet in height. Petitioner should
also specify the location of trash dumpsters.
3 e. Architecture: Petitioner has proffered that the new
buildings will be constructed in "harmony" with the
neighboring properties. Since no common theme exists
among the neighboring properties, staff suggests that the
petitioner proffer additional details as to the architec-
tural style, size and appearance of the proposed build-
ings.
3 f. Screening and Landscaping: Submitted concept plan denotes
25 foot buffer yard along the rear property line. In
accordance with Section 21-92 of the Roanoke County Zoning
Ordinance {Screening and Buffering), type "D" screening
and buffering is required for this proposal. The type "D"
requirement includes two options of varying screening and
buffering types. Staff recommends that .the petitioner
proffer "Type D, Option 2" which requires a 35 foot buffer
yard with large evergreen trees, small evergreen trees,
and one row of evergreen scrubs.
2 g. Amenities: Sufficient parking stalls are illustrated on
the submitted concept plan.
2 h. Natural features: No known negative affect.
TRAFFIC
4 i. Street Capacities: Due to the speculative nature of the
proposal, it is difficult to assess its potential traffic
impact on existing highway facilities. Assuming the site
is developed entirely as a retail complex (worst case
scenario), the proposal could generate as many as 2,600
vehicle trip ends per day. As an office complex the site
would generate approximately 390 vehicle trip ends per
day. Depending on the ultimate use of the site, it will
most likely generate traffic volumes somewhere between
these two estimates.
In 1986, ADT on Brambleton Avenue was approximately 12,910
vehicles. 1986 ADT along Colonial Avenue (Rt. 687) was
approximately 5,049. Between Jan. 1987 and Feb. 1988 one
accident was reported at the intersection of Colonial and
Brambleton Avenues.
3 j. Circulation: Access to the site would be limited from
Brambleton Avenue (Route 221). Access and parking would
be shared. Interior circulation is somewhat hampered
because of dead end access drives. Petitioner will be
required to provide turn-around space at the end of each
drive for emergency vehicles. At this time, plans are
underway to improve Brambleton Avenue from Electric Road
(Rt.419) to Crystal Creek Drive (Rt.897). The plans call
for widening Brambleton Avenue from 2 to 5 lanes. As a
- 7 -
~~~-
result of the proposed improvements, setback and commer-
cial entrance requirements will be based on revised right-
of-way requirements.
UTILITIES
2 k. Water: Adequate supply and distribution.
2 1. Sewer: Adequate.
DRAINAGE
2 m. Basin: No problems noted.
N/A n. Floodplain:
PUBLIC SERVICES
2 0. Fire Protection: Within established service standard.
2 p. Rescue: Within established service standard.
N/A q. Parks and Recreation:
N/A r. School:
TAX BASE
1 s. - Land and Improvement Value: 52,120,000
- Taxable Gross Sales/Year: $2,000,000
- Total Employees: 75
- Total revenue to the County/Year: Approximately $44,380
New Revenue $43,000
ENVIRONMENT
2 t. Air:
2 u. Water:
2 v. Soils:
3 w. Noise: This proposal is likely to generate additional
noise for residents of the adjacent single family
subdivision. To mitigate any additional noise associated
with this proposal, staff recommends that the petitioner
proffer screening and buffering as specified under "Type
D, Option 2."
3 x. Signage: Staff estimates that an excess of 1,000 square
feet of Signage could be erected on this site. To date,
the petitioner has not proffered any limitations on the
amount of permissible Signage. Staff recommends that the
petitioner proffer conditions which prohibit more than one
freestanding sign and off-premise advertising. Staff also
recommends that the petitioner proffer that no more
t11an 300 square feet of Signage will be erected on the
- 8 -
~1~ 7
entire site.
6. PLAN CONSISTENCY
This area is designated as Transition. The petitioner's
proposal is consistent with the land use plan map and the
following policies: TR-2 (encourage new retail uses to develop
in planned shopping centers or in planned groupings of
independent buildings), TR-3 (where opportunity exists,
reserve frontage strips for major office facilities) and TR-7
(provide shared access and parking where possible, and limit
the frequency of driveway openings). Policy TR-5 also
supports the proposal since an existing single family
structure is being incorpoated in the unified development
proposal.
7. STAFF EVALUATION
a. Strengths: (1) The proposal conforms with the Future Land
Use Plan and applicable policies. (2) The petitioner
has proffered conditions which prohibit several
inappropriate uses of the property. (3) The proposal
would have a positive impact on the County's tax base.
b. Weaknesses: (1) At this time the specific use of the
property is undetermined. (2) Petitioner has not
proffered the submitted concept plan as condition of
development. (3) Proposal will increase traffic volumes
along Brambleton Avenue. (4) To date, the petitioner has
not proffered any limitations on signage to be erected on
the site.
c. Suggested Proffers: (1) Staff suggests that the petitioner
proffer interior landscaping in each parking facility.
(2) Staff recommends that the petitioner proffer detailed
information regarding the size, style and appearance of
the proposed buildings. (3) Staff recommends that the
petitioner proffer "Type D, Option 2" screening and
buffering along the rear property line of the site. (4)
Staff recommends that the petitioner proffer conditions
which prohibit more than one freestanding sign on the
site, off-premise advertising, and no more than 300 square
feet of signage on the entire site. (5) Staff recommends
that the petitioner proffer that all on-site lighting be
focused on the interior of the site so that it does not
impact adjoining properties and that exterior light poles
should be limited to 14 feet in height.
- 9 -
VIRGINIA:
BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
A 2.25 acre parcel of land, )
generally. located on the northerly )
(U. Route 2
side of Brambleton Avenue, STS', )
within the w;,,~G~,- u; i i G )
Magisterial District, and )
recorded as parcel #86.08-04-07 )
in the Roanoke County Tax Records.
RECONA~.TIDATION
TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY:
~ ~~-~
WHEREAS, your Petitioner Springwood Associates, a Virginia General Partnership,
has filed with the Secretary to the Planning Commission a petition to rezone the
above-referenced parcel of land from B-1 and R-1 District
to B-2 District for the purpose of construction and
operation of an office and retail park thereon.
WHEREAS, the petition was referred to the Planning Commission which, after due
legal notice as required by Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as
amended, did hold a public hearing on June 7 , 1988 ;and
WHEREAS, at that public hearing all parties in interest were afforded an
opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due consideration has recommended to
the Board Of Count S denYiedd with roffered
y upervisors that the rezoning be ~~}~ ~~ p
conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the
not
Board of County Supervisors that the above-referenced parcel of land be rezoned as
B-2 with proffered conditions.
The above action was adopted on motion of Mike Gordon
following recorded vote:
Aye; Gordon, Jones, Witt, Tainstead
and upon the
~yg. None
ABSENT: None Resp ct,~ submitted,
Al rnate S retary
R poke County Planning Commission
~ r ~~~
M
.--i
H
z
w
H
z
0
U
0
H
Q
w
0
x
w
VIRGINIA:
BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
A 2.25 acre parcel of land, )
generallyy located on the northerly )
(U. S. lZoute 221)
side of Brambleton Avenue, SW, )
within the Windsor Hills )
Magisterial District, and )
recorded as parcel # 86.08-04-07 )
)
in the Roanoke County Tax Records. )
FINAL ORDER
Zb THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY:
WHEREAS, your Petitioner Springwood Associates, a Virginia General Partnership,
did petition the Board of County Supervisors to rezone the above-referenced parcel
from B-1 and R-1
District to B-2 District
for the purpose of construction and operation of an off ice and retail park thereon.
WHEREAS, after due legal notice, the Planning Commission did hold a public
hearing of the petition on June 7 1988
_, at which time, all parties
in interest were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, after full consideration at the public hearing held on June 28
19 88 the Board of County Supervisors determined that the rezoning be approved with
proffered conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED that the aforementioned parcel of land, which is
contained in the Roanoke County Tax Maps as Parce]s 86.08-04-07 & 08 and recorded
in Deed Book 1272 page 1025 and legally described below, be rezoned from
B-1 and R-1 District to B-2 with
District
proffered conditions.
- 10 -
Legal Description of Property:
fir`"
r-
Property located in the County of Roanoke, State of Virginia, and
more particularly described in Schedule "A" attached hereto.
BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be transmitted to the Secretary
of the Planning Commission and that he be directed to reflect that change on the
official zoning map of Roanoke County.
ADOPTED on motion of Supervisor Garrett and upon the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Supervisor Robers
Yn~~~ ~- Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections
Dale Castellow, Acting Director, Planning & Zoning
John Wiley, Director, Real Estate Assessment
- 11 -
SCHEDULE A
BEGINNING at a point on the northwesterly side of
U.S. Highway Route No. 221, said point being marked
by an iron pin and being corner to the property of H.
J. Hagan (Deed Book 1181, page 1641); thence leaving
Route 221, and with the line of the Hagan property,
N. 39° 32' 35" W. 91.45 feet to an iron pin, corner
to the property of Valley Developers (Deed Book 1228,
page 1667); thence with the line of the Valley
Developers' property, N. 41° 05' 40" W. 167.12 feet
to an iron pin; thence continuing with the line of
Valley Developers, N. 41° 27' 20" E. 369.7 feet to a
point marked by an iron rebar, corner to the property
of F. W. Finney Const. Co. (Deed Book 1138, page
690); thence leaving the property of Valley
Developers and with the line of the F. W. Finney
Const. Co. property, the following three courses and
distances: S. 58° 29' 25" E. 195.57 feet to an iron
pin; thence S. 12° 39' 05" W. 39.9 feet to an iron
pin; and thence S. 11° 40' 10" E. 63.65 feet to an
iron pin, said point being located on the north-
westerly side of Route 221; thence with the north-
westerly side of Route 221, with a curve to the left,
having a radius of 1,984.86 feet, a chord bearing of
S. 50° 43' 10" W., an arc distance of 258.17 feet to
an iron pin; thence with Route 221, S. 27° 35' S0" E.
47.47 feet to an iron pin; thence continuing with
Route 221, S. 49° 57' 25" W.93.88 feet to a point
marked by an iron pin, the place of BEGINNING; and
CONTAINING 2.25 acres and being as more particularly
shown on Plat of Survey made by Balzer & Associates,
Inc., dated March 3, 1986, a copy of which is
attached to and recorded herewith; and
BEING a part of the same property conveyed to J. L.
Hoback (a/k/a James Letcher Hoback) by deeds dated
May 27, 1935, and March 1, 1948, recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke
County, Virginia, in Deed Book 231, page 142 and Deed
Book 383, page 239, respectively; the said James
Letcher Hoback having died testate on September 6,
1979, and by his Will dated November 15, 1978,
probated in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court
for the County of Roanoke, Virginia, on September 11,
1979, and spread in Will Book 33, page 815, devised
the hereinabove described and conveyed property to
his widow, Mamie Ann Vest Hoback.
- 12 -
.~
;~
M
~o
H
Z
W
N
z
0
U
0
H
0
w
0
a
a
a
VIRGINIA:
BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
A 2.25 acre parcel of land, )
generally located on the )
northerly side of Brambleton )
Avenue, SW, (U.S. Route 221) )
within the Windsor Hills )
Magisterial District, and )
recorded as Parcel #86.08-04- )
07 in the Roanoke County )
Tax Records. )
~,~~__
.-;;_ ,
,~ ~ C.~ i%
~ ivy 'y~',~~,; ~
'`S;`~ c~t~ ~v
~ ~v~ ^ cti~v r07
Gf~ ~V~~~ ~!v 1V r
r C,o~ _ ° ~ t _,,~~ .
AMENDED
PROFFER OF
CONDITIONS
TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY:
Being in accordance with Sec. 15.1-491.1 et seq. of the
Code of Virginia and Sec. 21-105E of the Roanoke County Zoning
Ordinance, the Petitioner, Springwood Associates, a Virginia
General Partnership, hereby voluntarily proffers to the Board
of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, the following
conditions to the rezoning of the above-referenced parcel of
land:
1. Architecture and materials to be used in the
buildings to be constructed on the subject property will be in
a colonial style and will be in harmony with the adjacent
neighborhood properties. The exterior of the buildings will
consist of a combination of brick and siding.
2. The purpose of the rezoning is for the construction
and operation on the subject property of a retail and office
park. The subject property will not be used for any of the
following uses, all of which are permitted uses in a B-2
district:
Residential
Hotels or Motels
Theaters
Car dealerships (new or used)
Undertaking establishments and/or funeral homes
Public billiard parlors and pool rooms
Bowling alleys
Golf driving ranges
Animal hospitals, clinics or commercial kennels
Flea markets
Public dance halls.
- 13 -
~~~-I
3. The Petitioner will plant and, thereafter, maintain
interior landscaping in each parking facility shown on the
Concept Plan.
4. The Petitioner will construct all on-site lighting so
as to focus the same on the interior of the site and so as to
avoid the impact of the lighting on adjoining properties.
Exterior light poles shall be limited to no more than fourteen
(14) feet in height. Lighting will not exceed 1 foot candle
p~~~~y~ measurable below the light at the base of the stand.
6i Respectfully submitted,
SPRINGWO ASSOCIATE
By: ~~ ~.
Mic ael K. Smeltzer,
Attorney for Petition
,:1 5. No billboard advertising.
~~~~
t j
1~
- 14 -
~~~
VIRGINIA:
BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
A 2.25 acre parcel of land, )
generally located on the ) SECOND AMENDED
northerly side of Brambleton ) PROFFER OF
Avenue, SW, (U.S. Route 2?.1) ) CONDITIONS
within the Windsor Hills )
Magisterial District, and )
recorded as Parcel #86.08-04- )
07 in the Roanoke County )
Tax Records. )
TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY:
In accordance with Sec. 15.1-491.1 et seq. of the Code of
Virginia and Sec. 21-105E of the Roanoke County Zoning
Ordinance, the Petitioner, Springwood Associates, a Virginia
General Partnership, hereby voluntarily proffers to the Board
of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, the following
additional conditions to the rezoning of the above-referenced
parcel of. land:
1. The property will be developed in accordance with the
Concept Plan made by Balzer and Associates, dated May 3, 1988,
except for such changes as may be required by the site plan
review. There will be a maximum of five buildings on the
property, each of such buildings containing a maximum area of
4, 200 Square feet. Existing house will remain, if possible.
2. Petitioner agrees to screen the property in accord-
ance with Type D, Option 2., which provides for screening with
large evergreen trees, small evergreen trees, and one row of
evergreen scrubs.
3. Signs on the property shall not exceed a total of ~00
square feet. ~,"'
Respectfully submitted,
SPRINGW D ASSOCIATE
By:
M'chael K. Smelt er,
Attorney for Petition
LAW OFFICES
WOODS,ROGERS
& HAZLEGROVE
ROANOKE, VA.
A P P E A R A'N C r: R E Q U E S T
PUBLIC HEARING ON c..~'>uZ ! ~i ~:, ~ `; ~ , }' f, ~~~~ ~ ( ~ ~ti~;+-~
I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to
recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter so
that I may comment. I agree to follow the guidelines listed
below. WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND
ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
1. Each speaker will have between three and five minutes
available whether speaking as an individual or
representative. The chairman will decide the time limit
based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and
will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of
the Board to do otherwise.
2. Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of
view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by
the Chairman.
3. All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between
a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed.
4. Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all
times .
5. Speakers are requested to leave any written statements
and/or comments with the clerk.
6. INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL
FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP
ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM.
P L E A S E W R I T E L E G I B L Y
NAME:
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
f `' r !
~,
' ~~ir
~~~~ ~~~f_ 37~
PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy
Clerk. Thank you.)
~ ~
f
PETITIONER: VICTOR R. LAYMAN II
CASE NtMBEfZ: 34-6/88
Planning Commission Hearing Date: June 7, 1988
Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: June 28, 1988
A. RD~UEST
~ ~~~
Petition of Victor R. Layman II to vacate a portion of a right-of-way located at
the terminus of Buckingham Circle in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District.
B. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
No one in opposition was present at the Planning Commission Public Hearing.
C. SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FACTORS
1. None
D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS
1. None
E. COMMISSIONER'S MOTION, WTE AND REASON
Mike Gordon moved to to approve the petition subject to receipt of the remaining
signed contract prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting. The motion carried
with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Gordon, Jones, Witt, Winstead
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE
None.
G. ATTACHMENTS
Concept Plan (8~" x 11")
Vicinity Map (8~" x 11")
Staff Report
Other:
Joo~jtley; Alternate Secretary
R rio e County Planning Commission
I
I I
.
~ I
~
Imo .
~ ~ ~ Q
a
ti
~o
I~
~ ~
~
\
2- 5'TO,PyB~/G~
COT .3'
i. S/O Glc .
N
I
~ ~ 3 - s ~/~sazs°w
~ ~ /26.25
I Q - -- -
~~ ~
I
M
0
o~
a
~ ~~=, ,~
~~
Q ~1
~ ~ ~W
ZO'S,Qi1//T/124~ SEWER ~ ~ ~
EASEMENT ~ 3
~ ~
252. </9 "<TOTAG)
/26.25 " h
I N
~ ~.
S/oEYgRO SETf.~AG,~' ~ 0~
ITYP/CAG) y
I 0\
C.O T 2 J ,
~ vo' tisnv, ecoc c%vE
I ~
~ ~z.~ ~z.7
I ~ ~
N
v I ~
.a I
~' I - ti
~ \
IW
~.
~I ~
~ I N
v
COT /
O. S<o / AC
W o. s~~ ,q c. N foi
M M Nom/
L __
~ ~ ,5
h
~ \ ~
~~ I~
JS'M/N. 13000. C/NE 7
-~ --- /ZG.S/.- -
-, --_- 571 °43' So"~W
/ 75 ' ~°f/E zs.o'
(TYP.)
~or¢ Bcock /
I I SEC. 8
~ 6//N060~P G/E5T
.°B. 8 ~°~ 40 /,
-- ---~--
/26. S5~'
" TOTAG~ -..f _
L:OT¢ ,B000l~ 3
SEC. 8
W/NOBO~P !~/E5T
P. B. S P~. ¢O
~~
~~
J
-a-
Q ~~
~m
p~ ~ Q
W ~~
~v~
~~~
jo
-C/NOE~P BLOCK
BGOF jD ~E
~PEMO l/EO
- /5' PUBL/C
UT/C/TYESM'T
5
~ ~ o ~.
~ W ~ ~ Y
W
~O ~ ~
x
N
`~ JW~`~~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ z N
~ ~~? ~ Q
Q ,(~r ~ V
Q ~ ~
~~ ~ ~ J ~
'o o w W ~ ~ ~. ~ ~
d Q 0 w~ ~pC No p}~ .~- ~ ~
I, D N • ~ ~
~~ N~ °J d ~ ~W ZW~
~ ~ U N~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~
~ ~0. II ~i / ~~ ~ ~~
i ,,,II~ III ~?o~
1\ V 1\ 1 11
- 4 -
<~ Victor R. Layman II
' ROANOKE COUNTY Right-cf-way vacation
d~ ,; DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT 'L'ax Map Id67.20 - O1 - 23
ie
......... ^ n~n~
STAFF REPORT
CASE NUMBER: 34-6/88
REVIEWED BY: LIZ PARCELL
PETITIONER: VICTOR R. LAYMAN II
DATE: JUNE 7, 1988
Petition of Victor R. Layman II to vacate a portion of a right-of-way
located at the terminus of Buckingham Circle in the Windsor Hills
Magisterial District.
Background: In May of 1987, the Roanoke County Board of Zoning Appeals
(BZA) denied a variance request of the petitioner to reduce the road
frontage requirement from 60 feet to 25 feet to create two lots at the
terminus of Buckingham Circle. The B ZA denied the request stating there
were other alternatives for the us e of the property. The petitioner
then received engineering approval to create four lots by extending the
right-of-way and creating a new cul-de-sac on Buckingham Circle.
According to the petitioner, the residents of the area preferred the
creation of two lots over four and encouraged him to return to the BZA
to request a variance. In April of 1988, the BZA approved the
petitioner's request to reduce the road frontage requirement from 60
feet to 25 feet to create two lots at the terminus of Buckingham Circle.
The petitioner is seeking to vacate a 50 foot right-of-way approximately
43 feet in length to construct two driveways. Although, the right-of-way
(if vacated) would legally belong to the adjacent lots (76.08-6-26 and
76.08-6-27), the petitioner and the two lot owners will be entering into
an agreement so that the petitioner will be owner of 50 feet along the
arc of the curve. Any land greater than the 50 feet will be conveyed to
the adjacent property owners. Copies of the contract will be made
available at the Planning Commission public hearing. No portion of the
cul-de-sac is being abandoned.
1. IMPACT ON EXISTING LAND USE
The vacation, provided the contract is made, will not affect the
access of any property owner in the subdivision, If the contract is
not made and the right-of-way is vacated, the petitioner's parcel
would be landlocked.
2. IMPACT ON FUTURE LAND USE
The vacation, provided the contract is made, will enable the
petitioner to create two residential lots. The vacation will have
no effect on the development of other vacant parcels of land in the
subdivision.
3. IMPACT ON UTILITIES
Water and sewer are available.
objection to the request.
4. OTHER IMPACTS
The utility Department has no
The vacation will not affect the delivery of Fire and rescue
services to the area.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has no objection to the
request. - 5 -
VIRGINIA:
BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
~~~_/
RE: Vacation of a portion of the )
right-of-way located at the terminus )
~f_ Buckingham Circle )
within the Windsor Hills )
Magisterial District, Roanoke County, )
Virginia )
RD;-~OMME~IDATION
WHEREAS, Victor R. Layman II did petition to Board of Supervisors
of Roanoke County, Virginia, requesting that a portion of the right-of-way located
at the terminus of Buckingham Cir be permanently closed and vacated; and
WHEREAS, the petition was referred to the Planning Commission on which, after
due legal notice as required by Section 15.1-432 of the Code of Virginia of 1950,
as amended, did hold a public hearing on June 7
19 88 and
WHEREAS, at that public hearing all parties in interest were afforded an
opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due consideration has recarunended to
the Board of County Supervisors that the request to vacate a portion of Buckingham
~; r,,,,,
as shown on the Plate of Buckland Gardens
prepared by
-Balzer & Associates on June 3 ~ 19 88 be approved
subiect to receipt of two contracts from the adjoining property owners allowing use of
property. BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of of this resolution be certified and
delivered by the Secretary of this Planning Con~nission to the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia.
The above action was adopted on motion of Mike Gordon and upon the
following recorded vote:
AYFxS: Gordon, Jones, Witt, Winstead
~~'S ~ None
ABSEL~Tr: None
Respectfully submitted,
Secr ry, Roanoke County Planning Commission
~~-/~
VIRGINIA:
BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUN`T'Y
RE: Vacation of _3_p~tion of the )
._r_ighr-nf-,.,a3' located at the terminus )
_nf Buckingham GirclP ) FINAL ORDER
within the W;n~iso Hills )
Magisterial District, Roanoke County, )
Virginia )
TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUN'T'Y:
WHEREAS, your Petitioner Victor R. Layman II
did petition the Board of County Supervisors to abandon and vacate a portion of the
~ s-~.ar-"r-~-- located on
~ Ri~rk;,, ham ~; r~l P _ and
WHEREAS, after due legal notice, the Board of County Supervisors did hold a
public hearing on said request on ,Tune 28 19 88 at the Roanoke
County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia at which
time, all parties in interest were given an opportunity to be heard; and
w WHEREAS, after full consideration the Board of County Supervisors is of the
0 opinion that the request oe approved on June 2 8 , 19 8 8 .
~ NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED that the 5Q foot
o
H
~, right-of-way, hereinabove described as the terminus of
Q R„~kingham c:; ~~P and shown on a plat attached
BE IT F[TRTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be transmitted to the
~ Department of Planning and Zoning and that this order be recorded by Petitioner
~ along with the attached plat among the land records of Roanoke County.
ADOPTED on motion of Supervisor Garrett and upon the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett _
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Supervisor Robers
~Z~` ~~ ~ Pn„t~, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections
Dale Castellow, Acting Dire-cffio><, Planning & Zoning
John Wiley, Director, Real Estate Assessment
~ 88- /d
4E~Ui
;SALES CONTRACT
This Contract, made this ~-~ day of ~~~`- , 19
between ~"S~C'04Z '~. ~'~c•~1pt.~ "1't. {~~ ~~i~-~_ ~ _
through OWENS & COMPANY OF VIRGINIA, INC., Agent, hereinafter referred to as Seller, and.
hereinafter referred to as Purchaser.
WITNESSETH:
that certain lot or parcel of land, wii
situated in the ~~~ \`~ O~ ~C7i~`p~~ and described a:
.O
C?~-`C~~
all appurtenances thereto belonging,
follows:
- << .. --
r acknowledges that he has inspected the above described premises to his satisfaction and' oe5'f accept the
property in its pr ondition, except Seller guarantees that plumbing, electrical, cooling and he stems, water heater,
and appliances shall be rn working condition as of settlement date or at time of posse ichever is sooner.
The risk of loss or damage estruction of any swcture on the premises means until the deed of conveyance is
delivered is assumed by the Seller.
Should either party hereto default in the pe ce of of this contract, the party so defaulting agrees to pay
Owens & Company the full commission the agent is ent' virture of securing this contract. Should the Purchaser be the
defaulting party, Owens & Company shall have t to apply al held in escrow to~y~rds, any costs incurred by reason
of this contract, and also towards any a~ commissions due under this cot
Included with the sale o eve real estate are the shades, venetian blinds, c d drapery rods, screens and screen
doors, storm windows oors, disposal, dishwasher, laundry trays, awnings and electrical onnections for appliances,
if any, and al ry and plantings now on premises,
r agrees to have the property inspected by a bonded pest control firm, and furnish, at settlement, ce 'on stating
It is understood that the property is to be conveyed subje-~rb ct to~all recorded conditions, easements and restrictions.
It is understood that the property described herein is to be free and clear of all liens and indebtedness of every kind ~a~~
t e.
All rents, interest, taxes, insurance premiums, and heating nil, if applicable, are to proiated as of the date of actual
settlement.
~~'~- i/
~ ~ ~ ~ -- ~ 8
~ ~ g- ~ /
A P P E A R A N C~ ~E ~ \k E Q U E S T
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PUBLIC HEARING ON '~- ~~~ ~ - ~ 1~`~np ~-y~ r~ 1 Z" X C ~ ~~~~ [~~ ~2 V ~^n - ~"
I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to
recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter so
that I may comment. I agree to follow the guidelines listed
below. WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM, I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND
ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
1. Each speaker will have between three and five minutes
available whether speaking as an individual or
representative. The chairman will decide the time limit
based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, and
will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of
the Board to do otherwise.
2. Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of
view only. Questions of clarification may be entertained by
the Chairman.
3. All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between
a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed.
4. Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all
times .
5. Speakers are requested to leave any written statements
and/or comments with the clerk.
6. INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL
FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP
ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM.
P L E A S E W R I T E L E G I B L Y
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NAME:
ADDRESS:
PHONE : ~. ~ J ~~ ~I-' ~ ~-I~ - - -
PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy
Clerk. Thank you.)
ITEM NUMBS R ~ ~~- `O~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
IN ROANOKE, VA., ON TUESDAY,
MEETING DATE: June 28, 1988
SUBJECT: Public hearing and resolution pursuant to Section
15.1-238(e) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended,
setting forth the intent of Roanoke County to enter
upon certain property and to take a certain right-of-
way for the relocation of Kenworth Road, in connection
with the Valleypointe Project.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
~~u Jry~G~ ~ y/~
BACKGROUND:
Roanoke County is involved in the Valleypointe Project as a
joint participant with Lingerfelt Development, Inc. of Richmond,
Virginia. The County has dedicated $1 million of water and sewer
revenue bonds towards Phase I and II of_ the development. Another
$1,000,000 has been allocated by Roanoke County towards road
development costs. The relocation of Kenworth Road is a result
of the adjacent development of Valleypointe, Phase I, which will
necessitate a new signalized intersection to be constructed on
Peters Creek Road. The existing Kenworth Road access to Peters
Creek Road will be closed and the road relocated to interconnect
with Valleypointe Parkway. Staff has been negotiating with the
property owners to acquire the land needed to accomplish the re-
location. The owners have declined to accept the County's offer.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Section 15.1-238(e) provides for a notice and public hearing
by the Board of Supervisors to authorize immediate entry upon
real estate and condemnation thereof. In order to relocate
Kenworth Road, one right-of-way must be condemned:
Smith's Transfer Corporation
ARA Services
Fair Market Value - $61,500.00
Notices by mail were given to the property owners in ques-
tion. These notices also included the offers of fair market
value as indicated by the appraisal report. This procedure is a
necessary first step to commence condemnation proceedings.
Public notices of this public hearing were published in the
Roanoke Times and World News on June 14, 1988 and June 21, 1988.
~.
~~~~~~
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Adopt the proposed resolution after the required public
hearing to commence condemnation proceedings.
2. Do not adopt the proposed resolution after the required
public hearing to commence condemnation proceedings.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The costs involved will include $61,500.00 plus legal costs
and expenses for condemnation actions and expert witness fees.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the proposed resolution be adopted by
the Board after the required public hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~. ~~, ~ f~~n1 ~ ~~~1_
aul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
---------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes b
Denied ( ) Garrett
Received ( ) Johnson
Referred McGraw _
To Nickens _
Robers
~!~ ~%
• AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1988
R E S O L U T I O N P U R S IJ A N T T O S E C T I O N
15.1-238(e) OF THE 1950 CODE OF VIRGINIA,
AS AMENDED, SETTING FORTH THE INTENT OF
ROANOKE COiJNTY TO ENTER UPON CERTAIN PROP-
ERTY AND TO TAKE A CERTAIN RIGHT-OF-WAY
FOR THE RELOCATION OF KENWORTH ROAD IN
CONNECTION WITH THE VALLEYPOINTE PROJECT.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the relocation of Kenworth Road is being under-
taken by the County of Roanoke to allow for a new signalized
intersection to be constructed on Peters Creek Road and to re-
locate existing Kenworth Road access to interconnect with
Valleypointe Parkway; and,
2. That in order to complete this relocation, a cer-
tain right-of-way is needed and more particularly described as
follows:
A triangular shaped parcel containing
23,100+ square feet located in the
extreme eastern corner of a 10.78 acre
tract owned by Smith's Transfer
Corporation (said corporation being owned
by ARA Services) and being shown on the
attached plat which is a part of the
appraisal report prepared by John
Lipscomb, MAI, dated June 10, 1988.
The fair market value of the aforesaid
interest to be acquired is 561,500.00,
such compensation and damages, if any,
having been offered the property owner.
3. That it is immediately necessary for the County to
enter upon and take such property and commence said road improve-
ments (i.e., the relocation of Kenworth Road) in order to create
V ~~"~`
better access, visibility, and to improve traffic safety to
better serve the citizens of Roanoke County and to thereafter
institute and conduct appropriate condemnation proceedings as to
said right-of-way; and,
4. That pursuant to the provisions of Section
15.1-238(e) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and pursu-
ant to notice and public hearing as made and provided therein,
the Board does hereby invoke all and singular the rights and priv-
ileges and provisions of said Section 15.1-238(e) as to the vest-
ing of powers in the County pursuant to Section 33.1-119 through
Section 33.1-129 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, all as
made and provided by law.
S
CORRECTED UPON REVIEW
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1988
RESOLUTION 62888-11 PURSUANT TO SECTION
15.1-238(e) OF THE 1950 CODE OF VIRGINIA,
AS AMENDED, SETTING FORTH THE INTENT OF
ROANORE COUNTY TO ENTER UPON CERTAIN
PROPERTY AND TO TAKE A CERTAIN
RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE RELOCATION OF
KENWORTH ROAD IN CONNECTION WITH THE
VALLEYPOINTE PROJECT.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the relocation of Kenworth Road is being under-
taken by the County of Roanoke to allow for a new signalized
intersection to be constructed on Peters Creek Road and to re-
locate existing Kenworth Road access to interconnect with
Valleypointe Parkway; and,
2. That in order to complete this relocation, a cer-
tain right-of-way is needed and more particularly described as
follows:
A triangular shaped parcel containing
23,100+ square feet located in the
extreme eastern corner of a 10.78 acre
tract owned by Smith's Transfer
Corporation (said corporation being owned
by ARA Services) and being shown on the
attached plat which is a part of the
appraisal report prepared by John
Lipscomb, MAI, dated June 10, 1988.
The fair market value of the aforesaid
interest to be acquired is $61,500.00,
such compensation and damages, if any,
having been offered the property owner.
3. That it is immediately necessary for the County to
enter upon and take such property and commence said road improve-
ments (i.e., the relocation of Kenworth Road) in order to create
a
better access, visibility, and to improve traffic safety to
better serve the citizens of Roanoke County and to thereafter
institute and conduct appropriate condemnation proceedings as to
said right-of-way; and,
4. That pursuant to the provisions of Section
15.1-238(e) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and pursu-
ant to notice and public hearing as made and provided therein,
the Board does hereby invoke all and singular the rights and priv-
ileges and provisions of said Section 15.1-238(e) as to the vest-
ing of powers in the County pursuant to Section 33.1-119 through
Section 33.1-129 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, all as
made and provided by law.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor
Garrett and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, M~~, Nickens, Garrett
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Robers
ABSTAIN: Supervisor McGraw
A COPY TESTE:
~~ ~.
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
Timothy Gubala, Director, Economic Development
Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering
John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator
Don Myers, Assistant County Administrator
Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance
John Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment
2
ACTION ~~
ITEM NUMBER ~~~~~'~
AT A REGULAR MHELDNATOTHEHROANOKE OCOUNTYEADMINISTRATIONNOCENTER
COUNTY, VIRGINIA
MEETING DATE: June 28, 1988
AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTIREpORTSIAND REMIT
LEVY OF TAX; AMOUNT AND 21-153,
TANCES GENERALLY OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE AND
ADDING SECTION 21-165 OF THE ROANOKE COiTNTY CODE,
SEVERABILITY
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
'~~~'~
BACKGROUND:
The Board on May 10, 1988, adopted an ordinance imposing a
tax on food and bev er gents (4%) lof thet amount scharged. caThis meals
the rate of fou P 1988.
tax will take effect on July 1,
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The initial legislation proposed by Roanoke County for an
amendment to its Charter to permit the imposition of a meals tax
followed the enabling legislation for Roanoke City's meals tax.
House Bill 821, which was ultimately passed authorizing Roanoke
County, among others, to impose a meals tax, contained a restric-
tion limiting any meals tax to food and beToregableotheaCommos-
sumed on the premises of a restaurant.
sinner of the Revenue to carry out his responsibilities under
this ordinance, the burden is placed upon the restaurant to main-
tain such records as are necessary to doremisesWhalnfcasesofdany
him is sold for consumption off the p
challenge to this ordinance, it is advisable to have a severabil-
ity clause so that the entire ordinance would not be declared
invalid in case some part of it was determined to be legally defi-
cient.
A public hearing is scheduled on this proposed ordinance on
June 28, 1988. It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors
dispense with the sJulndlre1988,gthe originaleffective date of
will be effective by y ~
this tax ordinance.
~ ~--~.~
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS:
It is estimated that the fiscal impact could be minimal or
could be as great as 20% (Commissioner of the Revenue) of the
anticipated revenue from the meals tax. Off-premises consumption
sales at fast food establishments and convenience stores would be
affected. Staff recommends that budget revenue estimates not be
adjusted at this time, rather, that the monthly revduringbthelfis-
ly monitored and adjustments made, if necessary,
cal year.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of these amendments in~srdmeals
reduce the potential for legal challenges to the County
tax.
Respectfully submitted,
~-~
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
----------
---------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
No Yes Abs
Approved ( ) Motion by: Garrett
Denied ( ) Johnson
Received ( ) McGraw
Referred Nickens
To Robers
~~~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGICENTERELONATUESDAYOAJIINE 2gUN1988DMINISTRATION
ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SEC-
TIONS 21-151, LEVY OF TAX; AMOUNT AND
21-153, REPORTS AND REMITTANCES GENERAL-
LY OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE AND ADD-
ING SECTION 21-165 OF THE ROANOKE
COUNTY CODE, SEVERABILITY
WHEREAS, by ordinance adopted on May 10, 198$, the
Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, have added a
new Article VIII, Tax on prepared food and beverages, to Chapter
21, Taxation, of the Roanoke County Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that it is
appropriate to make certain technical amendments to said ordin-
ance to insure compliance with House Bill 821; and
WHEREAS, a first reading and public hearing on this
ordinance was held on June 28, 1988, and that the requirement
for the second reading of this ordinance was dispensed with
pursuant to Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1, Chapter 21, Taxation, of the Roanoke County Code
be, and it hereby is, amended and reenacted by amending Sections
21-151 and 21-153 to read and provide as follows:
Sec. 21-151. Levy of tax; amount.
In addition to all other taxes and fees of any kind now
or hereafter imposed by law, a tax is hereby levied and imposed
on the purchaser of all food served, sold, or delivered in the
county in or from a restaurant, whether prepared in such restau-
rant or not, and ~oltether consumed on the premises er nat;
or prepared by a caterer•aidhforasuchffoods tIn thelcomputation(of
percent of the amount p
this tax, any fraction of one- half cent or more shall be treated
as one cent. _
~, ~~. ~ ~
Sec. 21-153. Reports and remittances generally.
Every seller of food with respect to which a tax is
levied under this article shall make out a report, upon such
forms and setting forth such information as the commissioner of
the revenue may prescribe and require, showing the amountand shall
charges collected and the tax required to be collected,
sign and deliver such report to the resumedtthatuall food servedt
tance of such tax. It shall be p
sold, or delivered in the count in or from a restaurant which
provides seatin facilities for its customers are consumed on
premises and the burden shall be upon the seller of food to estab-
lish b records what food is sold for off-premises consum tion.
Such reports and remittance shall be theeamount offtax collected
tieth day of each month, covering
during the preceding month.
Taxation, of the Roanoke County Code
2. Chapter 21,
be, and it hereby is, amended and reenacted by adding Section
21-165 to read and provide as follows:
Sec. 21-165. Severability.
The sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, and
phrases of this chapter are severable, and if any phrase, clause,
sentence, paragraph, or section of this Chapter shall be declared
unconstitutional or inurisdictione thelremaining ph~ases,rclausesa
court of competent ~
sentences, paragraphs, and sections of this chapter shall remain
valid. additions, and reenactments
3, That these amendments,
shall be in full force and effect on and after July 1, 1988.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, ON TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1988
ORDINANCE 62888-12 AMENDING AND
REENACTING SECTIONS 21-151, LEVY OF
TAX; AMOUNT AND 21-153, REPORTS AND
REMITTANCES GENERALLY OF THE ROANORE
COUNTY CODE AND ADDING SECTION 21-165
OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE,
SEVERABILITY
WHEREAS, by ordinance adopted on May 10, 1988, the
Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, have added a
new Article VIII, Tax on prepared food and beverages, to Chapter
21, Taxation, of the Roanoke County Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors finds that it is
appropriate to make certain technical amendments to said ordin-
ance to insure compliance with House Bill 821; and
WHEREAS, a first reading and public hearing on this
ordinance was held on June 28, 1988, and that the requirement
for the second reading of this ordinance was dispensed with
pursuant to Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. Chapter 21, Taxation, of the Roanoke County Code
be, and it hereby is, amended and reenacted by amending Sections
21-151 and 21-153 to read and provide as follows:
Sec. 21-151. Levy of tax; amount.
In addition to all other taxes and fees of any kind now
or hereafter imposed by law, a tax is hereby levied and imposed
on the purchaser of all food served, sold, or delivered in the
county in or from a restaurant, whether prepared in such restau-
rant or not, and whether consumed on the premises or not,
or prepared by a caterer. The rate of this tax shall be four (4)
percent of the amount paid for such food. In the computation of
this tax, any fraction of one- half cent or more shall be treated
as one cent.
Sec. 21-153. Reports and remittances generally.
Every seller of food with respect to which a tax is
levied under this article shall make out a report, upon such
forms and setting forth such information as the commissioner of
the revenue may prescribe and require, showing the amount of food
charges collected and the tax required to be collected, and shall
sign and deliver such report to the county treasurer with a remit-
tance of such tax. It shall be presumed that all food served,
sold, or delivered in the county in or from a restaurant which
rovides seatin facilities for its customers are consumed on
remises and the burden shall be u on the seller of food to estab-
lish by records what food is sold for off-premises consumption.
Such reports and remittance shall be made on or before the twen-
tieth day of each month, covering the amount of tax collected
during the preceding month.
2. Chapter 21, Taxation, of the Roanoke County Code
be, and it hereby is, amended and reenacted by adding Section
21-165 to read and provide as follows:
Sec. 21-165. Severability.
The sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, and
phrases of this chapter are severable, and if any phrase, clause,
sentence, paragraph, or section of this Chapter shall be declared
unconstitutional or invalid by the valid judgment or decree of a
court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining phrases, clauses,
sentences, paragraphs, and sections of this chapter shall remain
valid.
3. That these amendments, additions, and reenactments
shall be in full force and effect on and after July 1, 1988.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor
Garrett and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Robers
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
2
cc: File
Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of Revenue
Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer
Francis W. Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney
Magistrate
Sheriff's Department
Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Avenue, S.W., Rke 24016
Main Library
Roanoke County Code Book
3
' ~ ~ ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER ~ ~~"~~~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 28, 1988
AGENDA ITEM: Amendment to Premium Refuse Collection Service
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
Citizen concern has been raised over the fact that when
performing premium service, the refuse collectors will only take
the household garbage. Further, in review of our current
procedures, elderly and handicapped residents also receive
backdoor service for household garbage only. The resolutions
defining Curbside Service, 85-147 and Premium Service, 85-183
were passed by the Board, September 3, 1985 and October 22, 1985,
respectively. These resolutions established the procedures and
charges for premium service, established backyard "Collection for
Disabled", and established the policy that residents who qualify
for these two services "... must make their own arrangements to
have any materials that are not part of their regular household
refuse placed at the curb for collection." This proposed redefi-
nition will increase service to 351 residents who fall in these
two categories.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Item 1 - Redefinition of Premium Service:
Premium service will include trash that is not part of the
normal household garbage. This would include grass, leaves, and
any other materials that can be containerized and weigh 50 lbs.
or less. These materials will be collected with the normal
household garbage. Bulk items that cannot be containerized
(white goods, sofas, etc.) will continue to be collected at the
curb under the published monthly schedule.
Item 1.A - Cost of Redefined Premium Service:
Premium service presently costs the citizen $1.25 per
collection or $5.00 per month for those residents within 100 ft.
of the curb and an additional $4.00 charge for each additional
100 ft. or fraction thereof over the initial 100 ft. Cost of the
redefined service is increased by $.75 per collection for a total
of $8.00 per month and $5.00 per additional 100 ft.
Item 1.B - Redefined Premium Refuse Service Charge Per Month:
Proposed
Distance From Curb Current Rate Charge Per Month
100 ft. or less $ 5.00 $ 8.00
101 - 200 ft. 9.00 13.00
201 - 300 ft. 13.00 18.00
301 - 400 ft. 19.00 23.00
401 - 500 ft. 21.00 28.00
501 - 600 ft. 25.00 33.00
601 - 700 ft. 29.00 38.00
701 - 800 ft. 33.00 43.00
801 - 900 ft. 37.00 48.00
901 - 1000 ft. 41.00 53.00
Item 2 - Redefinition of Backyard Service for Disabled Residents:
Disabled residents receiving backyard service will receive
the same redefined premium service without a fee.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS:
This report is for second reading.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommended approval to amend the Ordinance covering
premium refuse collection service. A public hearing will be held
on June 28, 1988 for public comment on the increase in fees.
SUBMITTED BY:
~.r- ardner W. Smith
Director
Department of General Services
APPROVED:
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Garrett
Received ( ) Johnson
Referred McGraw
to Nickens
Robers
~.,f~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, ON TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1988
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20, "SOLID
WASTE," OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, BY
THE REPEAL AND REENACTMENT OF SECTION
20-24, "RATES AND CHARGES" BY PROVIDING
FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CERTAIN REGULA-
TIONS CONCERNING CURBSIDE REFUSE COLLEC-
TION, PREMIUM REFUSE COLLECTION, AND
INCREASING CERTAIN CHARGES FOR PREMIUM
REFUSE COLLECTION SERVICE
WHEREAS, upon due notice and advertisement the citizens
of Roanoke County were given an opportunity to appear at a public
hearing on this amendment on June 28, 1988; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held
on June 14, 1988, and the second reading and public hearing was
held on June 28, 1988; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 85-147 adopted by the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County on September 3, 1985, said Board
established certain policies for curbside collection of refuse;
and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 85-183.E. adopted on October 22,
1985, the Board established a premium refuse collection service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervi-
sors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That Section 20-24 be repealed as follows:
See.- ~9-~~*- Rates and eharges-
the rates and charges der sa~rd waste ea~~eetian ser-
vree renelereel by the eeuntp sha~~ be sneh as are preserrbee~ by
the beard of snpervrsers-
~ ~~-i~
2. That a new section numbered 20-24 and entitled
"Rates and Charges" be, and hereby is, adopted to read and pro-
vide as follows:
Sec. 20-24. Rates and charges.
1. Definitions
"RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS" shall include single-family,
duplexes, and single lot mobile homes.
"COMMERCIAL, BUSINESS, APARTMENT, MOBILE HOME PARKS,
AND INSTITUTIONAL SERVICE" shall be by application only.
"ROAD" shall be defined as a passable street or roadway
serving three or more separate residences or businesses.
"CURBSIDE" shall be defined as the point at which a lot
adjoins a road.
"BACKYARD SERVICE" will be provided to qualifying dis-
abled, handicapped, or elderly citizens.
"DISABLED" Everyone residing in the structure must be
disabled or handicapped and unable to carry refuse to the curb-
side. Disabilities or handicaps must be certified by a physician.
Qualified applicants must make their own arrangements to have any
materials that are not part of their regular household refuse
placed at the curb for collection.
"PREMIUM REFUSE COLLECTION SERVICE" shall include col-
lection of trash or refuse that is not normal household garbage,
such as grass, leaves, and other materials that can be container-
ized and weigh 50 lbs. or less at the residents' backyard.
2. Specific collection categories shall be as follows:
Roanoke County shall provide once per week curbside
service to all residential customers in Roanoke County.
COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS CUSTOMERS, APARTMENTS, MOBILE
HOME PARKS, AND INSTITUTIONAL:
Roanoke County shall provide once per week service to
all licensed commercial establishments generating not more than
10 cans, 30-gallons each of refuse per week. (Ten bags may be
substituted.) All establishments generating more than this
amount will have the option to pay a collection charge as shown
below, or secure a private collection service:
11-15 cans per week .........................$ 5.00
16-20 cans per week ......................... 10.00
~8~_,y
21-15 cans per week ......................... 15.00
26-30 cans per week ......................... 20.00
31-35 cans per week ......................... 25.00
All generators of over 35 cans per week are not elig-
ible for County collection and will be required to secure private
collection.
NON-COUNTY RESIDENTS:
Roanoke County shall provide weekly service to non-
county residents upon application and agreement to pay a collec-
tion fee of $10.00 per month.
CONDOMINIUMS AND TOWNHOUSES (FOR SALE):
Roanoke County shall provide once per week curbside or
single location service to all condominium and townhouse develop-
ments.
3. Premium Refuse Collection Service will be provided
to all residential households on an individual application basis.
The charge for premium refuse collection will be a minimum of
$3-99 $8.00 per month and will include backyard service up to
100 feet from the curbside pickup location; and
4. For each additional 100 feet or fraction thereof
over the initial 100 feet, an additional $4-99 $5.00 charge
will be made. Premium Refuse Collection charge per month is as
follows for the distance indicated:
100 feet or less
101 - 201 feet
201 - 300 feet
301 - 400 feet
401 - 500 feet
501 - 600 feet
601 - 700 feet
701 - 800 feet
801 - 900 feet
901 - 1000 feet
~ ~.-8B $ 8.00/month
9-9A 13.00/month
}3-99 18.00/month
}?.-AB 23.00/month
~}.-88 28.00/month
~~.-B8 33.00/month
~9-89 38.00/month
33.-A9 43.00/month
3~-9A 48.00/month
4}.-69 53.00/month
(~4-A9 $5.00 for each additional 100 feet)
5. That an application charge in the amount of $20.00
shall be made in advance together with proper application upon
forms approved by the County; and
6. That Premium Refuse Collection charges shall be
paid in advance on a quarterly basis; and
~~~-~~°
7. County residents who ar_e elderly, disabled, or hand-
icapped and who are unable to carry refuse, trash, or garbage to
the curbside and who satisfy the County regulations and policies
concerning same are eligible for premium service at no charge.
$. The County Administrator or his designee is autho-
rized to develop and implement such regulations as may be neces-
sary to accomplish the purposes of this ordinance.
9. That this ordinance shall be in full force and
effect from and after July 1, 1988.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, ON TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1988
ORDINANCE 62888-13 AMENDING CHAPTER
20, "SOLID WASTE," OF THE ROANOKE
COUNTY CODE, BY THE REPEAL AND
REENACTMENT OF SECTION 20-24, "RATES
AND CHARGES" BY PROVIDING FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF CERTAIN REGULATIONS
CONCERNING CURBSIDE REFUSE COLLECTION,
PREMIUM REFUSE COLLECTION, AND
INCREASING CERTAIN CHARGES FOR PREMIUM
REFUSE COLLECTION SERVICE
WHEREAS, upon due notice and advertisement the citizens
of Roanoke County were given an opportunity to appear at a public
hearing on this amendment on June 28, 1988; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held
on June 14, 1988, and the second reading and public hearing was
held on June 28, 1988; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 85-147 adopted by the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County on September 3, 1985, said Board
established certain policies for curbside collection of refuse;
and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 85-183.E. adopted on October 22,
1985, the Board established a premium refuse collection service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervi-
sors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That Section 20-24 be repealed as follows:
See.- 26-24- Rates asd el~a~ges-
'F~te gates aad el~a~ges tee se~~d waste ee~~eet~er~ se~-
*a~ee ~er~de~ed by the eet~rttp sba~l be s~ei~ as aye p~ese~}bed by
tl~e bead e€ s~pe~d~se~s-
2. That a new section numbered 20-24 and entitled
"Rates and Charges" be, and hereby is, adopted to read and pro-
vide as follows:
Sec. 20-24. Rates and charges.
1. Definitions
"RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS" shall include single-family,
duplexes, and single lot mobile homes.
"COMMERCIAL, BUSINESS, APARTMENT, MOBILE HOME PARKS,
AND INSTITUTIONAL SERVICE" shall be by application only.
"ROAD" shall be defined as a passable street or roadway
serving three or more separate residences or businesses.
"CURBSIDE" shall be defined as the point at which a lot
adjoins a road.
"BACKYARD SERVICE" will be provided to qualifying dis-
abled, handicapped, or elderly citizens.
"DISABLED" Everyone residing in the structure must be
disabled or handicapped and unable to carry refuse to the curb-
side. Disabilities or handicaps must be certified by a physician.
Qualified applicants must make their own arrangements to have any
materials that are not part of their regular household refuse
placed at the curb for collection.
"PREMIUM REFUSE COLLECTION SERVICE" shall include col-
lection of trash or refuse that is not normal household garbage,
such as grass, leaves, and other materials that can be container-
ized and weigh 50 lbs. or less at the residents' backyard.
2. Specific collection categories shall be as follows:
Roanoke County shall provide once per week curbside
service to all residential customers in Roanoke County.
COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS CUSTOMERS, APARTMENTS, MOBILE
HOME PARKS, AND INSTITUTIONAL:
Roanoke County shall provide once per week service to
all licensed commercial establishments generating not more than
10 cans, 30-gallons each of refuse per week. (Ten bags may be
substituted.) All establishments generating more than this
amount will have the option to pay a collection charge as shown
below, or secure a private collection service:
11-15 cans per week .........................$ 5.00
16-20 cans per week ......................... 10.00
21-15 cans per week ......................... 15.00
26-30 cans per week ......................... 20.00
2
31-35 cans per week ......................... 25.00
All generators of over 35 cans per week are not elig-
ible for County collection and will be required to secure private
collection.
NON-COUNTY RESIDENTS:
Roanoke County shall provide weekly service to non-
county residents upon application and agreement to pay a collec-
tion fee of $10.00 per month.
CONDOMINIUMS AND TOWNHOUSES (FOR SALE):
Roanoke County shall provide once per week curbside or
single location service to all condominium and townhouse develop-
ments.
3. Premium Refuse Collection Service will be provided
to all residential households on an individual application basis.
The charge for premium refuse collection will be a minimum of
$5-99 $8.00 per month and will include backyard service up to
100 feet from the curbside pickup location; and
4. For each additional 100 feet or fraction thereof
over the initial 100 feet, an additional $4-99 $5.00 charge
will be made. Premium Refuse Collection charge per month is as
follows for the distance indicated:
100 feet or less $ 5-99 $ 8.00/month
101 - 201 feet g-68 13.00/month
201 - 300 feet ~3-69 18.00/month
301 - 400 feet ~9-99 23.00/month
401 - 500 feet ~1-99 28.00/month
501 - 600 feet ~5-99 33.00/month
601 - 700 feet ~9-99 38.00/month
701 - 800 feet 33-99 43.00/month
801 - 900 feet 3~-69 48.00/month
901 - 1000 feet 4~-99 53.00/month
($4-69 $5.00 for each additional 100 feet)
5. That an application charge in the amount of $20.00
shall be made in advance together with proper application upon
forms approved by the County; and
6. That Premium Refuse Collection charges shall be
paid in advance on a quarterly basis; and
7. County residents who are elderly, disabled, or hand-
icapped and who are unable to carry refuse, trash, or garbage to
the curbside and who satisfy the County regulations and policies
concerning same are eligible for premium service at no charge.
3
8. The County Administrator or his designee is autho-
rized to develop and implement such regulations as may be neces-
sary to accomplish the purposes of this ordinance.
9. That this ordinance shall be in full force and
effect from and after July 1, 1988.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor
Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Robers
A COPY TESTE:
~Q~c--~~-. ~•
Mary H. llen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
Gardner Smith, Director, General Services
John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator
Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer
Francis W. Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney
Magistrate
Sheriff's Department
Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Ave., SW, Rke 24016
Main Library
Roanoke County Code Book
4
ACTION ~k
ITEM NUMBER ~ `
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
June 28, 1988
Ordinance authorizing the execution and assignment
of a real estate contract to acquire approximately
600 acres of real estate located in the Vinton
Magisterial District from the heirs of James E.
Palmer
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ,
YY1iyY{~./ ~ O ~', .ita 0~- ^"~^^ .i~'~E~Q' 2f~~rr.
BACKGROUND: ~ ~ ~~
At the March 24, 1987, meeting, the Board approved a request
to allow Roanoke County to acquire an option on certain proper-
ties in the vicinity of the regional landfill. This property
consists of approximately 600 acres and is owned by the heirs of
James E. Palmer. The landfill board had expressed a desire to
acquire an option on this property for possible expansion of the
landfill. The Board of Supervisors had expressed the following
reservations about the possible expansion of the landfill into
this area:
(1) The community has always opposed this location for a
landfill and is strongly opposed to any expansion.
(2) Such expansion could have an adverse effect upon the
Roanoke River.
(3) The County believes the property adjacent to the river
is more suitable for other purposes.
(4) The County indicated they would expand the existing
landfill into this area only as a last resort.
In addition, the River Foundation has been working with the
County Planning Commission and staff to determine a suitable loca-
tion for the Explore project. This property is vital to the
River Foundation in order to develop the Explore project without
procuring citizen's homes.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
For the past 15 months, County staff has been negotiating
with the heirs of James E. Palmer, through their attorney and
-~
duly authorized agent, Frank J. Delaney, to enter into a real
estate contract to acquire approximately 600 acres located adja-
cent to the landfill in the Vinton Magisterial District, and more
particularly described as Roanoke County Tax Map Nos. 80.00-5-24,
80.00-5-16, 80.00-5-15, 80.00-5-18, 80.00-5-25, 80.00-5-27, 80.00-
5-29, 80.00-5-10, 80.00-4-17, 80.00-5-38, and 80.00-5-40. A pro-
vision in the contract allows the County to assign the executed
contract to the Virginia Recreational Facilities Authority - the
River Foundation.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter
of Roanoke County, a first reading concerning this matter was
held on June 28, 1988. A second reading will be held on July 12,
1988.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS:
1. Authorize the County Administrator to execute such docu-
ments and take such actions as are necessary to accomplish this
action.
2. Do not authorize the County Administrator to execute
such documents and take such actions as necessary to accomplish
this action.
Pursuant to the passage of legislation in the 1988 session
of the Virginia General Assembly funding the River Foundation
Explore Project, the Virginia Recreation Facilities Authority
will receive monies to purchase the property. Upon receipt of
these funds by the Virginia Recreation Facilities Authority, the
County Administrator shall assign the contract to the Authority.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the County Administrator be authorized
to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roa-
noke County as are necessary to accomplish the execution of this
real estate contract and the assignment thereof, all of which
shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney.
Respectfully submitted,
q,.~
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
To
ACTION VOTE
Motion by: No Yes Abs
Garrett
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, ON TUESDAY, JTJNE 28, 1988
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND
ASSIGNMENT OF A REAL ESTATE CONTRACT TO
ACQUIRE APPROXIMATELY 600 ACRES OF REAL
ESTATE LOCATED IN THE VINTON MAGISTERI-
AL DISTRICT FROM THE HEIRS OF JAMES E.
PALMER
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the
Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading concerning the execu-
tion of a real estate contract and assignment thereof to acquire
the hereinafter-described real estate was held on June 28, 198$.
A second reading on this matter was held on July 12, 1988.
2. That a real estate contract to acquire approximate-
ly 600 acres of real estate located in the Vinton Magisterial
District, and more particularly described as Roanoke County Tax
Map Nos. 80.00-5-24, 80.00-5-16, 80.00-5-15, 80.00-5-18, 80.00-5-
25, 80.00-5-27, 80.005-29, 80.00-5-10, 80.00-4-17, 80.00-5-38,
and 80.00-5-40 between Charles J. Palmer and Karen B. Palmer, his
wife; Lela H. Palmer; James E. Palmer, III; and Suzanne M. Pal-
mer, collectively known as the heirs of James E. Palmer, and the
Board of Supervisors of_ Roanoke County, in the amount of
per acre, be, and hereby is accepted.
3. That the execution of this contract by the County
Administrator is hereby authorized, notified, confirmed and
approved.
4/` - /
4. That the assignment of Roanoke County's interests
in this contract to the Virginia Recreational Facilities Author-
ity is hereby authorized.
5. That the County Administrator is authorized to exe-
cute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke
County as are necessary to accomplish the execution of the real
estate contract and the assignment thereof, all of which shall be
upon form approved by the County Attorney.
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER ~_'~°
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 28, 1988
AGENDA ITEM:
Ordinance authorizing the conveyance of an ease-
ment to David A. Kinsler for driveway and landscap-
ing purposes
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
David A. Kinsler by and through his attorney, Heywood
Fralin, has requested the County to convey to him an easement for
driveway turnaround purposes, including the right to maintain and
improve this easement including landscaping. Mr. Kinsler has
entered into a contract to purchase Lot 19, Block 2, of Section
1, Canterbury Park. Closing on this contract is scheduled for
June 30, 1988. By survey prepared by Buford T. Lumsden, it was
disclosed that the driveway turnaround on said lot encroaches
over the division line between Lot 19 and a Roanoke County well
lot. This encroachment is approximately 36 feet deep and 15 feet
wide.
The State Health Department has reviewed this request and
has approved same, subject to the following conditions:
that the easement will be used only as a turnaround,
°that no parking or storing of automobiles will be allowed
in the easement area, and
that the County will be responsible for monitoring these
conditions.
The County Utility Department has reviewed this request and
has no objection to it. The County Assessor's Office has re-
viewed this request and estimates the value of this easement to
be approximately $300.00.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS:
The proceeds from the conveyance of this easement in the
amount of $300.00 be credited to a capital facility account in
the Utility Department.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors favorably
consider the proposed ordinance and authorize the County Admin-
istrator to execute such documents and take such actions on be-
half of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the convey-
ance of this easement, all of which shall be upon form approved
by the County Attorney.
Respectfully submitted,
,~ .-
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney ~` ~~~
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
To
Motion by:
ACTION
Garrett
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
VOTE
No Yes Abs
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, ON TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1988
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF
AN EASEMENT TO DAVID A. KINSLER FOR
DRIVEWAY AND LANDSCAPING PURPOSES
WHEREAS, David A. Kinsler has requested that the Board
of Supervisors authorize the conveyance to him of an easement for
driveway and landscaping purposes; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held
on June 28, 1988; and the second reading of this ordinance was
held on July 12, 1988, pursuant to the provisions of Section
18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter; and
WHEREAS, this property is surplus property pursuant to
the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County Charter;
however, this property is still available for public use as a
well lot, said public use not being adversely affected by this
conveyance.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That an easement for driveway and landscaping pur-
poses is hereby granted to David A. Kinsler, said easement being
upon and across a portion of a well lot located in Canterbury
Park subdivision.
2. That this easement shall be appurtenant to Lot 19,
Block 2, Section 1 of Canterbury Park (Plat Book 9, page 183).
The driveway turnaround encroaches over the division line between
said Lot 19 and the well lot, and further the County is willing
to allow the driveway turnaround to remain in place and to allow
Mr. Kinsler to landscape said easement area. No parking or stor-
ing of automobiles will be allowed in the easement area.
3. That this easement is approximately 35.94 feet by
15.22 feet, as more particu]_arly shown on a plat prepared by
Buford T. Lumsden & Associates, P. C., dated June 14, 1988, Comm.
#88-246.
4. That the offer of David A. Kinsler in the amount of
$300.00 is hereby accepted and all other offers are rejected.
That the proceeds from the conveyance of this easement are to
be allocated to the capital facility accounts of the Roanoke
County Utility Department.
5. That the County Administrator is authorized to exe-
cute such documents and to take such actions as may be necessary
to accomplish the purposes of this ordinance, all upon form
approved by the County Attorney.
a
O
THIS CONTRACT, made this _ day of , 1988, by
and between Charles J. Palmer and Karen B. Palmer, his wife; Lela
H. Palmer, Single; James E. Palmer, III, Single; and Suzanne
McGregor Palmer, Single; hereinafter collectively referred to as
"Seller," by and through their duly authorized agent, Frank J.
Delany, and Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, a
political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
hereinafter referred to as "Purchaser."
W I T N E S S E T H
1. SALE: The Seller, in consideration of the covenants and
agreements of the Purchaser hereinafter contained, agrees to sell
and convey to the Purchaser, and the Purchaser agrees to buy, all
that certain real property located in the County of Roanoke,
State of Virginia, and being as more particularly described as
Roanoke County Tax Appraisal Parcel Numbers 80.00-5-24,
80.00-5-16, 80.00-5-15, 80.00-5-18, 80.00-5-25, 80.00-5-27,
80.00-5-29, 80.00-5-10, 80.00-4-17, 80.00-5-38 and 80.00-5-40,
containing approximately six hundred (600) acres (excluding the
property to be conveyed to Don Leffell), and being more par-
ticularly shown and highlighted on Exhibit "A" attached hereto
(the "Property"). Purchaser represents that the parcels herein
listed by Tax Appraisal Numbers constitute the same property
shown on Exhibit "A."
-1-
2. PURCHASE PRICE. The total purchase price shall be
determined by multiplying the total number of acres contained in
the property according to survey by Five Thousand Dollars
($5,000.00.) per acre. For determining the purchase price, pre-
paring the survey and other purposes hereunder, the acreage shall
be all the Property that is within the peripheral boundary lines
of the Property as determined by the survey (including the boun-
daries shown in the title search even though underwater). A copy
of the survey will be furnished to Seller as soon as it is
available from the surveyor.
3. PAYMENT OF PURCHASE PRICE: The purchase price shall be
payable as follows: (a) Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) paid
to Frank J. Delany, duly authorized agent for the Seller, upon
execution of this Contract by all parties (the "Deposit"). The
Deposit shall not be credited towards the total purchase price.
If this Contract should fail to close for any reason not the
fault of the Purchaser, the Deposit shall be returned to Purchaser.
(b) The total purchase price as calculated in Paragraph
2 herein shall be payable as follows:
(i) One-half (1/2) of the purchase price shall be
payable in cash at Closing; and
(ii) Thereafter, the remaining one-half (1/2) of
the purchase price shall be payable on January 2, 1989.
-- --
(iii) Interest shall be paid on January 2, 1989
calculated on the unpaid balance of principal from the time of
-2-
Closing. The rate shall be the lowest rate which will prevent
the Internal Revenue Service from treating any part of the prin-
cipal as unstated interest paid Seller.
(iv) A Vendor's lien shall be reserved in the deed
of conveyance as security for the deferred purchase price.
(c) The net payment to the Seller shall be in five (5)
equal parts, four (4) of which shall be payable to the Seller and
the fifth (5th) payment shall be made to Frank J. Delany in
satisfaction of his equitable lien against the property.
Furthermore, Purchaser's attorney shall comply with the direction
of all payees as to where and to whom such payment as they may be
entitled shall be paid.
4. CONDITIONS OF SALE: The sale and conveyance of the
Property under this Contract and Purchaser's performance hereof
is, in addition to other conditions of this Contract, conditioned
at its option upon the following:
(a) Formal approval of the Purchaser in accordance with
applicable statutes and ordinances; and ~''
(b) The receipt of funds pursuant to the passage of
legislation in the 1988 session of the Virginia General Assembly
funding The River Foundation Explore Project; and
(c) As of Closing (as hereinafter defined), (i) title
to Property shall be good and marketable, and free and clear of
all mortgages, liens, encumbrances, leases, restrictions, ease=
ments and encroachments, except for the Permitted Exceptions and
-3-
such mortgages and liens to be satisfied out of the purchase
price payable at Closing, and (ii) the title company shall be
prepared to issue, at standard premium rates, a title insurance
policy to Purchaser insuring title to the Property subject only
to the Permitted Exceptions. Purchaser agrees to send Seller a
copy of the title insurance commitment as soon as it is available
from the title company.
(d) On or before July 13, 1988, Purchaser shall give
written notice to Seller that the conditions contained in this
Subsection 4 have been satisfied or waived and it will proceed to
Closing hereunder.
(e) Seller will cause to be delivered to Purchaser at
closing an appropriate quit-claim deed(s) of the two (2)
escheated properties owned by Frank J. Delany, described as 1.75
acres, Lot 33, Map of Journey's End, and 5 acres, Back Creek
(said parcels being shown on Exhibit "A").
The Purchaser agrees to use its best efforts to obtain the
funds available from the enabling legislation provided for in
subparagraph (b) above, and shall keep the Seller fully advised
as to its efforts, status and the final result.
In the event the foregoing conditions are not met to any
significant degree, then, and in that event, this Contract shall
be considered null and void and of no further effect,__and the
Deposit shall be returned to the Purchaser, and there shall be no-
further liability between the parties hereto.
-4-
5. TITLE: (a) Purchaser shall promptly obtain, at
Purchaser's own expense, an ALTA title commitment (the "Title
Commitment") showing no exceptions to title to the Property
except for exceptions acceptable to Purchaser (the "Permitted
Exceptions"). Purchaser shall promptly notify Seller of any
exceptions which will not be accepted as Permitted Exceptions,
and Seller shall proceed to cure the same as soon as possible,
and in any event not later than thirty (30) days after receipt of
the foregoing notice from Purchaser.
(b) At Closing, title to the Property shall be in
compliance with the provision of Paragraph 4(c)(i), and if Seller
is unable to convey title to the Property in accordance
therewith, Purchaser shall have the right to extend the Closing
for an additional thirty (30) days so as to permit Seller to
remove any impediments to delivery of title as required hereby.
If Seller is unable to cure such exceptions, then Purchaser shall
have the option of either (i) terminating this Contract, in which
event all sums paid thereon shall be returned to Purchaser and
neither Purchaser nor Seller shall have further liability to the
other hereunder, or (ii) accepting such title as Seller may be
able to convey without abatement in the purchase price.
6. CONVEYANCE:
On the date of Closing, the Seller shall
convey the Property to Purchaser by Special Warranty Deed, the
;_
--- --
same to be prepared at the expense of Seller and Seller shall pay~~
the Seller's transfer tax due thereon.
Seller will also provide
-5-
the quit-claim deed(s) referred to in Paragraph 4(e) hereof. All
other recordation taxes and fees shall be at the Purchaser's
expense. The conveyance shall be subject to the Permitted
Exceptions- only.
7. DATE AND PLACE OF CLOSING: If all the conditions to
Closing, as set forth in Paragraph 4 above, have been met or
waived in accordance therewith, the Closing ("Closing") shall be
held at the Roanoke County Administrative Office, 373$ Brambleton
Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, 24018, or at such other place as
the parties may mutually agree, on or before July 15, 1988.
Time, however, shall not be of the essence of this Contract.
This Contract may be extended by Seller's written consent, which
consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
8. ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT: This Contract can be assigned
by the Purchaser only to the Virginia Recreational Facilities
Authority. This Contract may be so assigned by the Purchaser,
without the consent of the Seller, by an entire assignment, pro-
vided that, concurrently with such assignment, the Purchaser
notifies the Seller of such assignment (and of the name and
address of the assignee) and sends to the Seller a copy of such
assignment together with a written agreement by the Assignee to
perform all the terms, promises, and conditions of this Contract
on the part of the Purchaser. No assignment shall release the
Purchaser from its obligations hereunder. Both Purchaser and'-
Purchaser's assignee are permitted donees pursuant to the provi-
-6-
sions of Section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code and Regulation
promulgated thereto.
9. PROBATIONS: Taxes shall be prorated as of the date of
the execution of this Contract by all parties. Each party shall
pay their own attorney's fees.
10. RIGHT TO SURVEY AND MAKE TEST BORINGS: The Purchaser
may, at any time prior to the Closing, enter upon the Property
for the purposes of surveying the Property or making test borings
or for the purpose of inspecting and investigation. Purchaser
agrees to do so with a minimum of disruption to the Property and
to restore the Property to its condition before any disruption as
nearly as practicable. Purchaser may obtain at its expense a
survey of the Property for its own purposes, including calcula-
tion of the purchase price as provided in Paragraph 2 herein.
Furthermore, Seller does hereby grant Purchaser consent to
proceed as necessary to rezone and/or obtain a "use not provided
for" in order that Purchaser may use the Property for its purpose
after its acquisition.
11. REAL ESTATE BROKER:
,,
Seller and Purchaser agree that no
broker brought about this transaction. The parties hereto agree
to indemnify and to hold each other harmless in all respects as
to any claim made by any broker, real estate or otherwise, for a
commission on account of this Contract.
12. SELLER'S PROMISE NOT TO FURTHER ENCUMBER: Seller shall
not, without the prior written consent of Purchaser, make or
-7-
allow to be made any leases, contracts, options or agreements
whatsoever affecting the Property which would in any manner
impede Seller's ability to perform hereunder and deliver title as
agreed herein; nor shall Seller cause or consent to any lien,
encumbrance, right, restriction or easement to be placed upon the
Property which would in any manner impede Seller's ability to
perform hereunder and deliver title as agreed herein.
13. SELLER'S REPRESENTATION: Seller makes the following
representations:
(a) Prior to and at the Closing, Seller will have the
power to sell, transfer and convey all right, title and interest
in and to the Property.
(b) At the Closing, no one with Seller's consent other
than Seller will be in possession of any portion of the Property.
(c) Seller does not know of any suit, action, arbitra-
tion, or legal, administrative or other proceeding pending or
threatened against the Property or any portion thereof or pending
or threatened against Seller which could affect Seller's title to
the Property or any portion thereof.
(d) Except as otherwise disclosed in writing to the
Purchaser, Seller has not knowledge of:
(i) Any intended public improvement or private
right which will result in the creation of any lien upon
the Property or any portion thereof;
(ii) Any uncured notices which have been served
upon Seller from any governmental agency notifying
-8-
Seller of any violations of law, ordinance, rule or
regulation which would affect the Property or any por-
tion thereof; or
(iii) Any actual or impending mechanic's liens
against the Property or any portion thereof.
(e) Seller has no knowledge of any lease, license,
option, right of first refusal or other agreement which affects
the Property or any portion thereof. Purchaser does, however,
recognize-the equitable lien of Frank J. Delany.
(f) Neither the grant nor this Contract will constitute
a breach or default under any agreement to which Seller is bound
and/or to which the Property is subject.
(g) Seller, or any of them if there be more than one
Seller, represents and warrants that they are not a "foreign per-
son" as defined in Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Seller's United States Taxpayer Identification Number is as
follows:
,M
Should any of the above representations cease to be true at
any time prior to the Closing, Seller shall immediately so advise
Purchaser in writing. Except insofar as Seller has advised
Purchaser in writing to the contrary, each of the above represen-
-9-
tations shall be deemed to have been made as of the Closing and
shall survive the Closing. Upon Closing, if Purchaser so
requests, Seller shall deliver to Purchaser a certificate in a
form satisfactory to Purchaser's counsel stating that each of the
above representations is true and correct as of the Closing.
14. Palmer Memorial: The Purchaser agrees to establish a
"Palmer Memorial Garden" on the Property in the name and memory
of the Palmer family, and to consult with the Seller and with
Frank J. Delany in that regard. The type and location of such
memorial will be decided only after thorough consultation with
said parties before Closing.
15. Overstreet and Unknown Parcels: The Property as
described in Paragraph 1 includes a 20-acre parcel, more or less,
claimed by Dorothy A. Overstreet and a 45-acre parcel, more or
less, the full Palmer ownership of which must be established by
an appropriate chancery action such as now pending. Purchaser
understands that the Seller does not at this time have legal
title to the foregoing parcels (the "Additional Parcels").
However, Seller agrees to proceed diligently to acquire legal
title to such Additional Parcels, and upon doing so, will convey
or cause to be conveyed same to Purchaser in accordance with the
provisions of this Contract, but not before one (1) year after
their acquisition and status as capital gain property. The par-
_.
ties-shall proceed to close on the properties then wholly owned
by the Seller. Thereafter, closing would be held on the
-10-
Additional .Parcels as, when and if Seller acquires and has held
for one (1) year legal title thereto. Until closing on the
Additional Parcels this Contract shall continue in full force and
effect as to these Additional Parcels.
16. BARGAIN SALE: The Purchaser recognizes the great impor-
tance to the Seller of obtaining the tax benefits of a bargain
sale. Purchaser does hereby agree to fully cooperate with the
Seller so as to assist them in qualifying the sale as a bargain
sale, and to so enable Seller to obtain the full benefits of the
tax law applicable to such sales. Purchaser, however, does not
guarantee this tax treatment, and the parties hereto fully
understand and acknowledge that this Contract is in no way con-
tingent upon such tax treatment.
17. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Contract constitutes the entire
agreement between the parties. No representations, warranties,
or promises pertaining to this Contract or any property to be
sold pursuant to this Contract have been made by, or shall be
binding on, any of the parties, except as expressly stated in
this Contract. This Contract may not be changed orally, but only
by an agreement in writing signed by the party against whom
enforcement of any such change is sought.
18. NOTICES: Any notice or demand under this Contract shall
be by registered or certified mail, sent as follows: to the
Seller at c/o Frank J. Delany, 888 Boulevard of the Arts,
Tower 1, Apt. 702, Sarasota, Florida, 34236, and to the
-11-
Purchaser in care of Paul M. Mahoney, Esq., Roanoke County
Attorney, at the address specified in Paragraph 7 herein.
19. CONSTRUCTION: The interpretation, construction and per-
formance of this Contract shall be governed by the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia. The captions and marginal notes are
used only as a matter of convenience and are not to be considered
a part of this Contract as such.
20. BENEFIT: This Contract shall inure to the benefit of,
and shall bind the heirs, successors and assigns of the respec-
tive parties. The parties hereto and any assignee expressly
assume the reciprocal obligation of each to other of good faith
in the execution and performance of this Contract.
21. SURVIVAL OF ALL REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES: The
representations, warranties, covenants and agreements of Seller
and Purchaser contained in this Contract shall survive the
Closing hereunder and the delivery and recordation of the deed
pursuant to this Contract.
22. COUNTERPARTS. To facilitate execution, this Contract
may be executed in any number of counterparts and each of such
counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original
and all such counterparts shall together constitute a single
agreement.
-12-
P7ITNESS the following signatures and seals:
Charles J. Palmer
~~ ,~
BY = `~ laic ~ ( SEAL )
Frank J De any, his d y
authorized agent
Karen B. Palmer
BY~ ~ (SEAL)
Frank J. elany, her ly
authorized agent
Lela H. Palmer
~ ~-~,
B Y : ~~Z-LLG.~i ~' ( SEAL )
Frank J. lany, her duly
authorized agent
James E. Palmer, III
X,
BY ~ ~~~~~ ~ ( SEAL )
Frank J. any, his d ly
authorized agent
Suzanne McGregor Palmer
BY= (SEAL)
Frank J. lany, her dul
authorized agent
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGI A
By:
Its County A in trator
-13-
STATE OF /'.~O ~/...t~f~- )
to-wit:
~dUNTy O~A~ASQ_~
The fo-r~-egoing Contract was acknowledged before me this X02
day of N y N E" , 1988, by Frank J. Delany, duly
authorized agent for Charles J. Palmer, Karen B. Palmer, Lela H.
Palmer, James E. Palmer, III and Suzanne f~icGregor Palmer.
C~ ~~
~~ otary Public -
My Commission Expires:
NOTARY ptJBLiC. STATE OF FLORIDA
MY C0111MISSION EXPIRES: JAN.
lONDEO TNRU 3• 19g ~,
E Rt.
STATE OF VIRGINIA )
to-wit:
The foregoing Contract was acknowledged before me this a g~
day of ~-(~i2.QJ , 1988, by ~~'~-r' ~• ~o~g~. ,
Cau/~f-Y ,q-~Pm~n /~ ~"i2zf6 r of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
N ary Public
My Commission Expires:
-14-
ITEM NUMBER ,~ "
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
IN ROANOKE, VA., ON TUESDAY,
MEETING DATE: June 28, 1988
SUBJECT: Ordinance amending Chapter 2, Article II, Procurement
Practices, concerning the Purchasing Agent and Small
Purchases.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
~~~~
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Pursuant to the Board of Supervisors
consolidating the County and School Purchasing Systems under the
supervision of the DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT SERVICES, the
following amendment to the Procurement Practices Section of the
County Code is hereby requested.
Section 2-11. Establishment, appointment and bond of Purchasing
Agent change to read:
a. For the County there is hereby created one Purchasing System
to include the County and the School System to operate under the
direction of the DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT SERVICES.
b. The Purchasing Agent for the County of Roanoke shall be the
DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT SERVICES. The Purchasing Agent may
delegate the administrative purchasing responsibility to a
responsible subordinate as necessary.
c. The Purchasing Agent, or his designee, for the County of
Roanoke shall be bonded. The form and amount of the bond shall
be determined by the governing body.
FISCAL IMPACT: Possible cost reduction in County operational
expenses through standardization of common use items of supply,
annual blanket-drop shipment contracts and volume purchase
discounts.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached
ordinance following second reading on June 28, 1988. (First
reading was at meeting on June 14, 1988).
SUBMITTED BY:
Ja Council ~--
D'rector, Procurement Services
APPROVED;
~~,
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
~~~
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
To
Motion by:
ACTION
Garrett
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
VOTE
No Yes Abs
-/
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, ON TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1988
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE
II, "PROCUREMENT PRACTICES", AND
CHAPTER 17 ARTICLE I, SECTION 4,
"PROCUREMENT CODE" CONCERNING THE
OPERATION OF A CENTRALIZED COMPETITIVE
PURCHASING SYSTEM UNDER THE DIRECTION
OF THE DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT SERVICES
WHEREAS, Section 15.1-117 (12) of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended, provides that the County Administrator shall
act as purchasing agent for the County; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.1-127 of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended, directs that the governing body of any county
having a county administrator is authorized to provide for the
centralized competitive purchasing of all supplies, equipment,
materials, and commodities for all departments, officers, and
employees of the county, including the County School Board; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 17, Article I, Section 4, of the Roa-
noke County Code entitled Purchasing system created; purchasing
agent generally and Chapter 2, Article II, Section 11 entitled
Establishment, appointment, and bond of purchasing agent provides
for the creation of a purchasing system for the County to operate
under the direction and supervision of the County Administrator,
who shall be the purchasing agent for the County. The purchasing
agent may delegate the administrative purchasing responsibility
to a responsible subordinate upon approval of the Board of Super-
visors.
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, on March 12, 1985, enacted Ordinance ~k85-33 amending
1
~-
Chapter 2, Article II, Procurement Practices, concerning the pur-
chasing agent and small purchases; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, on September 24, 1985, enacted Ordinance ~~85-161 amend-
ing and revising the Roanoke County Code Chapter 17, Procurement
and Chapter 2, Organizational structure of county administration,
placing the Department of Procurement under the supervision of
the County Administrator, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, hereby amends the above-referenced ordinances upon the
passage of these amendments; and
WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held
on June 14, 1988, and the second reading on this ordinance was
held on June 28, 1988.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervi-
sors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That Chapter 2, Administration of the Roanoke
County Code be amended as follows:
Sec. 2-11. Establishment, appointment, and bond of purchasing
agent.
a) For the county there is hereby created a purchasing
system to operate under the direction and supervision of the
county administrator.
b) The purchasing agent for the county shall be the
county administrator. The purchasing agent may delegate the
administrative purchasing responsibilities to a responsible sub-
ordinate upon approval of the governing body.
c) The purchasing agent, or his designee, for the
county shall be bonded. The form and amount of the bond shall be
determined by the governing body.
d) The purchasing agent hereby delegates the adminis-
trative purchasing responsibility, including the operation of the
2
~-/
centralized purchasing system of all supplies, equipment, mater-
ials, and commodities for all departments, officers, and employ-
ees of the county, including the county school board, to the
director of procurement services.
2. That Chapter 17, Procurement Code, of the Roanoke
County Code be amended as follows:
Sec. 17-4. Purchasing system created; purchasing agent general-
ly.
a) There is hereby created a purchasing system for the
county to operate under the direction and supervision of the
county administrator, who shall be the purchasing agent for the
county. The purchasing agent may delegate the administrative
purchasing responsibility to a responsible subordinate, upon
approval of the board of supervisors. The purchasing agent and
such designated subordinate shall be bonded, the form and amount
of bond to be determined by the board of supervisors.
b) The purchasing agent hereby dele
trative purchasing responsibility, including the
centralized purchasing system of all supplies,
ials, and commodities for departments, officers,
the county, including the county school board t
procurement services.
gates the adminis-
operation of the
equipment, mater-
and employees of
o the director of
3. That the first reading on this ordinance was held
on June 14, 1988; the second reading on this ordinance was held
on June 28, 1988.
4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and
effect from and after July 1, 1988.
3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, ON TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1988
ORDINANCE 62888-14 AMENDING CHAPTER
2, ARTICLE II, "PROCUREMENT PRACTICES",
AND CHAPTER 17, ARTICLE I, SECTION 4,
"PROCUREMENT CODE" CONCERNING THE
OPERATION OF A CENTRALIZED COMPETITIVE
PURCHASING SYSTEM UNDER THE DIRECTION
OF THE DIRECTOR OF PROCUREMENT
SERVICES
WHEREAS, Section 15.1-117 (12) of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended, provides that the County Administrator shall
act as purchasing agent for the County; and
WHEREAS, Section 15.1-127 of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended, directs that the governing body of any county
having a county administrator is authorized to provide for the
centralized competitive purchasing of all supplies, equipment,
materials, and commodities for all departments, officers, and
employees of the county, including the County School Board; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 17, Article I, Section 4, of the Roa-
noke County Code entitled Purchasing system created; purchasing
agent generally and Chapter 2, Article II, Section 11 entitled
Establishment, appointment, and bond of purchasing agent provides
for the creation of a purchasing system for the County to operate
under the direction and supervision of the County Administrator,
who shall be the purchasing agent for the County. The purchasing
agent may delegate the administrative purchasing responsibility
to a responsible subordinate upon approval of the Board of Super-
visors.
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, on March 12, 1985, enacted Ordinance #85-33 amending
Chapter 2, Article II, Procurement Practices, concerning the pur-
chasing agent and small purchases; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, on September 24, 1985, enacted Ordinance #85-161 amend-
ing and revising the Roanoke County Code Chapter 17, Procurement
and Chapter 2, Organizational structure of county administration,
placing the Department of Procurement under the supervision of
the County Administrator, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, hereby amends the above-referenced ordinances upon the
passage of these amendments; and
WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held
on June 14, 1988, and the second reading on this ordinance was
held on June 28, 1988.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervi-
sors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That Chapter 2, Administration of the Roanoke
County Code be amended as follows:
Sec. 2-11. Establishment, appointment, and bond of purchasing
agent.
a) For the county there is hereby created a purchasing
system to operate under the direction and supervision of the
county administrator.
b) The purchasing agent for the county shall be the
county administrator. The purchasing agent may delegate the
administrative purchasing responsibilities to a responsible sub-
ordinate upon approval of the governing body.
2
c) The purchasing agent, or his designee, for the
county shall be bonded. The form and amount of the bond shall be
determined by the governing body.
d) The purchasing agent hereby delegates the adminis-
trative urchasinq responsibility, including the operation of the
centralized purchasing system of all supplies, equipment, mater-
ials, and commodities for all de artments, officers, and employ-
ees of the county, including the county school board, to the
director of procurement services.
2. That Chapter 17, Procurement Code, of the Roanoke
County Code be amended as follows:
Sec. 17-4. Purchasing system created; purchasing agent general-
ly.
a) There is hereby created a purchasing system fo.r the
county to operate under the direction and supervision of the
county administrator, who shall be the purchasing agent for the
county. The purchasing agent may delegate the administrative
purchasing responsibility to a responsible subordinate, upon
approval of the board of supervisors. The purchasing agent and
such designated subordinate shall be bonded, the form and amount
of bond to be determined by the board of supervisors.
b) The urchasinq agent hereby delegates the adminis-
trative urchasinq responsibility, including the operation of the
centralized purchasing system of all supplies, equipment, mater-
ials, and commodities for departments, officers, and employees of
the county, including the county school board to the director of
procurement services.
3. That the first reading on this ordinance was held
on June 14, 1988; the second reading on this ordinance was held
on June 28, 1988.
4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and
effect from and after July 1, 1988.
On motion of Supervisor Garrett, seconded by Supervisor
Nickens and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Robers
3
A COPY TESTE:
YY~C~~ ~_
Mary H. A len, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
Don Myers, Assistant County Administrator
Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance
Jack Council, Director, Procurement
Bayes Wilson, Superintendent, Roanoke County Schools
Francis W. Burkart, Commonwealth Attorney
Magistrate
Sheriff's Department
Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Ave., SW, Rke 24016
Main Library
Roanoke County Code Book
4
ACTION ~~
ITEM NUMBER 1~'" -
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 28, 1988
AGENDA ITEM:
Accepting an offer
of a right-of-way
Power Company
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
and authorizing the conveyance
and easement to Appalachian
Appalachian Power Company (APCo) has requested that the
County of Roanoke convey a right-of-way and easement on the west-
erly side of Northside High School Road near the Roanoke County
Public Safety Building for the installation of electrical service
lines and poles. APCo will indemnify and save the County harm-
less against any loss or damage from its negligence in operating
its facilities installed in the right-of-way and easement.
Pursuant to Section 18.04
a first reading concerning the
described easement was held on
will be held on June 28, 1988.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS:
of the Charter of Roanoke County,
disposition of the hereinafter-
June 14, 1988; a second reading
$1.00 paid to Roanoke County from APCo
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the County Administrator be authorized
to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roa-
noke County as are necessary to accomplish the conveyance of said
property, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County
Attorney.
Respectfully submitted,
~ ~~~
\~
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
i
A
r
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, ON TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1988
ORDINANCE 62888-15 ACCEPTING AN OFFER
AND AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A
RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENT TO
APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisor of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of
the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject property has been de-
clared to be surplus and is being made available for other pubic
uses, i.e. utility easement; and
2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of
the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading concerning the
disposition of the subject property was held on June 14, 1988; a
second reading was held on June 28, 1988; and
3. That the right-of-way and easement are located on
property owned by Roanoke County in the Catawba Magisterial Dis-
trict located on the westerly side of Northside High School Road,
near the Roanoke County Public Safety Building; and
4. That the offer of Appalachian Power Company in the
amount of $1.00 is hereby accepted and all other offers are re-
jected; and
5. That the proceeds from the sale of the right-of-way
and easement are to be allocated to the capital reserves of Roa-
noke County; and
6. That the County Administrator is authorized to exe-
cute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke
County as are necessary to accomplish the conveyance of said pro-
perty, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County
Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor
Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Robers
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator
Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering
Don Myer, Assistant County Administrator
Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance
2
ACTION ~~
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: June 28, 1988
AGENDA ITEM:
Ordinance authorizing the conveyance of certain
real estate for economic development purposes
(Valleypointe)
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENT-nSI:~
~ ~ "-~t
~~~~~M ~~
BACKGROUND:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
County staff and representatives of Lingerfelt Development
Corporation have negotiated an option agreement as part of the
Valleypointe Project. This option agreement will provide an
opportunity for Lingerfelt Development Corporation to acquire
approximately 2.7 acres of surplus real estate from the County
for the sum of Thirty-two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($32,500)
per acre. This real estate consists of several residual parcels
of land which are a portion of the land to be acquired by the
County from the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission. The County
is acquiring approximately 8 acres of real estate from the Air-
port Commission for the purpose of the Valleypointe Phase I indus-
trial access road. These residual surplus parcels will not be
required for any other County or public uses.
In accordance with the Board's priority objective to promote
and encourage industrial and economic development, it is recom-
mended that the Board ratify, confirm, authorize, and approve the
County Administrator's execution of this proposed option agree-
ment. This option agreement extends until June 5, 1991. This
option agreement is subject to the approval and authorization by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County by ordinance. Section
18.04 of the County Charter requires that the conveyance of real
estate or any interest therein be accomplished only by ordinance.
The first reading of this ordinance was held on June 14, 1988;
the second reading of this ordinance is scheduled for June 28,
1988.
1
IMPACTS:
The net proceeds from the sale of this real estate shall be
credited to the capital facility account for the Valleypointe
Project to be expended for the purpose of acquisition, construc-
tion, maintenance, or replacement of capital facilities or other
public infrastructure improvements for Valleypointe. The pro-
ceeds shall be credited to the Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000)
previously allocated by the Board to this Project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that:
1. The Board find that this real estate is surplus real
estate pursuant to Section 16.01 of the Roanoke County Charter
and that this real estate shall be sold to serve an important
public purpose, to promote the industrial and economic develop-
ment of Roanoke County and the Roanoke Valley.
2. The Board adopt the proposed ordinance.
3. The Board ratify, confirm, approve, and authorize the
execution of the option agreement.
4. The County Administrator be authorized to take such
actions and execute such documents as may be necessary to accomp-
lish the purposes of the agreement and ordinance, all upon form
approved by the County Attorney.
5. The proceeds from the sale of any real estate under this
ordinance be credited to the capital facility account for the
Valleypointe Project and that the Board further authorize the
expenditure of these funds from this capital facility account for
the purpose of acquisition, construction, maintenance, or replace
of the capital facilities or other public infrastructure improve-
ments for the Valleypointe Project.
Respectfully submitted,
r
Paul M. Mahoney ~.
County Attorney ~
.~ `
2
~~
Approved ( )
Denied ~ )
Received ~ )
Referred
To
Motion by:
ACTION
vuln
No Yes Abs
Garrett
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, ON TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 1988
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF
CERTAIN REAL ESTATE FOR ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES (VALLEYPOINTE)
WHEREAS, Roanoke County and Lingerfelt Development
Corporation have entered into a series of agreements with respect
to the development of a mixed-use business park in the vicinity
of the southeast intersection of Interstate Routes 81 and 581 in
Roanoke County, Virginia, identified as the Valleypointe Project;
and
WHEREAS, the County has approved a project document
concerning this project at its meeting on December 1, 1987, and
has amended said project document at its meeting on May 10, 1988;
and
WHEREAS, the County has requested the Virginia Depart-
ment of Transportation to construct an industrial access road to
serve Valleypointe; and
WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 11288-7 adopted on Jan-
nary 12, 1988, the Board has authorized the acquisition and con-
veyance of certain real estate to assist in the development of
this project; and
WHEREAS, these actions on the part of the County serve
an important public purpose by promoting and benefiting the
regional public purposes of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commis-
sion as well as serving an important public purpose by promoting
industrial and economic development in Roanoke County and in the
Roanoke Valley; and
1
!"" .-" ,
WHEREAS, the real estate that is the subject of this
ordinance is deemed surplus for the purposes of Section 16.01 of
the Roanoke County Charter and is being made available to serve a
valid public purpose, namely, to promote the industrial and econ-
omic development of Roanoke County and of the Roanoke Valley.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervi-
sors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of
the Charter of Roanoke County, the first reading on this ordin-
ance was held on June 14, 1988, and the second reading on this
ordinance was held on June 28, 1988.
2. That the offer of Lingerfelt Development Corpora-
tion to acquire approximately 2.7 acres of real estate for the
sum of Thirty-two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($32,500) per
acre is hereby accepted. All other offers are rejected.
3. That said 2.7 acres of real estate is a portion of
that real estate acquired by Roanoke County from the Roanoke
Regional Airport Commission pursuant to Ordinance No. 11288-7
adopted on January 12, 1988.
4. That the net proceeds from the sale of said real
estate shall be allocated to the capital facility account for the
Valleypointe Project. Any proceeds from this capital facility
account shall be expended for the purpose of acquisition, con-
struction, maintenance, or replacement of capital facilities and
public infrastructure improvements to serve the Valleypointe Pro-
ject.
2
/~ -
5. That the execution of the option agreement dated
the 5th day of June, 1988, executed by the County Administrator
is hereby authorized, ratified, confirmed, and approved.
6. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized
to take such actions and to execute such documents as may be
necessary to accomplish the purposes of this ordinance, all upon
form approved by the County Attorney.
3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGICENTERELONATUESDAYOAJIINE 28UN1988DMINISTRATION
ORDINANCE 62888-16 AUTHORIZING THE
CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN REAL ESTATE FOR
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES
(VALLEYPOINTE)
WHEREAS, Roanoke County and Lingerfelt Development
Corporation have entered into a series of agreements with respect
to the development of a mixed-use business park in the vicinity
of the southeast intersection of Interstate Routes 81 and 581 in
Roanoke County, Virginia, identified as the Valleypointe Project;
and
WHEREAS, the County has approved a project document
concerning this project at its meeting on December 1, 1987, and
has amended said project document at its meeting on May 10, 1988;
and
WHEREAS, the County has requested the Virginia Depart-
ment of Transportation to construct an industrial access road to
serve Valleypointe; and
WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 11288-7 adopted on Jan-
uary 12, 1988, the Board has authorized the acquisition and con-
veyance of certain real estate to assist in the development of
this project; and
WHEREAS, these actions on the part of the County serve
an important public purpose by promoting and benefiting the
regional public purposes of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commis-
sion as well as serving an important public purpose by promoting
industrial and economic development in Roanoke County and in the
Roanoke Valley; and
WHEREAS, the real estate that is the subject of this
ordinance is deemed surplus for the purposes of Section 16.01 of
the Roanoke County Charter and is being made available to serve a
valid public purpose, namely, to promote the industrial and econ-
omic development of Roanoke County and of the Roanoke Valley.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervi-
sors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of
the Charter of Roanoke County, the first reading on this ordin-
ance was held on June 14, 1988, and the second reading on this
ordinance was held on June 28, 1988.
2. That the offer of Lingerfelt Development Corpora-
tion to acquire approximately 2.7 acres of real estate for the
sum of Thirty-two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($32,500) per
acre is hereby accepted. All other offers are rejected.
3. That said 2.7 acres of real estate is a portion of
that real estate acquired by Roanoke County from the Roanoke
Regional Airport Commission pursuant to Ordinance No. 11288-7
adopted on January 12, 1988.
4. That the net proceeds from the sale of said real
estate shall be allocated to the capital facility account for the
Valleypointe Project. Any proceeds from this capital facility
account shall be expended for the purpose of acquisition, con-
struction, maintenance, or replacement of capital facilities and
public infrastructure improvements to serve the Valleypointe Pro-
ject.
2
5. That the execution of the option agreement dated
the 5th day of June, 1988, executed by the County Administrator
is hereby authorized, ratified, confirmed, and approved.
(. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized
to take such actions and to execute such documents as may be
necessary to accomplish the purposes of this ordinance, all upon
form approved by the County Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor
Nickens and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Nickens, Garrett
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Supervisor McGraw
ABSENT: Supervisor Robers
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
Timothy Gubala, Director, Economic Development
John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator
Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering
Don Myers, Assistant County Administrator
Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance
Reta Busher, Director, Budget
John Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment
3
O~ POANO~.F
~.~ .
Z
o Z
J a
1838 E5o gg
SFSQUICENTENN~P
A Benuti~ul8eginrting
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
C~nixn~~ of ~n~nnk~
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
RICHARD WEROB GRMAGISTER AL{DISTR CIT
B08 L. JOHNSON
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
STEVEN A. MCGRAW
June 3O , 19 " 8 CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
Rev. Charles R. Doyle
Hollins Road Baptist Church
3502 Old Mountain Road, NE
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Dear Reverend Doyle:
On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, I would like to
to let you know of our appreciation for
take this opportunity June 28, 1988 to offer the
your attending the meeting on Tuesday,
invocation.
We feel it is most important to ask GodOSgbseWillgand for
these meetings scitizensll is done according
the good of all
Thank you again for sharing your time with us.
Very rul yours,
--~..
L Garrett, Chairman
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
bjh
p.0. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004
O~ POANp~~
~.~
Z
o z
.~ a
YERRS
18 150 88
V
SFSQUICENTENN`P
A Beauti(ulBeginning
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
(~n~~t~~ of ~v~tnokr
Mr. A. Kyle Robinson, Jr.
821 Olney Road
Vinton, Virginia 24179
July 5, 1988
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL OIST RICT
RICHARD WEROB GRMAGISTER ALi DISTR CIT
BOB L. JOHNSON
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
STEVEN A. MCGRAW
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
Dear Mr. Robinson:
This is to advise that at their meeting held on Tuesda~o
June 28, 1988 the Board of Supervisors vote plan in 1 Commission
appoint you as a fourbeearfterm ofaJ kR.CJones. This term will
for the unexpired Y
expire December 30, 1990.
State law provides that any person elected, re-elected,
body be furnished a copy of the
appointed or reappointed to any is enclosed. We are
Freedom of Information Act; your 1987 copy
also sending you a copy of the 1987 Conflict of Interest Act.
It is necessary that you take an oath of office before the
Clerk of the Roanoke County CirrticiCation onhthisaCommitteee
administered rp for to your pa P
Please phone Mrs. Elizabeth WVeS~heeoathladministe8ed6208 as soon
as possible and arrange to ha
On behalf of the Supervisors tha ks and appreciationnfor
County, please accept our sincerointment.
your willingness to accept this app
Very truly yours,
YY) ~r ~~ .
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
bjh
Enclosures
CC: Mrs. Elizabeth Stokes plannin & Zoning
Dale Castellow, Acting Director, g
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-07 9 8 (703) 772"2004
O~ ROANp~.~
~.~
Z
Z
1j a
1 H V YE50 $$
SFSQUICENTENN`P~'
A 6cauti~ulBeginning
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
Mrs. Mikeiel T. Wimmer
3878 Harborwood Road
Salem, Virginia 24153
Dear Mrs. Wimmer:
July 5, 1988
LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
BOB L. JOHNSON
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
STEVEN A. MCGRAW
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
This is to advise that at their meeting held on Tuesda~o
June 28, 1988 the Board of Supervisors voted unanionalsSolid
appoint you as a member of the Roanoke Valley Reg 31,
waste Manqagement Board for a four-term term, beginning July
1988, and expiring July 31, 1992.
State law provides that any person elected, re-elected,
appointed or reappointed to any body be furnished a copy of the
Freedom of Information Act; your 1987 copy is enclosed. We are
also sending you a copy of the 1987 Conflict of Interest Act.
On behalf of the Supervisors and the citize ec°ationnfor
County, please accept our sincere thanks and app
your willingness to accept this appointment:
Very truly yours,
mgr ~/_ ~Lt.c.`-^
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
bjh
Enclosures
CC: John H. Parrott, Chairman
Jeffrey A. Cromer, Disposal Manager
C~nixn~~ v~ ~v~tnn~~
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703> 772-2004
O~ ROANp~.~
~.~
Z
~ 2
v - °a
gip.
1$ E50 $$
SFSQUICEN7ENN~P
A Beauti~ul Beginning
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
Ms. Betty Jo Anthony
6225 Hidden Valley Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dear Ms. Anthony:
July 5, 1988
LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
BOB L. JOHNSON
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
STEVEN A. MCGRAW
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
This is to advise that at their meeting held on Tuesda~o
June 28, 1988 the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously
re-appoint you as a member of the Social Services Board for a
four-term term, beginning July 19, 1988, anal expiring July 19,
1992.
State law provides that any person elected, re-elected,
appointed or reappointed to any body be furnished a copy of the
Freedom of Information Act; your 1987 copy is enclosed. We are
also sending you a copy of the 1987 Conflict of Interest Act.
It is necessary that you take an oath. Th°sf oathemu ttbe
Clerk of the Roanoke County Circuit Cour
administered rp for to your participation on this Committee.
Please phone Mrs. Elizabeth W. Stokes, Clerk, at 387-6208, as
soon as possible and arrange to have the oath administered.
On behalf of tht ou pesincere thanks a d appreciationnfor
County, please accep
your willingness to accept this appointment.
Very truly yours,
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors_,,
bjh
Enclosures
CC: Mrs. Elizabeth W. Stokes Clerk of Circuit Court
Mrs. Betty M. Lucas, Superintendent
Roanoke County Social Services
C~p~tn~~ v~ ~v~nnkr
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004
O~ POANp~~
G
~.~
Z
Z
J.:~ a
1$ $ E50 8$
SFSQUICENTENN~P~
A BeautifulBeginning
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
Mr. Charles R. Saul
4602 Hazel Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
p LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN
July 5 , 19 8 8 WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
BOB L. JOHNSON
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
STEVEN A. MCGRAW
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
Dear Mr. Saul:
This is to advise that at their meeting held on Tuesday,
to
June 28, 1988 the Board of Supervisors voted unanimouslment
re-appoint you as a member of the Industrial Develop
Authority for a four yei99ierm beginning September 26, 1987, and
expiring September 26,
State law provides that any person elected, re-eloftthe
appointed or reappointed to any body be furn is enclosed Y We are
Freedom of Information Act; your 1987 copy
also sending you a copy of the 1987 Conflict of Interest Act.
It is necessary that you take an oath of office before the
Clerk of the Roanoke County Circuit Court. This oath must be
administered rp for to your participation on this Committee.
Please phone Mrs. Elizabeth W. Stokes, Clerk at 387-6208 as soon
as possible and arrange to have the oath administered.
On behalf of the Supervisors and the citiz rec.°atRonnfor
County, please accept our sincere thanks and app
your willingness to accept this appointment.
Very truly yours,
~-
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
bjh
Enclosures
CC: Mrs. Elizabeth Stokes
Timothy Gubala, Secretary, iDA
(~n~tn~~ of ~n~nn~~
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-07 9 8 (703> 772-2004
~F ROANp~~
~.~
Z
z
,,
v `a
1$ E5~ 8$
SFSpU1CEN7ENN~P~
A Beauti~ulBeginning
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
Mr. J. R. Jones
619 Devonshire Drive
Vinton, Virginia 24179
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE•CHAIRMAN
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
BOB L. JOHNSON
HOLLINS M.4G ISTERIAL DISTRICT
STEVEN A. MCGRAW
July 5 , 19 8 8 CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
Dear Mr. Jones:
The Board of Supervisors have asked me to express their
sincere appreciation for your previous service to the Roanoke
County Planning Commission. Allow me to personally thank you for
the time you served mun i t l san d w i~l l i ng 1 ton g i ve o f pthemselves and
needs of their com Y
their time are indeed all too scarce.
Very truly yours
~'
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
bjh
cc: Dale Castellow, Acting Director, Planning & Zoning
C~vixn~~ of ~n~~tnke
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004
W
z
0
~h
a
-;
Q _ Cl~ L.t., ~„
E-~ w
U w
O:~~Zp -
~ H~~:
~Z~.~
w ~~~ ~~
U ~ i w. ~.z ;
~~~~w~E ~',N
Zr.~ ~~
(f~ • ~i 00
~..~ M 6 ~--+ x ° ~ ~ ~
w H
;~`,g` , . ; o0
O ~ ( 'i O4~'^ .~ ~'ti' ~~.W
H ty
-.., w -~ ~,., . ~, h
w Z-
~ W cn Z
~ ~,
~U'~Z
U w w ~
~ h H ~
`f' O_w_O
z~u~ (~
H
d
E~
Q
z
0
u
Q
.a
x
0
z
OF ~OANp,S.~
~.~
Z
Z
~ a- a
1$ E50 $$
SFSQUICEN7ENN~P~
A Beauti~ul8tginning
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
Mr. Howard R. Keister, Jr.
4425 Fontaine Drive, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN
' CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
BOB L. JOHNSON
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
STEVEN A. MCGRAW
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
C 1988 HARRY C.NICKENS
July C / VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
Dear Mr. Keister:
The Board of Supervisors have asked me to express their
sincere appreciation for your previous service to the Roanoke
Valley Regional Solid Waste Management Board. Allow me to
personally thank you for the time you served on this Board.
Citizens so responsive to the needs of their community and
willing to give of themselves and their time are indeed all too
scarce.
Very truly yours
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
bjh
cc: John H. Parrott, Chairman
Jeffrey A. Cromer, Disposal Manager
(~nixtt~~ of ~~a~tttvk~
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004
O
H
~~ o
r ~,
,, ~ .
~` ~ n
:~ r',
~~: ; ~.
~ ~ r,
-,r z.:
.
~~,~~.,
.W
~ W
.~
,~.
~...
x
h
a
W
H
H
~., W
_a
A
0
x.
Q ~wua, ~
Q `~ O
~ z
`,
H w ~
~ -C~ w
~
w ~ ~ ~~ O
,U -~
f0 Tw ~ ~
~ u
~ z
`w .w
~U ;-~
w z
~~~~
~~
w, f
w
,
_N
o
`..~ ~ .`.ZS:,
E..i ~ ~.
u~~ .
~ ~ ~, :,.~ „~~_
-L ~
o ~ aJ o`~Q ~ y Q =j
~ ~'=~~~W'°~
U ~
~ ~ x H
~ W~~Z ~
~
-._.~
~
O
' .
z
..~ ~ w ,~
U v ~
w U ~ ~
d
w wU~ ~
Z HE~~ Q
n ~ ~
aO
O
~
Z u
H
z
U
TI"~~-:i t, wur~LL-"SLv~
~u ~a~i~~~cit - r;Isli~Jtt
~ucLI~t~`~'S #-rt - ~Iv7.~Z
~<IGH~+LL n i~3'tLTLtr
lug t=~r;'ut~L its iu~,u ~-s
f= i ~uX 7~J
r`Or+V~~i~ty vH Z4UU4
T~.TL ~f~ Vlitvltil
LITY Lf~ ;~iutlv~i~t
Nr•-FIUr~vIT uf= ~urLii:rzi'I~v
I ~ {Tr-i~ u';ti~~r~Slul'vtu 1 ~,` uFi=l~t=i~ ~#_
TI.'~CJ-IYUr.LL Lt~1'.i'~1.i1~F1TI3i'~1 W(-15~•('~ LU~'C-
P~Jt{NTIIUiti 1J t'Us/I.IJt'iCi{ Jf Tt1t: rtiJn~aur~,f:
I I ~`itJ L vrutiL~-~atinJ • r~ JN LY ~til=v~ar;r.Pen
t/v~LI~NE~ I;v ~+~NivuK~1 iiv ttit ~T~-+l~ uf-
vl~i~I++vln• vu ,EnTIFY Tri+T Trir= iy.v~aLXctJ
sV:~Tl,: r9r1J t'UJ~I:t-icu Iiv ~ir+It~ ~~i~'r.JY'rit'ttf:i
u'v Thy F-i)Ll_uwllyv v+~T
~b~i4~~~ Li/CiVIiV'v
Uc~L IIuV ~.J i_1,w l'aV
,~IT~Vt~~f THIS ' JNY Jf= ,1viv= iyn
tt'FII,Ct~'J 31VIVH~r~~
G ~~-~
LEGAL NOTICE
Iotice is hereby given to ell In-~,
terested persons that the'
Roanoke County Board of Su-
pervisors will hold a Dublic
hearing at their evening ses-
sion beginning at 7:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, June 48, 1988, in the
Community Room of the
Roanoke County Adminlstra•
tlon Center, 3738 Bremblston
Avenue, S.W., Roenoke, Vlr-
ginla, on the petition of
Springwood Associates re-
questing rezoning from B-1
Business and R-1 Residential
to B-2 Business of a tract con-
taining 2.45 acres and located
immediately west pf fhe inter-
. section of Brambleton Avenue
.and Colonial Avenue in the
Windsor Nllls Magisterial Dis-
trlCt.
Rezoning has been requested to
construct sn office and retail
perk. The County Planning
Commissidn recommends de•
nlel with proffered conditions.
A copy df the Zoning Ordinance
of Roanoke County and
amendments thereto as well
as a copy of the petition, sITE
plan, and other documents re•
lated to this request may bi
examined in the office of fhi
Department of Plennlnp any
Zoning, located in Room 6000
the Roenoke County Adminis
tration Center.
Roenoke County wl II provide as
sistance to hendlcapPed per
sons desiring to attend publb
hearings. Such Individuals an
requested to contact the Cour
ty office of Personnel Service
((703) 772-4018) if special Prc
visions are necessary for a'
tendance.
Given under my hand this 9T
day of June, 1988.
Mary H. Allen,
Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board o
Supervlwrs
(11104)
~„r"~,iVU~~ 1 Ii~rta r, nurL:-I~~r.
r~UhiVJ~~ L t;dTY
~;:uiil lit :iUFLr<VI~:n
373u ~~c,~,~r~~Tui~ ~+
rs U v v Jt ~ •~ O l) .J
K i.i ii ~ tJ t~ - V r1 ~ `t U 1 v
STnT~ t7 F- Vr:vi~alN
%iTY uF tti~r!iVuitt=
nF~-IuNVIT ut- ~'lluLii.~+TIJiv
, iTlt~ ~,Yv~~I~~I~~tul »a ~~=FI:,"tr iJt-
Tli~lt5-rll,rtL ..L]~rt~n~Tl~;~t w17ll.ri Lur~-
~.3r.+T Ulf I:> ~iiLi~ri~rc u~ Trr_ r~iJri•VL1I`:
-(j;~;~~ L wI.KLu-~r'1=n~, i; i~+~ILY Pvti~~Nt+r'cr
~'u~~I~NEu Ita ttu~{vul~Lt laa Trite ~Tx3t ~T-
vKvltilr~, Lu ~~rTI~Y Tt;,T Trio ~+tivGxi=U
;'~Ti~E rt;~ r'UciLISHc~i i~~ ~~iu ;vcrwJl'r1t'tr~J
t;i~V ~r1~ r-uLLLirvi~vV ~;r~T:J
Col)14//~'~ ;~;1~ivliav
- L3 Ur1,Y i.lt- JUIV= L~~U
~,{i I T v c J S t T ~~ i
a~~~~~ -___---___--
- ---
~~=rlCt~'~ I~Vr~7u~t
PUBLIC NOTICE
~ Please be advised that
Board of Supervlaors the
Roanoke County, of its O1
InD on June 28, 1989, meet•
Roanoke Count atfhe
tlon Center, Y Adminlstra-
Avenue, Roanp~ Brembleton
the evenln0 session beplnininp
7:00 P•m• will hold a Public
hearing on the followin0 mat-
ter, to-wit: _
OR D ~ ~------
CHAPTER 20, "SOLID
WASTE," OF THE ROANOKE
COUNTY CODE, BY THE
REPEAL AND REENACT-
MENT OF SECTION 20-24,
"RATES AND CHARGES" BY
PROVIDING FOR THE ES-
TABLISHMENT OF CERTAIN
REGULATIONS CONCERN-
ING CURBSIDE REFUSE
COLLECTYON, PREMIUM
REFUSE COLLECTION, AND
INCREASING CERTAIN,
CHARGES FOR PREMIUM'
REFUSE COLLECTION
SERVICE
All members of the public Inter-
ested in the matter set forth
above may appear and be
heard et The time and Dlace
aforesaid.
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney of
Roanoke County, Virginia
(20529)
tZLr'+irtht i li°';c~ v ~unLlJ-~ti-~'J
Nli .VlJv;~S~_t~ - GI~IriJ~
~'iJ~LI~N~~'
~ui~ ,,~~r t,JU(v iY
t:: LntZL Lt- JUPL+"ZV IJUi{:i
373?3 ti~ri~~~:Ltluiti J
f~ 1.; IJUx ~`>,lU~'J }1 L't 171
tCl=t;~~!t~C
;T,~Tt- ~iF Vir~vlrtii
~, I TY iF KLl};iVi..ii«
~~FI~riVIT uF I'ucsLlt;HiTu+
t:t~hivur\~ TIh~~ r, wt~i~.Lt-~~~r~5
NU wu~c~~ - J13i7%~v
_ ~
r'~LLl~rrtt~'S ~-tt - ~u~•3~
r:ur~'vu~~ ".; l~a'aTY
k: CJ r~ i~ .i .i t~ J li ~ t K V I ~ u t< :i
1 ' tj C I'~ f'~t i''~i i7 l_ L i (.1 i ~ J W
r u z/ux Z'~,UO
t~u+vuh~ vN L4~ i
~TNT'~ ~t• virial'vl:
t,ITY fit= K~+;r=Kc
~;FI-IJ~VIT ~+- Puk~Li+~.N~I~(V
it iT~~ i1ivU(~ttiJIviv~~) >sv U)=i~Ii,I=~ J~
TIi~~~-w~;ZLu .,unt'u1~~;T IU,Vr wri~.)i +.UR-
4~tiI~HTv(~ i:i rU~LIJHtt~ uh' THc riL'~:dUi't:
T II"^:c`s' (, wuKLu-~VtvJr r~ i~r+LLY t'vk:r+J~'HF'tK
~u~~i:iriEU i~~ rt~Htv~Ktr I~'v jiyc ~1r1L iF
vl~~litili+r uu t,rtll)-Y 7hMT Tt'1t. HIV:d~.Xi<U
Vu(I~,t- ~H~ P~~ISricil Irv Jrt~ ;vtyJ1'aY`t~;
T~+~ ~v~LJ~Ivu i;~I~J
U ~~ti
u ~ l l 4/ ~~ ~ ;~; t rt tv i ~ v t~
UbI2I~vv PiU)titilitiv
' 'f t) u
;r~;il'v~JSr Tc-t~Z~~~~ il~Y VF ~t,rvt ,
iif-~IL.CtCsS SII~~~ Ut{t
PUBLIC NOTICE
Please be advised that the
Board of Supervisors of
Roenoke County, at Its meet-
infl on 28th day of June, 1988,
et the Roanoke County Ad-
ministration Center, 3738
Brambleton Avenue,
Roenoke, Vlr0inle, et the
eveninfl session be0inninfl
7:00 P•m. will hold a public
'~ heerinfl on the followinfl mat-
ter, to-wit:
ORDINANCE AMENDING
AND REENACTING SEC-
TIONS 21-151, LEVY OF TAX;
AMOUNT AND 21-153, RE-
PORTS AND REMITTANCES
GENERALLY OF THE
ROANOKE COUNTY CODE
AND ADDING SECTION 21-165
OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY
CODE, SEVERABILITY
All members of The public Inter-
ested in the- matter set forth
above may appear and be
heard at the time and Dlace
aforesaid.
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney of
Roenoke County, Vlrflinla
(17750)
RurilVlJl\C T If'~~~5 ~• wunLu ~V~ri~ G
~~ J ~ d
i-ii~~ 1:it1~K r ~ ~ ~~ -
~uraNi~J ~+ ti~iT T
It>I~ tL~~Tr~IL zu Jr~
kJrii~lJtt[: Vri ~4i~iv
STr+T~ ~F viK~I:uir<
:;ITY i~F R~tilv~n~~
Ari-lu~v1T uF i'UcLi;rTit~{v
I• tTr,. Us~~+:t<Jil~~vtU) rile ~:lt~rli."tom u-
Tlr~~,-,vurZL~ ~urzrtJ~r{TIt~~~• ~nhICrt ~;tlrt-
'
~';hNT Iuiv I ~ ?'UtL I:iHct~ U~ vL~-
THt rztr+
'
Ti'~it:i L. ;rvllrcl.u-sV~'~J• r t~N tsr+~t!
ILY IV~w;~
rvvLl~N~i; Ily tZL,rlivui~~9 i?v THt ~7~Tt ut'
~'vl:"aiH~ .:u L.~+~TI~'Y Tt-iri
vir T Tn ~ r+t,~;vEXcu
-
i
itiiJl II.C -ti r~J NL/1-~L IJt"11=J I~V
r
5r"Ili-~ ~V WJ~ri l~:: ftJ
~~+N Tr+. r= ~UL.LUYV I.`vv tJ /-1TCJ
~~/lip/~<~ t_'vci~liVv
lJC/~1/J~ =V..iVl~v
17'JiS
valihd~SS, Tr,~ ~,y, r1Y ui- .1~~vr=
--- ut-t'1CtKt5 Jlvi'~HT 't\~:
~tOTICE
~en to all In-
,~t the
of Su-
' ~6b1ic
,p ses-
b.m. on
~!, in the
,m of the..
Adm-nlstra-
~~8'~; Roanoke,( Vtr-
ajQ~ ~etltlon of A. T..
R\a Jil Co. requasfinp'~
,ent of the Droffered.l
is * ,ons of a tract zoned,
¢~'~ Conditional contatnlnp
,acres and bested on the..
r gat aide of Brsmbleton Ave-'
r sue (Route 241) aDProximate•~~~
Iv 0.3 miles south of interact-,
tion with Electric Road
(R outs ~i9) In the Cave Spring'
Me0iaterial District.
Amendment has been requested
to construct a convenience
store with gasoline Dumps.
The County Planning Com-
mission recommends denial.
A copy of the Zoning Ordinance
of Roanoke County snd
amendments thereto ss well
as a copy of the petition, site
plan, and other documents re-
Iated to this request maY be
examined in the office of the
DeDeMment of Planning snd
Zoning, located In Room600of
the Roanoke County Adminis-
tration Center.
Roanoke County will Provide as-
sistance to handicapped per-
sons desiring to attend Dubllc
hearings.5uchindivldualsare
requested To contact the{oun-,
tY office of Personnel Services
((703) 772-2016) If special pro-
vlslons are necessary for at-
tendance.
Given under my hand this 9th
day of June, 19a6.
Mary H. Allen,
Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors
(43797) _ -- _-
nUr+~i~lrtc i l~t:~ L ~~ui{~:.J-Tvt+~J
t'+ic~i~t,t~K'~ ra=h - s~1i5.
cUr~Htti i Vr;TT
lyly >~~~L I rile: tCtJ ~w
hu?iydi~''~t vr9 t~Ui
-:T Tc ~F VIrUi+''vl:
Y L~ rtvrfivunE.
~i-t-I~~vT ~~' 1'Jv~iCr~11G\i
((t1 ~iY~CrttJiv(Vti.i~ rt~V lil-r1~tn 1. t'
1
•
;,-~ri.s'i`Lu ~,O{~t;r~„TZU;v9 y,l,l(;ri CUn-
~ T i U i~ I J )' Ll ~% L Z J t"(~ ~ i.i t' ~ 1-1 C K ~ ri IV ~' ~ L
J ~ ri ~ L rC
~
Y 1 LEGAL NOTICE
'
Il
n
a
N
i
ri
(V
T ~ _ ~ t. ~ ~ h L u -;V ~ rV :~ 1 N J }~ i L
~ ~ ~ J T tr T L U ~ the
thet
Persons
rested
1
te
# Roanoke County Board of Su-
j ~ ~-(~ l 1 IV K U N Id ~% N. ~ 1 ~ IV pervisors wtll hold a .Public ,
_
1 iV Z H • u U 1, ~ TC ~ ~ }- Y r r7 H T 1 l"i C h'V ~V ~ X t ~+ ~
hearln0 at their evenin0 ses-
sion be0innln0 st 7:00 P.m. on
7
rNJ r'Uv~.~Jt1`v 1iV Jniu Ivf_nJ~~~~~J
~
~ ~1 i TuesdeY,June48,1989,Inthe,
Room of the
I
: r
,
Vt
t'7 C_ ~ u L L ~ y` i i v v ~ i~ ~ t J Community
~ Roanoke County Adminisfra-'.
lion Center, 3738 Brsmbleton .
Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Vir- ~
ti
h
U L' ~ 1 if ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `V Z '~'v requestin0
Beard
~ BnRussell
~} ~ ~ z i ~ J c:$ (= V L ~'V 1 a'1 V ~. rezonln0 from M-2 Industrial
to A-1 AOricultural and ~:
amendment to the Future'
y J J
~ r1 1 J il 11 Y lJ ~' J LJ i ~ (-
T
J
~ t .Lend Use Map from Principal .
Industrial to Rural VIIla0e of a
nd {
.
•
V t .
~
p tract eontslnln0 1.5 acres a
'
/'
~ J~ / .
located on the south side of
West River Road (Route 639) ,
~\ ~
Lp~~II /" - - - - - - -
- I approximately 0.34 tulles east !
Intersection with Dry
f It
_ _ _
-
- ~ s
o
~ Hollow Rosd (VA 649) In the
v ~ j- I ( t hi z J J 1 U V ~ ~` (- ~ Catawba Ma0lsterial District. l
onin0 has been requested to
R
ez
i
construct a sin0le-family
~ dwelling. The County Plan-
ning Commission recom- i
nds approval with prof-
me
fared conditions.
of the ZoninO Ordinance S
A copy
of Roanoke County end
ndments thereto as well'
ame
as a copy of the Petition, site {
plan, end other documents re- ~
laced to this request may be ~
examined in fhe office of the ~
Department of Planning and
~
f
Is
the Roanoke County Ad
tration Center.
Roanoke County will Provide as-
t sistance to hsndlcaDped Der-
sons desirin0 to attend Public
hearinOs. Such Individualsare:
requested to contact the Coun-
ffice of Personnel Services
ty o
((703) 774-TO18) if specia~ ~
visions are neps4erY
tenMnu.
Glwn under mY ~~ Mic 9fh
dw of Juee, 19M.
Mary M. ANen,
pepWyClerk
Roanoke county Board of
. supervisors
j (33776)
t'CUr+~vtjhL Tit";LJ ~ v.urZl.-v ..'ti:i
i'u-~ i ~ti~r~' :.i r tt - I~t~.4J
i..Urtir~nv r ''vrTT
lylti~Lt.:,txiL, ttu ~v~
~lJr1i`SiKC V r1 ~4v Io
~T;=t~ ut= vi~Z~i~v
1. i 1 Y ii t- hl'Jt+VI.JiCi:
~FFI~:;;vit ~~ Piiii.ll.Htlu+
I • i Thy Uiv~~ka iv~t_~) isv ~t-~I~.t_~c ~t-
TIi?~:~-w'v~L~ I,JnYi:r HTI~sv9 wFtl~~ %J~-
F'~rtr.( Iuid Ia YVL~LIJtj~n t.Jt' THc rtui;vvl:t
Tlhc~ a rtiu~Lu-ivthj9 ~+ v,~ILY IrCwJNNt~~t(
~~~U~.I~n~c I~w i~~.=(~yG'iCc9 i°~ ~h~ sT~;-r~ ~r
v irt~Ij~I~+e ~i; :t_rcT IFY Tiii~T T)-I~- i~t+'vtJ~cl; M1
~'vJTI~.c vrH~ r'v~LISt1~U Iv i~+I~s +rc'w5t~r;t'~rt:>
U'v Tt1.. ~-i.i~LJvtii'vV LJH~~,:'S
'JC:II't~~~ ~~CiV~~v
ni t;~c~S, Trii;i -~ vHY J1- ,1lJivt I~a~3
r
~;
----- 'U'-'_'"~~~__~ ~~~-- ------
_ a _.
ui-~-I~~tt j 51vi~HT K
LEGAL NOTICE
Notice Is hereby given to all in-
terested persons that the
Roanoke County Boardbt Su-
pervisors will hold a public
hearing at their evening ses-
lion beginning at 7:00 D.m. on
Tuesday, June 28, 1988, in the
Community Room of the
Roanoke County Administra-
tion Center, 3738 Brambleton
Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Vlr-
pinia, on the petition of lChap-
arral Forest Associates re-
qusating rezoning from R-1
Residential to R-5 Residential
of a tract containing ~•~ acres
and located on the north side
of Chaparral Drive (VA. 800)
aDDroximately 300 feet west of
Its Intersection with Beacon
pr, (VA. 1510) in the Cave ~i
Spring Magisterial District.
Rezoning has been requested to i~
construct townhouses. The
County Planning Commission
recommends Dental.
A copy of the Zoning Ordinance ,
of Roanoke County ands
amendments thereto as well I
as a copy of the Detition, site I
plan, and other documents re-
lated to this request may be
examined In the office of the
Department of Planning and
Zoning, locsfed In Room 600 of
the Roanoke County Adminis•
tretion Center.
Roanoke County will Provide es-
sistsnce to hendlcaDDed per-
sons desiring fo attend Dublic i
hearings. Such indivldualsere
requested to contact the Coun-
ty office of Personnel Services
((703) 772-4018) if special pro-
visions are necessary for at-
tendance.
Given under my hand Phis 9th !
day of JuIY, 1988. '
MeryH.Allen,
DeDUfy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of
$4DRPYlSgrs,,,h.,p d
~P,.,C25~11~) u u t~ a ~,•,ie+9q n n r__
NC7rICE
tice that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Please take no Co~v-tY Rte, 3738
_ A~~stration Center,
.Virginia, at the ~~~ :1988, at the evening session beginning
-_ --- Brambleton Avenue, will on June 28,., _-- ublic hearing
_~ .m., or as soon thereaftet as may be heard, hold a p
at 7:00 P ursuant to Section
the adoption of a resolution p
on the question of as amended concerning
Code of Virginia,
15.1-238(e) cf the 1950 50~ fit strip
Roanoke County of an approximate fifty
or
acquisition by
t to Kenworth Read for the relocation of Kenworth Roa
located adjaCen to traverse certain
inte Project the same
the completion of the ValleYPe
the Hollins Ma915terial District of Roanoke County,
property located in ration, and
owned by Smith's Transfer Corporation, a Virginia corpo
being American Carriers Inc•,
p,RA Services, a Delaware corporation, and leased by
a Kansas corperation. and place aforesaid
Any member of the public may appear at the t~.me
and address the Board on _the matter aforesaid.
- ~~-•~
- Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney Virginia
Roanoke County,
Please publish as follows:
June 14, 1988 - morning edition
June 21, 1988 - morning edition
Please send bill to:
_ _ - -_ - Paul M. Mahoney, ~~ire
Y Roanoke County Attorney
P. p, Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018-0798
i
PUBLIC NUI'ICE
Please be advised that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, at its
meeting on 28th day of June, 1988, at•the Roanoke County Administration Cen-
ter, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia, at the evening session begin-
ping 7:00 p.m. will hold a public hearing on the following matter, to- wit:
ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTIONS 21-151, LEVY OF TAX; AMOUNT AND
21-153, REPORTS AND REMITTANCES ~~Ar,r.Y OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE AND ADD-
ING SECTION 21-165 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, SEVEI2ABLLITY
All members of the public interested in the matter set forth above may
appear and be heard at the time and place aforesaid.
~~- ~ ~ ~
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney of
Roanoke County, Virginia
Publish on the following dates,-in the morning edition:
June 14, 1988 - morning edition
June 21, 1988 - morning edition
Send invoice to:
Board of Supervisors
P. O. Box 29800
Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798
~~
PUBLIC [~]C1I'ICE
Please be advised that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, at its
meeting on June 28, 1988, at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738
Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia, at the evening session beginning 7:00
p.m. will hold a public hearing on the following matter, to-wit:
ORDINANCE AMF~IDING CHP,PTER 20, "SOLID WASTE," OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY
CODE, BY 'I'f-IE REPF~T, AND REE~IACT1"IEN'r OF SECTION 20-24, "RATES AND
CHARGES" BY PRO~TIDING FOR THE ESTABLISF~r OF CERTAIN REGULATIONS
CONCERNING CURBSIDE REFUSE COLLECTION, PRFMMIUM REFUSE COLLECTION,
AND INCREASING CERTAIN CHARGES FOR PREMIUM REFUSE COLLECTION SERVICE
All members of the public interested in the matter set forth above may
appear and be heard at the time and place aforesaid.
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney of
..Roanoke County, Virginia
Publish on the following dates in the morning edition:
June 14, 1988
June 21, 1988
Send invoice to:
Board of Supervisors
P. O. Box 29800
Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798
L E G A L N O T I C E
Notice is hereby given to all interested persons that the
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at
evening session beginning at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 28, 1988,
Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738
Brambleton Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, =on the petition of A.
Williams Oil Co. requesting amendment of the proffered conditions
tract zoned B-2, Conditional containing 1.65 acres and located on
east side of Brambleton Avenue (Route 221) approximately 0.3 miles
of intersection with Electric Road (Route 419) in the Cave Spring
Magisterial District.
their
in the
T.
of a
the
south
Amendment; has been requested to construct ~a convenience store
with gasoline pumps. The County Planning Commission recommends denial.
A copy of the Zoning Ordinance of Roanoke County and amendments
thereto as well as a copy of the petition, site plan, and other
documents related to this request may be examined in the office of the
Department of Planning and Zoning, located in Room 600 of the Roanoke
County Administration Center.
Roanoke County will provide assistance to handicapped persons
desiring to attend public hearings. Such individuals are requested to
contact the County office of Personnel Services ([703 772-2018) if
special provisions are necessary for attendance.
Given under my hand this 9th day of June, 1988.
Mary H. len, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Please publish in the evening edition
of the Roanoke Times and World News on:
Tuesday, June 14, 1988
Tuesday, June 21, 1988
Direct the bill for Publication to:
Ed Natt
1919 Electric Road
Roanoke, Va. 24108
703-774-1197
L E G A L N O T I C E
Notice is hereby given to all interested persons that the
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at their
evening session beginning at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 28, 1988, in the
Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738
Brambleton Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia,'on the petition of Elva B.
Russell Beard requesting rezoning from M-2 Industrial to A-1
Agricultural and amendment to the Future Land Use Map from Principal
Industrial to Rural Village of a tract containing 1.5 acres and located
on the south side of West River Road (Route 639) approximately, 0.34
miles east of its intersection with Dry Hollow Raad (VA 649) in the
Catawba Magisterial District.
Rezoning has been requested to construct a single-family
dwelling. The County Planning Commission recommends approval with
proffered conditions.
A copy of the Zoning Ordinance of Roanoke County and amendments
thereto as well as a copy of the petition, site plan, and other
documents .related to this request may be examined in the office of the
Department of Planning and Zoning, located in Room 600 of the Roanoke
County Administration Center.
Roanoke County will provide assistance to handicapped persons
desiring to attend public hearings. Such individuals are requested to
contact the County office of Personnel Services ([703] 772-2018). if
special provisions are necessary for attendance.
Given under my hand this 9th day of June, 1988.
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Please publish in the evening edition
of the Roanoke Times and World News on:
Tuesday, June 14, 1988
Tuesday, June 21, 1988
Direct the bill for Publication to:
C/0 Edward Natt
1919 Electric Road S. W.
Roanoke Va. 24018
703-771-1197
L E G A L N O T I C E
Notice is hereby given to all interested persons that the
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at their
evening session beginning at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 28, 1988, in the
Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738
Brambleton Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia,'~on the petition of Chaparra:
Forest Associates requesting rezoning from-.R-1 Residential to R-5
Residential of a tract containing 2.97 acres and located on the north
side of Chaparral Drive (VA. 800) approximately 300 feet west of its
intersection with Beacon Dr :--~ (VA. 1540 ) in the Cave Spring Magisterial
District.
Rezoning has been requested to construct townhouses. The Count,
Planning Commission recommends Denial.
A copy of the Zoning Ordinance of Roanoke County and amendments
thereto as well as a copy of the petition, site plan, and other
documents related to this request may be examined in the office of the
Department of Planning and Zoning, located in Room 600 of the Roanoke
County Administration Center.
Roanoke County will provide assistance to handicapped persons
desiring to attend public hearings. Such individuals are requested to
contact the County office of Personnel Services ([703 772-2018) if
special provisions are necessary for attendance.
Given under my hand this 9th day of July, 1988.
~'~a~-~-,--~/-
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Please publish in the evening edition
of the Roanoke Times and World News on:
Tuesday, June 14, 1988
Tuesday, June 21, 1988
Direct the bill for Publication to:
C/0 Edward A. Natt
1919 Electric Road
Roanoke, Va. 24018
(703) 774-1197
L E G A L N O T I C E
Notice is hereby given to all interested persons that the
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7:00
p.m. on Tuesday, June 28, 1988, in the Community Room at the Roanoke
County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W., Roanoke,
Virginia, on the petition of Victor R. Layman II, requesting vacation of
a portion of the right of way located at the terminus of Buckingham
Circle in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District.
Vacation. has been requested to construct two driveways. The
Planning Commission recommends approval.
A copy of the Zoning Ordinance of Roanoke County and amendments
thereto as well as a copy of the petition, site plan, and other
documents related to this request may be examined in the office of .the
Department of Development, located in Room 600 at the Roanoke County
Administration Center.
Roanoke County will provide assistance to handicapped persons
desiring to attend public hearings. Such individuals are requested to
contact the County office of Human Resources ([703] 772-2018) if special
provisions are necessary for attendance.
Given under my hand this 9th day of June, 1988.
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Please publish in the evening edition
of the Roanoke Times and World News on:
Tuesday, June 14, 1988
Tuesday, June 21, 1988
Direct the bill for Publication to:
Victor Laymen II
Owens & Associates
4216 Brambleton Avenue
Roanoke, Va. 24018
703-774-5555
L E G A L N O T I C E
Notice is hereby given to all interested persons that the
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at their
evening session beginning at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 28, 1988, in the
Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738
Brambleton Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia,~on the petition of
Springwood Associates requesting rezoning from B-1 Business and R-1
Residential to B-2 Business of a tract containing 2.25 acres and located
immediately west of the intersection of Brambleton Avenue and Colonial
Avenue in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District.
Rezoning has been requested to construct an office and retail
park. The County Planning Commission recommends denial. with proffered
conditions.
A copy of the Zoning Ordinance of Roanoke County and amendments
thereto as well as a copy of the petition, site plan, and other
documents related to this request may be examined in the office of the
Department of Planning and Zoning, located in Room 600 of the Roanoke
County Administration Center.
Roanoke County will provide assistance to handicapped persons
desiring to attend public hearings. Such individuals are requested to
contact. the County office of Personnel Services ([703] 772-2018) if
special provisions are necessary for attendance.
Given under my hand this 9th day of June, 1988.
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Please publish in the evening edition
of the Roanoke Times and World News on:
Tuesday, June 14, 1988
Tuesday, June 21, 1988
Direct the bill for Publication to:
Mr. Michael K. Smeltzer
hoods, Rogers, & Ha~legrove
105 Franklin Road S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24004
703-982-4252
L E G A L N O T I C E
Notice is hereby given to all interested persons that the
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at their
evening session beginning at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 28, 1988, in the
Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738
Brambleton Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia,~on the petition of Namron
Inns, Inc. requesting to amend the proffered conditions of a tract
zone B-2 Conditional containing 1.0715 acres and located on the south
side of Electric Road (Route 419) approximately 300 feet east of its
intersection with Starkey Road in the Cave Spring Magisterial District.
Rezoning has been requested to construct a motel. The County
Planning Commission recommends approval with proffered conditions.
A copy of the Zoning Ordinance of Roanoke County and amendments
thereto as well as a copy of the petition, site plan, and other
documents related to this request may be examined in the office of the
Department of Planning and Zoning, located in Room 600 of the Roanoke
County Administration Center.
Roanoke County will provide assistance to handicapped persons
desiring to attend public hearings. Such individuals are requested to
contact the County office of Personnel Services ([703 772-2018) if
special provisions are necessary for attendance.
Given under my hand this 9th day of June, 1988.
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Please publish in the evening edition
of the Roanoke Times and World News on:
Tuesday, June 14, 1988
Tuesday, June 21, 1988
Direct the bill for Publication to:
County of Roanoke Planning Dept.
P. 0. Box 29800
Roanokz; Va. 24018
703-772-2094
LDGAL NOTICE OF A RDGULAR MEETING OF THE ROANOKE COiJI~i'Y BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Notice is hereby given to all interested persons that the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m, on Tuesday, June 28, 1988, in the
Community Room at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue,
SW, in Roanoke, Virginia to hear the following requests:
1. Petition of Bennett E. Scott for a Special Exception Permit to operate a
landfill for construction debris on 1.50 acres of a 8.55 acre tract located
east of South Indian Grave Road (State Route 845) approximately 500 feet south
of its intersection with Back Creek Road (State Route 676) in the Cave Spring
Magisterial District.
All plans and ordinances are available for inspection in the Department of
Planning and Zoning, Roan 600, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia. Roanoke
County will provide assistance to handicapped persons desiring to attend public
hearings. Such individuals are requested to contact the County office of Personnel
Services 703/772-2018 if special provisions are needed for attendance.
Given under my hand this 6th day of June, 1988.
J''
Mary Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Please publish: Evening Edition
Roanoke Times & World-Naas
June 14, 1988
June 21, 1988
Please bill: County of Roanoke
Department of Planning & Zoning
P.O. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018-0798
COMMITTEE VACANCIES IN 1988
JANUARY
Social Services Board (Welfare)
Four year term of William P. Broderick, Chairman, will
expire 1/1/88.
Transportation and Safety Commission
Three year terms of Leo Trenor, Hollins District,
Charlotte Lichtenstein, Windsor Hills District, and May
Johnson, Cave Spring District, will expire 1/1/88.
Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals
Four year term of Norman Eugene Jarrett, Hollins
District will expire 1/22/88.
F~nurlnuv
Grievance Panel
Two year term of Joe W. Himes will expire 2/23/88.
MARCH
Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family
Services Advisory Board
Two year terms of Gerald Curtiss, Catawba District,
Roger Smith, Catawba District, Marilyn Morehead,
Hollins District, Dr. J. Andrew Archer, Vinton
District, Sherry Robison, Windsor Hills District, will
expire 3/22/88.
One year term of Tracy Rothschild, youth member from
Cave Spring, will expire 3/22/88.
Two year term of judicial appointment Todd Turner will
expire 3/21/88.
League of Older Americans
One year term of Webb Johnson, County Representative,
will expire 3/31/88.
APRIL
Building Code Board of Adjustments and~A eals
Four year term of B. J. King, Windsor Hills District,
will expire 4/13/88.
Four year term of Thomas A. Darnall, Vinton District,
will expire 4/27/88.
JUNE
Fifth Planning District Commission
Three year term of Lee B. Eddy, Citizen Representative,
will expire 6/30/88.
Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission
Three year terms of Kenneth D. Bowen, Catawba District,
Yvonne Willis, Catawba District, James Bryant, Hollins
District, Paul D. Bailey, Windsor Hills District, and
Roger L. Falls, Vinton District, will expire 6/30/88.
Roanoke County School Board - A ointed by School Board
Selection Committee
Four year term of Paul Black, Hollins District, will
expire 6/30/88.
JULY
Social Services Board (Welfare)
Four year term of Betty Jo Anthony will expire 7/19/88.
Roanoke Valley Regional Solid Waster Management Board
Four year terms of Howard R. Keister, Jr., County
Representative, and John H. Parrott, Chairman, City
Representative, will expire 7/31/88.
AUGUST
Community Corrections Resources Board
One year terms of Bernard Hairston, and Edmund J.
Kielty, Alternate, will expire 8/13/88.
SEPTEMBER
Grievance Panel
Two year term of Thomas T. Palmer will expire 9/10/88.
Industrial Develo ment Authority
2
Four year term of Tom Isenhart, Catawba District, will
expire 9/26/88.
OCTOBER
Grievance Panel
Three year term of Cecil Hill, Alternate, will expire
10/12/88.
Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley, Community
Services Board
Two year term of Dr. Joseph Duetsch, Member at Large,
will expire 10/31/88.
NOVEMBER
Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family
Services Advisory Board
One year terms of Cassidee R. Nickens, youth member
from William Byrd, and Molly Eller, youth member from
Glenvar High, will expire 11/13/88.
DECEMBER
Library Board
Four year term of Carolyn Pence, Vinton District, will
expire 12/31/88.
Mental Health SErvices of the Roanoke Valley, Community
Services Board
Three year term of Barbara Higgins, County appointee,
will expire 12/31/88.
Roanoke County Planning Commission
Four year term of Michael J. Gordon, Windsor Hills
District, will expire 12/31/88.
3