Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/23/1988 - RegularOF ROANp,Y~ ~ ~ ~. .~ Z z J a~ 18 E50 88 SFSQUICENTENN~P~ A BeautifulBeginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE C~nuttfg of ~nttnakr BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Mr. Bernard Hairston 6031 Oriole Lane, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Mr. Hairston: Aug U S t 2 6 19 8 8 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 The Board of Supervisors have asked me to express on their behalf their sincere appreciation for your previous service to the Community Corrections Resources Board. Citizens so responsive to the needs of their community and willing to give of themselves and their time are indeed all too scarce. This is to advise that at their meeting held on Tuesday, August 23, 1988, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to reappoint you as a member of the Community Corrections Resources Board for a one-year term. Your term will expire on August 13, 1989. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed 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 Conflicts of Interest Act. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Very truly yours, bjh Enclosures Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004 O~ POANpr~ ~ '~ p Z Z o a _ 18 ~~ 88 aFSQU1CENTENN~P~ A BeautifulBeginning C~nixn~~ of ~nttnvk~e BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR August 26 , 1988 ELMER C. HODGE Mr. Wayne Robertson Route 1, Box 735 Wirtz, Virginia 24184 Dear Mr. Robertson:- 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 At their regular meeting on Tuesday, August 23,1988, the County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the request of the Northside High School Band Boosters for a raffle permit. The fee has been paid and your receipt is enclosed. You may consider this letter to be your permit, and I suggest it be displayed on the premises where the Raffle is to be conducted. The State Code provides that raffle and bingo permits be issued on a calendar-year basis; therefore, the permit will expire December 31, 1988. This permit, however, is only valid for the dates specified on your application. If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 772-2004. Very truly yours, oJ°~' Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh CC: Commissioner of the Revenue Commonwealth Attorney County Treasurer A P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004 21$ OF DISK AVAILABLE DRIVE: D2-8/23 STATION: OM FILE TYPES: D=DIRECT I=INDEXED P=PROGRAM WP=WORD PROCESSING *=PRIVACY R=READ ONLY TYPE FILE NAME PAGES DESCRIPTION WP 8/23/RPT/JONES 2 WP 8/23/RPT/FARROW 2 WP 823SB2 1 RESO/SCHOOL BD/REQUEST REF WP 823SEPTIC 4 ORD/SEPTIC TANKS AND WELLS WP R/8/23/MEADOW/VALLEY/CIR ~ 2 ORCHARD VALLEY CIRCLE WP R/RED/BARN/LANE 2 MEETING 8/23/88 WW=WIDE WP O~ POANp~-F ~.w . Z z v apQ 18 ~un~s $$ SFSQUICENTENN~P~ A Btauti(ulBtginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE T0: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: C~aunty of ~Rattnnke M E M O RAND U M Tommy Fuqua Fire and Rescue Chief BOARD 01= SUPERVISORS 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 Mary H. Allen ;YyL~1E.-4~ Deputy Clerk August 24, 1988 Roof replacement of Fort Lewis Fire Station Mr. Hodge requested that I advise you that at their meeting on August 23, 1988, the Board of Supervisors authorized the replacement of the roof at the Fort Lewis Fire Station. They did not, however, allocate funds for the roof replacement. Therefore, the funds for the replacement must come from the existing Fire and Rescue budget. mha M P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. '/IRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004 O~ POAN ~,~ ti '~ P . ~ a ~ ~~ ~~~.~~~~ ~~~~ ,~ ~ 18 ~a 88 sFSQU1CEN7ENN~P~' ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ABu,uti~ulBcginning ACTION AGENDA AUGUST 23, 1988 Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public Hearings will be heard at 7:00 p.m on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. AFTERNOON SESSION (3:00 P.M.) A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. 2. Invocation: The Reverend Samuel Crews Coopers Cove Baptist Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS. NONE C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of Appreciation to J. R. Jones for his service to the Roanoke County Planning Commission. R-82388-1 HCN/SAM - UW 2. Resolution of Appreciation to Virginia Farrow upon her retirement R-82388-2 HCN/SAM - UVV D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of resolution requesting a referendum on changing the method of selecting school board members. R-82388-3 SAM/RR TO ADOPT RESO AND AUTHORIZE FUNDING UP TO $10,000 FOR INFORMATIONAL BROCHURE. ECH DIRECTED TO COME BACK TO BOARD ON 9/13/88 WITH COSTS AND WHERE FUNDING WILL COME FROM. URC 2. Request to amend Roanoke County's Bonding Policy for subdivisions and site development. A-82388-4 SAM/RR TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION URC 3. Report and Recommendation concerning On-Site Aerobic Wastewater Treatment Systems. A-82388-6 SAM/BLJ TO APPROVE ALT. #2 AND THAT STAFF WORK WITH HEALTH DEPT. TO IMPLEMENT APPROVAL OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL PRIOR TO PLAT RECORDATION AYES: LG, BLJ, SAM NAYS; RR, HCN 4. Approval of Resolution increasing mileage reimbursement for personal use of automobile. R-82388-6 HCN/SAM TO APPROVE - URC 5. Approval of a Mutual Aid Agreement with Floyd County. A-82388-7 LG/HCN TO APPROVE - URC E. REQUEST FOR WORK SESSIONS 1. Request for work session on September 13, 1988 on the 1989 legislative package. BLJ/SAM TO SET WORK SESSION 9/13/88 - URC F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE G. APPOINTMENT 1. Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals. 2. Community Corrections Resources Board 2 3. Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board 4. Grievance Panel HCN NOMINATED THOMAS PALMER TO ANOTHER TWO-YEAR TERM 5. Industrial Development Authority H. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS JOHNSON (1) DIRECTED LEGAL STAFF TO RESEARCH CONSOLIDATION AND HOW WILL IT WILL AFFECT COUNTY CITIZENS AND THE BOARD (2) STATED HE FELT PROJECTS SUCH AS SPRING HOLLOW RESERVOIR AND LANDFILL SHOULD GO FORWARD DESPITE CONSOLIDATION EFFORTS. SEPT. 1 DEADLINE WHEN ROANOKE CITY MAKES A DECISION TO PARTICIPATE IN RESERVOIR SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED. ECH WILL ADVISE ROANOKE CITY. MCGRAW (1) ANNOUNCED ASST CITY MANAGER FOR ROANOKE WILL ATTEND ROANOKE VALLEY COOPERATION COMMITTEE AS WELL AS DAVID BOWERS. (2) ADVISED THAT VACO/VML TASK FORCE HAD REACHED AGREEMENT FOR A SINGLE PROPOSAL TO PRESENT TO GRAYSON COMMISSION. (3) REPORTED THAT OLVER REPORT ON RECYCLING WILL BE COMPLETE SOON AND COUNTY SHOULD BE PREPARED TO GO FORWARD WITH RIGHT-OF-ENTRY TO PROPOSED LANDFILL SITES. NICKENS EXPRESSED APPRECIATION TO THE VOLUNTEER AND PAID FIRE AND RESCUE PERSONNEL WHO BATTLED A FIRE IN HIS NEIGHBORHOOD DURING A VERY SEVERE STORM. ROBERS ANNOUNCED THEY ARE PROCEEDING WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRIP TO NORTHERN VIRGINIA. REMINDED ALL THAT THE ROANOKE VALLEY COOPERATION COMMITTEE WILL MEET FRIDAY, 8/26/88. GARRETT ANNOUNCED HE WILL BE IN WILLIAMSBURG FOR SEVERAL DAYS AND VICE CHAIRMAN ROBERS WILL ACT AS CHAIRMAN IN HIS ABSENCE. I. CONSENT AGENDA R-82388-8 BLJ/RR TO APPROVE RESO URC ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Minutes of Meetings - April 12, 1988, April 26, 19~: '.. 3 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Community Corrections Resources Board and recommendations to the Landfill Citizens Liaison Committee. A-82388-8.a 3. Request for acceptance of Meadow Valley Circle and Orchard Valley Circle into the VDOT Secondary System. A-82388-8.b 4. Request for acceptance of Red Barn Lane into the VDOT Secondary System. R-82388-8.c 5. Request for a Raffle Permit from the Northside High School Band Boosters. A-82388-8.d J. CITIZENS' CONIl~~NTS AND COMMUNICATIONS NONE K. REPORTS HCN/SAM TO RECEIVE AND FILE URC 1. 2. 3. 4. Capital Fund - Unappropriated Balance General Fund - Unappropriated Balance Reserve for Board Contingency Fund Report on Meals Tax DANA LONG PRESENT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON MEALS TAX L. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia 2.1-344 (a) (3) discussion of acquisition of real estate; (7) Consultation with legal counsel concerning litigation; and (7) consultant with legal counsel concerning legal matters, consolidation. LG/BLJ URC 4 EVENING SESSION (7:00 P.M.) M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 888-1 Petition of Roanoke Land Development Corp. to rezone a 1.489 acre tract from R-1, Residential to R-5, Residential to construct townhomes located immediately northwest of the intersection of Roselawn Road (Route 689) and Pleasant Hill Drive (Route 1552) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. (CONTINUED FROM JULY 26, 1988) HCN/SAM TO APPROVE WITH PROFFERS AYES; RR, SAM, HCN NAYS: BLJ, LG 888-2 Petition of The Hobart Companies. Ltd. to amend the conditions on a Use Not Provided for Permit on a 4.974 acre tract located on the south side of Peters Creek Road (Route 117) immediately south of Deer Branch Road (Route 842) in the Hollins Magisterial District. BLJ/SAM TO APPROVE WITH PROFFERS URC 888-3 Petition of Gerald W. Atkins to rezone a 0.28 acre tract from B-1, Business to B-2, Business to operate an office with sales and service located on the south side of Peters Creek Road (Route 117) approximately 100 feet west of its intersection with South Drive (Route 1864) in the Hollins Magisterial District. BLJ/SAM TO APPROVE WITH PROFFERS URC 888-4 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 properties and to take certain sanitary sewer easements in connection with the extension of public sewer to Nichols Estates. R-82388-9 RR/SAM TO ADOPT RESO URC 5 N. REROOFING OF FORT LEWIS FIRE STATION A-82388-11 BLJ/RR TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION URC O. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance authorizing the purchase of 0.518 acres from Smithsub, Inc. for the relocation of Kenworth Road - Valleypointe, Phase I BLJ/RR TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - 9/13/88 AYES: BLJ,RR,HCN,LG ABSTAIN: SAM 2. Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of easements to facilitate the extension of public sewer service to the Appalachian Power Company Service Center. HCN/RR TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - 9/13/88 URC P. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending Chapter 18 of the Roanoke County Code, Sewers and Sewage Disposal. concerning the procedures and prescribed fees for issuance of permits for septic tanks and wells. 0-82388-10 SAM/RR TO APPROVE URC Q. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS NONE LG/BLJ TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 8:20 P.M. PURSUANT TO CODE OF VIRGINIA 2.1-344-(A) (7) TO DISCUSS A LEGAL MATTER, CONSOLIDATION - URC R. ADJOURNMENT AT P.M• 6 .. O~ ROkNp~.~ ti ' « 9 Ar' ~~ , az C~~~tYt~ 18 E50 88 SFSOUICeNTeNN~P~ ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS A Beautiful Beginuiug AGENDA AUGUST 23, 1988 Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting. Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public Hearings will be heard at 7:00 p.m on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. AFTERNOON SESSION (3:00 P.M. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Ro11 Call. 2. Invocation: The Reverend Samuel Crews Coopers Cove Baptist Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS. C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Resolution of Appreciation to J. R. Jones for his service to the Roanoke County Planning Commission. 2. Resolution of Appreciation to Virginia Farrow upon her retirement D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Approval of resolution requesting a referendum on changing the method of selecting school board members. 2. Request to amend Roanoke County's Bonding Policy for subdivisions and site development. 3. Report and Recommendation concerning On-Site Aerobic Wastewater Treatment Systems. 4. Approval of Resolution increasing mileage reimbursement for personal use of autombile. 5. Approval of a Mutual Aid Agreement with Floyd County. E. REQUEST FOR WORK SESSIONS 1. Request for work session on September 13, 1988 on the 1989 legislative package. F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS G. APPOINTMENTS 1. Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals. 2. Community Corrections Resources Board 3. Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board 4. Grievance Panel 5. Industrial Development Authority H. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS I. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 1. Minutes of Meetings - April 12, 1988, April 26, 1988. 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Community Corrections Resources Board and recommendations to the Landfill Citizens Liaison Committee. 3. Request for acceptance of Meadow Valley Circle and Orchard Valley Circle into the VDOT Secondary System. 2 4. Request for acceptance of Red Barn Lane into the VDOT Secondary System. 5. Request for a Raffle Permit from the Northside High School Band Boosters. J. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS K. REPORTS 1. Capital Fund - Unappropriated Balance 2. General Fund - Unappropriated Balance 3. Reserve for Board Contingency Fund 4. Report on Meals Tax L. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia 2.1-344 (a) . EVENING SESSION (7:00 P.M.) M. PUBLIC HEARINGS 888-1 Petition of Roanoke Land Development Corp. to rezone a 1.489 acre tract from R-1, Residential to R-5, Residential to construct townhomes located immediately northwest of the intersection of Roselawn Road (Route 689) and Pleasant Hill Drive (Route 1552) in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. (CONTINUED FROM JULY 26, 1988) 888-2 Petition of The Hobart Companies, Ltd. to amend the conditions on a Use Not Provided for Permit on a 4.974 acre tract located on the sout:, side of Peters Creek Road (Route 117) immediately south of Deer Branch Road (Route 842) in the Hollins Magisterial District. 888-3 Petition of Gerald W. Atkins to rezone a 0.28 acre tract from B-1, Business to B-2, Business to operate an office with sales and service located on the south side of Peters Creek Road (Route 117) approximately 100 feet 3 west of its intersection with South Drive (Route 1864) in the Hollins Magisterial District. 888-4 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 properties and to take certain sanitary sewer easements in connection with the extension of public sewer to Nichols Estates. 0. P. 4- R. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance authorizing the purchase of 0.518 acres from Smithsub, Inc. for the relocation of Kenworth Road - Valleypointe, Phase I 2. Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of easements to facilitate the extension of public sewer service to the Appalachian Power Company Service Center. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending Chapter 18 of the Roanoke County Code, Sewers and Sewacre Disposal, concerning the procedures and prescribed fees for issuance of permits for septic tanks and wells. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS ADJOURNMENT 4 ~ ,_ ~~ OpUNCIL MENIJRANDUM 88-51 T0: VINTON Z+pWN p~UNCIL: Mr. Charles R. Hill, Mayor Mr. Roy G. McCarty, Jr. Mr. Robert R. Altice Mr. Donald L. Davis Mr . W. Ray Sandifer FROM: GEORGE W. NESTER, TOWN MANAGER L1a,TE : AUGUST 19 , 19 88 RE: SPECIAL (`AT,TF:D MEETING TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, AUGiJ(J~INISTRATIVE CENTER P.M. IN THE D'I'Y ROOM OF THE RQANOKE COUNPY AT 3738 BRAMHLEI'ON AVENUE, F~ANOKE, VIRGINIA. Gentlemen: Each of you are hereby notif2 ed 1988 S n~the Comm~uni~tytRoom °f t~n RO ° kP 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August , County Administration Center located at 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia. The purpose of the meeting is to: (1) Discuss a legal matter pursuant to §2.1-344 (6). (2) Discuss a real estate matter pursuant to §2.1-344 (2). (3) Do any and all things to accomplish the above. George W. Nester Town Manager c3aN/cr cc: News Media Tcx~m Attorney HAI~ID DELIVERID TO: Date Time Received By Charles R. Hill ------' Donald L. Davis Robert R. Altice Roy G. McCarty, Jr. W. Ray Sandifer ---- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINICENTERDONTTUESDAYANAUGUSOU23Y 1988NISTRATION RESOLUTION 82388-1 OF APPRECIATION TO J. R. JONES FOR HIS SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE ROANORE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: WHEREAS, J. R. Jones was first appointed to the Roanoke County Planning Commission for a four-year term on April 4, 1979, and subsequently was re-appointed on January 1, 1983, and January 1, 1987; and WHEREAS, during his tenure on the Planning Commission, his assistance was invaluable in developing and implementing the Land Use Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance Update; and WHEREAS, for a period of nine and a half years, Mr. Jones did tirelessly and selflessly devote many hours to the business of Roanoke County and the Planning Commission, and at all times, he did capably serve the citizens of the County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County wishes to express its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to J. R. JONES for his many years of capable, loyal, and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors extends its best wishes for continued success in all his future endeavors. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Resolution of Appreciation File 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINICENTERDONTTUESDAYANAUGUSOU23Y 19$gNISTRATION e RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO J. R. JONES FOR HIS SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: WHEREAS, J. R. Jones was first appointed to the Roanoke County Planning Commission for a four-year term on April 4, 1979, and subsequently was re-appointed on January 1, 1983, and January 1, 1987; and WHEREAS, during his tenure on the Planning Commission, his assistance was invaluable in developing and implementing the Land Use Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance Update; and WHEREAS, for a period of nine and a half years, Mr. Jones did tirelessly and selflessly devote many hours to the business of Roanoke County and the Planning Commission, and at all times, he did capably serve the citizens of the County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County wishes to express its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to J. R. JONES for his many years of capable, loyal, and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors extends its best wishes for continued success in all his future endeavors. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGCENTERHONDTUESDAY,RAUGOST 2OUN1988DMINISTRATION RESOLUTION 82388-2 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO VIRGINIA FARROW FOR TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF SERVICE TO ROANORE COUNTY BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: WHEREAS, Virginia Farrow was first employed on January 16, 1963, as Deputy Commissioner by the Commissioner of the Revenue; and WHEREAS, Virginia Farrow was employed through the terms of three Commissioners of the Revenue, and was named the Chief Deputy Commissioner on January 1, 1980; and WHEREAS, Virginia Farrow has been a valuable asset to Roanoke County through her assistance to the citizens in preparing their personal property and Virginia income taxes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to Virginia Farrow for over twenty-five years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors extends its best wishes for a happy, restful and productive retirement. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. A len, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Resolution of Appreciation File Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1988 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO VIRGINIA FARROW FOR TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF SERVICE TO ROANOKE COUNTY BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: WHEREAS, Virginia Farrow was first employed on January 16, 1963, as Deputy Commissioner by the Commissioner of the Revenue; and WHEREAS, Virginia Farrow was employed through the terms of three Commissioners of the Revenue, and was named the Chief Deputy Commisioner on January 1, 1988; and WHEREAS, Virginia Farrow has been a valuable asset to Roanoke County through her assistance to the citizens in preparing their personal property and Virginia income taxes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to Virginia Farrow for over twenty-five years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors extends its best wishes for a happy, restful and productive retirement. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1988 RESOLUTION 82388-3 REQUESTING TAE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO ENTER AN ORDER TO HOLD A REFERENDUM ON THE QUESTION OF CHANGING THE METHOD OF SELECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22.1-42 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA, 1950, AS AMENDED. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County determines that it is desirable to hold a referendum on the ques- tion of the method of appointment of members of the School Board of Roanoke County, as provided by Section 22.1-42 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended; and, WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on the ques- tion of such referendum on July 26, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. at the Roanoke County Administration Center at 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W.; and, WHEREAS, said public hearing was advertised in the Roanoke Times and World News on July 12, 1988 and July 19, 1988. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervi- sors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that said Board does respect- fully request the Circuit Court of Roanoke County to enter an order requiring the regular election officials on the day fixed in such order to open the polls and take the sense of the quali- fied voters of Roanoke County on the question of changing the method of appointment of members of the Roanoke County School Board from the Roanoke County School Board Selection Commission to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Deputy Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to certify a copy of this resolution and to present it to the judge of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, and to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke. On motion of Supervisor McGraw to adopt resolution and authorize funding up to $10,000 for informational brochure, seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Robers, Garrett NAYS: Supervisor Nickens ABSENT: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Kenneth E. Trabue, Chief Judge, Circuit Court Elizabeth Stokes, Clerk, Circuit Court Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Bayes Wilson, Superintendent, Roanoke County Schools 2 ACTION #F ITEM NUMBER ~ ~ ~_ AT A VIRGINIAMHELDNATOTHEHROAONOKE COUNTYEADMIONISTRATIONNOCEN'i'ER COUNTY, MEETING DATE: August 23, 1988 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution requesting the Circuit Court of Roanoke County to enter an order to hold a referendum on the question of changing the method of selection of members of the County School Board, as provided in Section 22.1-42 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended COUNTY ADMI IS~TRA~TOR' S COMMENTS : ~ p ~~~ B/~~ ~ ~ ~/ y .'..fz~B~u'u BACKGROUND: On June 14, 1988, the Board of Supervisors adopted a motion calling for a public hearing to be held on July 26, 1988, concern- ing the adoption of a resolution requesting the Circuit Court to enter an order to hold a referendum on the question of changing the method of s Roanoken Countym SchoolfBoardR Selectio~u Commsss~on Board from the to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. A public notice of this public hearing and proposed resolu- tion was published in the Roanoke Times on July 12, 1988, and July 19, 1988. The public hearing on this matter. was held on July 26, 1988. Final consideration and decision on this issue has been conti t Court would dschedulef thaspreaer_ endum ontNovembea that the Circus 8, 1988. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: 1. The Board of Supervisors could adopt the proposed resolu- tion calling for a referendum on this question. 2. The Board of Supervisors could refuse to adopt this reso- lution requesting the referendum. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted, ~ _ / rte. ~~~,", ~~. r''~-fit 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, VIRGICENTEREON TUESDAYROAUGUSTCO3NT1g88MINISTRATION RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE CIRCUIT COURT ~ ! / OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO ENTER AN ORDER TO HOLD A REFERENDUM ON TI3E QUESTION OF CHANGING THE METHOD OF SELECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22.1-42 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA, 1950, AS AMENDED. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County determines that it is desirable to hold a referendum on the ques- tion of the method of appointment of members of the School Board of Roanoke County, as provided by Section 22.1-42 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended; and, WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on the ques- tion of such referendum on July 26, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. at the Roanoke County Administration Center at 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W.; and, WHEREAS, said public hearing was advertised in the Roanoke Times and World News on July 12, 1988 and July 19, 1988. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervi- sors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that said Board does respect- fully request the Circuit Court of Roanoke County to enter an order requiring the regular election officials on the day fixed in such order to open the polls and take the sense of the quali- fied voters of Roanoke County on the question of changing the method of appointment of members of the Roanoke County School Board from the Roanoke County School Board Selection Commission to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. ~-1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED t:hat the Deputy Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to certify a copy of this resolution and to present it to the judge of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, and to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke. ACTION # 82388-4 ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 23, 1988 AGENDA ITEM: Request to Amend County's Bonding Policy for Subdivision and Site Development COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~~ ~~~~~~~ BACKGROUND: On October 23, 1984, with the support of the Roanoke Valley Home Builders Association, the Roanoke County Board of Super- visors adopted the present Bonding Policy. The policy was established to work when administering forms Bond, Cash Accounts, Letters of Credit), reductions and defaults. to provide a procedure with which of guarantee (Corporate Surety Escrow and Irrevocable Letters of SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Since adopting the Bonding Policy there have been organiza- tional changes and current policy problems which have created a need to amend the present policy. The organizational changes are attached, therefore, should not need further explanation. Currently, the County monitors approximately 80 Irrevocable Letters of Credit. According to the County policy, notification must be made to each developer 90 days prior to expiration of their Letter of Credit. If further extension is required, comple- tion dates and explanations must be provided by the developer. Due to poor response from the developers on requested information and notification to banks to extend the Letter of Credit, the following changes should be made: ~-2 1. Amend Chapter III(C)(4) so that the following language is required on all newly-issued Letters of Credit: "This Irrevocable Letter oE'Cre ear from then effective force for a period of one (1) y date hereof and shall automatically renew itself from year to year thereafter unless and until the (issuing bank name) shall give ninety (90) days prior written notice to t e County of Roanoke, Virginia, by certified mail, return receipt requested, of its intent to termi- nate the same at the expiration of the ninety (90) day period. During the last thirty (30) days during which the Letter of Credit is in full force and effect, the County may draw up to the full amount available under the Letter of Credit witl icant f name) mhasl no b completed ment stating that (app ' the improvements an as not prove e an acceptable sub- stitute Irrevoca'le Letter of Credit and that the draw- ing is for the explicit purpose of guaranteeing and/or providing for the completion of the improvements." 2. Amend Chapter IX titled "Default and Evaluation Procedure" to require that once the ninety (90) day notification is received from the bank, all physical improvements must be completed and accepted by all County and State agencies within sixty (60) days from bank notification or Roanoke County is required to auto- matically draw on the Letter of Credit. This amendment will relieve Roanoke County from continuous monitoring of Letters of Credits and insure that bonds do not lapse without completion of all improvements. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: Alternative 1: Amend the County's Bonding Policy to reflect organizationa c anges, require self-extending language on all newly-issued Letters of Credit, and amend the default procedure; direct the County Attorney to prepare the appropriate resolution. The only cost involved is approximately $100 to reprint the Bond- ing Policy. Alternative 2: Amend the County's Bonding Policy to reflect only organizationa changes and all other portions of the policy will remain the same; direct the County Attorney to prepare the appropriate resolution. The only cost involved is approximately $100 to reprint the Bonding Policy. Alternative 3: Do nothing and enforce the current Bonding Policy . STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1. -2- SUBMITTED BY: Arnold Covey, ~_irector Development and Inspect ons APPROVED: ~ , Elmer C. Ho ge County Administrator ------------- ------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Steven A . McGraw/ No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Richard W Robers to approve Garrett x Received ( ) Alternative #1 Johnson x Referred McGraw x Nickens x to Robers x cc: File Arnold Covey John Hubbard Phillip Henry Paul Mahoney -3- ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES TO BONDING POLICY ~ - ,~, 1. Change "Development Review Coordinator" to "Director of Development and Inspections" 2. Change "Department of Public Facilities" to "Department of Engineering" 3. Page 7(C) - Bonding committee shall be composed of Assistant County Administrator of Community Services and Development, Director of Development and Inspections, County Attorney, and Director of Engineering. 4. Change "V.D.H.T." to "V.D.O.T." -4- ACTION # 82388-5 ITEM NUMBER ~ ' 3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE AGENDA ITEM August 23, 1988 Report and Planning Commission Recommendation on Individual On-Site Aerobic Wastewater Treatment Systems in Roanoke County. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS r ,~ --~ La. BACKGROUND ~-c~ti _ 6 ~ ~ -u.~~~i; In July 1987, the Code of Virginia was amended (Section 62.1- 44.15:3) to include a provision that an applicant for a permit under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) must obtain written notification from the governing body of the County that the proposal is consistent with all ordinances adopted pursuant to Chapter 11 (Section 15.1-427) of Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia. Since then, Roanoke County has received three requests (one denied; two pending) for approval of individual aerobic wastewater treatment systems. After initial consideration by the Board of Supervisors, the matter was referred to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. The Planning Commission and staff in considering this matter, researched available information and met with private vendors and representatives of the Virginia Water Control Board (VWCB) and the Virginia Department of Health (VDH). A summary of the information obtained is attached. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION In relationship to the foundation offered by the conventional septic system or other accepted alternatives for on-site sewage treatment, these systems present a number of issues which should be addressed prior to approval. (1) Foremost is the problem of ensuring proper maintenance. Independent studies of these systems have indicated that the quality of the effluent has been inconsistent due primarily to the maintenance problems associated with these systems. (2) At the present time, responsibility for approving these systems rests with the VWCB, with recommendations provided by VDH. However, neither agency formally monitors or inspects these systems on a routine basis. They do, however, recognize the problem of maintenance and encourage local communities to establish public service authorities to monitor and maintain these aerobic units, or require maintenance contracts with private industry. . ~.J - (3) In Roanoke County, under current requirements in Chapter 16 of the County Code, these systems are not permitted. The only accepted methods of waste disposal are septic systems with soil absorption fields (drainfields) or central sewer systems. In addition, these systems represent a private improvement related to land development, similar to the private roads and water systems now prohibited by ordinance, which has the potential for becoming a public responsibility. (4) Finally, individual aerobic wastewater systems are not reflected or contemplated in the policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. These systems, if left to the current regulatory mechanisms, could encourage growth in a fashion inconsistent with the plan, and contra- dict policies related to resource protection such as water quality. Despite these aspects, the Planning Commission concurs with health officials that these systems, if closely monitored, would provide a more acceptable solution to an existing failing septic system which poses a hazard to public health. This would allow limited numbers of these systems to be utilized in hardship situations, while permitting further evaluation by VWCB, VDH, and the County. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS Alternative No. 1: That an ordinance be prepared amending Chapter 16 of the County Code establishing criteria, standards, monitoring requirements, provisions for maintenance, and determining the admin- istrative process to permit individual aerobic treatment systems on a hardship basis only as a replacement system for a failed septic system on an improved lot which constitutes a risk to public health. This ordinance should incorporate the recommendations of the Planning Commission contained in the attached report. Alternative No. 2: Maintain existing ordinances and provisions in the County Code which prohibit use of these individual aerobic systems. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission and staff recommend Alternative 1 to develop an ordinance through a joint effort of the Planning Department, Utility Department, and the County Attorney's office. SUBMITTED BY: ~~ ~ I ~ ~~~ Jona an W. Hartley Acti g Zoning Administrator APPROVE BY: ~~ Elmer C. dge County Administrator --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Steven A. McGraw/Bob L. No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Johnson to approve A erna ive Garrett x Received ( ) an a sta wor wit Hea t Johnson x Referred epar men o imp ement approva of McGraw x To sewage isposa prior o p at Nickens x Robers x cc: File Dr. Margaret Hagan Jonathan Hartley John Hubbard Cliff Craig July 15, 1988 FINAL REPORT RELATED TO INDIVIDUAL AEROBIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS Background In July 1987, the Code of Virginia was amended {Section 62.1-44.15:3) to include a provision that an applicant for a permit under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) must obtain written notification from the governing body of the County that the proposal is consistent with all ordinances adopted pursuant to Chapter 11 (Section 15.1-427) of Title 15.1. Since then, Roanoke County has received three requests {one denied, two pending) for approval of individual aerobic wastewater treatment systems. After initial consideration by the Board of Supervisors, the matter was referred to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. The following report summarizes the Commission's review based on information obtained by the Commission and staff. Also included are draft recommendations for consideration by the Commission. This report focuses on these systems as a ~-ahole, since the issues are related to County policy rather than specific application. Also, the County does not have the technical expertise, nor is it County policy, to evaluate or recommend a specific vendor's product over the numerous individual aerobic systems marketed at this time. Description of Individual Aerobic Wastecaater Treatment Systems The typical aerobic unit consists of a compartmentalized tank constructed of fiberglass or concrete. Generally the first compartment is a presettling chamber where heavy solids and grease are removed. The second chamber consists of the aeration chamber where compressed air is forced into the effluent, normally with some form of mechanical stirring. A small final settling chamber is usually provided incorporating ports or slots for gravity sludge to return to the aeration chamber. The effluent is then discharged from the tank, either into a chlorinator, if required, or into a receiving stream or other approved location.l These individual units differ from conventional septic systems by their method of sewage treatment. They rely primarily on the principle of oxidation in the decomposition of sewage by introducing air into the sewage {aerobic treatment), after which the effluent is discharged. A conventional septic system uses an anaerobic process {without air) to partially treat the waste. Final treatment occurs in the soil absorption or drain field where the <<aastewater is 1 filtered and treated by organisms in the soils and by physical and chemical reactions with the soil. This treatment by the soil is why the soil capabilities are so critical in the siting of a septic ~ _~ system. They also differ from larger publicly owned treatment plants. First, by comparison, they are small in size, with flows generally under 1000 gallons per day. Second, since larger treatment plants handle a larger volume of effluent, including commercial and industrial wastewater, higher levels of treatment have been mandated by law. In turn, to insure that discharge standards are being met, state law requires that the effluent by sampled daily. Finally, from a more technical perspective, the individual aerobic systems have the appearance of an extended aeration process used in larger publicly owned systems. However, by relying on a gravity sludge return in the final settling chamber, rather than a mechanical return system, these individual systems are not efficient in capturing or retaining solids, resulting in poor quality effluent.2 General Performance of Individual Aerobic Systems The National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) of Ann Arbor, Michigan is a nonprofit research organization established to develop standards and criteria for special equipment related to public health. The NSF Standard 40 was developed to specifically evaluate the performance of individual aerobic wastewater treatment systems, independent of the design and construction of the system, based on the installation and operating instructions of the manufacturer. Conformance with this standard is not an approval of the particular unit, but a certification of the data provided by the tests and an indication of compliance with the requirements expressed in the standard. Plants conforming to Standard 40 are classified as Class I or Class II plants according to the quality of effluent produced during their performance evaluation. Table 1 below contains the maximum level of discharges allowed in each class.3 Table 1 NSF Standard 40 Plant Classification Class I Class II Effluent Quality Maximum Value* Maximum value* --------------------------------------------------------------------- BODs mq/1 l0 60 Suspended Solids, mg/1 40 100 --------------------------------------------------------------------- *Maximum value not to be exceeded more than 10~ of the time. Source: National Sanitation Foundation, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2 As of August, 1987 the NSF had certified more than a dozen ~ '~ manufacturers producing more than 40 different models as conforming with Standard 40. Many of these have in turn been approved for use in Virginia by the Department of Health based on their review of plans and specifications Although a number of these systems have been certified by NSF and approved by VDH, testing and evaluation of individual aerobic systems installed in the field have raised some concerns related to their performance. The primary problem cited in studies conducted during the 1970's is the maintenance of the systems by homeowners. One study in Colorado conducted by Edwin Bennett in 1973, concluded that the performance of the individual aerobic systems tested was disappointing, and summarized the problem as follows: "One important factor is neglect by the homeowner. Many owners will not accept any maintenance responsibility related to their sewage system and therefore the successful unit must have a high degree of reliability with minimal maintenance."4 A similar study undertaken in Jefferson County, Colorado between 1971 and 1973 likewise concluded that: "Many homeowners are unfamiliar with sewage treatment process and find maintenance of the [aerobic] plants is a bothersome chore which results in the plant being neglected."5 Finally, the most extensive study to date was conducted by the Ohio Department of Health in Hamilton County, Ohio in 1978. The study was based on 61 aerobic treatment systems random sampled by vendor from 2000 units. Based on their laboratory results, the systems tested frequently failed to comply with the Ohio State standards or NSF Class II standards, as indicated in Table 2. Table 2 Hamilton County Individual Aerobic Systems Test Results BODs Suspended S O 1 1 d S Average Totals 132 mg/1 2779 mg/1 Systems Meeting Ohio Standards 23a 460 Systems Meeting NSF Class II Standards 400 590 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Hamilton County Home Aerobic Systems Sewage Disposal Program Survey, Ohio Department of Health, 1979. 3 Also during the study, approximately half of the owners were ~ -3 interviewed on the performance and maintenance of the systems. Based on this information, the following conclusions were reached. "The levels of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids (SS) in the majority of these units exceeded those as permitted for off-site discharge as required by Ohio's household sewage rules, and for the National Sanitation Foundation standards. These excessive levels are indicative of the problem which creates nuisances, water pollution, and possible disease outbreak. There are several reasons for the high levels of BOD and SS in each of the units and for the program as a whole. Primary is the real possibility that the units themselves are designed and manufactured inadequately, and/or the units are not functioning properly.... An equally important reason for excessively high effluent levels is the lack of proper maintenance. Both homeowners and service personnel must be aware of good operating practice and the requirements necessary for their particular system."~ According to conversations by staff with officials in Ohio, the maintenance problem still persists. One health official indicated it was not uncommon to find that the owner had shut the power to the system off causing the treatment system to go septic. To address the maintenance problem, Ohio public health officials are now preparing legislation to permit the creation of Sanitation Districts in order to institute a routine monitoring and inspection program based on annual user fees. Role of the Virainia Water Control Board (VWCB)_ The primary agency responsible for regulating these individual aerobic treatment systems is the Virginia Water Control Board (VWCB). Among other duties, they are responsible for any discharge of sewage and other wastes into or adjacent to state waters, including discharges into a dry run, stream or ditch, or onto the ground. This is regulated through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, pursuant to Section 62.1-44.15 of the Virginia Code and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act under contract with the Environmental Protection Agency. Prior to obtaining an NPDES, a formal application must be submitted containing specific information about the location, design and extent of treatment anticipated. Notification of the local governing body must also be submitted at this time. Discharge limitations are then set for the proposed system, and a notice is published soliciting public comments on the application related to water quality issues. At this time the application is also referred to VDH for their review and recommendation. Should favorable comments be received, the application is approved. Permits are issued on a first come first serve basis. 4 ~ -3 The VWCB utilizes standardized effluent limitations, which are shown in Table 3, as the specific standards for the quality of the wastewater discharged. These standards are equivalent to secondary treatment. In addition, chlorination and dechlorination must be provided. These limitations are utilized for all discharges to all surface water, except those classified as "prohibited waters" and "protected waters". There are no "prohibited waters" located in Roanoke County. Protected waters, which would include the following, are evaluated on a case by case basis. -Public Water Supply waters, -Natural Trout and Put and Take Trout waters, -Waters containing endangered or threatened species, and -Multiple dischargers in close proximity to one another. Dependent upon these factors, standardized effluent limitations are accepted, modified to be more stringent, or the permit request should be denied. Table 3 Virginia Water Control Board Effluent Limitations for Individual Aerobic Treatment Systems Discharge Limitation Effluent Characteristics Monthly Average Weekly Average BODS, mg/I 30 45 Suspended Solids, mg/1 30 45 Source: Virginia Plater Control Board, 198. NPDES permits must be renewed every five years. At this time available performance z~cords are reviewed, if available, and a visual inspection of the site is made. Otherwise, inspections are maa~ only in response to a complaint. VWCB policy does not require routine testing and sampling, as it does for larger public systems. Also at renewal time, additional effluent limitations could be imposed, requiring modifications to these systems after initial approval. Due to the overlapping roles of the VWCB and VDH, there has been discussions of transferring some or all of the responsibilities for these individual systems to VDH. To date no specific agreement between agencies has been reached. However, VDH personnel will be providing NPDES permit packages to applicants and will assist individuals as staff time allows. 5 Role of the Virainia Department of Health {VDH) ~ -3 The VDH is responsible for approving all individual sewage disposal systems which utilize soil absorption systems. In addition to the conventional gravity flow septic tank-drainfield system, VDH also presently permits low pressure distribution drainfield systems, elevated sand mounds, and chlorinated sand filters. Through a memorandum of understanding, VDH, has also been reviewing NPDES permit applications in order to provide recommendations related to public health. In May, 1988, the first set of interim policies and guidelines were issued by VDH effective immediately as well as to solicit comments. They are intended to provide for more thorough and consistent review and recommendations on these systems across the State. Final guidelines are under preparation and are expected to be implemented this fall. These interim guidelines first require that all other options for sewage disposal be explored and found unsatisfactory. In addition, three primary concerns have been cited in considering a recommendation on these systems. These include: 1) the type of discharge; 2) the development density within the area of the discharge; 3) and long term maintenance. The policy encourages that these three items be addressed prior to offering a favorable comment on an NPDES permit request. In terms of the types of discharges, the interim guidelines recommend that dry ditch or no ditch discharges be given an unfavorable recommendation unless strict buffering standards {500 feet) under control of the property owner (ownership or easement) is provided below each discharge point. This can be modified following a site inspection for site topography or soil absorption characteristics, other means of controlling access, commitment to proper maintenance, or additional methods of pretreatment prior to discharge. Dry ditch discharges would also be given an unfavorable recommendation caithin one mile upstream from any public water intake or any public swimming or bathing area. The interim guidelines also specifically state that VDH will not support multiple lot subdivisions unless a public service authority exists which will perform inspections and maintain the systems. Large single treatment systems are usually the more appropriate treatment method for subdivisions. Regardless of their location, VDH strongly supports local creation of public service authorities designed to routinely inspect and maintain these systems. In lieu of this, they support local regulations requiring maintenance contracts with private industry. Finally, these guidelines state that VDH will inspect these individual aerobic systems for compliance with plans and specifications which were permitted by the VWCB. Hot•~ever, no schedule or frequency of inspection proposed is identified. 6 Although these interim guidelines and policy are temporary until ~ -3 final guidelines are developed and adopted, they provide an indication of the areas of concern to VDH. Completion of the final guidelines should be closely monitored in order to determine the most appropriate role for the County to pursue. Role of Roanoke County Roanoke County's role in regulating number of interrelated ordinances a is Chapter 16 of the Roanoke County County Code of 1985) which includes disposal systems and specifications specifically, Section 16-15 states: sewage disposal is based on a nd standards. Foremost of these Code of 1971 (Chapter 18 of the standards for private sewage for septic tank systems. Dore "It shall be unlawful for the owner of any house used as a place of habitation...to be occupied until the house...shall have an approved method of disposal of human excrement of such construction as will comply with the requirements of this article." The only methods cited in Chapter 16 are septic tank systems and public sewer systems. This is further supported by Section 16-45(c) which states: "Unless exception is granted by the approving authority [defined as the County Administrator or his duly authorized representative] or by other provisions of this chapter, the public sewer system shall be used by all persons discharging wastewater..." This provision of the County Code is cross referenced to Building regulations, Chapter 7; erosion and sediment control, Chapter 8; zoning ordinance, Appendix A; and subdivisions, Appendix B. These sections of the Code make up the body of local regulations related to land use and land development. In addition to the specific regulations, land use and development are guided by the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. This document, adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1985, establishes policy for the future growth and development of the County through the year 2003. Included in this document and related support documents are a number of policies directly and indirectly recommendations related to sewage disposal and individual aerobic treatment systems. First, the Development Framework Guide recommends that growth be stimulated in those areas which can be most efficiently served by public facilities. Conversely, growth is to be limited in those areas which can not be efficiently served with all public utilities. These areas are designated in the plan and referred to as the urban service area and rural service area. In the table of Public Service Characteristics {Table II, page 10} public systems are recommended for urban service areas and individual septic systems are recommended for rural service areas. No other alternative methods of wastewater treatment are referenced in the Plan. Should these individual 7 ~-3 treatment systems be allowed, particularly for new construction, it could accelerate growth in areas not anticipated in the Plan, particularly under the present zoning. The Future Land Use Guide portion of the Plan recommends overall densities of one dwelling unit per 5 acres for the areas designated Rural Preserve, one unit per acre for Rural Village areas, and one to three units per acre for areas designated as Village Center. Under the present interim guidelines used by VDH in evaluating an individual system proposal, there would be little to no effect on the Rural Village and Village Center areas, since these guidelines would limit their use in multiple lot subdivisions. However in the areas designated as Rural Preserve, all of these interim guidelines could be met, again permitting additional growth not anticipated. Finally, in the Resource Protection Guide portion of the Plan the policy guidelines recommend reevaluation of the performance of septic systems in order to protect groundwater and other water resources. Based on the performance record of these systems as indicated above, they do not appear to have established a reliability consistent with these guidelines. Therefore cautious and deliberate evaluation should be undertaken prior to approval of their use. Extreme care is also recommended in addressing on-site sewage disposal on steep slopes. The thin soils and rates of runoff make: these areas particularly susceptible to surface and groundwater pollution. Historically, areas with steep slopes have gone undeveloped, unless public sewer was available due to the slope limitations of conventional septic systems and other approved methods of sewage disposal. Individual aerobic systems have no known limitations related to slope. This could expose substantial areas of the County to new development previously not suitable for development. Related to this issue of private individual treatment systems is the county's past experience with the public costs associated with the development of land with private improvements. Between the State and County, $1.5 million will be spent over the next 5 years to upgrade private roads, previously approved, to state standards in order to permit acceptance into the State road system. The costs in the future to convert private roads to public stands is estimated to be an additional $1.5 to 5.0 million. In response to this public cost, private road subdivisions are no longer permitted by policy, unless unique and unusual circumstances exist. Similar policies have been adopted for private community sized water supply and sewage disposal systems. At the same time, the public sewer system is being extended into areas not scheduled for service at this time due to failing septic systems. This experience has led to an overall policy of reluctance to endorse privately owned improvements which carry public responsibilities. Experience of Other Communities There have been a wide range of responses to requests for approval of the individual aerobic systems across the State. In Loudoun County, they are prohibited unless owned and maintained by the Sanitation Authority, while in Clarke County (known for its activities in 8 -~ groundwater protection) they are prohibited. In contrast, Frederick and Shenandoah are reportedly approving requests upon favorable recommendation by the local health department. At the regional level, Middle Peninsula PDC is researching the issue at the request of a number of local jurisdictions in that region, while the Southeastern PDC has recommended their use only if no other options are available. They have also suggest the posting of a performance bond to insure maintenance. As with the jurisdictions in Virginia, the same extremes can be found among the states. Massachusetts has recently banned their use. Ohio permits them without discharge permits or chlorination. Iowa and Minnesota permit individual aerobic treatment systems as long as they discharge into a soil absorption system. Issues Related to Individual On-site Treatment One item identified during a revieca of the subdivision ordinance is that the current practice of approving lots without prior approval of the Health Department for on-site sewage disposal. This may be partially responsible for the recent interest in individual treatment systems. In January, 1988, the Roanoke County/Vinton Health Department prepared requirements for approving sewage disposal systems for subdivisions prior to recordation and subsequent sale. The necessary steps should be taken to formally adopt these requirements to avoid further intensification of the problem. Summary In relationship to the foundation offered by the conventional septic system or other accepted alternatives for on-site sewage treatment, these systems present a number of issues which should be addressed prior to approval. Foremost is the problem of insuring proper maintenance. Independent studies of these systems have indicated that the quality of the effluent has been inconsistent due primarily to the maintenance problems associated with these systems. Simply stated, these studies concluded that these individual aerobic units are often neglected and improperly maintained by the homeowner once they are installed. At the present time, responsibility for approving these systems rests with the Virginia Water Control Board (VWCB). Prior to installation the property owner must obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES} permit. This permit determines the quality of effluent discharged by the system. Approval by the County pursuant to Section 62.1-44.15:3 of the Code of Virginia is also required prior to issuing a permit. In addition, the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) reviews NPDES permit applications for public health issues. VDH has also recently issued interim guidelines for commenting on any applications for these systems. Final guidelines are expected to be issued this fall. However, neither agency formal monitors or inspects these systems on a routine basis. They do, however, recognized the problem of maintenance and encourage local communities to establish public service authorities to monitor and maintain these aerobic units, or require maintenance contracts with private industry. 9 .L.J -3 In Roanoke County, under current requirements in Chapter 16 of the County Code, these systems are not permitted. The only accepted methods of waste disposal are septic systems with soil absorption fields ( drainfields) or central sewer systems. In addition, these systems represent a private improvement related to land development, similar to the private roads and water systems now prohibited by ordinance, which has the potential for becoming a public responsibility. Finally, individual aerobic wastewater systems are not reflected or contemplated in the policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. These systems left to the current regulatory mechanisms, could encourage growth in a fashion inconsistent with the Plan, and contradict policies related to resource protection such as water quality. Despite these aspects, the Planning Commission concurs with Health officials that these systems, if closely monitored, would provide a more acceptable solution to an existing failing septic system which poses a hazard to public health. This would allow limited numbers of these systems to be utilized in hardship situations, while permitting further evaluation by the VWCB, VDH and the County. Therefore, listed below are recommendations to guide the county in formulating the necessary measures in a manner which will permit the approval of individual aerobic systems, where unique and unusual circumstances exist, while insuring that the public interests and concerns are adequately addressed. RECOi~I~ENDATIONS 1. That an ordinance be prepared amending Chapter 16 of the County Code establishing criteria, standards, monitoring requirements, provisions for maintenance, and determining the administrative process to permit individual aerobic treatment systems on a hardship basis only as a replacement system for a failed septic system on an improved lot which constitutes a risk to public health. This ordinance should address the following specific items: a. Specific systems should be limited to those certified under NSF Standard 40 meeting Class I criteria and approved by VDH for use in Virginia. b. The VDH interim guidelines should be reviewed and where appropriate to Roanoke County incorporated into the ordinance. c. A system for monitoring should be established to permit evaluation of the quality of effluent discharged and serve as a check on proper maintenance. d. Provisions should be incorporated into the deed to each parcel approved for an individual system to serve as a notice to future property owners. e. Require a perpetual maintenance agreement for the life of the individual system, and/or if appropriate require a bond to insure proper maintenance. 10 ~3 f. Establish a fee structure and design maintenance and monitoring requirements to minimize or eliminate any negative fiscal impact on the County. g. Work closely with the Roanoke County/Vinton Health Department, VDH, VWCB and involved county agencies in developing the ordinance. Related Recommendations 1. Take the necessary steps to implement, as soon as possible, the Health Departments approval of sewage disposal in subdivisions prior to recording of the plat. 11 FOOTNOTES ~-3 1. Edwin Bennett, et al, "Comparison of Septic Tank and Aerobic Treatment Units: The impact of Wastewater Variations on These Systems" Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado University, Boulder, Colorado. Presented at the Rural Environmental Engineering Conference, Warren, Vermont on September 26, 1973. 2. John W. Clark, et al, Water Supply and Pollution Control (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1977} p. 622. 3. "Report on the Performance Evaluation of Norweco, Inc. Singulair Model 820 Individual Home Wastewater Treatment System" Report No. 540-8-1. (National Sanitation Foundation, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1984} pp. 2-4. 4. Edwin Bennett, et al. p. 20. 5. Dan W. Tipton, "Experience of a County Health Department with Individual Aerobic Sewage Treatment Systems", Jefferson County Health Department, Lakewood, Colorado. Presented at the APHA Convention, New Orleans, Louisiana in November, 1974. p. 8. 6. Ohio Department of Health, "Hamilton County Home Aerobic Systems Sewage Disposal Program Survey", Department of Health, Columbus, Ohio, 1979. Unpublished. p. 11. 12 l AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 1988 RESOLUTION 82388-6 AMENDING RESOLUTION 10-14-86- 209 ALLOWING MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT FOR MILEAGE IN THE USE OF A PERSONAL VEHICLE FOR COUNTY BUSINESS BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Resolution 10-14-86-209 adopted October 14, 1986, allowing mileage reimbursement for the use of personal vehicles while conducting County business be, and hereby is, amended to provide a reimbursement of 22.5G per mile for the first 15,000 miles and 11~ per mile for all miles over the first 15,000 miles; and 1. That this rate shall be in full force and effect for mileage expenses incurred from and after September 1, 1988. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett NAYS: None A COPY TESTS: Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Reta R. Busher, Director, Management & Budget Assistant County Administrators Department Heads Constitutional Officers 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: August 23, 1988 AGENDA ITEM: Mileage reimbursement for use of personal vehicles while conducting County business. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ i ~L~1~~"~'vt.~'r~ .~--- BACKGROUND: The County of Roanoke currently allows mileage reimbursement for the use of personal vehicles while conducting County business at a rate of 21G per mile for the first 15,000 miles, and 11~ per mile for all miles over the first 15,000. This mileage reimburse- ment was established to be consistent with the mileage reimburse- ment policy of the Commonwealth of Virginia. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: In the Appropriation Act for the 1988-90 biennium, the Commonwealth of Virginia revised its reimbursement rate for per- sonal vehicle mileage to increase to 22.5 per mile for the first 15,000 miles, ar~d 11~ per mile for all miles over the first 15,000. The staff would like to increase the County mileage reim- bursement to be consistent with the Commonwealth of Virginia. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: 1. Adopt the attached resolution revising the County reim- bursement for the use of personal vehicles while conducting County business to 22.SC per mile for the first 15,000 miles, and 11~ per mile for all miles over the first 15,000 miles. 2. Retain the current County policy. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends Alternative 1. SUBMITTED BY: ~~~. ~. ~ Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance 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 'T'UESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1988 ,~.,,, ,,~,,,j RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 10-14-86- 209 ALLOWING MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT FOR MILEAGE IN THE USE OF A PERSONAL VEHICLE FOR COUNTY BUSINESS BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Resolution 10-14-86-209 adopted October 14, 1986, allowing mileage reimbursement for the use of personal vehicles while conducting County business be, and hereby is, amended to provide a reimbursement of 22.5 per mile for the first 15,000 miles and 11~ per mile for all miles over the first 15,000 miles; and 2. That this rate shall be in full force and effect for mileage expenses incurred from and after September 1, 1988. ..;~ ~`~. ,,;~.. - _: ;;~ ;~:. . -~ -~: FnN'ARO J MAjUR, C D.A COMDIROIIER Ilt ~~~`~~~ ~r' ~ 4 ;1 t(1 , ATTACHMENT C ~-y ~C'~N~(1~~1~1~'~~.~.L7'd-~ of ~dd~~~dNd~, O~~kc o~~ the C~mprrE~ller June 7., 19(3(3 MEMORIINUUM D.O. hOr. e~N RI~IIM('1ND, VIRCi1NIA 7,1]IS TO: Fiscal. Officers of: 111 ]. State Agencies and Insti.tuti.ons PROM : , ~`'~` Grosjean (John) G. Crump, III ~~~'~~~` `: Assistant: Comptroller SUBJECT: Mileage Reimbursement Tl~e Appropriations Act for the 1988-90 Biennium, contains an increase to the mileage reimbursement rate for personal vehicles. This change will be effective on ~al 1, 198 and ~oi.l.l remain in effect pending actions iri fut of the general Assembly. T}~e reimbursement rate will increase from $.21 per mile to x.27-5 per mile for the first 15,000 miles traveled. Subsequent mileage, 'in excess of 15,000 miles, will continue to be reimbursed aL- t•he current rate of. ,$.lI per rrlile. This new rate should be used tv compute mileage expense reimbursement for those instances where t-he traveler's personal vehicle is used wlri.le condt_~cting official SL-ate business. 'T'ravel Expense Reimbursement Vouchers may include travel that is incurred both before,. and after, July 1, 1988. Therefore, Pl.eaSe t,-alct? si~ociaJ. pr.ec:+ui:ions t:o ensuro that: i:he correct: rates ar.e used for each of the appropriate periods. Any questions you may have concerning this change may be directed to tl~e Pre-Audit and Compliance unit of tt~e Department of Accounts. GGC/In j m cc: Edward J. Mazur_ Char.J.~s Ii. Taylor, Jr. [~eputy Comptroller John C. Christian,-Jr. Manager, Pr.e-Audit and Compliance P•1arlc J. Murray 5er~i.or Accounting/Financial Analyst Pay G. Lion Supervisor, Pre-Audit and Compliance 1larriel: C. Ger.mani Sttper.visor, Pre-Audit and Compliance ACTION # 82388-7 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: August 23, 1988 AGENDA ITEM: Approval of a Mutual Aid Agreement with Floyd County for Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services COUNT,Y/)ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: /~ z=a - BACKGROUND: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Floyd County and Roanoke County have been negotiating the terms and provisions of a mutual aid agreement to provide fire protection and emergency medical services for their citizens. 't'his agreement is an integral part of implementing an E911 link- age between Floyd and Roanoke Counties. Statutory authority for this mutual aid agreement is found in Chapter 1 of Title 27 of the 1950 Code of Virginia. This agreement is attached to this report and it provides for mutual aid in firefighting and emergency medical services in designated areas and in non-designated areas, if personnel and equipment are available and can be safely spared; reservation of immunities and liability; and termination provisions. The Board of Supervisors of Floyd County reviewed and approved this agreement on August 15, 1988. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board authorize the County Admin- istrator to execute this mutual aid agreement with Floyd County. Respectfully submitted ~ ~~ Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney ------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (x) Motion by: Lee Garrett/Harry C. No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Nickens Garrett x Received ( ) Johnson x Referred To McGraw x Nickens x Robers x cc: File Paul Mahoney Tommy Fuqua This Agreement, made and entered into this day of ~ 1988, by and between the COUNTY OF RO~NORE, VIRGINIA, hereinafter referred to as Roanoke County and the COUNTY OF FIAYD, VIRGINIA. hereinafter referred to as Floyd County and The FLOYD COUNTY ~g FIRE DEPA. INC. A Virginia Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Floyd County Volunteer Fire Department; and the FLOyD (AUNTY LIFE SAVING AND FIRST AID SQUAD, IIJC., A Virginia Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Floyd County Rescue Squad. W I T N E S S E T H ~, the Boards of Supervisors of Roanoke County and Floyd County desire to provide the best and most cost-effective fire protection and emergency medical services for their citizens; and WHEREAS, Floyd County and the Floyd County Volunteer Fire Department own fire-fighting equipment used by the Floyd County Volunteer Fire Department, and Floyd County and the Floyd County Rescue Squad own emergency medical equipment used by the Floyd County Rescue Squad; and WHEREAS, the Boards of Supervisors of both counties and the Floyd County Volunteer Fire Department and the Floyd County Rescue Squad, have concurred in the effort to develop a mutual aid agreement for improved fire fighting and emergency medical services in Roanoke and Floyd Counties, as II authorized by Section 27-3 of the Code of Virginia; and -1- ..J..~ "" WHEREAS, Section 27-3.1 of the Code of Virginia provides that cooperating counties may procure or extend the necessary public liability insurance to cover claims arising out of mutual aid agreements. NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the undertakings (hereinafter set out, the parties covenant and agree as follows: 1. Mutual aid in firefighting & Emergency Medical Services a. Roanoke County Fire & Rescue Department - Station 8 will respond to calls in areas designated by C & P Telephone Co. E-911 coverage map (see attached). b. Floyd County Volunteer Fire Department & Floyd County Rescue Squad will send units to assist on calls in Roanoke County in the area from Floyd County - Roanoke County line East to top of Bent Mountain, when personnel and equipment are available and can be safely spared. 2. Assistance in non-designated areas Roanoke and Floyd Counties agree to respond when called to assist in the other areas not described in this agreement, when the personnel and equipment are available and can be safely spared. 3. Designation of officials Roanoke and Floyd Counties Fire and Rescue shall respond to a call for service only upon request of the official designated for -2- that ur P pose. The parties shall notify one another of the identity of the official or officials designated to request such assistance. 4. Notification of Calls in Floyd County Roanoke County dispatcher will notify Floyd County of all Fire and Rescue calls that Roanoke County responds to in Floyd County, at the time the units are dispatched. 5. Application of Department policies Officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall comply with the operational policies of their own departments. The nar~;o~ agree to hold their own officers, agents, employees, and volunteers, respectively, responsible and accountable for compliance with operation policies of the respective departments. 6. Retention of benefits While acting under this Agreement, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers shall have all the immunities from liabilities and exemptions from laws, ordinances, and regulations anc~~sYiall have all the pension, relief, disability, workers' compensation, and other benefits enjoyed by them while performing their respective duties within the territorial limits of their political sub- division. 7. Liability for damaged equi nt Roanoke County shall have no liability for any destruction, -3- '" `~ loss, or damage of any Floyd County-owned or Floyd County Volunteer Fire Department and/or Floyd County Rescue Squad-owned motor vehicle, equipment, or personal property and Floyd County and Floyd County Volunteer Fire Department and Floyd County Rescue Squad shall have no liability for any destruction, loss, or damage of any Roanoke County-owned motor vehicle, equipment, or personal property in the exercise of any power under or pursuant to this Agreement. 8. Immunities not fired hereby This Agreement shall not be construed to impair or affect any sovereign or governmental immunity or official immunity that may otherwise be available to Roanoke County or any officer, agent, or employee of Roanoke County, or to Floyd County or any officer, agent, or employee of Floyd County. 9.Canmiencement of Agreement This Agreement shall become effective on lO.Termination of Agreement Any party to this Agreement may terminate same, with or without cause, by giving written notice to the other parties by .certified mail, return receipt requested. Any termination notice must be given at least sixty (60) days prior to July lst of any given year. This Agreement shall continue from year to year unless terminated as indicated above, or all parties mutually agree to terminate. -4- ~ ~ ~ Y 11.Entire Agreement `~ This Agreement represents the entire and intergrated.Agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, repre- sentations, or agreements, either oral or written. This Agreement ~Y ~ amended only by written instrument signed by authorized re- presentatives of all parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. Attest: Deputy Clerk Attest: Clerk Attest: Secretary ATTEST: Secretary COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA BY: County Administrator COiJN'I'Y OF FLOYD, VIRGINIA BY: Chairman, Board of Supervisors F~YD COUNTY VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, INC. BY: President FLOYD COUNTY LIFE SAVING AND FIRST AID SQUAD, INC. BY: President -5- ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~L - I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: August 23, 1988 Request for Work Session 1989 Legislative Package COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENNTS: ~~ BACKGROUND: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: It is suggested that the County develop a joint legislative package that the Board, School Board, and Constitutional Officers could support to submit to the Roanoke Valley legislative delega- tion and the Virginia General Assembly. It is requested that the Board schedule a work session for September 13, 1988, to discuss the various legislative proposals submitted by the various elected and appointed officers and offi- cials. Roanoke County's legislative efforts have been successful over the past several years. It is hoped that this process will further improve the County's legislative efforts in the 1989 ses- sion of the Virginia General Assembly. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board schedule a work session f_or September 13, 1988, to discuss the various legislative issues and proposals. The Constitutional Officers and members of the School Board will be invited to attend and participate. ~~ Respectfully submitted, ~~sc ` r t , ~'"~ ~~ Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney --------------------------------------------- Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To Motion by: ACTION Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers VOTE No Yes Abs K{.,riiVl..1K iP"CJ ~, nUt~l`:-IV=nJ ;:J ~vl:rtiit~r( - BU~>r4flz~ rvi3~i5Ntrt'J F~i= - ~i14.~~ ~57tr~rii:vuT f~tl<vtiJll ~v;aTT is >HHtiiN NG ~IJX ~Oubr liH+Vvl~E ii r+ L4tilo Io~y ST;~Ti` Gt= vl.i~I~VIn %TY ~F K[h;vuKt ;~FFLI;ti'v ( tr i'UrsLli:>~- i.Ul~ i• iTr1c U~vUttJlv~vtu) >~~v ut-rl~ci< uF TIivE:i-wURLi~ t,iJKF~niaTU~v• n~iICH C;:JiZ- 1'ur<i+liii~ I~ t'~.rLl~ti~R i~F Trit tiGr~Nunt TT~^eS L wii'iLu-v~wSr ~ G~iLY NtrrJPNPtk PuGLi~riFu Iiv Kirlivui~~• Itv Th;` 5l',-1T~ ~r vIhi~iylA• iJU CEtCTit-Y THIi7 Tt-t~ r+f~~vtXt: ~dGTIt;~ itiA;i PUr~~ISr-~tt; IiV 3Hi:i ~~citi5P~1'tnJ u;v THt t=IJLL~wI~v'v ~aT Ud/Uy~i~ cVt~'vliyv uts/in/~v tVtiVi~~r, ~iTiiiEjS• 1HI 7T~y .NY uF- r+UvvjT iytstt vF}-It,tti'J JIGi'vHTur<t LEGAL NOTICE Notlee Is hereby given to all.ln- tersated 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, AUGUST 13, 1981, in the Community Room of the Roeneks County Administra- tion Centsr, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Vir- pinla, on the petition of THE HOBART COMPANIES, LTD. requesting to AMEND THE PROFFERRED CONDITIONS OF A TRACT containing 4.974 ACRES and located IN THE 6600 BLOCK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PETERS CREEK ROAD in the HOLLINS Ma01s- terlal District. Rezoning has been requested to MODIFY THE PROF- li FERRED ACCESS POINTS TO AN OFFICE/RE- 7AIL/LIGHTING MANUFAC- TURING CENTER. The Coun- ty Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. A copy of the Zoning Ordinance of Roanoke County and amendments thereto as well as a copy of the petition, site Dien, and other documents re- lated to this request may be examined in the office of the Department of Planning and Zoning, located in Room 600 of the Roanoke County Adminls- tration Center. Roanoke County w711 provlN as- slgance to handicapped 11ar- sons desiring to atNnd /Ydut hearings. Such Indlvidwlsin re~ueNed M contact ftN Ceum tY office of Personnel SarvlCOs (703) 77t-1018 If special provl- elons ire neCeeNry for atten- dan~e. Given under my hand this 4TH day of AUGUST, 1988. Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors (11081) LAW OFFICES OSTERHOUDT, FERGUSON, NATT, AHERON £~ AGEE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1919 ELECTRIC ROAD. S. W. CHARLES H. OSTERHOUDT P. O. BOX 2006$ MICHAEL S. FERGUSON ROANOKE, VIRGINIA EDWARD A. NATT MICHAEL J. AHERON 24018- 1699 G. STEVEN AGEE MARK D. KIDD August 30, 1988 Mary H. Allen Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 3738 Brambleton Avenue Roanoke, Virginia 24018 RE: Hobart Rezoning Uear Mary: Enclosed please find the publisher's certificate for the Hobart rezoning on Peters Creek Road. I would appreciated your putting this with the bill of records on this matter. Thanking you in advance for your attention to this matter, I am Very truly yours, OSTERHOUDT, FERGUSON, NATT, AHERO~N 8 AGEE, P.C. ~--~ Ed~va rd A. Nat t /mp TELEPHONE 703-774-1197 cc: Bruce Hobart ACTION NUMBER AT A REGUT.AR 1~ETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFEROANUp EER ~- '' COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 23, 1988 SUB--JECT: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Four-year term of Norman Eugene Jarrett, Hollins Magisterial District. His term expired January 22, 1988. 2. Communit Corrections Resources Board One-year term of Edmund J. Kielty, Alternate. Their terms expire August 13, 1988. Advisorv 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 UNTIL IT IS REACTIVATED. 4. Grievance Panel Two-year term of Thomas T. Palmer will expire September 10, 1988. 5. Industrial Develo ment Authorit Four-year term of Thomas D. Isenhart, Catawba Magisterial District will expire September 26, 1988. Mr. Isenhart will be moving to Seattle, Washington in August and may not be reappointed (See attached letter). ~~-.5 SUBMITTED BY: ~n~~ ~ Mary H. Allen Deputy Clerk APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator --------------------ACTION---------------- VOTE Yes No Abs Approved ( ) Motion by: Garrett Denied ( ) Johnson Received ( ) McGraw Referred Nickens To• Robers ~. ::~: _ BUILDING CODE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS .AND APPEALS ,. p, , COMPOSITION - ' . To be comprised of five (5) members;iappointed 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 apporit~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 tl~cat~onl fythe render fair and competent decisions regarding aPP code, and• shall to the •'extent possible, represen-~_ different ~;••occupational or professional fields. At least one member should be an experienced builder. At Least one member sYiould be a licensed professional engineer or architect. g, DUTIES: , Shall act on application for appeals as required by Section 36-7-05 nt withCthe ooverninglbodyroftanotherecountynor an agreeme g or a State agency municipality or with some other agency, approved by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development. C_ MEETING SCHEDULE: ;~ r The Board shall meet upon notice of the chairman or at The stated periodic meetings if warranted bs ofetrol~m7e-~-°~ ofran Board shall meet within ten working day appeal. "' COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS RESOURCES BOARD A- COMPOSITION: ,. To consist of seven membersaad oection 53.1-183) member from Roanoke Count PP inted as .follows: members from the y% one member from Salem Cit one judges in the 23rd Judicial Districty~onermember from the Department of Corrections. determined by the a The term of office shall be year.) PPointing authority (Roanoke County~s is one . B' DUTIES: Review felony referrals from the Circuit~Courts of Roanoke 'City, Roanoke diversion from state County and the City~of~.Salem for penal system and local Possible . C. jails. MEETINGS: Third Tuesday of each month~at 4:00 p.m, _. ~•~ `~..~ COURT SERVICES UNIT ADVISORY COUNCIL/Y'©UTEi AND FAMILY SERVICES ADVISORX BOARD- A. COMPOSITION Soard.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. g. 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 unden shof the chald~enereceivedtby oruin chargenoftanys and surrounds g 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 plannipg 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 tine Delinquency Prevention and Yeuth Development Z~ct O{= 1Q~nJ ~~ _ t'~Sal.~t :. I7 COnQL.'CtJ.iZC an ~SaG'S.`~n1G'nt Ot`~. tiiC~' nL'C'(~S Oi= youth every five years and to assist in :dartliop~ateainaevaluating Delinquency Prevention Plan, Further to p P the implementation of the plan and making.~a report thereon tb-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 boardmeet•ing upon proper notice. Advocates necessouth ~~-_ legislative amendments to improve community conditions for y -~- development acid to support the development of needed services ~~ both public and private for youth in the community. C . MEETING SCEiEDULE One a quarter, tl~e third Tuesday, beginning January; time and place determined at meetings. U - ~{ GRIEVANCE PANEL A, COMPOSITION the Board of To„consist of three (3) members, appointed by Supervisors; for terms of two years. B . DUB S -. t such rules and procedures as it deems The panel shall adop onsibility to and desirable. The panel has the resp of the necessary lication, and meaning anel rule on the interpretation, apP County's personnel policies, rules and regulatioSet aTtime for shall select for each hearing a panel chairmractical, but no the hearing which shall be held as soon Ssafter the grievant later than fifteen (15) full working day appeal.. C. MEETING SCHEDULE The County Administrator shall arrange a hearing with the panel members to hear the grievance. ~'~ ~.:;: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY p,, COMPOSITION: (Summarized from State Code 15.1.1377) To be composed of seven (7) directors, appointed by the Board of Supervisoll~vacanciesswhichoshall)beefor~thecunexpired appointments to fi terms. , g, .DUTIES: Has authority to sue or be sued and to prosecute and defend court having jurisdiction of the at law or in equity in any subject matter and of the par~easwith~pAcquire,uimproverandate seal; Contract and be contrac facilities maintain and equip and furnish ori~o erties whichrthe:board of including all real and personal p P in connection directors of the authority may deem necessary therewith and regardless of wTotleasertoootherssany~orcalltofsits shall then be in existence; facilities and to charge and collect rent ofeitsopowers including ~C bonds for the purpose of carrying out any specifically any power conferred. To appoint an industrial advisory committee to advirantse authority; To borrow money and to accept contributions, g and other financial assistanceiesothereofnl,the Commonwealt~heorca and agencies or instrumentalit or public instrumentality of any political subdivision, agency the Commonwealth for or in aidlofofhtheoauthoritynfaciglitiesion, ownership, maintenance or repa Called meetings. ~;' SASH ~ UOOR (;UMPANI' IR09 WEST CAA1r[3F.Lf. AVENUE r. o. nox znzo ~;~,. ~- . ROANOKE, V[RGIN[A 260(19 (7031 344-6201 July 28,1988 THOMAS U. [SENHART MANAGER Mr. Steve McGraw Roanoke County Administration Office 3738 Brambleton Avenue Roanoke, Virginia 24018 .. Dear Steve, My family and I are being transferred to Seattle, Washington, in August. You will need to replace me on the Industrial Development Authority. Steve, I have enjoyed knowing you. You have done very positive things for the county. I wish you and your family health and success. Sincerely, Tl?arn~:s D. Iscnliart kn/TI r' . ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1988 RESOLUTION N0. 82388-8 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 August 23, 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. Minutes of Meetings - April 12, 1988, April 26, 1988. 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Community Corrections Resources Board and recommendations to the Landfill Citizens Liaison Committee. 3. Request for acceptance of Meadow Valley Circle and Orchard Valley Circle into the VDOT Secondary System. 4• Request for acceptance of Red Barn Lane into the VDOT Secondary System. 5. Request for a Raffle Permit from the Northside High School Band Boosters. 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 Johnson, seconded by Supervisor Robers, and upon the following recorded-vote: AYES• Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 8/24/88 cc: File ineerin Phillip Henry, Director of Eng g John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator _~ l-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 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 August 23, 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. Minutes of Meetings - April 12, 1988, April 26, 1988. 2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Community Corrections Resources Board and recommendations to the Landfill Citizens Liaison Committee. 3. Request for acceptance of Meadow Valley Circle and Orchard Valley Circle into the VDOT Secondary System. 4. Request for acceptance of Red Barn Lane into the VDOT Secondary System. 5. Request for a Raffle Permit from the Northside High School Band Boosters. 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. i t w~ r' April 12, 1988 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administration Center 3738 Brambleton Avenue, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24018 April 12, 1988 CoY The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors of Roanoke nty, Virginia, met this day at the R~aroke County' inistrati _ fi st regular C~ I ~: BUD Char Co my Adminis fi cal year 19 _ Tuesday, and the >nth of April, 1988. ession at 2 p.m. e proposed budget for is the revenue from th proposed mE __....,, a savings of $50, 000 fr m combining procurement and $200,000 from combining buildings an grounds with the school system on July 1, 1988. Supervisor Robers asked for a timetable on combining of er services with the schools such as personnel and finance. Su ervisor Johnson expressed concern about the layoff of school pe sonnel. He also did not want the elementary art program cut ~, April 12, 1988 from the school budget. In response to a question from Supervisor Garrett, Mr. Hodge advised that he did not know w re he would make the cuts if the proposed meals tax did not pass, but would probably divide the cuts in half between the schools and County. School Superintendent Bayes Wilson was present a advised that future combination of services and contracting o outside firms would take substantial time to study. He and M Hodge will continue to study the feasibility of these changes. Supervisor McGraw advised that if the 1.5 million dollars from the proposed meals tax did not pass, he would recommend raising the real estate or personal property tax rate. He was not prepared to approve the present tax rates until meals tax passed. In response to a question from Supervisor Johnson, County Attorney Paul Mahoney advised that the Board could not waive the second reading of the meals tax because t re was time.for two reading prior to July 1. Supervisor Garrett asked Supervisors Nickens and Ro rs to meet with members of the School Board to continue discussions on consolidation of services and outside contracting of servid~s. Supervisor Johnson moved to set another work sessic for April 20, 1988 at 2 p.m. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by a unanimous voice vote. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER ~~9 Chairman Garrett called the meeting to order at 3:10 P~pri 1 1988 P•Im- S7 The roll call was taken. HERS PRESENT: Chairman Lee Garrett, Vice Chairman Richard Robers, Supervisors Bob L. Johnson, Steven A. McGraw, Harry C. Nickens ERS ABSENT: None PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator for Human Services; John R. Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator for Community Services and Development; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney, Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk; Gardner Smith, Director of General Services, Reta Busher, Director of Management and Budget; Diane Hyatt, Director of Finance. I RE: OPENING CEREMONIES ti The invocation was given by the Reverend William Ei her, Poages Mill Church of the Brethren. The Pledge of egiance was recited by all present. INURE: PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARD 1. Proclamation declaring May 1 1988 as Law Day in _ Chairman Garrett read a proclamation declaring ~6 0 Ap ri1__12., ~19.8.8..~ - - -~- -- - - --- --- --- - - ----- -- -- ----lf - - May 1, 1988 as Law Day, U. S. A. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the proclamation. The motion was seconded by Supervis) Johnson and carried by a unanimous voice vote. 2. Resolution of Appreciation to William Board. Salem-Roanoke County Chamber of Commerce: Chairman Garrett advised the resolution would be presented to Mr. Board at a meeting in his honor. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the prepared resolution. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by a unanimous voice vote. RESOLUTION 41288-1 OF APPRECIATION TO WILLIAM S. UPON HIS RETIREMENT AS EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE SALEM/ROANOKE COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roano County, Virginia, as follows: WHEREAS, William S. Board has served with distincti as Executive Vice President of the Salem/Roanoke County of Commerce since 1972;. and WHEREAS, during that time, he has played a prominen role in the economic development of the entire valley in his capacity with the Chamber of Commerce and as Vice President o the Regional Partnership of Roanoke Valley; and WHEREAS, in 1980-81, he was President of the Virg br Association of Chambers of Commerce Executives; and :ss~t Sa WHEREAS, he is a member of the Board of Deacons of em Baptist Church and has shown his concern for the welfare of th~ citizens of the valley by becoming involved with the ministry at~~the Roanoke County/Salem Jail; and WHEREAS, Mr. Board has promoted the Roanoke Valley in ev~ry possible way for sixteen years and has served the citizens ofllthe valley in a unique and special way. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, wishes to express its deepest ap reciation and the appreciation of its citizens to William S. Bo~rd for his many years of capable, loyal and dedicated service tollthe citizens of the Roanoke Valley; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wi hes for a happy, restful and productive retirement. 3. Presentation of the Virginia Flag flown over the State _ Delegate Steven Agee presented to County Treasurer Al~red Anderson and Board Chairman Lee Garrett, the Virginia flag th~t flew over the State Capital on March 30, 1988 the 150th bi~thday of Roanoke County. The flag will be buried in the time capsule on December 11, 1988. ARE: NEW BUSINESS ~~~~ April 12, 1988 ,~ - ---- -- --- -- r- 1. Authorization to a 1 for funds under the Vir inia Shelter Grants Pro ram for TRUST Inc.: Elizabeth Parcell, Planning Department advised that the Roanoke Valley Trouble Center has requested assistance from Roanoke County i applying for a grant of $8,450 from the Virginia Shelter Gran Program-III for expansion and improvements to the existing facility located on Elm Avenue S. W. Ms. Parcell introduced Stuart Israel Executi'ae Director of TRUST who was present at t meeting. In response to a question from Supervisor Johnson, D Israel stated that he would be competing with other shelters i the valley for the grant money. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the prepared resolution. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None RESOLUTION 41288-2 AUTHORIZING ROANOKE COUNTY TO APPLY FOR AND ACCEPT A GRANT UNDER THE VIRGINIA SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAM - III. BE IT RESOLVED by the County, Virginia, as follows: WHEREAS, the Commonwea Housing and Community Development availability and has requested SHELTER GRANTS PROGRAM - III; Board of Supervisors of Ro noke lth of Virginia, Departure of has issued a notice of fu ding proposals under the VIR NIA 6~3 Apri 1 1 7 __~$$ WHEREAS, assistance is needed to adequately address the lter needs of homeless persons in the County of Roanoke; and WHEREAS, an application for a grant has been prepared; WHEREAS, Mr. Elmer C. Hodge, Jr., County Administrator, ca~ act on behalf of the County of Roanoke and will sign. all ne~essary documents required to complete the grant transaction; WHEREAS, a one-for-one local match of grant funds, as red under the program, will be provided in at least the t of $8,450. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of sors of Roanoke County hereby authorizes the County A inistrator to apply for and accept the grant in the amount of $8 450 and enter into a Grant Agreement with the Department of ing and Community Development and perform any and all responsibilities in relation to such Agreement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the County of Roanoke es to provide a sub-grant to TRUST - The Roanoke Valley Tr~uble Center, Inc. to operate the funded project and agrees to itor and oversee their activities as prescribed by the State. 2. Request for approval to purchase Clearbrook Water _ Director of Utilities Clifford Craig reported that the Cl~arbrook water system is now complete and connections are being s~~ April 12, 1988 --,r- ---------------- -- --------- ---- - -----~~----- - ~-- _ - made. This water system was constructed by the Clearbrook Water .Association. The Farmers Home Administration provided a $1 0,000 grant and a loan for $61,100 for construction costs. R anoke County provided $131,000 for the water lines. Last mon the Farmers Home Administration made an offer to Clearbrook Water System to buy out the water system at a discount. The Clea brook Water System offere,~l to the County the opportunity to b the system at the discounted rate. The County offered to b the water system if the users would pay a $10.00 surcharge f six year which would be used to pay back the loan. Farmers H e is not sure whether their deadline to complete the project wa met. It will be necessary to move the Farmers Home deadline fou days to March 10 so they can accept the system and allow R noke County to buy the system. Staff recommends that Roanoke unty purchase the Clearbrook Water System at a cost of $40,000 i the Farmers Home is willing to move the deadline. Supervisor. Nickens moved to approve the taff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Supervisor M raw, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None Peach Tree Circle for road improvements- 'Directo of Engineering Phillip Henry reported that $500,000 of the 1985 bond ss5 erendum was set aside for matching funds to improve County rods. Four projects were included in this - LaBellevue vision, Cynthia Drive, Old Farm Road and Peach Tree Circle, Ft. Lewis Village. These streets were included because of a ordation date which would not allow them to be improved with ma~ching funds. $100,000 was to be used for streets which did no~ meet the date criteria established by the Code of Virginia fo~ matching funds. Roanoke County requested that the Code of is be revised to change this date from January 1, 1976 to Ju y 1, 1978. This change was approved and Old Farm Road and Pe ch Tree Circle can now be improved using matching funds. St~ff recommends that the Board request that the Va. Department of Transportation provide a matching fund allocation to upgrade th roads. y Supervisor Robers moved to approve the prepared resolution. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Nickens, and ~ried by the following recorded vote: S: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett S: None RESOLUTION 41288-4 REQUESTING SPECIAL FUND • ALLOCATION BY VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO IMPROVE OLD FARM ROAD AND PEACH TREE CIRCLE (WALTDON FARM SUBDIVISION) BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke Co~nty, Virginia, as follows: ~~5~ April 12, 1988 1• That this matter came this day to be heard up n the application of Roanoke County for improving Old Farm Ro d and Peach Tree Circle to Secondary Road Standards. 2• That in accordance with Section 33.1-75.1 of th Code of Virginia, as amended, State matching allocation 's av 'lable to improve, maintain, construct, or reconstruct State hi hwa s within the County, y e • 3• Roanoke County has previously approved improveme is to Old Farm Road and Peach Tree Circle using unmatched 198 Road Bond Funds and now wishes to utilize Special Fund Allocati s to improve these two roadways. 4• That Roanoke County and the Virginia Departm t of Transportation improve Old Farm Road and Peach Tree Circle and the funds be appropriated and allocated for the local sha e of this project and be made available to ''the Virginia Departure t of Transportation at the appropriate time. 5• That the Virginia Department of Transportation an the Commonwealth Transportation Board is hereby requested to make available an equivalent matching allocation in the amou t of $25,000 for the improvements of Old Farm Road and Peach Tree Circle, effective July 1, 1988. 6• That the County Administrator or his designe be authorized to take such action and execute such documents a may ss~ -.Ap r i 1 l ~-,1.9~j $ be (necessary to accomplish this project, upon form as approved by County Attorney. 4. Adoption of a Vehicle Utiliza ion Policy As istant County Administrator John Chambliss reported that the Co my Administrator appointed a committee to review the in entory of County-owned vehicles, including those being driven ho e overnight, and to recommend a policy to be established co cerning the assignment of County owned vehicles. There are 36 vehicles non-specialized vehicles and only 24 of those are us d overnight. The committee has prepared a policy for general us of vehicles and established criteria for assignment and ov rnight use of vehicles. Following discussion of the policy, the Board continued th s issue and requested that the minimum mileage be set at ' 15 000 non-commuting miles per year instead of 5,000 miles, and th t the listing of vehicles should be submitted on January 1 of ea h year rather than June 1. They also requested a list showing ho many vehicles were driven 5,000, 10,000 and 15,000 miles. policy will be amended and brought back to the Board on April 26 u 1988. ~~8 April 12, 1988 _1988-89 Budget- The public hearing was set for April 26 at 7 p.m, IN R: REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS •p.m. IN RE: 1988 A budget w$rk session was set for April 22, 1988~I at 2 FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES near Vir inia State Route 603 in Roanoke Count ~ Attorney Paul Mahoney advised that on 'December 23, 1986, R County entered into an agreement for the purchase of 61 acs property which is part of the Spring Hollow Reservoir pr The seller reserved the right to harvest timber on the pry for two years from that date. The sellers sold the timber ~ to Turman Sawmill on December 31, 1986 and Timber Sawmil plans to harvest the 61 acres which will cause excessive ez of the propert~~ and eliminate the protection provided t. reservoir drainage area. The County now wishes to purchasE unty anoke s of ject. erty 'ghts now sion the the April 12, 1988 ti er rights. The second reading will be April 26, 1988. No on was present to speak on this ordinance. Supervisor Nickens moved first reading of the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Robers, and carried by th following recorded vote: AY S: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NA S: None 'RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance authorizing the acquisition and a k: Mr. Mahoney advised this is the secahd reading of an or finance authorizing the acquisition of property for park use as pa t of the Hollins project. No citizen was present to speak to th s ordinance. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the ordinance. The mo ion was seconded by Supervisor Nickens, .and carried by the fo lowing recorded vote: AY S: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NABS: None April 12, 1988 ORDINANCE 41288-5 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION AND ACCEPTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 3.0 TO 3.5 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN ROANOKE COUNTY AT THE INTERSECTION OF STATE ROUTES 648 AND 1905 (WITHIN THE HOLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC PARK WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading concerning the acquisition and acceptance of the hereinafter-described real S estate was held on March 22, 1988. A second reading on this matter was held on April 12, 1988; and WHEREAS, this real estate consists of approximately .0 to 3.5 acres located in Roanoke County at the intersection of State Routes 648 and 1905 (within the Hollins Community Devel - ment Project) and more particularly designated as Roanoke Cou y Tax Map No. 27.08-2-10. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Super~ri- sors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the conveyance of approximately 3.0 to 3.5 acres of real estate located in Roanoke County at the intersec tion of State Routes 648 and 1905 (within the Hollins Communit Development Project) and more particularly designated as Roanc County Tax Map No. 27.08-2-10 from Esther B. Sadler, Robert T. Sadler, and Grace A. Sadler to the Board of Supervisors of Roa noke County for the development of a public park as part of th s ~' x April 12, 1988 Ho~lins Community Development Project be, and hereby is, accep- tell; and 2. That the Hollins Community Development Project bud- includes the funds to acquire the property, said purchase ce being $9,000.00; and 3. That the County Administrator is authorized to exe- cu e such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke Co my as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition and accep- ta ce of this property, all of which shall be upon form approved by, =~i Ithe County Attorney. RE: APPOINTMENTS TO COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Familv dvisory Board• Supervisor McGrar~f'nominated Gerald Cu Di 19 of He Co co tiss and Roger Smith, representing the Catawba Magisterial trict, to another two-year term which will expire March 22, ~0. Supervisor Nickens reported he was advised by a members this committee that the committee has not met in the last year. suggested that the committee be disbanded subject to review by my Attorney Paul Mahoney for legal requirements for the imittee. He also requested that the committee be referred to s~2~ _ April 12, 198$ -~ - ~,- the Sheriff for possible activity in the Court or juvenile system. Parks and Recreation Advisor Commis ion: Supervise Johnson nominated Alice Gillespie to fill the unexpired three- year term of William Pyles representing the Hollins Magisteria District. The term will expire June 30, 1989. Leaaue of Older Americans Advisory Board Superviso: Robers nominated WebbsJohnson to another one-year term which w: expire March 31, 1989. IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Johnson advised that the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission had received the last $2.2 million from the federal government and this completes the federal government commitment. Supervisor Robers reported that he attended the Sesq~ Sunday service with Dr. Norman Vincent Peale as speaker. Supervisor Robers referred to the County Administrator an artic on Dr. Wade Gilley from George Mason University and recommender that the County get in touch with him. Supervisor Nickens asked when the Board would receive report on enforcement of the vehicle decal fee. Commissioner o the Revenue Wayne Compton advised that they are setting a polio G11 e a _~pxiL12, 1988 fo those attending schools to have decals affixed to their ve icles showing they attend County schools, and are going have t college students canvas apartment complexes and subdivisions fo county decals during the summer. Supervisor McGraw advised he had met recently with the VA 0 Personnel Committee. 'RE: CONSENT AGENDA Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the Consent Agenda. motion was seconded by Supervisor Robers, and carried by the fo~lowing recorded vote: AY~S: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett ~S: None RESOLUTION N0. 41288-6 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM K - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke Coy ',~nty, Virginia, as follows: 1. That that certain section of the agenda of the Bo Co ea th rd of Supervisors for April 12, 1988, designated as Item K - sent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to :h item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 hough 5, inclusive, as follows: April 12, 1988 1. Minutes of Meetings, - January 26, 1988, Febru 29, 1988, March 8, 1988, March 15, 1988. 2. Approval of Resolution ratifying the interest ra es for the $3,985,000 General Obligation School Bon s. 3. Acceptance of water and sewer facilities serving Waterfall Lake, Section 2. 4. Acceptance of water and sewer facilities serving Woodbridge Section 9. 5• Approval of a Raffle Permit for North Cross Scho ' 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of sa items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervi r Robers, and upon the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None IN ~= REPORTS The following reports were received and filed: 1. Unappropriated Balance of the Capital .Fund. 2. Unappropriated Balance of the General Fund. 3. Reserve for the Board Contingency Fund 4. Accounts paid for the month of March 1988. 6 '7 5 - A 1 ~~$ g I~~ RE: RECESS At 5:10 p.m., Chairman Garrett declared a dinner ss. RE: ,EVENING SESSION At 7:03 p.m., Chairman Garrett reconvened the meeting. 48 County Administrator Elmer Hodge outlined the budget to th se present. He explained that the actual budget will not be ap roved at this meeting. These public hearings will give the a ci izens an opportunity to speak. Following the public hearings, th board will approve the tax rates for 1988-89 fiscal year. ARE: PUBLIC HEARINGS -1 Public Hearing for citizen comment on increase of real estate assessment and to set the Real Estate Tax Rate of not more than $1.15 per $100 assessed valuation The following citizens spoke concerning real estate tax rates: ~6 '7 6 A r--- 1-1 ~ X9-8 8 1. Gerri Rorer, a County citizen and Vice Chairman Ibf the Roanoke County Employee Advisory Committee asked that Cou y employees be treated equally to employees of the County School and that they receive the same salary increases. 2. Dot Eller, Chairman of the Fort Lewis Civic Leag~ie, 3611 McDaniel Drive, Salem, opposing the state mandates for school funding. S • Supervisor Robers moved to set the real estate tax to at $1.15 per $100 dollars of assessed valuation. The motion s seconded by Supervisor Garrett, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Ga NAYS: None RESOLUTION 41288-7 SETTING THE TAX RATE ON REAL ESTATE SITUATE IN RQANOKE COUNTY FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR 1988 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of County, Virginia, that .the levy for the twelve-month period b in- ning January 1, 1988, and ending December 31, 1988, be, and h e- by is, set for a tax rate of 1.15 per one hundred dollars o assessed valuation on all classes of taxable real estate and mobile homes as classified by Sections 58.1-3200, 58.2-3201, d 58.1-3506 B. of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, situ I in Roanoke County. s~~ A s~ 1`12 ,~48~ i 481$-2 T~ s Public Hearing for citizen comment to set the Personal Property Tax Rate at not more than S3 50 per 5100 assessed valuation- No citizens were present to speak on this issue. Supervisor Johnson moved to set the Personal Property rate at $3.50 per $100 assessed valuation. The motion was onded by Supervisor McGraw, and carried by the following recorded vote: S: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett S: None 488-3 Public Hearing for citizen comment to set the Machinery and Tools Tax Rate at not more than $3.00 per $100 assessed valuation ~ No citizens were present to speak on this item. Supervisor McGraw moved to set the Machinery and Tools Ta Rate at $3.00 per $100 assessed valuation. The motion was se onded by Supervisor Johnson, and carried by the following re~$orded vote AY S: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NA S: None s~-s -A r.iL12 __1.9.8.8 RESOLUTION 41288-8 SETTING THE TAX LEVY ON ALL CLAS OF PERSONAL PROPERTY SITUATE IN ROANOKE COUNTY FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1988 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Ro County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the levy for the twelve-month period beg January 1, 1988, and ending December 31, 1988, be, and hereby s, set for a tax rate o~ 3.50 per one hundred dollars of assess valuation on all taxable, tangible personal property, excludi all those classes of household goods and personal effects as defined in Sections 58.1-3504 and 58.1-3505 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, but including the property separately classified by Sections 58.1-3500, 58.1-3501, 58.1-3502, 58.1- 3503, and 58.1-3506 in the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, located in this County on January 1, 1988, and tangible perso 1. property including the property separately classified by Sect' ns 58.1-3500, 58.1-3501, 58.1-3502, 58.1-3503, and 58.1-350.6 in e 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, of public service corporat based upon the assessed value thereof fixed by the State Corporation Commission and duly certified. 2. That there be, and there hereby is, established a separate class of personal property in Roanoke County those items of personal property set forth in Sections 58.1-3507 of 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and generally designated machinery and tools. April 12, 1988 ~` 3. That the levy for the twelve-month period beginning Ja uary 1, 1988, and ending December 31, 1988, be, and hereby is, se for a tax rate of 3.00 per one hundred dollars of assessed va uation on all taxable, tangible personal property as herein es ablished as a separate classification for tax purposes and as mo e fully defined by Sections 58.1-3507 of the 1950 Code of Vi ginia, as amended, and generally designated as machinery and to ls. 48 -4 Public Hearing for citizen comment on Ordinance amending the Roanoke County Code, Taxation, by the addition of a new article VIII, Tax on Prepared Food and Beverages, imposing a tax on certain food and beverages sold in the County of Roanoke. County Administrator outlined the planned uses for the pr posed revenue from the meals tax. He advised that it is es imated that $1.5 million will be generated. Of this, $1 mi lion is earmarked for schools, and $.5 million will be used by th County. The following citizens spoke in support of this pr posed ordinance and indicated they desired that the revenue be us d for the school budget. 1. Becky Deaton, 3031 Fleetwood Avenue, President of th Roanoke County Education Association. ~~~o April 12, 1988 2. Irwin McDonald, 5021 Crossbow Circle, represent Penn Forest Elementary School. 3. Keith Bartgis, 2222 Cantle Lane, S. W., Preside: of the Oak Grove Elementary School PTA 4. Becky Arrington, 2839 Woodthrush Drive, S. W. 5. Winkie Bright, 3527 Old Towne Road, S. W. 6. Rita K. Watson, 6628 Wendover Road, N. W. The following citizens spoke in opposition to the proposed meals tax ordinance: 1. David A. Whitt, 4721 West River Road, Salem 2. Alfred Powell, 3440 Franklin Street, Salem Staff recommended that first and second reading be scheduled for the proposed ordinance on April 26, 1988 and May 10, 1988. I Supervisor Johnson moved to proceed with first and second reading of the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Garrett, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None g IN RE: ADJOURNMENT ~gx -- -- -~psil~l~,-19 8 8 At 8:03 p.m., Chairman Garrett adjourned the meeting to it 20, 1988 at 2 p.m. for the purpose of a budget work session. Lee Garrett, Chairman April 26, 1988 "`~ 689 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administration Center 3738 Brambleton Avenue, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24018 April 26, 1988 The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors of Roanoke Co~nty, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County inistration Center, this being the second Tuesday, and the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of April 1988, 198. IN~~RE: CALL TO ORDER ;~ Chairman Garrett called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.r~. The roll call was taken. RS PRESENT: Chairman Lee Garrett, Vice Chairman Richard Robers, Supervisors Bob L. Johnson, Steven A. McGraw, Harry C. Nickens ABSENT: None ST PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator for Human Services; John R. Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator for Community Services and Development; Paul M. 6~0 . '` t April 26, 1988 Mahoney, County Attorney, Deputy Clerk IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES Mary H. All The invocation was given by Bishop William Brown, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present. ., IN RE: REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA County Administrator Elmer Hodge requested that Approval of the Letter of Understanding on the Valleypointe Project be deferred to May 10, 1988. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Space Allocations and renovations for Social Services, Health Department and VPI Extension- Assistant County Administrator John Chambliss advised that the Departure of Health, Social Services and VPI are presently located in rented space in the City of Salem. Decisions must be made wi the next few weeks concerning these leases. The Health Department is now located at the old Salem Theater building. Social Services is housed at the Salem Bank and Trust Buildin n f ~ VP toy April 26, 1988 ~ 9 ~. Extension is located at the old Courthouse, and will be able remain there until 1990. Mr. Chambliss stated the staff recommends authorization fo# the Department of Health to work the state to obtain the necessary lease arrangements for a multi-year lease. The De~#artment of Social Services should exercise their 18-month option which would continue into 1990 and to allow VPI Extension to~~remain at the old Courthouse until their lease with Roanoke College expires. It is estimated that it would be the summer of 199 before renovations could .occur to the existing School nistration Building for use by these departments. Staff also re ommends that the existing County-owned facilities be evaluated an a master plan be developed. Supervisor Johnson asked how long it would take to lop a master plan to handle the space needs into the year 2000. Mr. Hodge responded that he and Mr. Wilson from the ScY~ools have discussed this and could bring back a report on the rail county space needs on May 24, 1988. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the staff recommendation and that the staff bring back a report on the ov rall County space needs on May 24, 1988. The motion was se onded by Supervisor McGraw, and carried by the following re orded vote: AY S: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett f92~ r ~, Apr- l 2 6-,-1-9 8 8- ---- -- -_ NAYS: None the Va. Water Project, Inc. for the Hollins Project- Sue Palmer, Project Coordinator, reported that the costs for installation of the water/sewer lateral lines has increased ai staff has requested a grant from the Virginia Water Project f< an additional $40,000. They have allocated these funds for tt project and there will be no local funding required. Staff i; recommending that this grant be accepted. She advised the Boy that the project should be completed in February 1989. Supervisor Johnson moved to accept the grant. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Nickens, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garret NAYS: None 3. Authorization to enter into County-State agreement for access road improvements to Valleypointe Phase I: Economic Development Director Timothy Gubala advised they have requested Industrial Access Funds of $300,000 matched by $150,000 from the State and $150,000 local funds. The access road is estimated to cost $970,000, of which $600,000 is from industrial access funds. The developer of the project would l ke to close by May 15 and has a prospective tenant for September. i Staff is proposing that the County control the construction o ~ ~9~3 s ~. April 26, 1988 th~ project under a "design/build" concept. It will also be necessary to execute a County-State agreement to accept the trial access funds of $450,000 which has previously been roved. Mr. Hodge requested that these plans be sent to the Va. Department of Transportation before they are sent out for bid. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the staff re ommendation and that letters of thanks be sent to Delegate Ri hard Cranwell and Steve Musselwhite. The motion was seconded by~~Supervisor Nickens, and carried by the following recorded votue AY~}S: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, Nickens, Garrett NA`~S : None AB TAIN: Supervisor McGraw 4. Approval of Vehicle Utilization Policy: As~istant County Administrator John Chambliss reported that the ttee had included some of the suggestions made by the Board ers at the April 12, 1988 meeting. They include changing the justification for vehicle date to January 1, changing the minimum mileage for noncommuting mileage to 10,000 and the addition of documented evidence for use of a county vehicle. The board members expressed concern that the minimum mileage is still not up to the IRS regulations. Supervisor Rogers requested that the minimum mileage be 15,000. Supervisor X94 :~ -Apr-~.-1~-2 6-r--1~ 9 8 8---- Nickens requested that the criteria for taking a county-owned vehicle home be more detailed and stricter. The board requested that this item be continued to 24, 1988 and that the committee incorporate in the policy the changes requested. IN RE: REQUEST FOR WORK SESSIONS t Mr. Hodge advised that the work session with the Co of Engineering on the Roanoke River Tributaries is tentatively scheduled for May 24, 1988 at 3 p.m. IN RE: REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS The public hearing was set for May 24, 1988 at 7 p.m. IN RE: APPOINTMENTS Industrial Development Authority: Supervisor Nicken~ ay nominated William Triplett to another four-year term represent~~ing the Vinton Magisterial District. His term will expire Sept 26, 1991. ~r } I Parks and Recreation Advi ory Commission• Supervisor rs nominated Vincent Joyce to fill the unexpired three-year to m of Leonard Winger. The term will expire June 30, 1989. Supervisor McGraw nominated Roger Smith to fill the th ee-year unexpired term of Michael Lazzuri, an at-large member. Th term will expire June 30, 1990. Total Action Against Poverty Board of Directors• ervisor Nickens nominated Mrs. Elizabeth Stokes and Mr. Cabell to two-year terms which will expire May 3, 1990. Mr. Brand is~~a joint appointee with the City of Salem. Fifth Planning District Commission• Supervisor aw nominated John Hubbard to the three-year unexpired term of Citizen Representative and Executive Committee member Timothy ala. His term will expire June 30, 1989. Mr. Mahoney advised he is investigating the potential futther activity of the Court Service Unit Advisory County/Youth Family Services Advisory Board. When he has a response he wi.~l report back to the board. IN~~RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Johnson requested an update on the proposed Y ; 695 April 26, X988 Rod We]~Ilness Program. Director of Human Resources Keith Cook updated 696 -~_.ApriL2C,_1.9 8 8- the board and advised he would be bringing a report to the Bo for approval soon. Supervisor Robers advised he had met with Timothy Gubala and Mr. Hodge to discuss economic development. He als announced that the Engineering Study Group has met for a sec time. Supervisor McGraw reported on the progress of the 4 Roanoke Valley Cooperation Cammittee. The next meeting will May 13, 1988 at the Vinton War Memorial. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA Supervisor Garrett requested that Item I-2 be r from the Consent Agenda for an amended resolution. Superviso Nickens moved to approve Item I-2 as corrected. The motion w seconded~by Supervisor Garrett and carried by a unanimous voi vote. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the Consent Agei with Item I-2 as amended. The motion was seconded by Supervi: Garrett, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens,. Garret NAYS: None r RESOLUTION N0.42688-4 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA .~ 9 ~- ' FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke Coj~nty, Virginia, as follows: 1. That that certain section of the agenda of the ~ April 26, 1988 tY Bo~rd of Supervisors for April 26, 1988, designated as Item I - ent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to ea~h item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 ugh 6, inclusive, as follows: 1. Resolution joining the League of Older American to honor the elderly in the month of May. 2. Acceptance of Airpoint Drive, Airpoint Road, Village Lane, Wing Commander Drive and Grape Tree Lane into the Va. Department of Transportation's Secondary System. 3. Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board, The League of Older Americans, and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. 4. Authorization for use of the Bent Mountain Fire Station by a civic organization. 5. Approval of proposed agreement with Appalachian Power Company for July 1987 through June 1990. 6. Authorization to execute Memorandum of Agreement with Va. Department of Emergency Services. 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized ana directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said 698 April 26, 1988 items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant o this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Nickens after deleting Item for discussion, seconded by Supervisor Garrett, and upon the following voice vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None Following discussion, Supervisor Nickens moved app of Item I-2 as amended, seconded by Supervisor Garrett and up the following voice vote: AYES; Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garret NAYS: None RESOLUTION 42688-4.a OF APPRECIATION TO THE LEAGUE OF .AMERICANS AND IN HONOR OF THE ELDERLY WHEREAS, the rapid graying of our population is a cau. for genuine concern for governments at every level; and WHEREAS, this segment of our populace .symbolizes for < of us a lifetime body of work and contributions from which our community will continue to benefit; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate that a time be set aside during which we acknowledge the efforts of those who have give -2 al ~e -11 so much and earned for themselves a dignified and honored position in our society; and 699 ~ ', April 26, 1988 WHEREAS, the month of May has been set aside as Older ricans' Month to focus the nation's attention on'the accomplishments and the plight of our older citizens; and WHEREAS, the League of Older Americans represents the 13,000 elderly people of the County of~Roanoke. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia joins the League of Older ricans in urging all citizens to demonstrate their regard for elderly during May, and to give special consideration to the ve~y old and the frail and needy. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor Ga rett, and upon the following voice vote: AY S: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett S: None 1 RESOLUTION 42688-6 REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF WING COMMANDER DRIVE & GRAPE TREE LANE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM 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 pr~ceedinr~.s therein and upon the application for Wing Commander Dr~ve, a section of road extending from Roselawn Road (Route 68~), 0.14 miles west of Brambleton Avenue (Route 221), and ~o~ April 26, 1988 extending in a northwestly direction 0.19 miles to Grape Tree Lane; and Grape Tree Lane, from cul-de-sac to cul-de-sac and intersecting with Wing Commander Drive, extending in a northeasterly direction 0.18 miles pursuant to Section 33.1-72 1, Paragraph D and funded pursuant to Section 33.1-75.1, Paragrap~ A of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. 2. That this Board does guarantee the Commonwealth of Virginia an unrestricted right-of-way of 50 feet as recorded i Plat Book 9, Page 86, dated May 20, 1977, with necessary easements for drainage on record in the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's Office. 3. That this Board does certify that this road was public use prior to July 1, 1978, at which time it was open t and used by motor vehicles. to 4. That said roads known as Wing Commander Drive and Gr pe Tree Lane, which are shown on a certain sketch accompanying th s resolution, be, and the same are hereby established as public roads to become a part of the state secondary system of highwa~s in Roanoke County, only from and after notification of officia acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Depa of Transportation. RESOLUTION 42688-5 REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF AIRPOINT DRIVE AND AIRPOINT ROAD INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM -a. . ~' o .~ ~ April 26, 1988 Ai Sy pr an Ro an Ro 33 33 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke nty, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Resolution 6987-12.h is requesting acceptance of point Drive and Airpoint Road into the VDOT Secondary Road item is hereby rescinded. 2. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the ~ceedings therein and upon the application for Airpoint Drive . Airpoint Road, a section of road extending from Bent Mountain .d (Route 221), 0.09 miles north of Tinsley Lane (Route 711), extending in an easterly direction 0.28 miles to Airpoint d and 0.27. miles to a turn around, pursuant to Section 1-72.1, Paragraph C-1 and funded pursuant to Section 1-75.1, Paragraph A of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as ed. 3. That this Board does guarantee the Commonwealth of Vi ginia an unrestricted right-of-way of 50 feet as recorded in Pl t Book 6, Page 46, dated July 9, 1965, with necessary ea ements for drainage on record in the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's Office. 4. That this Board does certify that this road was open to pu~lic use prior to January 1, 1976, at which time it was open to anc~ used by motor vehicles. '7 p 2 _A .r_i1-.26- _19.8.8_____ 5. That this Board does certify that speculative intere~ts are not involved. 6. That said roads known as Airpoint Drive and Airpoint Road which are shown on a certain sketch accompany this resolution, be, and the same are hereby established as public roads to become a part of the state secondary system highways in Roanoke County, only from and after notification c t official acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation. RESOLUTION 42688-7 REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF VILLAGE LANE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM 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 therein and upon the application for Village Lane,l section of road extending from Verndale Drive (Route 1867), 0. miles west of Plantation Road (Route 115), and extending in a northerly direction 0.05 miles to the cul-de-sac pursuant to Section 33.1-72.1, Paragraph D and funded pursuant to Section 33.1-75.1, Paragraph A of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. 2. That this Board does guarantee the Commonwealth of la ~5 Virginia an unrestricted right-of-way of 50 feet as recorded iN `7 0 3 ~ ~ A ril 6" 1988 P1 t Book 8, Page 51, dated December 3, 1974, with necessary ri ht-of-way for the cul-de-sac and easements for drainage on re ord in the Roanoke County Circuit Court Clerk's Office. 3. That this Board does certify that this road was open to is use prior to January 1, 1976, at which time it was open to anc~ used by motor vehicles. 4. .That said road'~known as Village Lane which is shown on a ertain sketch accompanying this resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as a public road to become a part of the st to secondary system of highways in Roanoke County, only from an after notification of official acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation. IN~~RE: REPORTS q The Statement of Investments and Portfolio Policy as of 31, 1988 was received and filed. IN~~RE: EXECUTIVE SESSION Supervisor Johnson moved to go into Executive Session pu suant to the Code of Virginia 2.1-344 (a) (1) Personnel, and (2) real estate at 4:05 p.m. The motion was seconded by ~ Su ervisor Nickens, and carried by the following recorded vote: ~' 0 4 --- A r--~--2-6- 19 8 8 AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garr NAYS: None IN RE: OPEN SESSION At 5:20 p.m., Supervisor Garrett moved to return to Open Session. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Johnson al .- carried by unanimous vote. IN RE: RECESS recess. IN RE: IN RE: At 5:21 p.m., Chairman Garrett declared a dinner EVENING SESSION At 7:05 p.m., Chairman Garrett reconvened the meetin~. RESOLUTIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS Chairman Garrett announced that The Glenvar-Salem Al - Stars basketball team had recently won the State AAU Champions ip and will be traveling to the national AAU tournament in Orland , ~ o ~~ April 26 1988 F1. re; pl< NAB rida. In recognition of this accomplishment, he presented a olution of congratulations and certificates to the basketball ~yers who were present at the meeting. Supervisor Robers moved the adoption of the prepared resolution. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Johnson, and ca#ried by the following recorded vote: AY~j S Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett 'S : None RESOLUTION 42688-8 CONGRATULATING THE STATE AAU CHAMPIONSHIP BASKETBALL TEAM, THE GLENVAR-SALEM ALL-STARS WHEREAS, the Glenvar-Salem All-Stars basketball team, composed of ten and eleven year old boys from Glenvar, North Ro noke County and Salem, recently won the State AAU Ch mpionship, in Staunton, Virginia, compiL•ing a 6 - 1 overall record; and WHEREAS, the Glenvar-Salem All-Stars, coached by Larry Wo lwine and assisted by Joe Duffy, Wayne Atkins, Toby Garst and Da id Simmons, will play in the national AAU finals beginning Ju y 23, 1988, in Orlando, Florida. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia congratulates and the following members of the Glenvar-Salem All-Stars for th~ir outstanding athletic achievement: 7os -A riL2_C~ 9 8 $- Matt Atkinson Christopher Brammer John Duffy Kevin Garst Cory Moses Shae Simmons Matthew Biggs Jason Darnall Steven Edwards Brian Hill Bryan Monroe Matthew Woolwine and further, expresses its strong support that the Glenvar-Sal t .All-Stars will be victorious at the national AAU tournament ir. Orlando, Florida. IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS 488-1A Public Hearing to elicit oral and written comment from the public concerning the proposed annual_ budget for fiscal year 1988/89 Superintendent of Schools Bayes Wilson presented hi comments concerning the school budget. He explained the Chan s in the state funding-formula resulted in a decrease in state funding for Roanoke County. As a result of these changes, it will be necessary to eliminate 115 personnel positions to fun the 7.3 salary increases for instructional personnel as mandat d by the state. These include 49 teaching positions, 52 tea aides, 4 administrators, and 10 cafeteria workers. Other reductions include increases in rates, and reductions in April 26, 1988 ~o~ su plies,, materials and equipment. There was an increase in fu ding for the purchase of new school buses. The School Board ha recommended postponing renovations to Bent Mountain School as a urther reduction. County Administrator Elmer Hodge outlined the proposed bu get for County administration. He pointed out where fees had be n reduced for the citizens. He advised that the County had to ab orb the loss both of federal revenue sharing and a reduction in state funding for schools. He reported that some County and. Sc ool departments are being merged to save money. The meals tax is expected to generate $1.5 million which will still not make up th difference in the $1.7 million state school funding loss. Twenty-one citizens spoke concerning the proposed bu get. There were: 1. Diane Grant, 5901 Cove Road I~: W., in support of fu ing for teachers aides. 2. Debra Holdren, 5027 Jonathan Lane, N. W, in support of dditional funding for schools. 3. Polly Holloway 520, Briarwood Dr., Vinton, a Food Se ices Supervisor in the County Schools in support of the Co ty cafeteria workers. 4. Lee Linkous, 5459 Eveningwood Lane, N. W., Chairman of he Employee Advisory Committee in support of increased wages an benefits for County employees. cos April 26, 1988 5. Becky Arrington, 2839 Woodthrush Drive. S. W., support of increased funding for schools. 6. Wanda Norcross, 816 Dillon Drive, Vinton, in opposition to the cutting of teachers aides. 7. Carol Pippin 781 Kenyon Road, Vinton, represent' g County school bus drivers in opposition to the layoff of teac rs and teachers aides. 8. Mary Anrf Brague, 4319 Garst Mill Road, S. W., i opposition to the layoff of teachers. 9. Bobbie Brogan, 5448 Eveningwood Lane, N. W, in opposition to the elimination of the elementary art program in support of cafeteria workers. 10. Lee Helms, 6556 Tauwood Drive. S. W. in suppor of increased. funding for schools.. 11. David K. Byrd, 3414 Locust Grove Lane, Salem, presented a list of questions concerning the new radio communication system. 12. Rita Watson, 6628 Wendover Road in support of increased funding for schools. 13. Elizabeth Stokes, member of the TAP Board of Directors, requesting continued funding for Total Action Aaa: Poverty. 14. William L. Andrews, Suite 300, 4504 Starkey Road, S. W. in opposition to the meals tax. . '7 0 9 ~ ~ April 26, 1988 15. David Bradshaw in favor of higher tax rate for ad itional funds for schools. 16. Gary Anderson, 1045 Kinney Drive, Vinton, in su port of increased funding for schools. 17. Mike Gordon, Bent Mountain, in support of going fo ward with renovations of Bent Mountain School. 18. Jim Merrill, Bent Mountain, in support of going fo ward with renovations of Bent Mountain School. 19: Ray Sandifer, 244 Gunn Avenue, Vinton, in support of additional school funding and continuation of the elementary ar program. 20. Eldon Karr, 8011 Poor Mountain Road, Bent Mo ntain, in support of the continuation of Bent Mountain School. 21. Alfred Powell, 3440 Franklin Street, Salem, in su port of a lower tax rate and less taxes.' Following the citizen comments, Supervisor Johnson ex ressed his concerns on the funding for the proposed school bu get. He recognized the need to decrease instructional pe sonnel due to declining enrollment, but pointed out these fu ding problems will continue in the future unless solutions are fo nd. He recommended that the local legislators support a 1/2 ce t local sales tax that would be earmarked for localities. He al o supported continued consolidation of services with the sc~.ools . April 26, 1988 IN RE: RECESS The Chairman declared a five minutes recess. IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS 488-2A Petition of S & J En erprises for a Specia Exception Permit to operate a home for adu located at 7120 Williamson Road in the Hollins Magisterial District. (CONTINUED FR MARCH 22, 1988) DENIED Director of Planning Rob Stalzer presented the staff report. This property was formerly a 76 unit motel. He advise request was not brought before-.the Planning Commission. The c of the staff included that the proposal of 46 units per acre e density limits of 12 to 24 units per area, the current saturat homes for the elderly in north County, and the existing layout the possibility of protecting residents from lights, noise, od litter. The staff recommended conditions if the special excep approved. is this ncerns ceeds on of limits rs, and ion is The~Petitioner, J. M. Landers presented a letter fro the Roanoke County Department of Social Services expressing a need for non-nursing home care for adults. There is presently a shorta~e of this type of home. '71 1 ., Supervisor Johnson advised he had met with the League of Ol~er Americans, the Department of Social Services and has visited site three times. He stated he feels that the lot is not ive for a home for elderly citizens. Supervisor Johnson moved to deny the special exception pe~mit. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Nickens, and ca#ried by the following'~recorded vote: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, Nickens, Garrett None TAIN: Supervisor McGraw 488-3A Petition of M. E. Hinman and Dominion Trust Company to rezone a 3.56 acre tract from R-1, Residential and M-2, Industrial to B-2, Business to operate a retail garden center and to amend the Roanoke County Future Land Use Map from Development to Transition, located on the north and south sides of Hollins Road immediately east of Tinker Creek in the Hollins Magisterial District. APPROVED WITH PROFFERED CONDITIONS Mr. Stalzer advised that the legal advertisement of the land us~ map amendment was inadvertently omitted from the notice. It will belladvertised for the May 24 meeting. Therefore only the rezoning wi~l be heard at this meeting. There was no one in opposition to this rezoning the Planning) Co~mission hearing and the Commission unanimously recommended approval~~ were no significant impact factors. There are proffered conditions to the rezoning. ~1~ r-- 1-~ 6-.-~9 R R In response to a question from Supervisor Nickens, M~. Mahoney advised that there have been successful litigations wh~n a rezoning was approved that was not in conformance with the Lan Use Plan. However, this is not the issue in this case, but is onl a procedural problem and the land use plan amendment will be hea d. Ed Natt, attorney for the petitioner advised that if rezoning was continued to May 24th, it would place a financial S ,on the petition. He suggested that the Board approve the land amendment in concept and formally approve it on May 24. Supervisor Johnson moved to amend the Land Use Plan from Development to Transition. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Mahoney recommended going forward with the propo rezoning, and not voting on the Land Use Amendment until May 2 1988. Supervisor Johnson withdrew his motion. Supervisor Johnson moved to grant the petition.- The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garret NAYS: None FINAL ORDER NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED that the aforementioned parcel of land which is contained in the Roanoke County Tax Ma this II burden ruse ed '71.3 ~~ as de Parcel 38.16-1-3.1 and recorded in Deed Book and legally cribed below, be rezoned from R-1, Residential and M-2 In ustrial District to B-2 Business District BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be tr nsmitted to the Secretary of the Planning Commission and that he be directed to reflect that change on the official zoning map of Roanoke County. A 3.56 acre. parcel of land, generally located on the north side of Route 601, east of Tinker Creek within the Hollins Magisterial District and recorded as part of Parcel No. 38.16-1-3.1 in the Roanoke County Tax records. PROFFER OF CONDITIONS 1. Site to be developed in substantial conformity with th site plan of Buford T. Lumsden & Assoc. submitted herewith_ 2. Signage on the site, exclusive of warning signs re ating to the parking, will be limited to six (6) square feet. 3. If permitted by Ordinance, a handrail or fence along th walkway under Route 601 will be constructed. 4. If the business is open after dusk, lighting will be in talled along the walkway. 488-4A Petition of the Hobart Companies Ltd to amend the conditions on a 4.974 acre tract located on the south side of Peters Creek 714 _ Ap.ri1-26 , _-1.9 8 8 Road immediately southwest of its intersection with Deer Branch Road in the Hollins Magisterial District. APPROVED WITH PROFFERED CONDITIONS Mr. Stalzer advised this petition requesting permissi to amend the conditions on a previous rezoning. It amends the concept plan to provide for one out parcel. No one was presen in opposition at the Planning Commission meeting and they were t ,unanimous approved for recommendation. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the amended conditions. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Nickens, carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None FINAL ORDER NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED that the aforementioned parcel of land which is contained in the Roanoke County Tax Ma as Parcel 27.14-2-12 and a portion of Parcel 27.14-2-13 and recorded in Deed Book and legally described below be amended o read as below: BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be transmitted to the Secretary of the Planning Commission and th t . April 26, 1988 he of Ibe directed to reflect that change on the official zoning map I~Roanoke County. A 4.974 acre parcel of land, generally located in the 6600 block on the south side of Peters Creek road, within the Hollins Magisterial District PROFFER OF CONDITIONS 1. Development will be substantial conformity with the sib add e plan of Erie Ross, Inc. with a minimum of a 25 foot buffer oining any residential property. 2. Uses to be limited to: office, retail sales, banks, se~vice industry uses together with warehousing and light ma ufacturing as allowed in Section 21-24-1, M-1 Light Industrial Di trict, (A) (1), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of the Roanoke County a Co e with the provision that no M-1 uses will be permitted on the out parcel . 3. Stand-alone sign shall not be greater than 48 square fe t exclusive of the signage on the outparcel. 4. There shall be no outside storage of materials. 5. All lighting shall be directed away from the ad oining residential property. a. All building shall be constructed with brick on the front thereof. "71 6 April 26, 198 488-5A Petition of Hon-In Food Stores Inc. rezone a 2.85 acre tract from R-1, to Residential to B-2, Business to develop a complex including office building, convenience store, and donut shop, locate north of the intersection of Wood Haven Ro and Peters Creek Road in the Hollins Magisterial District. NO ACTION TAKEN Mr. Stalzer advised this issue has been heard before b both the Planning Comm`~ssion and Board of Supervisors. The Concept Plan has been changed significantly due to the additio of office space and commercial floor space. The Planning Commission heard the request on April 25th. Twenty people spo in opposition and eight in favor of the request. The concerns expressed include increased traffic, trash, declining property values, excessive number of convenience stores, noise, lightin and potential for robbery. Support was the suitability-for commercial development and that the land would be improved. The impact factors include the natural drainage channel and the existing pond,~the question of adequate fire flow, and the signage which has been corrected by the proffers.. The Planning Commission recommended approval on a 3-2 vote. The City of Roanoke has advised that this intersection is ranked seventh in a priority list for a traffic signal, which could to e seven years to install. a r i l ~ ti ~- 1 A~ R re abd P Ed Natt, Attorney for the Petitoner, was present and ou lined the plans for the proposed rezoning. He advised that ma y changes had been made to the rezoning to satisfy various co cerns. He presented a model of the project. He addressed the tr ffic concerns of the citizens and advised the Board that the si nage had been significantly changed. The proposal fits the la d use designation of firansition. He advised that they had no been able to verify the existence of springs on the property. Th gasoline storage tanks will have buff-hide tanks with a co puter monitoring system. The screening and buffering will be in accordance with the ordinance. In response to a question from Su ervisor Robers, Mr. Natt advised they had not discussed the tr ffic signal with the City of Roanoke, but would be willing to me t with them. ti The following citizens spoke in opposition to the oning: 1. Carlton Wright, 6939 Woodhaven Road, concerned about traffic situation. 2. Rita Watson, 6628 Wendover Road, expressed concerns gut safety and possible robberies. 3. John Porter (no address given), concerned about the sibility of gasoline leaks. 4. Kevin Hamilton (no address given) opposed because of ffic, gasoline leaks. 718 April 26, 1988 5. Lennie Gregory, 7036 Autumn Wood Lane, opposed because of lack of traffic signalization. 6. Jenny Montgomery (no address given) Supervisor Nickens advised that while he liked the z signage and appreciated the changes the petitioner had made, t could not vote for the petition without traffic signalization. Supervisor Nickens moved to continue the petition fog 30 days to allow the petitioner to meet with the City of RoanoF and the Highway Department to work out traffic signalization a the intersection and to address the installation of the gasoli tanks and installation. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw. Supervisor Johnson advised that he could not support this request because of possible contamination of the acquifer and the objections of the citizens in the area. Supervisor Nickens withdrew his motion. There was no further motion to approve or deny. Chairman Garrett declared t. petition defeated because of a lack of motion. 488-6A Petition of Richard and Tamara arr 11 for Use Not Provided for Permit to operate a doc_ boarding kennel and hold obedience training classes on a 3.079 acre tract located immediately east of the terminus of State I' Route 667 in the Vinton Magisterial Distric' DE- NIED Mr. Stalzer advised this was a request for a Use Not l i '~ 1 9 April 26, 1988 P ovided for to operate a dog boarding kennel. There were 14 p ople in opposition to the request and four in fa~ror at the P anning Commission hearing. The opposition was focused on the n tuber of dogs on the property and the location and the noise g nerated. The significant impact factors-included the fact t at the location was outside the established fire and rescue s rvice area and the potential for noise from barking dogs. The P anning Commission recommended approval by a four to one vote. Attorney John Curtin representing the petitioners p inted out that with the present zoning conditions they could n w keep up to 20 dogs without this petition. They could also h ve stockyards, a riding kennel or raise hogs under the present c nditions. He outlined the proffers that the petitioners are p esenting. The only area where they propose to train the dog i at the front of the property, but it wi°11 be controlled by f ncing and screening. County Attorney Paul Mahoney explained the difference b tween a private and a commercial kennel. Mr. Curtin advised t at if the Use Not Provided For Permit is approved, they will n t operate a private kennel. Tommy Jo Williams, an attorney representing Mr. and M s. Ollen Hartman, spoke in opposition to permit. Their p imary concern was the training area which fronts directly on t e state route. ~~o April 26, 1988 In a response to a question from Supervisor Nickens, Mr. stated there is no way to relocate the training area because~~the property slopes steeply uphill. Supervisor Nickens moved to deny the petition. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Johnson, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, Nickens, NAYS: Supervisors'~Garrett, McGraw 488-7A Petition of Ernest Clark to rezone a 9.7 "acre tract from R-1, Residential to R-5, Residential to construct townhomes, locat on the south side of Wood Haven Road approximately one half mile east of its intersection with Taney Drive in the Holl' s Magisterial District. APPROVED WITH PROFFERED CONDITIONS Mr. Stalzer reported the purpose for this request i to build townhomes. At the Planning Commission hearing there we~~e 10 in opposition and 8 in favor of the petition. The concerns of tY~bse opposed were sewer and water services, effect on well water; ainage; increased traffic accidents and congestion. There were no si ificant impact factors in the staff report. There are proffered condi~~ions to the rezoning. In response to a question from Supervisor Johns~bn, Mr. Stalzer advised that approximately 50 single family homes can presently be built there which would generate 500 trips per d . Attorney Ed Natt was present to represent the petiti~bner. He outlined the plans for the townhomes. ~' 2 Y ApsiL.~~ 19 8 8 Supervisor Johnson moved to grant the petition with pr ffered conditions. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Ni AYES: kS FINAL ORDER NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED that the aforementioned pa as Bo Re tr he of 1 of land which is contained in the Roanoke County Tax Maps ~~Parcel 37.05-1-1 and Parcel 37.05-1-2 and recorded in Deed ~k and legally described below, be rezoned from R-1 ~idential District to R-5 Townhouse District and carried by the following recorded vote: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett None BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be nsmitted to the Secretary of the Planning Commission and that be directed to reflect that change on the official zoning map I~Roanoke County. A 9.77 acre parcel of land, generally located on the south side of Wood Haven Road west of I-581, within the Hollins Magisterial District and recorded as Parcel No. 37.05-1-1 and Parcel No. 37-05-1-2 in the Roanoke County tax Records PROFFER OF CONDITIONS 1.1 Project will be in substantial conformity with the site plan of~~T. P. Parker & Son, submitted herewith. '7 2 2 -= npri-l.-2 Fi,-198R 2. Streets will be developed in accordance with state standa and submitted for acceptance into state secondary system. 3. Units will be similar to design submitted herewith. 4. A pedestrian footpath easement in at least two locations the public streets within the subdivision to the adjoining school board property will be shown on the recorded plate of development. t 5. Ten year storm detention will be provided with a two year storm release. 488-8A Petition of Roger D. Hale and F. Mike Montgomery for a Use Not Provided For Pe and to rezone a 0.23 acre tract from R-3, Residential to B-2, Business to operate a grooming business, located at 4355 Frankl Road in the Cave Spring Magisterial Distr APPROVED WITH PROFFERED CONDITIONS Mr. Stalzer reported this was a,Use Not Provided For permit to operate a dog kennel. There was no one in oppositi at the Planning Commission. The significant impact factor is that screening and landscaping are not present and have no been proffered. There are proffered conditions. The Plannin Commission voted unanimously to approve the permit with proffe conditions. The petitioner, Roger Hale, was present to answer t g d questions. '7 2 3 P Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the Use Not ided For Permit and rezoning. The motion was seconded by Su ervisor Robers, and carried by the following recorded vote: AY S: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, .McGraw, Nickens, Garrett KS : None FINAL ORDER NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED that the aforementioned pa as be Us ~cel of land which is contained in the Roanoke County Tax Maps ~~Parcel and recorded in Deed Book and legally described ~.ow, be rezoned from R-3 Residential District to B-2 Business ~ Not Provided For District BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be tr. he of nsmitted to the Secretary of the Planning Commission and that ti be directed to reflect that change on the official zoning map Roanoke County. BEGINNING at an iron pin located S. 160 20' 00" E. 235.20 feet from the point of intersection of the southeasterly right of way line of Valley Avenue with the southwesterly right of way line of U. S. Route No. 220, thence with such line of U. S. Route No. 220, s. 160 20' 00" E. 78.51 ft. to an iron pin; thence S. 740 34' 00" W. 125.66 ft. to an iron pin; thence N. 150 26' 00" W. 78.50 ft. to an iron pin, BEGINNING, being part of Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 1, Pinkard Court (P.B. 1, page 363) as shown '7 2 ~ . on a plat of survey dated March 24, 1987 made by Buford T. Lumdsden & Associates, P. C., a copy of which is attached hereto; and BEING the same property acquired by Thomas B. Whitfield and Ethel Mae Whitfield, husband and wife, by deed dated March 17, 1942 and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke in Deed Book 296, page 141, and by deed dated March 14, 1943 and reworded in such Clerk's Office in Deed Book 303, page 419. Thomas B. Whitfield died on June 13, 1981, and Ethel Mae Whitfield died on November 28, 1986, as evidenced by wills recorded in such Clerk's Office in Will Book 36, page 36 and Will Book 40, page 910. PROFFER OF CONDITIONS 1. There will not be any outside kennel runs. 2. Dogs will be on leash 3. There will be no Flea~Markets, stone yards,, junk dealers, dance hall, billiard room or business with sale of A.B.C., aut garage. 488-9A Petition of Clarence David Shepherd to rezone a portion of a 0.739 acre tract from B-2, Business to B-3, Business to operate a used car sales business located at 6718 Williamson ROad in the Hollins Magisterial District. April 26, 1988 ` APPROVED WITH PROFFERED CONDITIONS Mr. Stalzer reported that this rezoning rill allow the s e of used cars. No new construction and no expansion of the e sting building is proposed. The petitioner plans to utilize 25 sq. ft. at the rear of the auto parts building as an office fo the used car sales business. There are no significant impact fa tors and there are proffered conditions. There was no one in op osition at the Planning Commission hearing and they un nimously recommended approval with proffered conditions. The pe itioner, David Shepherd was present to answer questions. No ci izen was present to speak to this rezoning. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the rezoning with ffered conditions. The motion was seconded by Supervisor rett and carried by the following recorded vote: S: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens S: None FINAL ORDER NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED that the aforementioned pa cel of land which is contained in the Roanoke County Tax Maps as Parcel 27.18-1-5.1 and recorded in Deed Book 1171, page 434 an legally described below, be rezoned from B-2 Business Di trict to B-3 Business District '7.2 6 April 26, 1988 BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be transmitted to the Secretary of the Planning Commission and he be directed to reflect that change on the official zoning of Roanoke County. BEING a portion of the property at 6718 Williamson Road in the Hollins Magisterial District and beginning on the westerly side of Williamson Road afid at a point 16 feet westerly parallel of line S10o 56'E and 10 feet southerly and parallel line N79o 04'E, thence with a line S10o 56'E. 48 feet to a point, thence with a line S79o 04'W. 95 feet to a point thence with a line S10o 56'E 40 feet to the wall of the building of C.M.B. Associates, thence with a line from the westerly wall of C.M.B. Associates S79o 04'W 10 feet to a point; thence with a line N10o 56'W 105 .feet to a point; thence with a line N79o 04'E. 117 feet to the point of BEGINNING. PROFFER OF CONDITIONS (1) Use of property will be limited to used automobile sales. (2) No outside overnight parking of inoperative or junk vehicles. (3) No on-premises automobile repairs shall be conducted. (4) Maximum signage to be 2' x 3' and located at the entranc~~of the office for the used car business which is located at the r~~ear of the retail building. 7 2 7 ~1 April 26, 1988 ' (5 No more than 16 vehicles on site. (6 There will be no billboard advertising. 48 -l0A Petition of Clifford Currv to amend the conditions on a 5.57 acre tract to construct a retirement facility, located on the east side of Va. Route 706 approximately 0.1 mile south of its intersection with Route 419 in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. APPROVED WITH PROFFERED CONDITIONS Mr. Stalzer advised that .the petitioner is requesting ~m ndment of~the conditions on a parcel currently zoned B-2 to construct a retirement facility. No one was in opposition at the Pl~nning Commission hearing and the members voted unanimously to recommend approval with proffers. The significant impact factors include that the proposal isII47 parking stalls short of the minimum necessary. The final site plan will require extensive parking mot~ifications unless a va~iance is acquired from the Board of Zoning Appeals. The my Engineering staff recommends the development of a drainage sy~tem from the petitioner's property to 419. VDOT has also ressed concern over additional drainage onto Route 419 and 706. Thn Engineering staff recommended that more stringent slope lopment proffers be offered, but the petitioner was not wiling to make this proffer until a geotechnical engineer has dole the analysis of the site. '7: 2 8: ~, April 26, 1988 The architect for the project was present representin the petitioner. In response to a question from Supervisor Johnson, he advised that the rents would begin at $695 for a studio rental to $1700 for a 2-bedroom corner unit. This wou include three meals a day, all utilities, housekeeping, van service, all activities. Supervisor Johnson requested that Chairman Garrett di~~ct that a study of the h8using needs for the elderly be undertak and suggested that it be turned over to the Roanoke Valley Cooperation Committee. Chairman Garrett suggested that Supervisors Johnson and Nickens form a committee for this purpose. Supervisor Nickens moved to grant the petition with proffered conditions subject to administrative .review. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following. recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, Garrett, McGraw, Nicker. NAYS: None FINAL ORDER NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED that the aforementioned parcel of land which is contained in the Roanoke County Tax Ma~s as Parcel 77.20-1-51 and recorded in Deed Book 1263, page 1478 1172, page 0372; 1098, page 0504; and Deed Books 1263, page 14 8; j '7 2 9 11'5, page 0792; 436, page 0380 and legally described below, be BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be tted to the Secretary of the Planning Commission and that he~~be directed to reflect that change on the official zoning map of~~Roanoke County. BEING 6.10 acres, situated in Cave Spring Magisterial District, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point common to said 6.10 acres, the east right-of-way line of Va. Route 706 (Elm View Road) and property of Tom Penn, et als; thence N 90 03' 50"W, 115.71 feet along the line common to said 6.10 acres and said east right-of-way line of Virginia Secondary Route 706 to a point; thence N 50 15' 45" W, 41.24 feet ' to a point; thence along the:line common to said 6.10 acres and property of Avenham Associates, the following 3 courses and distances, S 520 00'E, 40.00 feet to a point, N 690 37' 10"E, 232.90 feet to a point; N 450 42; E, 500.00 feet to a point; said point being common to said 6.10 acres, said property of Avenham Associates and property of Herbert J. Brown and Tessie M. Brown; thence along the line common to said 6.10 acres and said property of Brown the following two courses and distances, S 33° 21'E, 21.72 feet to a point; S 530 33;E, 250.00 feet to a point; thence along a rezoning line, S 350 13' 17" W 675.60 feet to a point; thence along the line common to 6.10 acres and said ,'?' 3.0 , Ap ~i-1-2 6-,-~9 8 8 -~ - ~ -- property of Tom Penn, et als, N 680 56' W, 438.37 feet to the point of BEGINNING and containing a computed acreage of 6.10 acres. PROFFER OF CONDITIONS (1) A maximum 110 suite retirement facility will be construc following the existing entrance road and parking lot. (2) Type D screening and buffering or its equivalent by modifications will beyinstalled on all property borders. (3) Final plan will be in substantial conformance with the concept plan. (4) One concrete sign no greater than 24 sq. feet will be installed; no other signage will be constructed. (5) Architecture will display brick and wood siding exterior over wood frame construction. ed (6) Interior traffic circulation will be one-way and will be o. designated on the property. (7) A sprinkler system will be installed serving entire facility. (8) A drainage system will be constructed from subject prope y to Va. 410. (9) A licensed geotechnical engineer will be hired to conduc soils test on the site, write a report, review the working drawings for compliance with recommendations, and inspect all earth work. ~` 3 I April 26, 1988 48 -11A Request to amend the Land Use Plan from ' Neighborhood Conservation to Transition for a 0.678 acre tract parcel located at 6024 Williamson Road APPROVED Mr. Stalzer reported that the subject parcel was rezoned to M-1 conditional in February, and the staff advised the P1 nning Commission and Board of Supervisors at that time that th property was incorrectly designated in 1985 when the Land Use Pl n Map was prepared. This amendment will correct the error th t was made in 1985. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the .amendment to the Land Use Plan. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve the amendment to Land Use Plan. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Nickens an carried by the following recorded vote: AY S: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens NA~gS : None FINAL ORDER NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED that the aforementioned pa~jcel of land which is contained in the Roanoke County Tax Maps as Parcel 38.06-6-2 and recorded in Deed Book 698, page 29 and le ally described below, be redesignated from Neighborhood Conservation to Transition. '73.2 April 26, 1988 BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be transmitted to the Secretary of the Planning Commission and tY~~at he be directed to reflect that change on the official zoning of Roanoke County. BEGINNING at a point on the westerly side of Route No. 11, 100.0 ft. (erroneously shown as 11 ft. in previous deed), southerly from tT1e intersection of the westerly side of Route 11, and the southerly side of Route 623, both extended; thence with a division line between Lots 12-B and 12-C, S. 780 1' 30"W. 200.17 ft. to an iron on the line of Lot 11; thence N. 00 0' 30" W. 222.25 ft. to an old iron on route 623; thence with the southerly side of Route 623, S. 640 40' E. 181.29 ft. (erroneously shown as 193.73 ft. in previous deed), to the beginning of a curve; thence with a curve to the right, whose radius is 25 ft., an arc distance of 23.09 ft. to •a point on the westerly side of Route 11; thence with Route 11, S. 110 58' 30" E. 87.56 ft. to the place of BEGINNING, and BEING all of Lot 12-C, according to a survey made for Captain's Grove Corporation showing a division of Lot 12, Block 1, Captain's Grove, which survey was made by T. P. Parker, S.C.E., July 16, 1962, attached to and made ' a part of the Deed recorded in Deed Book 698, page 29, at page 31, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke, and BEING the same property conveyed to Samuel E. Peters by Deed recorded in Deed Book 698, '?' 3 3 April 26, 1988 4 81$-12A ea Public Hearing concerning acquisition of certain easements for completion of the Starkey Force Main Gravity Sewer Project to traverse certain properties being owned by Tanglewood West County Attorney Paul Mahoney reported that these nts are needed to complete the Starkey Force Main.and Gr vity Sewer Project. The County has been unable to settle with th property owners. He is therefore requesting that the County go~~forward with condemnation proceedings and adopt the prepared resolution. Barry Hall, Vice President of Smithey and Boynton, was present. He explained they are not opposed to the location of sanitary sewer line. However, they do not agree with the ap raisal set forth by the County. They had another appraisal 1 do e with Frank D. Porter which showed the property to be worth $9 33 instead o.f $4219. Supervisor McGraw pointed out that it is expensive to go forward with condemnation and suggested that negotiations co#~tinue rather than condemnation. Mr. Mahoney advised that the County is under a state to and recommended that the Board go forward with the condemnation resolution. The County and Smithey and Boynton cold continue to attempt settlement until the case comes to court. -~ 3 4 April 26, 1988 Supervisor Nickens moved to adopt the prepared resolut~~ion. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, Garrett, Nickens NAYS: Supervisor McGraw RESOLUTION 42688-9 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 PROPERTIES AND TO TAKE CERTAIN SANITARY SEWER EASEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE STARKEY FORCE MAIN AND GRAVITY •SEWER PROJECT BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanok County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Starkey Force Main and Gravity Sewer Pr~b- ject is being undertaken by the County of Roanoke to allow fo the elimination of the Starkey Sewage Treatment Plant and prov~~.de for long-term sewer capacity for the Back Creek sewershed; 2. That in order to complete this project, certain sanitary sewer easements are needed and more particularly des- cribed: a. A twenty (20) foot wide strip of land 'across the property of Tanglewood West and more particularly described on the attached appraisal .report as located on the rear property line and containing 2,563-square feet and 1 ~7 3 5 j being shown on the attached plat prepared by the Roanoke County Department of Public Facilities dated June 1, 1987. Together with a ten (10) foot wide temporary construction easement more particularly described on the attached appraisal. report as contain- ing 1,282 square feet. The fair market value of the afore- said interest to be acquired is $2,561.OO,..such compensation and dam- ages, if any, having been offered the property owner. b. A fifteen (15) foot wide strip of land across the property of Smithey & Boynton, P.C., successor-in-interest to Atelier, Inc., and more particular- ly described on the attached apprai- sal report as running along the front property line and containing 4,725 square feet and being shown on the attached plat prepared by the Roanoke County Department of Public Facili- ties dated October 21, 1987. Together with a ten (10) foot wide temporary construction easement more particularly described on the attached appraisal report and contain- ing 3,150 square feet. The fair market value of the afore- said interest to be acquired is $4,219.00, such compensation having been offered the property owner. c. A twenty (20) foot wide strip of land across the property of T. R. Leslie and more particularly described on the attached appraisal report as an irregular shaped easement located at the corner of Ogden Road and Route 419 and containing 1,010 square feet and being shown on the attached plat prepared by the Roanoke County Depart- '7 3 6 ment of Public Facilities dated December 30, 1987. 2. The fair market value of the afore- said interest to be acquired is $2,949.00, such compensation having been offered the property owner. That it is immediately necessary for the County o enter upon and take such property and commence said sanitary sewer improvements in order to replace the Starkey Sewage Tre - ment Plant due to the economic infeasibility to upgrade the pl nt to satisfy the proposed requirements and regulations of the St to Water Control Board and provide long-term sewer capacity for t e health, safety, and welfare of its citizens and to thereafter institute and conduct appropriate condemnation proceedings as o said sanitary sewer easements; and 3. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.1- 8 (e) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and pursuant to notice and public hearing as made and provided therein, the Boa d does hereby invoke all and singular the rights and privileges a d provisions of said Section 15.1-238 (e) as to the vesting of powers in the County pursuant to Section 33.1-119 through Secti n 33.1-129 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, all as made and provided by law. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to approve, seconded Supervisor Johnson, and upon the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, Nickens, Garrett • April 26, 1988 ` 3 NA~IS: Supervisor McGraw INURE: FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance amending and reenacting Chapter 21 d e: Mr Hodge advised that a public hearing on this ordinance w s held on April 12, 1988 for comment from citizens. No one was p esent to speak to the ordinance. The second reading is s heduled for May 10, 1988. Supervisor Johnson moved to approve first reading of t e ordinance. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and c rried by the following recorded vote: ES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, Garrett, McGraw, Nickens yS; None RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES '7 3 8 . . April 26, 1988 2. Ordinance authorizing the acquisition of timber rights on approximately sixty-one acres of real property loca d near Va. State Route 603 in Roanoke County: Mr. Mahoney advised first reading of this ordinance was held April 12, 19 8 and authorizes the County to enter into an agreement with Tur n Sawmill to acquire the timber rights and enter into an agreem t with the Marchants granting their consent to the assignment. Supervisor 'McGraw moved to approve the ordinance. motion was seconded by Supervisor Nickens and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, Garrett, McGraw, Nicker NAYS: None ORDINANCE 42688-10 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION AND ACCEPTANCE OF TIMBER RIGHTS ON APPROXIMATELY SIXTY-ONE (61) ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR VIRGINIA STATE ROUTE 603 IN ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading conce~ ., _ ing the acquisition and acceptance of the hereinafter-descr ~i '7 3 9 ti er rights was held on April 12, 1988. A second reading on th s matter was held on April 26, 1988; and WHEREAS, on December 23, 1986, Roanoke County purchased ap roximately sixty-one (61) acres of real property from Mary Ann Wo lford Marchant and John D. Marchant, said tract being more pa ticularly described as located near .Virginia State Route 603 in Roanoke County and designated as Roanoke County Tax Map No. 82~~ 00-1-1; and WHEREAS, in the deed of purchase between the Marchants an Roanoke County the Marchants reserved the right to harvest ti er on said sixty-one (61) acres for two years from the date of the deed; and WHEREAS, the Marchants sold their retained timber ri hts to Turman Sawmill Inc. on December 31, 1986; and WHEREAS, the Marchants have agreed to enter into an ag Bement with Roanoke County releasing all their right, title, an interest to harvest timber on the above-described property; an WHEREAS, Turman Sawmill Inc. plans to harvest the sixty- on (61) acres which will have an adverse environmental impact on th development of the Spring Hollow Reservoir Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervi- so s of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the agreement between Mary Ann Wohlford Ma chant and John D. Marchant and the Board of Supervisors of Ro noke County, Virginia, releasing all the Marchant's right, ti le, and interest to harvest timber on the approximately sixty- on (61) acres off of Virginia State Route 603, more particularly T4~ • ~ April 26, 1988 described as Roanoke County Tax Map No. 82.00-1-1, be, and he~~eby is, accepted. 2. That the conveyance of the timber rights located on approximately sixty-one (61) acres off of Virginia State Rout 603 more particularly described as Roanoke County Tax Map No. 82.00-1-1 from Turman Sawmill Inc. to the Board of Supervisor~~of Roanoke County, Virginia, be, and hereby is, accepted. 3. That the purchase price of the timber rights is Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000), said funds being availabl in the Spring Hollow Reservoir account. 4. That the County Administrator is authorized to ~~e- cute such document and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition and acc - tance of this property, all of which shall be upon form appro d by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor McGraw, seconded by Supervi or Nickens,~and upon the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, GarrE NAYS: None IN RE : ADJOURNMENT At 11:15 p.m., Supervisor Johnson moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by a unanimous voice vote. 1 Lee Garrett, Chairman ACTION NO. 82388-8.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 August 23, 1988 SUBJECT: Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Community Corrections Resources Board and the Landfill Citizens Liaison Committee COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The following nominations were made at previous board meetings and must now be confirmed by the Board of Supervisors. The nominee has agreed to serve. Community Corrections Resources Board Bernard Hairston has been nominated by Supervisor Nickens to serve another one-year term. His term will expire August 13, 1989. Landfill Citizens Liaison Committee The following recommendations to the Landfill Citizens Liaison Committee been made and must be confirmed. Supervisor McGraw recommended Ms. Barbara Fasnachat to represent the Catawba Magisterial District. Supervisor Robers recommended Mr. Carl Wright to represent the Cave Spring Magisterial District. Supervisor Johnson recommended Harold Richardson to represent the Hollins Magisterial District. Supervisor Nickens recommended Ms. Donna Wood to represent the Vinton Magisterial District. Supervisor Garrett recommended Mr. I. Boyd Overstreet to represent the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. SUBMITTED BY: Mary H. llen Deputy Clerk APPROVED BY: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (~ Motion by: Bob L. Johnson/Richard Yes No Abs Denied ( ) W. Robers Garrett x Received ( ) Johnson ~_ Referred McGraw _~ To• Nickens _~ Robers _~ cc: File Community Corrections Resources Board File Landfill Citizen Liaision Committee File T AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1988 RESOLUTION 82388-8.b REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF MEADOW VALLEY CIRCLE AND ORCHARD VALLEY CIRCLE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM 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 of Meadow Valley Circle from the intersection with Route 1390 to the terminus at the cul-de-sac for a distance of 0.09 miles and Orchard Valley Circle from the intersection with Route 1390 to the terminus at the cul-de-sac for a distance of 0.14 miles to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code. 2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said roads have been dedicated by virtue of certain maps known as Section One and Section Two of Meadowcreek Subdivision which maps were recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 305, and Plat Book 9, Page 345, respectively, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on September 5, 1984 and November 12, 1985, respectively, and that by reason of the recordation of said maps no report from a Board of Viewers, nor consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said right-of-way for drainage. 1 3, That said roads known as Meadow Valley Circle and Orchard Valley Circle and which are shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same are hereby established as public roads to become a part of the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official acceptance of said streets by the Virginia Department of Transportation. On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Phillip T. Henry, Director, Engineering Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections, and copy for Virginia Department of Transportation 2 z ITEM NUMBER ~`~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 23, 1988 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Meadow Valley Circle and Orchard Valley Circle into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: D & J Developers, the developer of Sections 1 & 2 Meadow Creek, request that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation requesting that they accept 0.09 miles of Meadow Valley Circle and 0.14 miles of Orchard Valley Circle. The staff has inspected these roads along with representatives of the Virginia Department of Transportation and find the roads to be acceptable. FISCAL IMPACT: No County funding is required. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation requesting that they accept Meadow Valley Circle and Orchard Valley Circle into the Secondary Road System. SUBMITTED BY: Phillip Henry, .E. Director of Engineering APPROVED: /'~r~ ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Garrett Received ( ) Johnson Referred McGraw Nickens to Robers 2 AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BEAROANOKEUCOUNTYOADMONISTRATION COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT TH AUGUST 23, 1988 CENTER ON TUESDAY, RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF MEADOW VALLEY CIRCLE AND ONSPORTATIONESECONDARYIROADTHE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRA SYSTEM BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: to be heard upon the 1. That this matter came this day roceedings herein, and upon the application of Meadow Valley p Circle from the intersection with Route 1390 to the terminus at the cul-de-sac for a distance of 0.09 miles and Orchard Valley Circle from the intersection with Route 1390 to the terminus at ted and the cul-de-sac for a distance of 0.14 miles to be accep made a part of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code. 2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said roads have been dedicated by virtue of certain maps known as Section One and Section Two of Meadowcreek Subdivision which maps were recorded and Plat Book 9, Page 345, in Plat Book 9, Page 305, es ectively, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit r p Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on September 5, 1984 and November 12, 1985, respectively, and that by reason of the nor recordation of said maps no report from a Board of Viewers'rt consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting grope y owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said right-of-way for drainage. 4 AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1988 RESOLUTION 82388-8.c REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF RED BARN LANE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM 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 Red Barn Lane, from the intersection with Route 1096 to the terminus at the cul-de-sac for a distance of 0.17 miles, to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code. 2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and a fifty ( 50 ) foot right-of-way for said road have been dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as Section 2, Little Tree Acres Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 322, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on May 14, 1985, and that by reason of the recordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers, nor consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said right-of-way for drainage. 3. That said road known as Red Barn Lane and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as public road to become a part of the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only 1 A" from and after notification of official acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation. On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: . ~~~~ ~~ Mar H. A len, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Phillip T. Henry, Director, Engineering Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections, and Copy for Virginia Department of Transportation 2 f 't ITEM NUMBER -~- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 23, 1988 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Red Barn Lane into the Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary System. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Elmer J. Craft, Jr., the developer of Section 2, Little Tree Acres, requests that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation requesting that they accept 0.17 miles of Red Barn Lane. The staff has inspected this road along with representatives of the Virginia Department of Transportation and find the road is acceptable. FISCAL IMPACT: No County funding is required. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff recommends that the Board approve a resolution to the Virginia Department of Transportation requesting that they accept Red Barn Lane into the Secondary Road System. SUBMITTED BY: ~x Phillip Henry, .E. Director of Engineering APPROVED: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator F~ ~s ~/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~y~~ ~/~ ~/J ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion bv: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers 2 .a ~ ~~ ,! . ,~ ~ .,~a qQ 90 ^-~"J_ VICINITY Mqp ~ e ~ ~.3 k. ~ ~° ~~ ~ ~. '~,`~ OG~ p 9.3 ye 7" ,s 7 00CS + r ~ v. A7 ~ . V ~. Q~ • AK IOek(DI / ~ s v 9~ ' a7JAC(0 b 30 s 9;6 ~ o~~ ~ a~ P`a ~" 9!S p,6~ p. 6 ~~ ~, nv 9.16 n 3+` ~~. 3L3 9~v 3 136 Ac. ~~ 417 ° nn t,' 312 l2sAc .I g t 10T Ac R 11 Q v ' ~ LSI K i „ 10 33.1 31.1 ' e i PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN IN YELLOW ~. DESCRIPTION: 331 1) Red Barn Lane from the intersection of Stoney 1.1'A Ridge Drive (Rt. 1096) to the cul-de-sac. 33 SI k LENGTH: (1) 0.17 Miles RIGHT OF WAY; (1) 50 Feet ROADWAY WIDTH: (1) 29 Feet SURFACE WIDTH: (1) 20 Feet SERVICE: (1) 6 Homes IMPROVEMENT NECESSARY: / RECOMMENDATION: i ~~ / ~?~. -z"- '`~ ''Q NORTH ,,,. >• ,, ,~ au 9.12 i AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1988 RESOLUTION REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF RED BARN LANE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM 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 Red Barn Lane, from the intersection with Route 1096 to the terminus at the cul-de-sac for a distance of 0.17 miles, to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code. 2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have been dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as Section 2, Little Tree Acres Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 322, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on May 14, 1985, and that by reason of the recordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers, nor consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said right-of-way for drainage. 3. That said road known as Red Barn Lane and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as public road to become a part of the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation. 4 82388-8.d ACTION N0. ITEM NUMBER MEETING OF THE BOARD OFTY UADMINIOTRA oONRCENOER AT A REGULAR COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COU MEETING DATE: August 23, 1988 roval of Raffle Permit for the AGENDA ITEM: Request for app Northside High School Band Boosters COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: d for a Raffle Permit to be The Northside Band held on November 4, Boosters kasha pe paid the $25.00 fee. 1988. They n The application has Commissioner of the been reviewed by R. Wayne Compto , Revenue and he recommends approval. /'~ Mary H.Allen Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Deputy Clerk -------------------------------- -------------------- VOTE Abs --------------------ACTION Yes No Approved ( ~ Motion by: Garrett x - Johnson x Denied ( ) McGraw x - Received ( ) Nickens x - Referred Robers x T o : _~- cc: File Bingo/Raffle File ~"' O~ ~O:,NO~~L ~ •~ ~ A Z c+ VIRGINIA z COUNTY OF ROANOKE, of :. d~ rasa COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO CONDUCT RAFFLES OR BINGO o ame or raffle permit. Application is hereby made for a Bing g and State laws, lication is made subject to all County or that may be This app and regulations now in force, the under- ordinances, rules, a reed to by enacted hereafter and which are hereby g licant and which shall be deemed a condition under signed app which this permit is issued. 11 a plicants should exercise llow mngcq e to ensure the accse . uestions. Bingo games A P cy of their responses to tregulated by Title 18.2-340.1 et. ~ inia Code, and by Section and raffles are strictly of the criminal statutes of the VirgCode. These laws authorize 4-86 et. se of the Roanoke County - t Board of Supervisors to conduct a reasonabThelBoardlhas the Coun Y ranting a bingo or raffle permit. the tion prior to g of an application to grant or deny sixty days from the filing or revoke the permit of any permit. The Board may deny, suspend, ization found not to be in strict compliance with county an organ state law. these county or state regulations concererson who Any person violating permits shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanooror raffles for any art of the gross receipts from bing community, uses any p ions, charitable, purpose other than the lawful relig eXpenses, shall Tonal purposes for which then eratingation is specifi- or educat - except for reasonable p cally organized, be guilty of a Class 6 felony. THIS APPLICATION IS FOR: (check one) RAFFLE PERMIT_ Name of Organi Street Address Address g C Mailing /~~ Yw wr1A1/C ~~ ~~_ City, State, Zip Code e of Organization n ~ '" ~r Purpose and Typ I When was the organization founded? ~¢ 1 Y BINGO GAMES ,..~-.~ • ~~~~1~/, • -- meeting place? 51 Roanoke County for two con- Has organization been 'n exi~tOence in Roanoke County tinuous years? YES~_ ------ ~ YES___~.__- NO~._ anization non-profit. Is the org - ~~ /!~ D Indicate Federal Identification Number # O[ Attach copy of IRS Tax Exemption letter. Officers of the Organization: A .. ~ _ ~ President: Address: ~~ 3 m ,~rJo~ A . + Secretary: Address: -- dice-President ~•~~ Address: ADD ~ /A • ~9 ~;. - ~ i~,4r~r;F OVEQST~~T' Treasurer ~ ~~ Address: ~ ~ ~ ~;~~vc A r authorized to be responsible for Raffle or Bingo opera- Membe tions: Name ~- ~~ -- ~g -~ ' IAA, a~ Home Address+ + ~nX ~ r ' TZ. X13 0~~-: G!~ Bus . Phone g ' °~~3 Phone TE LIST OF THE NAMES AND ADCATION S OF CURRENT MEMBE - A COMPLE SHIP MUST BE FURNISHED WITH THIS APPL o Game is to be conducted. Specific location where Raffle or Bing ~mE ~}-T dd ~~~ ~ ,~ ~/rlE of Drawing ® 3~ Time of Drawing q:00 ~.~ , RAFFLES. Date "f~ BINGO: Days of Week & Hours of Activity: Sunday ~-Monday ----Tuesday --Wednesday ~-Thursday ~-Friday ~-Saturday From _ To_______ ~ From _ To~_ _ From _ To___ __ F r om~ _ To------ F r om To_______ From~ _ From__ _ To____ 2 ~~.J State specifically how the proceeds used. Lisasin Useaestimatedeamounts the procee ITEMS Uniforms, supplies Entrance fees Transportation Front Camp fees Scholarships (2) Band equipment Recruitm°nt Newsletter Marching camp Handbook Student workshops t•iarching camp deP• TAI, from the Bingo/Raffle will be planned or intended use of if necessary. ~ 89 BUDGET 700.00 420.00 600.00 250.00 1000.00 1000.00 300.00 200.00 500.00 100.00 1000.00 1000.00 7070.00 WE pc.n~ -~ usE '~ P~c°e~cs ~ s~ ~ ~- ~p -I-h}E Iv027TI S%DE J'~"!bN ~CNA~ ~Pt-,.-~ 3 ~~ BINGO: Complete the following: ner(s) of the building where BINGO is to be conducted: Legal ow Name: Address: County the building owned by a 501-C non-profit organization?____. Is Seating capacity for each location: Parking spaces for each location:- - 19 FLE AND BINGO APPLICANTS MUST ANSWER QUESTIONS 1 of ALL RAF eration is from alo b° calendarlquardte o forep p or calen- l, Gross receip Bingo games or Instant Bing Y dar year period. INSTANT BINGO BINGO 1st Quarter 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Total Total violation of our organization understand that it is a associa- 2, Does Y erson or firm, or corporation of any classifica- law to enter into a a° tnership~th any p managing, or con- tion, organizatioforpthe purpose of organizing, tion whatsoever, ducting Bingo Games or Raffles? or anization understand that it muste~tainingato 3, Does your g is and disbursements P ect to file complete records of receip ames and Raffles, and that such recorgds are subs ningo g audit by the Commissioner of the Revenue. s our organization understand that the Commissioner o 0 o upon the premises 4, Doe Y ame or raffle, the Revenue or his designee has the right a Bingo g on which any organization is conducting unannounced audits, and to secure for audit all re- to perform o ames or raffles? cords required to be maintained for Bing g T State Zip~,_. 4 ~_L...-' anization understand that a Financial Report our org before 5• Does y must be filed with the Commiosfie h alendar yearnforowh ~ h a per- the first day of November mit has been issued? ross receipts ex- our organization understand that if quarter, an addi- 6, Does Y calendar q ceed fifty thousand dollars during any 'nancial Report must be fileoffsuchuquaQter?er no la er tional Fi the last daY than sixty days following ur organization understand automaticfrevocationlof -7, Does yo Bingo game financial reports when due an azat aria shall conduct an f i led and a the permit, and no such org ro erly or raffle thereaft ned?ntil such report is p P new permit is obtal r organization understand rified cunderaoath by Pthe g, Does you a Certificate, Ve ame or raffle must be accompanied bthat the proceeds of any Bingo g charitable, commu- Board of Directors, religious, ur oses for which the organization is sPe- have been used for these lawful, eration of Bingo nity, or educational P anized, and that the oP rovisions of cifically chartered or org ames or raffles have been in accordance with t e Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia?-~~ g ter 8, Article 1.1 of Chap or anization understand that a one percent audit aid to the County of Roanoke g• Does your g is must be p fee of the gross receip art due on or before upon submission ber?he annual financial rep the first of Novem ermit is valid anization understand that this P and for 10. Does your org at such locations, only in the County of Roanoke and onlYermit application? such dates, as are designated in the p erson, except a anization undanizationhwhonshall have been a 11. Does your org riot to such org days P bona fide member of any ement, opera- member of such organization for atelensthelmanag shall particip and no person - such participation, bingo game or raffle, ating in management, tion, or conduc remuneration for particip shall receive any such game or raffle? ES operation, or conduct of any ermit our organization attachedle toe he Countyaof Roanoke, 12. Has y fee in the amount of 525.00 paya Virginia? anization found 13. Does your organization understand tffle Ordinance or §18.2 Bingo and Ra- this permit is subject in violation of the County inia authorizing shareholder, agent, 340.10 of the Cedmitfrevoked and any person, to having such p e nt, em loyee of such organization who shareholder a ag e o member or P erson, having such permit revoked and any P em loyee of such organizaioon~who violates the a ove member •r r be guilty of a fe Y referenced Codes may 5 .~= 5 anization attached a complete list of its member- 14. Has your org ship to this application form? r anization attached a copy of its bylaws to this 15. Has your o g application form? t from pro erty taxa- 16. Has the organization be~itdtionror statutes? ~~ roperty, tion under the Virginia Cons for real, personal P state whether exemption is If yeS- exempt property. or both and identify ur ose of the ganization 17 . State the spec i f icy, tYPe, and P~ P NoN- F~ ~ A~f~- ~'}T~ w A A ~ 11 ~ ~ ~ I~i~UL i a? ~~ lg. Is this organizaress ofcReg~stered1Agentgln _~ If yes, name an~ ad inia Department istered with the Virg itable 19. Is the organization reg ursuant to the Ch of AgricultuseAc~d Sectione57A48 of the Virginia Code? 0 Solicitation of registration.) (If so, attach copy istration ranted an exemption from reg Has the organization been g riculture and Consumer Affairs? by th Virginia Department of A of exemption.) (If so, attach copy AppLICANTS DESCRIBE THE ~TARIZATION.O BE RAFFLED, ALL RAFFLE AND PROCEED TO N VALUE OF SUCH ARTICLES, Fair Market Value Article Description ~ Z ~ CND ~~°~ ~ ~O o0 -r~i~ ~ ado S~. ~~ ~~. Z i ~ 'C.~iGq,~ CZ ~ i6H~1s) .- Ex~~IsE 1~loN~y ~~ ~~ ~p~- ~ ~ 3 ~~ 6 CANTS MUST ANSWER QUESTIONS 20 - 27 BEFORE ALL BINGO APPLI NOTARIZATION RAFFLE APPLICANTS, GO TO NOTARIZATION. anization understand that the bingo games shall our or9 uently than two calendar days in any 20, Does Y not be conducted more freq calendar week? uired to keep 1, Does your organization understaThesearecords based on §1 Code 2 fete records of the Bing n aama d § 4 . 9 8 o f Roanoke County comp 3 4 0~ 6includee thedfollowingg mus quantity, and card value of instan a. A record of the date, as well as the name andanddwritten bingo supplies purchased, o supplies, the supplier of such insta u rednfor each purchase of in- invoice or receipt is also req stant bingo supplies? of the dates on which Bingo is played, and the b, A record in writing he number of people in attendance on each da e- t is and prizes on each day? amount of receip ears.) (These records must be retained for three Y ndividual to whom a c, p, record of the name and address of eac 1 ecial Bingo game prize or jackpot door prize, regular or sp from the playing of Bing° is awarded? is and disburand lete and itemized record of all rec the quarterly d. A comp Wort, and that agree with, ments which suP~ be filed, and that these records uired to ermit audit?~_ annual reports req must be maintained in reasonable order to stant Bingo may only in ular Bingo game is in progress, 22. Does your orgchltameoasuregstand tha ecifled in be conducted at su d only at such locations and at such times as are s an this application? is in anization understand that the gross receip 23, Does your org ear from the playing of instant Bingo re orting Y ross receipts of an organization's the course of a P not exceed 33 1/3~ of the g may Bingo operation? r anization understand it may not sell an instan 24. Does your o g ears of age? Bingo card to an individual below sixteen Y t an organization whose 25, Does your organization understand tha have been from all bingo operations thaea~xshadlor are ex- gross receipts calendar y pected to exceedt$st ~~Opursuan to Section 501- C of the Unite granted tax exemp States InatenmusRebenattachedc)~ (Certific 7 ~~ s our organization understanWhichtauthorizesctbis usOecat 26. Doe Y pancy must be obtained or be on fi e the proposed location? rize money 27, Does your organization understand that awards ° amounts are or merchandise valued in excess of the following illegal? rize shall exceed twenty-five dollars. a. No door p re ular Bingo or special Bingo game shall exceed One Hun - b. No g red dollars. t of any nature whatsoever shaackpotepaio es Tawarded c, No jackpo Dollars, nor shall the texceedmOnetThousand Dollars. in any one calendar day * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ATION: THE FOLLOWING OATH MUST BE TAKEN BY ALL NOTARIZ pppLICANTS enalties of perjury as set I hereby swear or affirm under theinia, that all of the ab and forth in §18.2 of the Code of Virg knowledge, information, statements are trteons havebbeenoanswered. beliefs. All ques oa,~/~Q11JT ~,~~ Signed by: S~~~J 'TT~,~` V~ tle ~- Name ~abscribed and sworn before me, M- commission expires: 1 19~ , 7 Home AauLC~~ day 19~_ this f--~ ~_---; -------~ Notary Public PLEASE RETURN THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION T0: R. Wayne Compton, Commissioner of the Revenue p, O, Box 20409 Roanoke, VA 24018-0513 8 NOT VALID UNLESS COUNTERSIGNED having been found in due form, is approved The above application, and issued to the applicant to have effect until December 31st o .~ this calendar year. ~ ~'- I~ ~~ '' ~.; .~ ommiss oner of th Revenue Date The above application is not approved. - Commissioner of the Revenue Date 9 ~~~ COUI~Fi'Y OF ROANOKE, VIRGINL'~ CAPITAL FUND - UNAPPROPRLA'PED BAT.,ANCF~ Beginning Balance at July 1, 1988 $ 1,637 50,000 Additional Amount from 1988-89 Budget Balance as of August 26, 1988 Submitted by ~~~~.~ Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance 51 637 ~~ •~.... COCTNTY QF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE - GIIVERAL FAD Tlnaudited Amount at July 1, 1988 $1,380,346 August 9, 1988 Dixie Caverns Landfill Cleanup (400 000) Balance as of August 26, 1988 ' 980 346 The recommended level for fund balance for 1988-89 is $1,748,124, which is 3 percent of the total General Fund budget. Submitted by ~~.~-n~ ~• ~4~ Diane D. Hyatt ;/ Director of Finance COUNTY OF ROANpKE, VIRGINIA RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY Original Budget at July 1, 1988 June 28, 1988 $50,000 Funding of Length of Service Benefit for Volunteer Fire, Rescue, and Auxiliary Sheriff's Deputies July 26, 1988 (9,000) Ztaeed's Access Road Balance as of August 26, 1988 (39,405) -- 1-.595 Su~nitted by Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance ACTION N0. 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: August 23, 1988 AGENDA ITEM: Report on Meals Tax COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Meals Tax Ordinance has now been in effect since July 1, 1988. I have asked Commissioner of the Revenue Wayne Compton to be present at the meeting and update the board on the process. Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator -------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: Yes No Abs Denied ( ) Garrett Received ( ) Johnson Referred McGraw To• Nickens Robers O~ ROANp~.~G /~' ,.. z ~° . ~ ~,~~~~~ ~ Z ~~ o ~ a ~~~~~ J ..:. YEAPS OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENU 18 150 8a ~~ SF`sQUiCENTENN~ DANA D. LONG A Beautiful Beginning BUSINESS LICENSE AUDITOR M E M O R A N D U M T0: Elmer C. Hodge, Jr., County Administrator FROM: Dana D. Long DATE: August 23, 1988 SUBJECT: Tax on Prepared Food and Beverages our request, I have compiled the amounts of revenue Per y 1988. Along with the collected to date for the month of July orts already received and withthhs °evenuetwillabedbetween rep mail, we expect that the first mon $100,000 and $120,000. office is running smoothly with the handling and collection Our es. However, as you may of the Tax on Prepared Food and there ghas been a great deal of have read in the newspaper, uirement for the confusion with the "consumed on premises" req com anies that have take-out and drive-througohblemso to helpain p rovision working with the companies that have test ng that this p any way that we can. We are also Bugg. so that be changed in the next sessuotable,h easieratoAadminister, and this tax will be more eq ~s tax. compatible with Roanoke City If I may provide additional informeta~n772-2015f further service, please do not hesitate to contact P.O. BOX 20409 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2401E-0513 (703) 772-2075 p~TP CORPORATION C! `" D / PEPITIONER: RQANOICE LAND DEVF'd,O CASE DER: 36-7/88 Commission Hearing ~~~ July 5, 1988 Planning ~~; July 26, 1988 Board of Supervisors Hearing A' g~UEST to rezone a 1.489 acre tract f ram R-1, Petition of Roanoke Land Develo~nent Corp. _5 Residential to construct to(Ro tes689)aand Pleasant Hill Residential to R northwest of the intersection of Roselawn oa in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District. Drive (Route 1552) B, CITIZEN PARTICIPATION resent in opposition. Mr. and rt and approximately 60 P William Beane, There were three in suppo David Palmer. Peter Crafts, in~patible Mrs. Lew Bowling, Messrs. Will Estes, Hale voiced their concerns: may lead to William Wood, Ms. Cindy if project is approved, Douglas Huff, traffic congestion; Brous intersection; with the neighborhood; overload on the schools; dang townhomes in much density on a small lot; too many more townhome valueshetoo ea; 250 signatures was 1~,,1er property p, petition of opposition containing southwest county • fission. presented to the Cat~[n C. SIGNIFICAN`r IMPACT FACTORS to travel rade at entrance gives way to 12~-14~ climb up A 5$ g This segment of road o ° s~ 1, Circulation: facing proposed dwellings. lane immediately nt at maximum rom at least four foot increase eachlend of thl.sesegme~tly P ma benefit f rovided on 20 feet. Turnarounds must be p ce at northwest terminus possible widths. Very limited tur vehiclesS~ roblems for emergency present access p to interior Protection: Within established service stands ssure~s a ~uate. 2, Fire r en vehicles. Fire flow p turnaround areas for one g ~ to interior turnaround 3, Rescue: Within establisied•Service standard• Inadequa areas for emergency vehic D. PROFF~D CONDITIONS sit will not exceed 12 units to be constructed on 1.4 1. Total project den Y acres. the s~ject property and shall be arranged so as to light o~-Y 2. Site lighting 10 feet in height. no interior light poles will excel ordinance. All screening and buffering shall be in accord with County 3. limited to one 32 sq.ft. installation. No outdoor billboar 4. Signage shall be advertising shall occur on site. lan of Marsh, to be developed in substantial conforn-ity with the site p 5. Site P.C. Witt & Martin, AND RF,A.SON E. CpN1NIISSIONIIt' S MOTION, ~`E roff eyed conditions stating his the petition with P ro sed density should be Mr. Gordon moved to deny roll call vote: concern with current tra~scdefeated with the followp g ~ scaled down • 'I"he motion AYES; Gordon ~yS; Robinson, Winstead p,BSENr : None ABSTAIN: Witt (conflict of interest) F• DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE rehensive Plan ro sal is consistent with thenfC-~P esses before Mr. Winstead stated that nsibil~Y to ensure the safety ro sal is a quality and that ltan en~ a1nce permit. Mr. Robinson noted that the P Po approving project. G. ATTACHNIEI~TrS V Concept Plan ($~" x 11") Vicinity Map (8~" x 11") Staff Report ~~~~ Other : G <~'~%~"`„ ~" Dale Castellaw, Alternate Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission - 2 - ~-x 'I~IIII~Id .. ~ t -, it I N d I ~ ~ O •• = L ° ~ ~ .a C . ~ ,. ... _ ~ _ u m N ~- -- - ~_ ~ j _ _ 0 ~ i - r - n ja. v ~_ ~ o o p m - I I~ ~ *. ... _..a G U o ~ ' r- ~~ - N - ,\ W ~ \ - ~ ~ I ~ ~l W - < - - _ ~ I I a ~ ~o; .~i= ~ _ °+°' :~ p . ~ ~~... ~ J , I ~ o ~s 6 L ~ ~. -_ ~tl ~ i _ _ f _ _ ~. i r, - t '~' .~-.a •-~r• ~ . °°c°oom ' ~~". Q Y 1 ~'~ - 5 J ~ i ~ r U ~- . _ _ ~ f~ ~ ~ s ~ m _ _ i I ~ / 1.: i ~ .s _ - r .s ' ~ ~'i~ - a 1 ~at o __ r, '_~` d~ ~i3 _t~ ~'g ~s~~-~ O sJnRTu .~ - Roanoke Land Development Corp 1`~ Y ROANOKE COUNTY Rezoning R-1 to F.- 5 a DEPARTMENT OF DEVE~OPMEtdT 'I'as Map 11 86.08-4-21 ~~ Y ll~ll\l t I Ilttlt STAFF REPORT g~~~~ / CASE NUMBER• 36-7/88 PETITIONER: ROANOKE LAND DEVELOPMENT CORP DATE: JULY 5, 1988 PREPARED BY: TIM BEARD Petition of Roanoke Land Development Corp. to rezone a 1.489 acre tract from R-1, Residential to R-5, Reside~sectio~ ofnRoselawnoRoadm(Route 689a immediately northwest of the int isterial and Pleasant Hi11 Drive (Route 1552) in the Windsor Hi11s Mag District. ].. NATURE OF REQUEST each containing a. Conditio f sixeugnits ono individual lotsbfordsale. a total o b. Attached concept plan and vicinity map describe project more fully. 2. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS a. R-5 district permits townhouse construction and units for sa e. b. Site plan review will be required to ensure compliance with County regulations. c. VDOT commercial entrance permit will be required. 3. SITE CHARACTERISTICS a. Topography: Property slopes moderately downhill from nort o south . b. Ground Cover: Completely grassed with a few scattered deciduous and evergreen trees. 4. AREA CHARACTERISTICS Situated within the Windsor Hills a. Future Growth Priority: rowth area; Community Planivi n urban servi ces.ted as a stable g currently rece g b. General area is developedonalhandnofficemand retaaln commercial a limited extent, institut uses. 5, LAND USE IMPACT ASSESSMENT to the impact of the proposea Rating: Rate each factor according action. Use a scale of 1 through 5. = mana eable impact, 1 = positive impact, 2 = negligible impacand3N/A = not applicable. 4 = disruptive impact, 5 = severe impact, COMMENTS RATING FACTOR LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ment Plan has 2 a. Comprehensive Plan: 1985 Comprehensive Develop This placed this area within a Development land use categ ri yaensity designation limits development of mrpdoposedhdensity of residential (6-12 units per acre). development is 8.1 units per acre. 3 b. Surrounding Land: Single family residential, institutional, and _ retail commercial. _ 5 2 3 1 2 3 2 2 4 c. Neighboring Area: Single family office and retail commercial. ~-~ ~~= / residential, institutional, and out• Proffered concept plan complies with basic ment d. Site Lay ecif led by the townhouse develop design criteria as sp e will be ordinance. Screening and buffering aeaificndgmensional developed as proffered. VDOT requires sprior to acceptance of layouts and drainage design be completed p entrance at US 221. e. Architecture: Colonial Williamsburg style; brick exterior with cedar shake roofing; varied front setbacks and double garages. f. Screening and Landscape: Per ordinance. Amenities: Individual courtyards and separating brick screen g, rivate walls in addition to architectura~aleespaceseanaadditional to parking is abundant (24 total g g ro osed. driveways); however no common parking is p A h. Natural Features• Moderate slope (10$ to 14$) is consistent from northwest to southeast throughout the tract. TRAFFIC i. Street Capacities: 1986 ADT for Pleasant Hill Drive (V US 5221 was 93 vehicles; Roselawn Road (VA 689) 1,541 vehicles; ooted 10,100 vehicles. Anticipated87dfitureslindi~atedU7 r2epis 7 vehicle trip ends per day. 19 g accidents occurred within 0.1 mile north and south of the VA 689 US 221 intersection. rade at entrance gives way to 12$-14~ climb Circulation: A 5~ g ro osed dwellings. This J- up to travel lane immediately facing p p segment of road would benef~ot osed 20tfeet t fTurna~ounds must in width from the currently p p ment at maximum possible be provided on each end of this acegat northwest terminus may widths. Very llroblemsuforremeagepcy vehicles. present access p - UTILITIES - 2 ~ k. Water: Adequate source and distribution. H ressure creducsing will require owner to install individual p valves: 2 1. Sewer- Adequate treatment and transmission. DRAINAGE 2 m. Basin: Mud Lick Creek; no problems noted. ortion of subject property lies within a 2 n, Floodplain: No p federally designated floodplain. PUBLIC SERVICES Fire Protection: Within established service sV hiales. 4 0. _ Inadequate inte~eois adequatend areas for emergency Fire flow pressu 4 p, Rescue: Within establishedne~eency vehiclesard. Inadequate interior turnaround areas for 6 - g .~.. rb. c"~ ~'",,"~~ q, Parks and Recreation: No common on-site recreation facilities proposed. r. School: If 12 townhouse units are built, it may be anticipated that there will be two school age resEdtimated Ccostrof educating Cave Spring High is near capacity. two children per year is $7,430 of which $3-592 is locally funded. The difference between total local cost and total revenue is +$14,118. 3 2 TAX BASE 2 s. - Land and Improvement Value: Estimated $1,540,000 - Taxable Gross Sales/Year: None - Total Employees: None roximately $17,710; - Total revenue to the County/Year: App new revenue $17,250 2 ENVIRONMENT t. Air: 2 u. Water: 2 v. Soils: 2 w. Noise: 2 x. Signage: One 32 square foot sign proffered. 6. PLAN CONSISTENCY This area is designated as Development. Petioti oceeS sD rlq(manage consistent with the land use plan map and with p acit ); D-2 new residential growth through public service cap Y (encourage innovation in re ald development hen exceptional housDng (permit attached resident ~ to ed to achieve design and site planning techniques are emp Y compatibility); and D-9 (provide direct access to an arterial street where a project significantly increases density compareolico surrounding neighborhood). The proposal is inconsistent with p Y D-7 (provide park and recreational facilities for new community residents). 7. STAFF EVALUATION rovide an arterial street. (2) a. Strengths: (1) Proposal willoPicies D-1, D-2, D-8 and D-9. Proposal is consistent with p (3 ) Petitioner has proffered developmentroffered Signage conformity with site plan. (4) Petitioner has P coffered limited to 32 square f eetordinanceiti(6~rPetitponer has screening and buffering p ro erty and maximum pole proffered lighting of only the subject p p heights of 10 feet. (7) Petitioner ha:~ proffered density not to exceed 12 units on 1.48 acres. b. Weaknesses: (1) No common open space or recreational facfacing are provided. (2) Proposed brick drive immediately townhouses is only 20 roolems aoraemergen y vehicles terminus presents possible access p c. Proffers Suggested: (1) Widen proposed paved brick drive as needed and provide maximum possible width turnarounds at each end of proposed paved brick dr~ e- VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY A 1 .48 acre parcel of land, ) generally located at the northwestern) intersection of Route 221 and ) easan ~lindsorv~i lsose awn ) within the Magisterial District, and > recorded as parcel #86.08-4-21 ) in the Roanoke County Tax Records. ) RE(1DATION TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: $SS-/ WHEREAS, your Petitioner Roanoke Land Development Corporation has filed with the Secretary to the Planning Commission a petition to rezone the R-1 , Residential District above-referenced parcel of land fran to R-5 Townhouses District for the purpose of developing a townhouse environment consistin of twelve (12) units. WHEREAS, the petition was referred to the Planning Cannission which, after due legal notice as required by Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as 5 July lg 88 ; and amended, did hold a public hearing on 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 rec.-a~cu~nded to the Board of County Supervisors that the rezoning be approved With i roffered conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Conrtnission reco[r~mends to the Board of County Supervisors that the above-referenced parcel of land be rezoned from R-1, Residential to R-5 Residential The above action was adopted on motion of Mike Gordon to deny and upon the following recorded vote: Aye; Gordon ~'yS' Winstead, Robinson Respectf lly submitted, ABSENT : (~ ~~'~Q,~c2ll ABSTAIN: Witt Alternate Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY A 1 ' 48 acre parcel of land, ) generally located at the northwestern ) intersection of ou e an P1Pasant Hill nrivP at- RnSPlawn) within the Windsor Hills ) FINAL ORDER 00 Magisterial District, and ) ~ recorded as parcel # 86.08-4-21 ) in the Roanoke County Tax Records. ) c'G ~~l~-~ 'Ib THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUN`T'Y: H Z W F' WHEREAS, your Petitioner Roanoke Land Development Corporation 2 ~ did petition the Board of County Supervisors to rezone the above-referenced parcel ~ from R-l, Residential District to R-5, Townhouses District H ~ for the purpose of developing a townhome environment consisting of A twelve (12) units. w 0 x WHEREAS, after due legal notice, the Planning Commission did hold a public a a ~ hearing of the petition on 5 July 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 August 23, 19 88 the Board of Countyy Supervisors determined that the rezoning be approved on August 23, 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 86.0 8-4 -21 and recorded in Deek Book Page and legally described below, be rezoned from R-1 , Residential District to R-5 , Townhouses District. - 8 - Legal Description of Property: A tract of land, containing 1.498 acres, C. L. and Mary Ann Arthur by David Dick, of which map is of record in the Clerk's the County of Roanoke, Virginia in Deed ~~ as shown on a map prepared for dated September 25, 1965, a copy Office of the Circuit Court for Book 1203, Page 240. Being the same property conveyed to Aubrey G. Nichols and Elizabeth R. Nichols by deed dated February 7, 1984 from Delma B. Young and Mary B. Young, husband and wife, of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1203, page 239. See Attached Survey Plat 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 N ickens and upon the following. recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors McGraw, Nickens, Robers NAYS: Supervisors Garrett, Johnson ABSENT: None ~. ~~~ Deputy ,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 - 9 - VIRGINIA: 13EF~RE `I'HI~, 130ARD O[~ SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUN`T'Y A 1.48 acre pa rcel of land, ) generally located at the northwestern ) intersection of Route 221 and Pleasant) Hi~lnl.llr've at Roselawn wi` in tlhe Windsor Hills ) Magisterial District, and ) recorded as parcel # 86.08-4-21 ) PROFFER OF (Yl~iTIT TT (1 ~l~ `dP~- J in the Roanoke County Tax Records. ) TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUPITY: H Z w H z O U O H w O a a a Being in accord with Sec. 15.1-491.1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia and Sec. 21-1'J5E of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, the Petitioner Roanoke Land Development Corporation 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. Total project density will not exceed 12 units to be constructed on 1.48 acres. 2. Site lighting shall be arranged so as to light only the subject property and no interior light poles will exceed 10 feet in height. 3. A11 screening and buffering shall be in accord with County ordinance. 4. Signage shall bP limited to one 32 sq.ft. installation. No outdoor billboard advertising shall occur on site. 5. Site to be developed in substantial conformity with the site plan of Marsh, Witt & Martin, P.C. Respectfully suE~nitted, ~"~ l°`" ~~ G~-~ ~~~ ~- ~ -- Pekitioner ' ~~ R.~ ~ - 10 - ~ ~~-/ VIRGINIA: 13EFbRE '1'HI~ BOARD OF SUPL•'RVISORS OF ROANOKE COUN'T'Y A 1.48 acre parcel of land, ) generally loa~t~~d at the northwestern ) intersection of Route 221 and Pleasant) Wi~liDrtihuP at Roselawn Windsor Hills ) Magisterial District, and ) recorded as parcel tt 86.08-4-21 ) in the Roanoke County Tax Records. ) `IlD THE HONO,RABGE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: PROFFER OF mrmrTrnnrc Being in accord with Sec. 15.1-491.1 et seq. of the Code of Virginia and Sec. 21-LOSE of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, the Petitioner Roanoke Land Development Corporation Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virgini rezoning of the above-referenced parcel of land: hereby voluntarily proffers to the a the following conditions r_o the 1. Total project density will not exceed 12 units to be constructed on 1.48 acres. 2. Site lighting shall be arranged so as to light only the subject property and no interior light poles will exceed 10 feet in height. 3. All screening and buffering shall be in accord with .County ordinance.. 4. Signage shall be limited to one 32 sq.ft. installation. No o>>tdoor biiiboard advertising shall occur on site. . 5. Site to be developed in substantial conformity with the site plan of Marsh, Witt & Martin, P.C. „L,;fBg 6. Site Developement shall incorporate all reasonable access and turn around ~`9 improvements as may appear necessary to county official during the site plan review process. Respectfully sukxnitted, ~~ ~~ , /~~ Pet i t i ~~ner ~- -~---------- .~, c `-T A P P E A R A N C E R E Q U E S T _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PUBLIC HEARING ON Y-- J A,~ ~ tC,~, ~'~Fl- 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: ~i LL., l/~' ~ ~-S ADDRESS : ~ ! ~ C~~t~ ~ ~2~~~ l..-C.12... PHONE: ~ v i- PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy Clerk. Thank you.) ~'~~-/ A P P E A R A N C E A,. ~ _ ~~, PUBLIC HEARING ON ~ R E Q U E S T ~: 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; ~ ~ ~~ ~~.- ~~ ,: ~~~~ 9RF ~~~ A ~~ PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy Clerk. Thank you.) y ~ ~~ ~ A P P E A R A N C E R E Q U E S T PUBLIC HEARING ON ~ ~ c~S 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: M ~~ ADDRESS : _ ~~Cj' ~i ~f'~ ~~ ~/~1(J~ }~d~-Nb,~~ , VA~, PHONE: ~7~--q,~y~ PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy Clerk. Thank you.) s~~-i ~ PETITIO N TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS We, the undersigned residents of the Cave Spring and Windsor Hills Magisterial Districts, who are affected freeholders and qualified voters, do hereby petition against townhouses being built on the corner of Route 221 and Roselawn Road, SW and Pleasant Hill Drive. We are opposed to a re-zoning request by the Roanoke Land Development Co. to change the present R-1 designation to R-5, allowing multi-family development in an area that has traditionally maintained single family residence investment and security. We feel this one and a half acre, 12 townhome development will create a personal hazard for pedestrians, increase traffic congestion at this hazardous intersection, increase elementary and junior high school over-enrollment and decrease property evaluations in the area, at the present time until Rte. 221 is widened as planned. NAME ADDRESS TEL. NO ~-~~ ~ G.1 ~: r ~ ~ h ~~~ ~~ ~ ~.,, /,~~C,e~ l~ ~~ ~-v~ i ~.. 5--x'0 ~o~G~~l N !~ ~ ~~ ~ f-G ~l~v ~3s SUuvY~ D~. `?~(, /~aYl.~ ~f i,~ l~r . ~ ~ g~-?~eZ~ ~~y - o .~~ ~~ ~ `l~ ~' ~~~~ ~~ / yr PETITION TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS We, the undersigned residents of the Cave Spring and Windsor Hills Magisterial Districts, who are affected freeholders and qualified voters, do hereby petition against townhouses being built on the corner of Route 221 and Roselawn Road, SW and Pleasant Hill Drive. We are opposed to a re-zoning request by the Roanoke Land Development Co. to change the present R-1 designation to R-5, allowing multi-family development in an area that has traditionally maintained single family residence investment and security. We feel this one and a half acre, 12 townhome development will create a personal hazard for pedestrians, increase traffic congestion at this hazardous intersection, increase elementary and junior high school over-enrollment and decrease property evaluations in the area, at the present time until Rte. 221 is widened as planned. _'~ - ~ ~~ ~ ~--373 C~L~a vl; ~~ ~ ~ 77~ - ~~~~ ~:~C.XJ.-~ri-R~cih~ ~~~ Y~ ~-C . ~ ~.-- ADDRESS ~ ,; / ~ 1 / f/ / f~; ~~~''' """ 'y j f>` ~~.G/~~~ i y G (, ~ /p TEL NO / ' ~ ~ ~' : ~,~~~~~t2~ _.- t-yE/ NAME '' ' _ JI ~ ~`l i i ~., ~~ ! ~ ~ ~~ ' ~_ _ ~/ 9 1, d Y., ~4i~ ~~ ~ ~`f~ ~~'ia_r~ '~7`~_ 3~ ~-~~ ~~ ~~ ~ PETITION TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS We, the undersigned residents of the Cave Spring and Windsor Hills Magisterial Districts, who are affected freeholders and qualified voters, do hereby petition against townhouses being built on the corner of Route 221 and Roselawn Road, SW and Pleasant Hill Drive. We are opposed to a re-zoning request by the Roanoke Land Development Co. to change the present R-1 designation to R-5, allowing multi-family development in an area that has traditionally maintained single family residence investment and security. We feel this one and a half acre, 12 townhome development will create a personal hazard for pedestrians, increase traffic congestion at this hazardous intersection, increase elementary and junior high school over-enrollment and decrease property evaluations in the area, at the present time until Rte. 221 is widened as planned. NAME ADDRESS TEL. NO / j (i= ~ 7~~r ~~~ ~'' %~ J ~ ~,, ~-~' ~z ~,~ fr, /~L~ ~~'~~v I ~a ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ /J /,/' ~~ Zc-l~-~ ~~~~.~~~ ~Ti ~~~~ -Lr ~~ r'' s~o ~D~~~~ b ~ ~~_~ ~lv ~3~ SU~uvYa~ ~~ ~y~~ ~~,~~~~~~ ~~. aZ ~~~ ~~C .~~. ~ ~ l ~'~1 - U~'~'~ ~~y - d ~~ ~~ ~~ ~.~ ~`~~~ ~v~ p~ ~- ~, ~ ~ /i ~~~~ ~~s- l ~~~~53 ~S 1' I{'1'I"1'I O N TO THG ROANOI{E CODN`fY PLnNNING C0~9AlISSION AND [IOARD Oi' SUPI~.RVISORS We, the undersigned residents of the Cave Spring and 11'indsor hills Magisterial Districts, who are affected freeholders and qualified voters, do hereby petition against townhouses being built on the corner of Route 221 and Roselawn Road, SW and Pleasant llill Drive. We are opposed to a re-zoning request by the Roanoke Land Development Co. to change the present R-1 designation to H-S, allowing multi-family development in an area that has traditionally maintained single family residence investment and security. LVe feel this one and a half acre, 1`l townhome development will create a personal hazard for pedestrians, increase U•nffic congestion at this haazardous intersection, increase elementary and junior high school over-enrollment and decrease property evaluations in the area, at the present time until Rte. 221 is widened as planned. N.AQME .. ~.~ n~_: V / ~ Gzt--f ~C. / ~ ? ~_ ~~ _ ~ ') ~f~-~~n~ ., ~ `~,, ~j~, ~~= ~; n ~~ ~ p~/~ 4 ~ ~ ~ c y, c -\\~c~ ,~ ~, r, ~'~~ '~_~ nnnRrSS '1'GL. NO r~ ~/- -5 ,~I } '°r ~ ~ ~ , 5 1 -~- _) .~ z, ~ ~ ~~ia r~ r r~.' ~,~~ l~ `~~`~,- tC~`~ '~'~ ~i - ~G <~ l ~" ~ ~-. - , - _, ~ ,- .y ~..~-vim ~: L- ~-~~ s-,.L ~ ~ _' ~ , C '~ , ~' . ~ ~ _~ tJ. • ~~~~ ~ (_: ~..y"~.~ C,~-~, 5~ ~ ~ Cpl-,cy~~~ i,~~ , ,; :~ ~~ ~~ / v (-` ~~ ~c~ - ~ y ~` .3 L ~, >> f ~~~ t~ v C~~ 1' 1:•rrl'1c~ rr TO THE I20AN01<h COUN'T'Y PLANNING COMMISSION ANll t30ARl_) OP SUPT{ftV1SOItS We, the undersigned residents of the Cxve Spring and Windsor hills Magisterial Districts, who are affected freeholders and qualified voters, do hereby petition against townhouses being built on the corner of Route 221 and Roselawn Ttoad, SW and Pleasant hill Drive. 1Ne are opposed to a re-zoning request by the Roanoke Land Development Co. to change the present R-1 designation to R-5, allowing multi-family development in an area that has traditionally maintained single family residence investment and security. We feel this one and a half acre, 12 townhome development will create a personal hazard for pedestrians, incret~se traffic congestion at this hnzardous intersection, increase cle m entary and junior high school over-enrollment and decrease property evaluations in the ACCA, at the. present time Untll Rte. 221 is widened as planned. ~, NAM11C ~ ~~~~ ~~:. ~~~~ ~~~~ ADDRESS '['iil,. NO - - - -- ~ ~ 7 ~ Cla ~ p~o~~,,a,~. ~~ ~ 8 ~ `~ 7~~0 ~7~7 ~ ~. q~~~78 ~b ~~~~ ~. ~ ti~e~ I i I PETITI O N TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS We, the undersigned residents of the Cave Spring and Windsor Hills Magisterial Districts, who are affected freeholders and qualified voters, do hereby petition against townhouses being built on the corner of Route 221 and Roselawn Road, SW and Pleasant Hill Drive. We are opposed to a re-zoning request by the Roanoke Land Development Co. to change the present R-1 designation to R-5, allowing multi-family development in an area that has traditionally maintained single family residence investment and security. We feel this one and a half acre, 12 townhome development will create a personal h;~zard for pedestrians, increase traffic congestion at this hazardous intersection, increase elementary and junior high school over-enrollment and decrease property evaluations in the area, at the present time until Rte. 221 is widened as planned. NAME ADDRESS TEL. NO ~~ ~~ ~, ~~~o ~~ ~ ~ ~03~ Yb'3 --~ ~ 953 °~1 ~ }- ~A.a~~si ~ ~ l ~'~ --~_. --- i' ~,!'~, f. ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~. '~ C..., . '~ 1 , a €r 1Y ~~~ ~, _~ - ~ . , ~ i, ~ '~ : -~ F ~'.. r ~ r c iY~1 ~ / ~- r r ~ ~--;,'~• ` ~ ~ ~ r ~~ ,, ~ ~~ r ~, .f ",r, ~ ~1 _ Z V 'x ~ ~ ~ { l r~._. ~ ~ ~ i ~ - .r °"~ ~ `( 7 ~ .~----~-_ ~~ I-l ' _-N l ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ !! ~, r j .. s r "~ __ j ,rte'°'`.. __. .. i 1 ~ {~ ~ ~ - x ,~ ~i ~~~~ r , ~~,". _ _ ~- ~ ,. ,. t t C l ({ j, '~~ `,~ ,, ~'rr~.~' ;~ i T. y. ~_ ~. f . ~ ~~ ~ ~ . j,c. a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r . ~ J ~~ ,:. T~ , ~ J _ _ ~ . _ v~ , ~, PETITIO N TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS We, the undersigned residents of the Cave Spring and Windsor Hills Magisterial Districts, who are affected freeholders and qualified voters, do hereby petition against townhouses being built on the corner of Route 221 and Roselawn Road, S4V and Pleasant Hill Drive. We are opposed to a re-zoning request by the Roanoke Land Development Co. to change the present R-1 designation to R-5, allowing multi-family development in an area that has traditionally maintained single family residence investment and security. We feel this one and a half acre, 12 townhome development will create a personal hazard for pedestrians, increase traffic congestion at this hazardous intersection, increase elementary and junior high school over-enrollment and decrease property evaluations in the area, at the present time until Rte. 221 is widened as planned. NAME ADDRESS TEL. NO ~~ ~' ~~~=~ Grp ~ ~ ~~~~ . ~~~, ~:~ '~~. ~~ , @ .~~~ ~' -- ~. ~ ~~ ~..~ ~ ~ ~-~- _ '~ ~~~ j ,, PETITIO N TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS We, the undersigned residents of the Cave Spring and Windsor Hills Magisterial Districts, who are affected freeholders and qualified voters, do hereby petition against townhouses being built on the corner of Route 221 and Roselawn Road, SW and Pleasant Hill Drive. We are opposed to a re-zoning request by the Roanoke Land Development Co. to change the present R-1 designation to R-5, allowing multi-family development in an area that has traditionally maintained single family residence investment and security. We feel this one and a half acre, 12 townhome development will create a personal hazard for pedestrians, increase traffic congestion at this hazardous intersection, increase elementary and junior high school over-enrollment and decrease property evaluations in the area, at the present time until Rte. 221 is widened as planned. AM ADDRESS TEL. NO ` ~~ ~~~ ~ V E ~~ ~ l c G~~-~- ~~~~ a- ~i ~:e, l~'/~c?~ ~~I~1- ~ ~z -1. ~'.~~ L C~.~ ~yz~ 3~e~. ~s-s~~i ~~- ,,.. ~,~-~-,~-~ ~l`~' - f C.~l ~~2 s-. ~~-~.. ~ '~~l- s~ ~~ 1 ~~s3 ~'`~ ~~ 1 ~r2it,A~E `~F~ l,~l.I. ~ ~ ~-~~- ~~-y~ ~~ ~ Gj'g~', 76 o y ~~ ~9 ~~l~~7E /rzc-E ~~/ 9'~j- ~~ cam., r `~~~~3 z~ ~ 3 ~' ~ ~~~.,~, `I r~~ lsa~~e ~,1~-; o ~Y~~~~ % y~-~-1 s ~~~- r7~~ 77~- ~ 75~ ~~y ~ ~~~5 q~~~i~~~ /S PETITION ~~^~r'~ ADDRESS ~~ ~ r ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~c~ ~r ,,, ~, ,~ ~` ~ ~K ~... ~ ~. ,, '~ '~ ' ~ ~~ - ~ ~t~~~ ~ tc j .~ /~ y, / C~ -~ .; TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS We, the undersigned residents of the Cave Spring and Windsor Hills Magisterial Districts, who are affected freeholders and qualified voters, do hereby petition against townhouses being built on the corner of Route 221 and Roselawn Road, SW and Pleasant Hill Drive. We are opposed to a re-zoning request by the Roanoke Land Development Co. to change the present R-1 designation to R-5, allowing multi-family development in an area that has traditionally maintained single family residence investment and security. We feel this one and a half acre, 12 townhome development will create a personal hazard for pedestrians, increase traffic congestion at this hazardous intersection, increase elementary and junior high school over-enrollment and decrease property evaluations in the area, at the present time until Rte. 221 is widened as planned. NAME 6~ ~ 1 ~~ s s ~3 ~-~s ~~,,~~ sir ~+ ~~ ~~ ~Y 3 ~ ~.~.~ G~~~~' TEL. NO r. / G, `? . G L ~ ~ ~%lJ ~fl a ?7s~~s ~~ r 9~/~3t~z ~~~- ~~ ~~ r> PETITIQN TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS We, the undersigned residents of the Cave Spring and Windsor Hills Magisterial Districts, who are affected freeholders and qualified voters, do hereby petition against townhouses being built on the corner of Route 221 and Roselawn Road, SW and Pleasant Hill Drive. We are opposed to a re-zoning request by the Roanoke Land Development Co. to change the present R-1 designation to R-5, allowing multi-family development in an area that has traditionally maintained single family residence investment and security. We feel this one and a half acre, 12 townhome development will create a personal hazard for pedestrians, increase traffic congestion at this hazardous intersection, increase elementary and junior high school over-enrollment and decrease property evaluations in the area, at the present time until Rte. 221 is widened as planned. NAME ,~ ~~ ~-~ /~ ~~ _ ~~ ~- ~, {tL~i ,, ~_ C~~ ~~ ~~ ~'~ ADDRESS TEL. NO ter) ~ f'~ ~ l-'~,~.~~~x.e v7~f;-,.._ ? j ~.~_, ~ ~~ _ ~ ~ 1 ~ r~ ~~~ ~2 ~7f~_ Qc~ p'c~ ~ rr < ~, ~~ ,, i ~ ~ r ~; ~_~.~ .~;' ~' r ~~` ~~ a -, ;> ~, ~~ ~~.~~~ ~~~ivt. ~~ ~; ~~ ~,~ v /~ _'`_ Y- !/ J .~~v/ s. i ~- ~~ 77y"- -' ~~~ l /~~ ~, ,, J - ., f -~-- << ~; ~~ ~~. .i"l // ~~ ~/ v,l~ L~ G'v°~` r .,~._,._ _....,......_ _ l~ ~/` G/ __~_.--- V k.~ f ~~f'v (y •,.L v ~I'~1.f1\ ~E~~tt!'S ~., /~~ ~. / // / t ~~ ~a~ , // ~y~/ --- v , T /J ~., ~ ~., r _- a-~~ ,. ~. ~. /~ `~ s> /; 9~ ~- ~~~~~~~ ~--- PETITIO N TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS We, the undersigned residents of the Cave Spring and Windsor Hills Magisterial Districts, who are affected freeholders and qualified voters, do hereby petition against townhouses being built on the corner of Route 221 and Roselawn Road, SW and Pleasant Hill Drive. We are opposed to a re-zoning request by the Roanoke Land Development Co. to change the present R-1 designation to R-5, allowing multi-family development in an area that has traditionally maintained single family residence investment and security. We feel this one and a half acre, 12 townhome development will create a personal hazard for pedestrians, increase traffic congestion at this hazardous intersection, increase elementary and junior high school over-enrollment and decrease property evaluations in the area, at the present time until Rte. 221 is widened as planned. NAME i~~ ~~ ~~,f ,~-hc~~~. ~-- r~~Ni~ ='.~ ~~ ~~ ~? G l ~ ~ ~ i ~~ ~~:~L r ~ '` ~~c~w C~ ~~5 ~%~ ADDRESS TEL. NO ~, ~- ~ o ~; .;~;,~, ~~ ~~~~ a ~:. ~~~ r~~ ~ ~ 4- 3 5 `l ~~ 5a3~ S~.~h~lu~,n fA..~ S~ `I~~4- ~ ~v t~ ,. ~ ~~ _- -° - ~ ~~~~~~~~~ dzK ~/~- ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ 1 3~~1,~~ G-t~~~ (~~U~ ~i~ ~~~ a ~~ a~ PETITION TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS We, the undersigned residents of the Cave Spring and Windsor Hills Magisterial Districts, who are affected freeholders and qualified voters, do hereby petition against townhouses being built on the corner of Route 221 and Roselawn Road, SW and Pleasant Hill Drive. We are opposed to a re-zoning request by the Roanoke Land Development Co. to change the present R-1 designation to R-5, allowing multi-family development in an area that has traditionally maintained single family residence investment and security. We feel this one and a half acre, 12 townhome development will create a personal hazard for pedestrians, increase traffic congestion at this hazardous intersection, increase elementary and junior high school over-enrollment and decrease property evaluations in the area, at the present time until Rte. 221 is widened as planned. NAME ADDRESS TEL. NO x ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~:`~ ~z ~ a,.~„ .r//.5 Gati~ .19iP. ~W •~ /P~~ b t ~ ~ Can ~ 7~~. srcJ l~,~c ~~so ~~ o'c~.oc.k K~~~ ~o ~k~ ~ya,~ 989 8~6/ 9'89-g7~1 ~~y ~~~, ~~~ `: =~~~~`~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C-.~ ~~ s ~ ~~ ~/r ~ ~~~2 ~ ~S'~!' ~~~ ~. i~ _,- ~~-/r~s~ ~7~- ~~ a 3 ~~~ ~~ ~~ 774- ~35~ X89- ~os~ ~. ,~~' ,S / J C 7t ~ r ~ ~ ~r S .~ ~`~ --~ /~ PETITIO N TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS We, the undersigned residents of the Cave Spring and Windsor Hills Magisterial Districts, who are affected freeholders and qualified voters, do hereby petition against townhouses being built on the corner of Route 221 and Roselawn Road, SW and Pleasant Hill Drive. We are opposed to a re-zoning request by the Roanoke Land Development Co. to change the present R-1 designation to R-5, allowing multi-family development in an area that has traditionally maintained single family residence investment and security. We feel this one and a half acre, 12 townhome development will create a personal hazard for pedestrians, increase traffic congestion at this hazardous intersection, increase elementary and junior high school over-enrollment and decrease property evaluations in the area, at the present time until Rte. 221 is widened as planned. NAME ADDRESS TEL. NO --~ (1 ~~1 'l1h' ,~-~-~ ~' ° ~ ~. `~ ~~~ ~~` ~~ ~~ C~`~~~ ~~ n .~ ~ 1 ~~~~ v~ ~ ., (~ ~~ A .1 ~ ,~ "~ ;~ z .~--try ~ /.~~1~ c~cx f~ f~c~, G Asa 13~~ i~~~~ ~~~. i ~ I J! 9~9-~~~ ~ ~l ~ ^i - 3 ~1 ~ ~ ~' ~ ~i~ `~ n // _ q~ ~~ ~ ~ j ~~ c'L- l/ ~~`'~ ~' cY ~.. ; ~ 1j <~~ ~ C-L f y r~Gv.~~ ~~, ~ ~~ ~ ~j ~~~ ~.c~ .~ ~~~' .~~ ~~- ~~ ~~~~- v` // ~~ ~ t% r, ~ ,-... ~, ~ ~ >- ~ ~` ~~~ _~ ~ 7~ ~ ~~~ . ~~~~ __ ~~ ,PETITIONER: THE HOBART C~ANIES, LTD. ~ p CASE NI~IBER: 39-8/88 CJ Planning Camnission Hearing Date: August 2, 1988 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: August 23, 1988 A. RDQUEST Petition of The Hobart Companies, Ltd. to amend the conditions on a Use Not Provided For Permit on a 4.974 acre tract located on the south side of Peters Creek Road (Route 117) immediately south of Deer Branch Road (Route 842) in the Hollins Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN PARTICIPA'T'ION No one in opposition was present at the Planning Ccnnnission Public Hearing. C. SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FACTORS 1. None. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS 1. Development will be in substantial conformity with the site plan of Ernie Rose, Inc. with the exception of the entrance pattern which will be in substantial conformity with the plan of Buford Ltunsden, dated 7/29/88. If permitted by VDOT, petitioner agrees to coordinate median crosscut on Peters Creek Road with Roanoke County, to serve Hollins Branch Library. 2. Uses to be limited to office, retail sales, banks, service industry uses together with warehousing and light manufacturing as allowed in Section 21-24-1, M-1, Light Industrial District, (A)(1),(3),(4),(5)and (6) of the Roanoke County Code with the provision that no M-1 uses will be permitted on the outparcel. 3. Stand-alone sign shall not be greater than 48 sq.ft. exclusive of the signage on the outparcel. Signage on the outparcel shall not exceed 36 sq.ft. 4. There shall be no outside storage of materials. 5. All lighting shall be directed away fran the adjoining residential property. 6. All building shall be constructed with brick on the front thereof. E. COMMISSIONER'S MOTION, VOTE AND REASON Mr. Massey moved to approve the request with amended proffers. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Gordon, Robinson, Massey, Witt, Winstead NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACf~IE1~TT'S 1%'~Concept Plan (8~" x 11") w~' Vicinity Map (8~" x 11") Staff Report 1• Other: Jon rtley, Alt rnate Secretary Roa ke County P anning Caimission . ~; ~ '~, REVISED CONCEPT PLAN - . ~ "APPROVED APRIL 1988 ~ ,J ti ~ _ '~_~ >~ ,' ~ ~ / ~ / ~ % ~/ i / ~ / ~~ i 1 ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !~ V / , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 = j i j ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ - I ~~ I ~j ~ ~ / ~ s~ i ,. _ ~' ~ ~ -- --~'~ ~ / / ~~ / ~ ~ ~/ III ~~ / i ~ si .. _..1~ p /~ ~ V /- ~ / ~/ M _ _ .~ '/ ~ f~: . ,,: ~"t ~~~~' ~. a ! ~r . fir. I~ ,. -.~ 1 ~~~ z~~ ~ ~~k - 2 - ' z~~ ,) 3 g ~ W ~ 3 y U z Y 4 } r ~_ Q ¢ H < C d H ~ i = v .~. 3 fT 1" W i W~ t X~ O s : ; >. ~ Z o E ~ ~~ O~ • y a ~ ~ ~ =i Y ~ e a f t ~i ~~'.e D b Y IGInI l Y I~AP ~- NttRTu .._..... 3 \ R.c.e.s. ~ -' M•ar•,_ uar - 4 - ` ~,/ ~~. - I ~ i ~ ~~ Vii. 4 ROANOKE COUNTY The Hobart Companies, Ltd. Z DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT Amendment of Conditions Tax Map 4~ 27.14-2-12, 027.14-2-13 STAFF REPORT •-- ,~ CASE NUMBER: 39-8/88 PETITIONER: The Hobart Companies Ltd. 2EVIEPTED BY: Jon Hartley DATE: July 29~ 1988 Petition of the Hobart Companies, Ltd. to amend the conditions on a 4.974 acre tract located on the south side of Peters Creek Road immediately southwest of its intersection with Deer Branch Aoad in the Hollins Magisterial District. 1. NATURE OF REQUEST a. Petitioner is requesting to amend the proffered concept plan for the Use Not Provided For Permit approved by the Board of Supervisors on February 23, 1988 and amended on April 26, 1988. This permit was to develop a mixed use development in a B-2 General Commercial District and R-1, Residential District with proffered conditions that the uses would be limited to offices, retail sales, warehousing, and select light manufacturing allowed in the M-1 district. Petitioner has also maintained proffered conditions on signage, lighting, building facade materials and a proffer prohibiting outside storage. The amendment requested is for one additional access road directly to Peters Creek Road, as shown on the attached schematic, in lieu of the access shared with the existing miniature golf facility located east of the property. According to the petitioner, all other aspects of the revised concept plan approved in April would remain the same, including the exclusion of the outlot and the basic building configuration. b. Attached schematic, revised concept plans approved in April and zoning vicinity map describe project more fully. 2. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS a. Section 15.1-491.2 of the Code of Virginia requires any changes in proffered conditions to be approved pursuant to the rezoning process. b. Site plan review will be required to insure conformity with County regulations. c. VDOT commercial entrance permit will be required. 3. SITE CHARACTERISTICS a. Topography: Gently sloping towards Deer Branch. b. Ground Cover: Open fields and light brush. 4. AREA CHARACTERISTICS a. Future Growth Priority: Situated within the Peters Creek Community Planning Area. Designated as a high growth area, currently receiving urban services. b. General area is primarily developed with office, institutional, general and service retail uses, and low density residential. - 5 - depending on use, would increase this estimated ADT. In ~°-~-~'...: 1986 there were 24,610 ADT on this section of Peters Creek Road. The proposed modification of the access will not alter the impact of this project, as previously approved. 3 j. Circulation: Site is well served by existing arterial highways. Access was originally to be provided at two points, one shared with an adjoining property and the other directly from Peters Creek Road. The amendment requested would eliminate the shared access and provide for a second access directly from Peters Creek Road. This modification eliminates access from the west bound lane of Peters Creek Road. To avoid increasing the frequency of U-turn traffic, the County Engineering Department has suggested that a median cut be considered, subject to VDOT approval. Should this occur, the specific location should be coordinated to also serve the Hollins Library. UTILITIES 2 k. Waters Public Water. 2 1. Sewer: Public sewer. DRAINAGE ? m. Basin: drainage 2 n. Floodpla floodway pursuant Proposed project is located in the Tinker Creek basin. ins Site plans will have to indicate 100 year and 100 year flood elevation for Deer Branch to County ordinance. PUBLIC SERVICES 2 0. Fire Protection: Within established service area. 2 p. Rescues Within established service area. N/A q. Parks and Recreation: N/A r. Schools: TA% BASE 1 s. - Land and Improvement Values 52,822,000 x 1.15=532,453(new) - Taxable Gross Sales/Year: Not Available - Total Employees: 200 - Total Revenue to the County/Year: Land and Improvement Value Only =S32,453(new) ENVIRONMENT 2 t. Airs 2 u. Water, 2 v. Soils: 2 W. Noise: - 7 - ~C5 .. 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 Core land use category. Petitioner's request is consistent with the land use plan map and policies and in particular, Policy C-1 - encouraging mixed-use development, and C-5 - effective screening and buffering along residential and commercial borders. Requested amendment is inconsistent with Policy C-4 which encourages shared access and minimizing access points to public streets. 2 b. Surrounding Land: Surrounding land is institutional, commercial, and low density residential. 2 c. Neighboring Area: Neighboring area is predominately. commercial and institutional, with some low density residential. 3 d. Site Layout: As per revised concept plan approved in April with access modified per schematic. The proposed access appears to divide the outlot shown on the concept plan, making this outlot difficult to develop in the future. Although the schematic submitted is only for the amended access, it reflects a modification of the site layout and building configuration from the concept plan approved in April. These modifications would improve the appearance of the project as well as improve on-site circulation. Should the site plan submitted for review and approval coincide with this schematic and reflect comparable floor area to the concept plan approved in April, it would be deemed substantially in compliance with the proffered concept plan. 2 e. Architecture: Brick on the front was proffered with the approved plan. 2 f. Screening and Landscaping: As required by the Ordinance. 2 q. Amenities 2 b. Natural Amenities: TRAFFIC 2 i. Street Capacities: Based on the revised concept plan approved in April, this project will generate 1730 ADT. This does not include traffic generated by the outlot, which - 6 - w~. 2 x. Signage~ Petitioner proffered that stand alone sign will not exceed 48 square feet with approved plan. 6. PLAN CONSISTENCY This area is designated as Core and is consistent with the land use plan map and the policies. 7. STAFF EVALUATION a. Strengths: (1) Project as previously approved will have a positive effect on tax base and provision of employment opportunities. (2) Consistency with mixed use policies contained within the Land Use Plan. (3) Petitioner has maintained proffers on uses, concept plan, signage, lighting, building facade materials and a proffer prohibiting outside storage. b. Weaknesses: (1) Requested amendment is inconsistent with Policy C-4 which encourages shared access and minimizing access points to public streets. (2) Zf access is acceptable, the County Engineering Department has suggested that a median cut should also be sought to reduce U-turn traffic. This median cut should be coordinated with the Hollins Library. - 8 - VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY -------------------------------------------------------- ao ao IN RE: A 4.974 acre parcel of land, generally located in the 6600 Block on the South side of Peters Creek Road, within the Catawba Magisterial District, and recorded as a portion of Parcel #27.14-2-12 and a portion of Parcel #27.14-2-13, in the Roanoke County Tax Records FINAL ORDER TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: H z w N z 0 U 0 N Q w 7 0 a w w OSTERHOLIDT, FERGLISON NATT, AHERON & AGEE ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW ROANDKE, VIRGINIA 14 018-16 9 9 WHEREAS, your Petitioner, THE HOBART COMPANIES, LTD., did petition the Board of County Supervisors to amend the proffers on the above-referenced parcel of land for the "use not provided for" District, for the purpose of providing a revised entrance pattern to the property. L'VHEREAS, after due legal notice, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing of the petition on August 2, 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 amendments be approved. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED that the proffers for the "use not provided for" on the aforementioned parcel of - 9 - ~~ ~~, «~.,~ land which is contained in the Roanoke County Tax Maps as a portion of Parcel #27.14-2-12 and a portion of Parcel #27.14-2-13 and legally described below; A 4.974 acre parcel of land, generally located in the 6600 Block on the South side of Peters Creek Road, within the Catawba Magisterial District, and recorded as a portion of Parcel #27.14-2-12 and a portion of Parcel #27.14-2-13, in the Roanoke County Tax Records be amended to read as follows: (1) Development will be in substantial conformity with the site plan of Ernie Rose, Inc., previously submitted, with the exception of the entrance pattern which will be in substantial conformity with the plan of Buford T. Lumsden and Associates, dated June 29, 1988. If permitted by the Virginia Department of Transporation, Petitioner agrees to attempt to co-ordinate median crosscut on Peters Creek Road with Roanoke County, to serve Hollins Branch library. (2) Uses to be limited to: office, retail sales, service industry uses together with warehousing and light manufacturing as allowed in Section 21-24-I, M-1, Light Industrial District, (A)(1), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of the Roanoke County Code with the provision that no M-1 uses will be permitted on the outparcel. ^STERHGUGT, FERGUSON NATT, AHERGN & AGEE / ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW l3) Stand-alone sign sha I I not be greater than 48 RGANUKE, VIRGINIA 24018-1699 square feet exclusive of the signage on the outparcel. signage on the outparcel shall not exceed 36 square feet. - lU - ~~~~ (~) There shall be no outside storage of materials. (5) All lighting shall be directed away from the adjoining residential property. (6) All building shall be constructed with brick on the front thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Supervisors that the above-referenced parcel of land be granted as "use not provided for," subject to the proferred conditions. The ^STERHOUOT, FERGUSON NATT, AHERON & AGEE ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-1699 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: ABSENT: ~~ r1.e15i.b Deputy Clerk, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors - 11 - ~. I ~.. LAW OFFICES `~ r OSTERHO UDT, FERGUSON, NATT, AHERON £~ AGEE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1919 ELECTRIC ROAD. S. W. CHARLES H. OSTERHOUDT P. O. BOX 2OOF)S M ICHAEL S. FERGUSON EDWARD A. NATT ROANOKE, VIRGINIA MICHAEL J. AHERON 24018- 1699 TELEPHONE G. STEVEN AGEE 703-774-1197 MARK D. KIDD Augus t 15, 1988 Board of Supervisors County of Roanoke P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, VA 24018-0798 RE: The Hobart Companies, Ltd. Gentlemen: This is to advise that I am formally proffering one additional condition to the above rezoning set for August 23rd. That proffer would be that the developer would construct a ten-year retention pond with a two-year run-off. Very truly yours, OSTERHOUDT, FERGUSON, NATT, AHERON ~ AGEE, P,C, ~c~~~%G Edward A. Natt /bp cc: Mr. E3ruce Hobart 8657 Staples Mill Road P. O. Box 28117 Richmond, VA 23228 VIRGINIA: ¢ ~ ~~ BEFORE THE BOARD`OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY IN RE: A 4.974 acre parcel of land, ~ generally located in the 6600 Block ) on the South side of Peters Creek ) ~_ ENDED_ Road, within the Hollins Magisterial ) PROFFER OF District, and recorded as a portion ~ CONDITIONS of Parcel #27.14-2-12 and a portion ) of Parcel #27.14-2-13, in the Roanoke ) County Tax Record s ) iERHOLIDT, FERGLISON .TT, AHERON & AGEE ATTD RN EYS-AT-LAW RDANDKE, VIRGINIA 24D18-1699 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, THE HOBART COMPANIES, LTD,, 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 Petitioner will construct a ten-year retention pond with a two-year run-off, (2) All other proffers shall remain the same. DATED : _~ 1 ~, (4 g ~_ 1-~- Edward A. Natt, Esquire Osterhoudt, Ferguson, Natt, Aheron i; Agee, P.C, 1919 Electric Road, S,VJ. Roanoke, VA 24018 Counsel for Petitioner r1.e17,p Respectfully submitted, THE HOBART COMPANIES, LTD, B ____ y Of Counsel --------- BUFORD T. LUMSDEN ~ A..SSOCIATES, P. C. C:~' ,~, ENGINEERS-SU R V EYOPS C~ t3U FORD T. LUMSDEN - L.S. V. KIRK LUMSDEN - L.S. B. LEE HENDERSON. JR. - P.E., L.S. Augu $ t 1 , 19 8 8 JAMES L. JENKINS - L.S. Mr. Charles Osterhoudt, Atty. Osterhoudt, Ferguson, Natt, Aheron and Agee, Attys. 1919 Electric Road Roanoke, VA Re: Northpark Comm: 87-472SP Dear Charlie: 4694 BRAMBLE'I'ON AVENUE, S. W. P. O. Box 20669 ROANDKE, VIRGINIA 24018 PHONE 774-4411 ,.... - ~. . C1 r.r,~ r: ~, ~ ~ As requested this is a synopsis of the conflicts related to connecting to the existing drive which serves the minature golf course. 1. The county engineer suggested crossing the creek with a box culvert as indicated on the preliminary drawing which was used in the rezoning meetings. This would allow for stormwater retention by stacking water between the existing box culvert and the new box culvert. However, the Virginia Department of Transportation will not permit any stormwater retention to pond onto their righr-of-way. Because of the topography of the Northpark property and the minature golf property it is impossible to slide the crossing downstream to a point which would prevent ponding onto the righ-of-way. 2. Therefore the VDOT said they would require an extension of the existing box culvert. By extending the box culvert downstream to a point which would make a safe entrance from Peters Creek Road a potentially dangerous situation would be created. More specifically the existing improvements on the minature golf site would be dangerously close to the discharge of the extended box culvert. In fact it would be impossible to provide an adequate channel downstream without extensive grading on the minature golf site. 3. Therefore, due to the potential liabilities involved with extending the box culvert and the continual need to provide proper vehicular circulation within Northpark, the owner has requested a second entrance onto Peters Creek Road. The proposed location of the 2 entrances meet the criteria specified in VDOT's "Minimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways" (see enclosures).. Charlie, it may be of some help to also point out the expected traffic patterns to the 2 sites- Northpark - heaviest between 8 AM and 5 PM; Minature Golf Course heaviest at nights and on weekends. - 12 - ~~ ~ Mr. Chalres Osterhoudt, Atty. August 1, 1988 Page 2 If we may be of any additional assistance, please advise. Sincerely, BUFORD T. LUMSDEN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~---- w James W. Dossett JWD:mgs - 13 - _ A M E'ND~ !~ ; ,~ U ~- ~j VIRGINIA: ~' ~ ~~ ~ +` BEFORE THE BOARD_OF_COUNTY_SUPERVISORS OF_ROANOKE_COUNTY IN RE: ) FINAL ORDER A 4.974 acre parcel of land, ) generally located in the 6600 Block ) on the South side of Peters Creek ) Road, within the Catawba Magisterial ) District,- and recorded as a portion ) of Parcel #27.14-2-12 and a portion ) of Parcel #27.14-2-13, in the Roanoke ) County Tax Records ) TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: WHEREAS, your Petitioner, THE HOBART COMPANIES, LTD., did petition the Board of County Supervisors to amend the proffers on the above-referenced parcel of land for the "use not provided for" District, for the purpose of providing a revised entrance pattern to the property. WHEREAS, after due legal notice, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing of the petition on August 2, 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 amendments be approved. l('},~ `~s ~ ,1 3 ~ ~. ~' f or NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED that the proffers the "use not provided for" on the aforementioned parcel of ^TiTERNOIJGT, FERGIISON -. NATT, ANERON & AGEE ATTQRNEYS-AT-LAW ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 34018-1fi99 land which is contained in the Roanoke County Tax Maps as a portion of Parcel #27.14-2-12 and a portion of Parcel #27.14-2-13 and legally described below: A 4.974 acre parcel of land, generally located in the 6600 Block on the South side of Peters Creek Road, within the Catawba Magisterial District, and recorded as a portion of Parcel #27.14-2-12 and a portion of Parcel #27.14-2-13, in the Roanoke County Tax Records be amended and adopted as provided on the Third Amendment of Proffers dated August 23, 1988 and submitted herewith. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the Board of County Supervisors that the above-referenced parcel of land be granted as "use not provided for," subject to the preferred conditions. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this order OGTERHDUDT, FERGUSDN NATT, AHERON & AGEE ATTDRNEYS-AT-LAW RDANDKE, VIRGINIA 24D1G-1699 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 mot ion of Supervisor ~ l~ti`'°';`~-' , seconded by Supervisor ~~` ~~~,;~.~.~; ~_~,,~___________, and upon the following recorded vottte: 1) /' ~~ AYES: ~ l j i J NAYES : (~~A~-' ABSENT : y~l~~~-c, r1.etSi.b --------------------------- Deputy Clerk, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 2 VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE_COUNTY fN RE: ) A 4.974 acre parcel of land, ) generally located in the 6600 Block ) THIRD AMENDED on the South side of Peters Creek ) PROFFER OFM Road, within the Hollins Magisterial ) CONDITIONS District, and recorded as a portion ) _~N N of Parcel #27.14-2-12 and a portion ) of Parcel #27.14-2-13, 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. 21-105 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, the Petitioner, THE HOBART COMPANIES, LTD., 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 of Ernie Rose, Inc.,°previously submitted with the exception of the entrance pattern which will be in substantial conformity with the plan of Buford T. Lumsden 8 Associates, dated June 29, 1988. If permitted by the Virginia Department of Transportation, Petitioner agrees to attempt to co-ordinate median cross cut on Peters Creek Road with Roanoke County, to serve Hollins Branch library. (2) Uses•to.be .limi•ted to: office, retail sales, STERNGUOT, fERGUSON service industry uses together with warehousing and I fight (ATT, ANERGN & AGEE ATTORNEYS-AT-IAW ROANOKE,VIRGINIA manufacturing a5 allowed In Section 21-24-I, M-1, Llght 14G18-tfi49 Industrial District, (A)(1), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of the Roanoke County Code with the provision that no M-1 uses will be permitted on the outparcel. (3) Stand-alone sign shall not be greater than 48 square feet exclusive of the signage on the outparcel. signage on the outparcel shall not exceed 36 square feet. (4) There shall be no outside storage of materials. (5) A11 lighting shall be directed away from the adjoining residential property. (6) All buildings shall be constructed with brick on the front thereof. (7) That the Petitioner will construct a 10 year detention/retention facility with a 2 year discharge. 'STERHOUOT, FERGUSON ~ATT, AHERON & AGES ATTORNEYS-A7-LAW ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24018-1699 DATED : g~ ~~J ~ g ____ Edward A. Natt, Esquire Osterhoudt, Ferguson, Natt, Aheron 8 Agee, P.C. 1919 Electric Road, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24018 Counsel for Petitioner rt.el7.b Respectfully submitted, THE HOBART COMPANIES, LTD. Of Counsel a 2 '" .~,+ ]STE OSTERHODDT, FERGDSDN NAT NATT, AHERON & AGES p ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW R RDANOKE, VIRGINIA 84018-tfi99 VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY IN RE: A 4.974 acre parcel of land, generally located in the 6600 Block on the South side of Peters Creek Road, within the Catawba Magisterial District, and recorded as a portion of Parcel #27.14-2-12 and a portion of Parcel #27.14-2-13, in the Roanoke County Tax Records FINAL ORDER TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: WHEREAS, your Petitioner, THE HOBART COMPANIES, LTD., did petition the Board of County Supervisors to amend the proffers on the above-referenced parcel of land for the "use not provided for" District, for the purpose of i providing a revised entrance pattern to the property. 6NHEREAS, after due legal notice, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing of the petition on August 2, 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 amendments be approved. on August 23, 1988, with proffers. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED that the proffers for the "use not provided for" on the aforementioned parcel of PETITIONER: GERALD W. ATKINS ~ ~ ~~ CASE N[A~IBER: 40-8/88 Planning Commission Hearing Date: August 2, 1988 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: August 23, 1988 A. REQUEST Petition of Gerald W. Atkins to rezone a 0.28 acre tract fran B-1, Business to B-2, Business to operate an office with sales and service located on the south side of Peters Creek Road (Route 117) approximately 100 feet west of its intersection with South Drive (Route 1864) in the Hollins Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION No one in opposition was present at the Planning Ccmanission Public Hearing. C. SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FACTORS 1. Amenities: Parking lot indicated has capacity for 14 vehicles (the minimum nwnber of stalls required for this development), excluding a small loading area. 2. Fire Protection: Not within established service standard. Available flaw is not adequate for existing or proposed zoning at this location. Hollins Fire Station is 0.2 mile northeast of site. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS 1. The land will be used for the purpose of selling and servicing equipment related to Roanoke Scale & Equipment business activity or other sales and service businesses, (NCR, IBM, TDC, etc.) A portion of the building will be leased to any use in B-1. 2. No billboard shall be erected on the property, and total signage shall not exceed 50 sq.ft. 3. All exterior lighting shall be directed only at the lot of the proposed use. E. CONIl~IISSIONER'S MOTION, VOTE AND REASON Mr. Massey moved to approve the request with proffered conditions. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Gordon, Robinson, Massey, Witt, Winstead NAYS: None ABSEN`T': None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMENTS Concept Plan (8~" x 11") Vicinity Map (8~" x 11") , ~ /Staff Report Other: Jon rtley, Alter to Secretary Roa ke County Planning Connnission W e.. v ~ ' I ~ ~N~u~~~s~ ~n~lsix~ ~ c 1 l ~ v1 ~ .. ~ W _w ,~i ~: V .~, N Z .., .};o~ Y O J ,0 -- ~~ ,• x. ` ="•- •;:: ~. g ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ Q~W= ~W coa`~ oV-. J.zW = J v2 us a t~- J 3~ ~~ o; v ~• Y • M :.g • ~ ''~ h ~ • •~;~,,;. •* ' • . . ~~. M_ .t~6'~8 W ~Q~ ~~3 0 ~S~ ~w LL ~~~ ~ ~., J J_v . ~ J J_ :. ~ ~ N J I U "~ ; ~~ I ,. ~; e '4 ' f. 0 W • ~ ~ 1 . ; :: W 0 ~ ,Y N .~ ~ V ,.. ~ N W Qj ,~ Z ~ J i'~.~ ~:• ~ ~ _ ti i~"~ _ ~. ~ u1 ~. z ~ ~ ; ~-- ~ ~ W ~ , ;~ ~' Z ~h~1N Cam` . W *~`~ ^`1, ~+ N ,•If«, w P- ~~ ~ I ac ~ ~ vN ~• e c ~ ~ U ¢~ •- # ~r~- U.- °~ .a a. . N~ x~ w~ - 2 - ~~" ~ 2a s ~ ~ \ O .. ~ ~• ~~ 2a 61 .aa w~i n \ B•olitl CAYICA bQ 28 \ \ ~~ b \ ~ 32 31 ~ B1 \ ~ \` \~2 33~ g B~ B~ B1 ~ e+.o \ DOd~ ~1 ,~ \\~ \~" 2 \ ~ i \ ~ R3 34 `;~ ~ B.L elk/ ~~ ~'~~ . se ~2 ~\ ',i ~ \` 49 g2 ° ~ ~'~ ~s q 24 ~, ~ \~ 3 x.79 ~~ • / iP e e 9 ~s~s ~~~' ~ g1 ~ d. ~ `' R3 \\ 4iAc. \ •BQ, ,~ i. 31 4T\ \ 1\ 2.SCAe.C1 \ \ N\H\ \ \ 1 \ ~ X12 G \ \ ~ K D ~ ` \ 43 • `' ° R3 \ .~ ~. \ ~ .~ X43 \ 3 2 R~ s`' , . .~ ,v. ego .... `-~- - 3 - Gerald Atkins ROANOKE COUNTY Rezoning B-1 to B-2C DEPARTMENT OF DEUEIOPMENT Tax Map ~~ 27.13-5-23.1 nun~n _ STAFF REPORT ER: 40-8/88 PETITIONER: GERALD W. ATKINS CASE NUMB DATE: AUGUST 2r 1988 REVIEWED BY: TIM BEARD ald W. Atkins to rezone a,0e2Withtsalescandrservice Petition of Ge Business to operate an offic roximately Business to B-2r ted on the south side of Peners Creek Road (Route 11 ) aP with South Drive (Route 1864) in the loca 100 feet west of its intersectio Hollins Magisterial District. 1, NATURE OF REQUEST 'tional request to construct a ermarkets suchlas scalesy a. Conde ment used in sup for electronic equip tinders. Petitioner also intends to conduct saws, slicers, and g bookkeeping, accounting and related office activities. ched concept plan and vicinity map describe project more b, Atta fully . 2. APPLICABLE REGULAermNts a wide variety of commercial and office uses. a. g_2 zoning P ' Toner has proffered that threlated tolRoanoke Scale and petit ui ment IgMr TECr sales and service of eq P Equipment or other sales and serviwillubenleased forRB-1 uses. etc.). A portion of the building b. VDOT commercial entrance permit required. lan review required to ensure compliance with County c. Site p regulations. Predominantly flat; very gently sloping towards 3, SITE CHARACTERISTICS a. TopographY~ line. southerly (rear) property ,ass and one row of young evergreen trees b. Ground a rv Property 1 ne. . along 4, AREA CHARP'CTERtIow~hSpriority: Situated forhstimulated growthk a. Future G Planning Area; designated Community Urban services available. commercial, b, General area is developed with mixed officer institutional and residential uses. osed 5. LAND USE IMPACT ASSESSMENT to the impact of the prop Rating: Rate each factor according act, action. Use a scale of 1 through 5 act, 3 = manageable imp 1 positive impact, 2 = negligible imp and N/A = not applicable. 4 disruptive impact, 5 = severe impact, - 4 - RATING 3 a. 3 b. 2 c. 3 COMMENTS ~ ~y ~~ FACTOR ~f rehensive Development Plan has LAND USE COMPATIBILITY 1985 Comp Office Comprehensive Plan: Transition land use category. h compatibility in Transition areas, placed this area wed With hig ed w i th 1 ow uses are encourag eneral retail activities are discour ss clustered or but g ortion of proposal is consistent with compatibility. Office p olicies. Unle h land use map and the defined p e new hig center, sales and serviceencouo~ 9 s ore in a planned shopping olicies TR-2 ( fanned machinery is not consistentlanned shopping centers or in p ' de endent buildings) and TR-7 (coordinate retail uses tornoc Pte in p acent sites through groupings of edestrian movement among adJ opening vehica accesspand parking and limited driveway share frequency). rimary highwaY~ offices, Land: Heavily traveled p Surrounding multifamily residential dwellings. Institutional (chuich ated cdegree acgeneeral Neighboring Area: aim single family residential and to a retail uses. one entrance (via out: Concept plan indicates onlyft• VDOT six year d. Site LaY containing 2-7~~ sq' m indicates no widening of Peters Creek Road Route 117 ) wit ro ra ding improvement P ear 1992-93. through fiscal y ated. chitecture: One-story brick structure anticip 3 e. Ar 3 f, Screening and Landscape: Per ordinance. -' 'n lot indicated has capacity for 14 vehicles 4 g• tuber of stalls required for this development Amenities: Parka g (the minimum nu area. excluding a small loading ermit to full Predominantly flat parcel will P ards and and buffering Y 3 h. Natural Features: site development other than screening lantings. 2 i. 3 J• 2 k. 2 1. 2 m. p for Peters Creek Road was 18,685. TRAFFIC 1986 ADT ends per day. No ri Street Capacities: mile segment of Peters Anticipated additiodnainA1987s on thei012 (Route 1880) accidents occurre ine Road Creek Road from South Drive to Alp highway. Concept plan rimary tapered Circulation: Direct access from p coordinated vehicular viousmtraff cthazardss a lacks ro oses no ob turning lane and p P UTILITIES Water: Adequate source and distribution. Sewer: Adequate treatment and transmission. DRAINAGE no increased negative effect. Basin: Tinker Creek; FEMA Flood lain: Area of minimal flooding indicated by Floodp Insurance Rate Map. - 5 _ 2 n. .. PUBLIC SERVICES 4 0. Fire Protection: Not within established service stan ard. Available flow is not adequate for existing or proposed zoning at this location. Hollins Fire Station is 0.2 mile northeast of site. 2 p. Rescue: Within established service standard. N/A q. Parks and Recreation: N/A r. School: TAX BASE 2 s. - Land and Improvement Value: $150,000 - Taxable Gross Sales/Year: $500,000 - Total Employees: 6 roximately $4,600 - Total revenue to the County/Year: App New revenue: Approximately $3,680 ENVIRONMENT 2 t. Air: 2 u. Water: 2 v. Soils: 2 w. Noise: 3 x. signage: Petitioner has indicated a willingness to proffer a limited amount of signage but has not expressed specific square footage. 6. PLAN CONSISTENCY ment sales and service This area is designated as Transition. Equip is inconsistent with the land use plan map and with policies TR-2, TR-7 (see land use compatibility) and that portion of TR-8 dealing with building facade prominence from street view. Proper yard maintenance and minimum signage will offer visual improreventino this development. Proposal complies with policies TR-1 (p g commercial sprawl) and TR-9 (strictly screening rear borders with residential uses) to a certain extent due to the infill nature of the project ands extent with Ball TrOansition tpol is iesrand he Oland proposal are c use plan map. 7. STAFr^ EVALUATION a. Strengths: (1) Office use consistency with Transition policies. (2) Limited scale and commercial infill nature of proposal (consistent with policies TR-letitioner) has )pBoffered li miting equipment sales and services, p B-2 uses to similar equipment sales and services (NCR, IBM, TEC, etc.) and permitted B-1 uses. b, Weaknesses: (1) Inadequate fire flow. (2) Minimum parking provided. c. Proffers Suggested: (1) Maximum signage. (2) Lighting to be directed only at lot of proposed use. - 6 - ~' .. ~.~' E~ z w H z 0 U 0 H Q w 0 x a a VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUN'T'Y A 1 / 4 acre parcel of land, ) generally located parcel B ( Green ) Ridge South) D.B. 1195,) pc{.109) Peters within the Hollins ) Magisterial District, and recorded as parcel # B ) Tax Map # 27 13-5-28 - ~ - ) in the Roanoke County Tax Records. ) Creek Road FINAL ORDER TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: WHEREAS, your Petitioner Gerald W. Atkins did petition the Board of County Supervisors to rezone the above-referenced parcel B1 District to B 2 District from for the purpose of Sales & service of electronic equipment used in supermarkets. Scales, saws, slicers, grinders, ect. and office use. Bookeeping, Accounti~n_g, ect. WHEREAS, after due legal notice, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing of the petition on August 2 , 19 ~, 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 19 88 the Board of County Supervisors determined that the rezoning be approved with proferrs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERID that the aforementioned parcel of land, which is contained in the Roanoke County Tax Maps as Parcel 27.13-5-28.1 and recorded in Deek Book 1195 Page 109 and legally described below, be rezoned from R-l. Business District to B-2, Business District. August 23, - 7 - R Legal Description of Property: COUNTY OF ROANOKE, STATE OF VIRGINIA: BEING New Parcel "B" according to Plat showing New Parcels "A" and "B" (to be known as Green Ridge South) and the vacation of Lots 11, 12, 13,'14, 15, 27, 28 and eastern half of 26, Dillard Court (P.B. 2, page 169), Roanoke County, Virginia, property of Fred A. Oyler and Bess M. Oyler,, dated May 3, 1983, attached to an instfument of Vacation and Resubdivision of Lots made by Fred A. Oyler and Bess M. Oyler, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1195, Page 109. BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be transmitted to the Secretary of the Planning Cocmlission 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, Robers, Garrett I~1YS: None ABSENT: o~/. ~ i~ DeputY ,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 None - 8 - AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1988 RESOLUTION 82388-9 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 PROPERTIES AND TO TARE CERTAIN SANITARY SEWER EASEMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXTENSION OF PUBLIC SEWER TO NICHOLS ESTATES BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the extension of the public sewer service area adjacent to Nichols Estates is being undertaken by the County of Roanoke to alleviate the problem of failing and substandard sep- tic systems by extending the sanitary sewer service along the natural drainageway; and 2. That in order to complete this project, certain sanitary sewer easements are needed and more particularly des- cribed: a. A fifteen (15) foot wide strip of land across the property bf Valley Developers Inc. and more particularly described on the attached appraisal report as located adjacent to the existing drainage easement and con- taining 2,251.5 square feet and being shown on the attached plat prepared by T. P. Parker & Son, Engineers and Surveyors, Ltd., dated May 6, 1988. Together with a thirty (30) foot wide temporary construction easement more particularly described on the attached appraisal report as being 150.1 feet long, located adjacent to the permanent sewer easement and con- taining 4,503 square feet. The fair market value of the afore- said interest is $956.00, such compen- 1 sation and damages, if any, having been offered the property owners. b. A twenty (20> foot wide strip of land across the property of Mabel Naff Bowman and more particularly des- cribed on the attached appraisal re- port as containing 9,438 square feet and being shown on the attached plat prepared by T. P. Parker & Son, Engi- neers and Surveyors, Ltd., dated May 6, 1988. Together with a thirty (30) foot wide temporary construction easement more particularly described on the attach- ed appraisal report as containing 14,157 square feet. The fair market value of the afore- said interest is $1,006.00, such com- pensation and damages, if any, having been offered the property owners. c. A twenty ( 20 > foot wide strip of 1'and across the property of James C. Pate and Judy B. Pate and more particular- ly described on the attached apprai- sal report as being 8.94 feet along the centerline and containing 178.8 square feet and being shown on the attached plat prepared by T. P. Parker & Son, Engineers and Survey- ors; Ltd., dated May 6, 1988'. Together with a thirty (30) foot wide temporary construction easement more particularly described on the attached appraisal report as contain- ing 262.2 square feet. The fair market value of the afore- said interest is $59.00, such compen- sation and damages, if any, having been offered the property owners. d. A twenty (20> foot wide strip of land across the property of Barbara W. Bova Croy and more particularly des- cribed on the attached appraisal report as being 288.34 feet long and containing 5,766.8 square feet and being shown on the attached plat pre- 2 pared by T, p. parker & Son, Engi- neers and Surveyors, Ltd., dated May 6, 1988. Together with a thirty (30) foot wide temporary construction easement more particularly described on the attached appraisal report as being 288.34 feet long and containing 8,650 square feet. The fair market value of the afore- said interest is $654.00, such compen- sation and damages, if any, having been offered the property owners. 2. That it is immediately necessary for the County to enter upon and take such property and commence said sanitary sewer improvements in order to alleviate failing and substandard septic systems and provide long term sewer capacity for the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens and to thereafter institute and conduct appropriate condemnation proceedings as to said sanitary sewer easements; and 3. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.1-238 (e) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and pursuant to notice and public hearing as made and provided therein, the Board does hereby invoke all and singular the rights and privileges and provisions of said Section 15.1-238(e) as to the vesting 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 Robers, seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett NAYS: None 3 A COPY TESTE: Mary H. llen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Clifford D. Craig, Director, Utilities John R. Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator 4 r.~l~~vui<L (i~`J is w~RL~-ti~riJ HJ IVIJ~`1~Eil - ~3u51~~~r'J FUc~~IJNtit'J FtE - D~~•Y{~ nor;+vuKt i',~iU~vTY Uli~L OF ~j VF'C,K 1/i J~iKS ~7~r ~tH~~itLtTui~ Sw r (/ i/UX 2~~Uu :UA~'r~UKL V'r~ C`tU lb :iT;~Tc uF 'vitZvl~vir• ;ITY CF RVNtvlitCt ~;FFIi)+~VIT ~F r'uc~Lli,~Tl~~; i ~ t T Ht 1+v~ch~ I~~iti) Hsi uFF Ii;Frt i_F TIM~~-~.uiZLU t;;i~rCPtsKriTI~.iiv9 vrrii~.ri irOR- t'G+~HTIufv I~ t'udLl~NctZ VF THL rtGKtvi7Kc Tj~"tJ ~. iti~nLG-i'Vtv~J9 r t,rILY +VtwJPHF'tt~ r'udLlStii=u i+V ttUAl'rUKEt IV int ~TMTE ~F viitvli~I19 %u t,ri<T1FY THNT Trtt titi,'V~XLi ~'vUTIC~ vara~ PunLI~N'cu iii Si+G N~~iSPNF'tK:i ViV Th~,c FULLu~~il^S~ ir+TtJ Li G/ Uy~iS :~ I~iU I~~~ I;~U u~/jb/tlb I`~UK~Vlitiu nlTfvt.~S. Ti-~I~ H JHY OF rU~U~T ltits~s r ~ GFFjI,Ln'S JIitVr~Tu~tt PUBLIC NOTICE Please be advised that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, at Its meet- ing on Au0ust 23, 1988, of the Roanoke County Administra- tion Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia, at the evening session be0lnnin9 7;00 p.m. will hold a Dubllc hearin0 on the question of the adoption of a rasolufion Dur- suant fo Section 15.1-238(e) of the 1950 Code of VIr0lnia, es amended, concernin0 acquisi- tion by Roanoke County of certain easements to extend public sewer to Nichols Es- tates. The same fo traverse certain properties located In the Ceve SPrinO Ma0lsterlal District of Roanoke County being owned by VelleY Devel- opers, Inc., Mabel Neff Bow- men, James C. Pate end Judy B. pate, and Barbara W. Bova Croy. All members of the public inter- ested In the matter set forth above may dpDear and be heard at the time and place aforesaid. Sarah A. Rice, Esquire Assiatent County Attorney Roanoke County, Vir0inle (25870) -~ ACTION # ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEELDNATOTHEHROAONOKE OCOUNTYEADMIONISTRATIONNOCENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA HE MEETING DATE: August 23, 1988 AGENDA ITEM: Public hearing and resolution pursuant to Section 15.1-238(e) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, setting forth the in~onerties and oto County to enter upon certain p p take certain sanitary sewer easements in connec- tion with the extension of public sewer to Nichols Estates COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The citizens of Nichols Estates have submitted to ROUblkc County several PenltSenticesystemsw ithenathelsbbdivision.p Pub- sewer due to faili g p lic sewer could be extended adjacent to Nichols Estates by the developers of Willamsburg Court if the County acquires the neces- sary easements. Should the County not acquire the necessary ease- ments, the developers °tation1thabutheCCountylwilleown andlmaan- velopment with a pump s taro. The adjacent citizens will be left without access to t e public sewer system. The staff was authorized to negotiate Boardc meeting n oStaff subject easements at the March 22, 1988, met with the four props tYeewever ,a he xowners have de el p ed tithe the necessary Basemen , County's offers. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Section 15.1-238(e) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, provides for a notice and public hearing by the Board of Supervisors to authorize o Gerd to extendypublic sewer to N chols condemnation thereof. In Estates, the following sanitary sewer easements must be con demned: Valley Developers Inc. Fair Market Value - $956.00 Mabel Naff Bowman ~t„>`~`'~ Fair Market Value - $1,006.00 James C. Pate and Judy B. Pate Fair Market Value - $59.00 Barbara W. Bova Croy Fair Market Value - $654.00 Notices by registered mail were given to the property owners in question. Their noticetne sa 1raisaldreportsferTh~s procedure ket value as indicated by PP is a necessary first step to commence condemnation proceedings. Public notices of thiswPuon1Augustl 9, 1988 puandsAugust 16e Roanoke Times and World Ne 1988. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: $2,675.00 plus legal costs and acu~~nWilldreimburse he CountysforTth Co easement acquisition. expenses for condemnation developer of Williamsburg e costs associated with the STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the proposed resolution be adopted by the Board after the required public hearing. Respectfully submitted, Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney ------------------- VOTE ---------------- ACTION No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Motion by: Garrett Denied ( ) Johnson Received ( ) McGraw Referred Nickens To Robers AT A REGULAR MEETING C)FATf~THE ROANOKESCOUNTYSOADMIONISTRATOION COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1988 ~~8 L, RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 15.1-23A8 7 (e) OF THE 1950 CODE OF' VIRGINIA, AMENDED, SETTING FORTH THE INTENT OF ROA- NOKE COUNTY TO ENTER UPON CERTAIN PROPER- TIES AND TO TAKE CERTAIN SANITARY SEWER EASONMOFTPUBLTC OSEWER TO NI]CHOLS ESTATESN SI BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the extension of the public sewer service area adjacent to Nichols Estates is being undertaken by the County of Roanoke to alleviate the problem of failing and substandard sep- tic systems by extending the sanitary sewer service along the natural drainageway; and 2, That in order to complete this project, certain sanitary sewer easements are needed and more particularly des- cribed: a, A fifteen (15) fooote~~de oft Valley land across the P P yarticularly Developers Inc. and more P sisal described on the attached app report as located adjacent to the existing drainage easement and con- taining 2,251.5 square feet and being shown on the attached plat prepared by T. P. Parker & Son, Engineers and Surveyors, Ltd., dated May 6, 1988. Together with a thirty (30) foot wide temporary construction easement more particularly described on the attached appraisal report as being 150.1 feet long, located adjacent to the permanent sewer easement and con- taining 4,503 square feet. The fair market value of the afore- said interest is $956.00, such compen- sation and damages, if any, having been offered the property owners. 88' 8- ~ b, A twenty (20') foot wide strip of land across the property of Mabel Naff Bowman and more particularly des- cribed on the attached appraisal re- port as containing 9,438 square feet and being shown on the attached plat prepared by T. P. Parker & Son, Engi- neers and Surveyors, Ltd., dated May 6, 1988. Together with a thirty (30) foot wide temporary construction easement more particularly described on the attach- ed appraisal report as containing 14,157 square feet. The fair market value of the afore- said interest is $1,006.00, such com- pensation and damages, if any, having been offered the property owners. c. A twenty (20) foot wide strip of land across the property of James C. Pate and Judy B. Pate and more particular- ly described on the attached apprai- sal report as being 8.94 feet 178n$ the centerline and containing square feet and being shown on the attached plat prepared by T• P• Parker & Son, Engineers and Survey- ors, Ltd., dated May 6, 1988. Together with a thirty (30) foot wide temporary construction easement more particular raisal reporbt as containe attached app ing 262.2 square feet. The fair market value of the afore- said interest is $59.00, such compen- sation and damages, if any, having been offered the property owners. d. A twenty (20) foot wide strip of land across the property of Barbara W. Bova Croy and more particularly des- cribed on the attached appraisal report as being 288.34 feet long and containing 5,766.8 square feet and being shown on the attached plat pre- pared by T. P. Parker & Son, Engi- neers and Surveyors, Ltd., dated May 6, 1988. 8~~ _ ~ Together with a thirty (30) foot wide temporary construction easement more particularly described on the attached appraisal report as being 288.34 feet long and containing 8,650 square feet. The fair market value of the afore- said interest is $654.00, such compen- sation and damages, if any, having been offered the property owners. 2. That it is immediately necessary for the County to enter upon and take such 'property and commence said sanitary sewer improvements in order to alleviate failing and substandard septic systems and provide long term sewer capacity for the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens and to thereafter institute and conduct appropriate condemnation proceedings as to said sanitary sewer easements; and 3. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.1-238 (e) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and pursuant to notice and public hearing as made and provided therein, the Board does hereby invoke all and singular the rights and privileges and provisions of said Section 15.1-238(e) as to the vesting 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. ~ 8 ~- ~ .+» NAME : „E`er' Gz~~~~ ~~rt-a-% _ ` -`' %) PUBLIC HEARING ON ~' 6 / ,,~~ ~ v ~ I would like the Chairman ~f 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 numb~ul~funlesseinstructedgbynthe majoritynof will enforce the 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. (. INDIVIDUALS PURPORTINGITTENPAUTHORIZATIONG FROMETHERGROUPHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK WR ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. P L E A S E W R I T E L E G I B L Y ADDRESS: A p p E A R A N C E R E Q U E S T ~~~,~ ~, d-.-' PHONE: ~ LS " ~~~/ PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy Clerk. Thank you.) ~~~-y °~' A P P E A R A N C E R E Q U E S T _ PUBLIC HEARING ON ~ .~ ~ " _ ~~-~~'C`''`~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~' ~~;~~ I would like the Chairman. of the Board of Supervisors to ~c~t ~-~`' ~~ ~~~~~~~~~ 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: ~~; t ~ ~ ~~ ~1 1~J~ PHONE: ~~ L'", ,~ ~~ PLEASE NOTE: (After filling out, give to the Deputy Clerk. Thank you.) ACTION # 82388'11 ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 23, 1988 AGENDA ITEM: Reroofing of Fort Lewis Fire Station COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: In December 1987, roofing membranes installed on the Hollins and Fort Lewis Fire Stations started leaking. After several attempts to patch the membranes, the guarantee holding firm (Roofing Membrane Services Incorporated, (RMS)) and the repairing vendor agreed with the county staff that both roofs needed to be replaced. Following the normal policy of the roofing industry, RMS made an offer of guarantee buy-out of 35$ based on a 6-1/2 year old roof. A query to Roanoke City revealed that this offer was in line with market trends. Because there were two roofs involved and the offer would not replace either, the staff made a counter-offer of 50$ buy-out with the replacement of the Hollins roof (the worst leak). On July 20, 1988, RMS accepted the counter-offer. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: RMS will replace the Hollins Fire Station roof with a new surface membrane which will have a 10-year warranty. The county must replace the Fort Lewis Fire Station roof, at county expense. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: 1. Accept the counter-offer to which RMS has agreed. 2. Pursue legal action for greater cooperation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative 1. SUBMITTED BY: dner W. Smith Director, General Services Approved (x) Motion by: Denied ( ) W. Robers Received ( ) Alternati~ Referred to APPROVED: ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Bob L. Johnson/Richard No Yes Abs to a„pbrove Garrett _~_ Te # 1 Johnson _~ McGraw ~_ Nickens ~ Robers _~ cc: File Gardner Smith Tommy Fuqua ACTION # ITEM NUMBER D - AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: August 23, 1988 Ordinance authorizing the purchase of 0.518 acres from Smithsub Inc. for the relocation of Kenworth Road - Valleypointe, Phase I COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: Roanoke County is involved in the Valleypointe Project as a joint participant with Lingerfelt Development Inc. of Richmond, VA. 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 Valley- pointe Parkway. Staff had been negotiating with Smithsub Inc. and ARA Ser- vices Inc. to acquire the land needed to accomplish the reloca- tion. The owners declined to accept the County's offer of $61,500.00, therefore, the Board held a public hearing at its June 28, 1988 meeting and adopted a resolution to condemn the 0.518 acre owned by Smithsub Inc. for the relocation of Kenworth Road. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Staff continued to negotiate with the property owners and at the July 26, 1988, meeting, the Board agreed to settle the con- demnation proceedings by purchasing the 0.518 acre parcel from Smithsub Inc. for $64,500.00. Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter requires that the acquisition of real estate or any interest therein be accom- plished only by ordinance. The first reading of the proposed ordinance was held on August 23, 1988; the second reading will be held on September 13, 1988. . .. O AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT TH.E ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON 'T'UESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1988 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF 0.518 ACRE FROM SMITHSUR INC. FOR THE RELOCATION OF KENWORTH ROAD - VALLEY- POINTE, PHASE I BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading concerning the herein- after described real estate was held on August 23, 1988. A sec- ond reading on this matter was held on September 13, 1988. This real estate consists of 0.518 acre, more particularly described as Roanoke County Tax Map No. 37.07-1-6 and located in the Hol- lins Magisterial District adjacent to Interstate 581 and Peters Creek Road; and 2. That the 0.518 acre of real estate from Smithsub Inc. to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County for $64,500.00 is hereby authorized and approved; and 3. 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 acquisition of this property, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. ACTION # ITEM NUMBER '~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THROANOKD COUNTYEADMINISTRATIONNOCENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE MEETING DATE: August 23, 1988 AGENDA ITEM: Ordinance authorizing the acquisiubilofseWe emSe~s to facilitate the extension of p vice to the Appalachian Power Company Service Cen- ter COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The County is participating with Appalachian Power Company (APCO) to extend public sewer from Montclair Thea County oagreedeto state 81 to the new APCO service center. easements re uired to complete the project. acquire the necessary q Staff had been negotiate a9 MathNose 36 r10 S1-14 and 36. 15e1- nard Huffman (Roanoke County T P However, the property 10) to acquire the necessary easements. owners declined to accept the County's offers. At the July 26, uested a public hearing as a necessary 1988, meeting staff req step to acquire the easements by condemnation. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: 1988 meeting, staff reported that a pur- At the August 9, otiated to acquire the easements. The chase price had been neg 300.00 to the George Harris Board approved the payment of $4' a ment of $30,000.00 to Leo- Estate for a sewer easement and the p y nard Huffman for a sewer easem to 81 d an 8-inch diameter carrier pipe 1,100 feet across Intersta Section 18.04 of the Roanoo~ean ouinterest thereonu be accomt the acquisition ordinance state Y plished only by The first reading of the proposed ordinance was held on Au ust 23, 1988; the second reading will be held on September 13, g 1988. FISCAL IMPACTS: ~ ~ "~ $4,300.00 paid to the George Harris Estate and $30,000.00 paid to Leonard Huffman. Funds for this project were previously allocated during the sale of Utility Bonds. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize the County Administrator to execute such docu- ments and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of said property, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. 2. Do not authorize the County Administrator to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition of said property, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1. 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 ROAN ® _ COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRA`T'ION CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1988 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS TO FACILITATE THE EXTENSION OF PUBLIC SEWER SERVICE TO THE APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY SERVICE CENTER BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading concerning the acquisi- tion of the hereinafter-described easements was held on August 23, 1988. A second reading on this matter was held on September 13, 1988. The sewer easements are located across the property of the George Harris Estate (Roanoke County Tax Map No. 36-15-1-10) and Leonard Huffman (Roanoke County Tax Map No. 36.10-1-14); and 2. That the acquisition of the sewer easements from the George Harris Estate in the amount of $4,300.00 and the sewer easement and 8-inch diameter carrier pipe 1,100 feet across Inter- state 81 in the amount of $30,000.00 are hereby authorized and approved; and 3. 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 acquisition of these easements, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE CENTER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1988 ORDINANCE 82388-10 AMENDING CHAPTER 18 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, SEWERS AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL, CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES AND PRESCRIBED FEES FOR ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR SEPTIC TANKS AND WELLS WHEREAS, by ordinance adopted on June 23, 1987, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, amended Cha ter 18, Sewers and Sewa a Dis osal to re uire that an P q Y person desir- ing to install a septic tank secure a permit to do so and re- scribed reasonable fees for the issuance of such P permits; and WHEREAS, legislation adopted by the 1988 session of the General Assembly, Acts of the Assembl 1988 Session Chapter 203 (House Bill 418), authorized the Board of Health to establis fees for a h PPllcations for permits to construct on-site sewage disposal systems, not to exceed Fifty Dollars ($50), and privat wells, not to exceed Twenty-five Dollars ($25); and e WHEREAS, the State Board of Health meeting on May 10, 1988, has adopted emergency regulations to implement a fee s st for a Y em pplications for permits for both on-site sewage disposal systems and private well construction effective July 1, 1988; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the County to modify its procedures to achieve coordination between the County and the Department of Health as to the processing of application for and payment of both County and State permit fees for on-site sewage disposal systems and state permit fees for private well constru - tion, c 1 BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Su pervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Sewers and Sewa a Dis osal, of the Roanoke County Code be, it hereby is, amended to read and provide as follows: 1• All building in the County in those areas where septic tanks are permitted shall have an on-site Sewa a dis osal system or septic tanks installed for the disposing of sewage and other human waste. 2• Before any on-site sewa a dis osal or septic tank systems or private wells are constructed or installed, it shall be the duty of the landowner upon whose land the construction or installation ~s ~e shall take place to secure a permit f~e~ to be issued by the Health Department. A lication for such ermit(s) shall be made to the Count 's De artment of Devel- o ment and Ins ection, or its successor u on forms rescribed b the Health Department. 3• There is hereby established a County permit fee of fifty dollars ($50.00) for each on-site sewa a dis osal s stem septic tank. °r This permit fee, alon with the state fifty dollars Permit fee of - ($50 00) shall be paid to the Treasurer at the time a lication is made for a ermit and before the a lication will be rocessed b the Health De artment. The state ermit fee of twent -five dollars ($25.00) for construction of a rivate well likewise shall be aid to the Treasurer at the time a licatio is made for such ermit and before rocessin n De artment. The Treasurer shall not co1~A~} }~_b_ the Health - ~.._ -~LdCe reels 2 from owner's whose famil income is at or below the a licab Income Guidelines as rovided under state re ulation. le 4. The Health Department shall review this permit ~egnes~ application based upon the requirements and regula- tions promulgated pursuant to Title 32.1 of the Code of Vir inia. Any septic tank g permit issued under this section shall be valid for a period of f if ty-four ( 54 ) months from the date of i s swan unless there has been a substantial intervenin ce ' g change in the soil or site conditions where the septic system is to be located The availability of a public sewer system shall constitute a sub- stantial intervening change in the site conditions to void a mit, per- 5• In the event the Health De artment denies a ermit on the land on which the owner seek to construct his rinci al lace of residence, the count 's ortion of the state a lication fee shall be refunded to the owner. Such fee shall not be r - f unded b the Count until final resolution b the Health De are- ment of an a t eals made b the owner from such denial. 6• A lications shall be limited to one site s ecific ro osal. When site conditions chan e, or the needs of the a li- cant chan e, or the a licant ro oses and re uests another site be evaluated, and a new site evaluation is conducted, a new a li- cation and fee is re wired. ~. Any person, firm, or corporation violating any pro- visions of this ordinance shall be subject to a Class 3 misdem or for each offense; and a separate offense shall be deemed ean- mitted on each day durin com- p or on which a violation occurs or con- 3 tinues. Further, any violation or attempted violation of ordinance may be restrained, corrected, or abated by in•u this or other a 7 nction ppropriate proceeding. 8• The effective date of this ordinance shall be September 1, 1988. On motion of Supervisor McGraw, seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw Nickens, Robers, Garrett NAYS: None A COPY TESTS: ~- Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator John R. Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Reta R. Busher, Dirctor, Management & Budget Clifford D. Craig, Director, Utilities Dr. Margaret L. Hagan, Director, Health Department Commonwealth Attorney Magistrate Sheriff's Department Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Ave., S.W., Roanoke 24016 Main Library Roanoke County Code Book 4 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER _• AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENT MEETING DATE: ER August 23, 1988 AGENDA ITEM: Proposed Change to the County Ordinance Concern' the Collect-ion of Fees for Septic Tanks and Private Wells. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~f7 ~ „~:,t,~ .' ,~,~~~'r-ls'gect~ R~e~p~ ~s-~ a BACKGROUND: On June 23, 1987, the Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance allowing Roanoke County to regulate the installation septic tanks by requiring any person desiring to install a se ti tank to secure a of permit at a cost of $50, p c session whiche author i es them Sta passed House Bill 418 at its 1988 fees for e Board of Health to establish disposal systemstands for permits to construct on-site sewage approved a private wells, the State Board of Health sewage disposalfs stem fQ ling an application for an on-site application for a p..rmit and a $25 fee for filing an effective on July 1~ 1988 vate well construction permit both On July 26 1988, the Board decided to retain the Count septic tank the Count permit f_ee and have the County Treasurer collect both y and State fees for both septic tank and private well construction permits. As well, the Board requested that the staff develop a process by which a County resident could Gomel the application and fee process in one location. ete SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: County staff met with the local .Health De made arrangements for the application for bo+- Pa.rtment staff and and private well construction h the septic tank Department of Develo ment Permits to be made to the County s p and Inspection and that collection of the permit fees be made by the County Treasurer at th application is made .for a permit and before the a e time be processed by the Health Department, pplication will require an amendment to the Count These procedure changes .reading. The revised ordinance isdattachedffortthedBoarond review. d's T ~ ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: The first reading of this ordinance was approved on August 9- 1988• Staff recommends approval of the revised ordinan after the second reading on August 23, 1988. ce Respectfully submitted, ~ , /~ ~ rfj -tai I~~!~ Reta R. Busher, Director of Management and Budget Approved by, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ------------ Approved ( ) ACTION ----------"--------- Motion by: VOTE Denied ( ) No Yes Abs Received ( ) Referred To 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, AUGUST 23, 1988 ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, SEWERS AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL, CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES AND PRESCRIBED FEES FOR ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR SEPTIC TANKS AND WELLS WHEREAS, by ordinance adopted on June 23, 1987, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, amended Chapter 18, Sewers and Sewage Disposal, to require that any person desir- ing to install a septic tank secure a permit to do so and pre- scribed reasonable fees for the issuance of such permits; and WHEREAS, legislation adopted by the 1988 session of the General Assembly, Acts of the Assembly 1988 Session, Chapter 203 (House Bill 418), authorized the Board of Health to establish fees for applications for permits to construct on-site sewage disposal systems, not to exceed Fifty Dollars ($50), and private wells, not to exceed Twenty-five Dollars ($25); and WHEREAS, the State Board of Health meeting on May 10, 1988, has adopted emergency regulations to implement a fee system for applications for permits for both on-site sewage disposal systems and private well construction effective July 1, 1988; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the County to modify its procedures to achieve coordination between the County and the Department of Health as to the processing of application for and payment of both County and State permit fees for on-site sewage disposal systems and state permit fees for private well construc- tion. 1 .~» BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Sewers and Sewage Disposal, of the Roanoke County Code be, it hereby is, amended to read and provide as follows: 1. All building in the County in those areas where septic tanks are permitted shall have an on-site sewage disposal_ system or septic tanks installed for the disposing of sewage and other human waste. 2. Before any on site sewage disposal or septic tank systems or private wells are constructed or installed, it shall be the duty of the landowner upon whose land the construction or installation ~s- ~e shall take place to secure a permit €rem to be issued ~ the Health Department. Application for such ermit(s) shall be made to the Count 's De artment of Devel- o ment and Ins ection or its successor u on forms rescribed b the Health Department. 3. There is hereby established a Count permit fee of fifty dollars ($50.00) for each ~n site sewage disposal system or septic tank. This permit fee, alnna with the state permit fee of fifty dollars ($50.00) shall be paid to the Treasurer at the time a lication is made for a permit and before the application will be rocessed b the Health De artment. The state ermit fee of twent -five dollars ($25.00) for construction of a rivate well likewise shall be aid to the Treasurer at the time a lication is made for such ermit and before rocessin b the Health Department. The Treasurer shall not collect the state fee(s) 2 from owner's whose family income is at or below the applicable Income Guidelines as provided under _state regulation. 4. The Health Department shall review this permit ~ege~est application based upon the requirements and regula- tions promulgated pursuant to Title 32.1 of the Code of Virginia. Any septic tank permit issued under this section shall be valid for a period of fifty-four (54) months from the date of issuance unless there has been a substantial, intervening change in the soil or site conditions where the septic system is to be located. The availability of a public sewer system shall constitute a sub- stantial intervening change in the site conditions to void a per- mit. 5. In the event the Health Department denies a permit on the land on which the owner seek to construct his principal lace of residence the count 's ortion of the state a lication fee shall be refunded to the owner. Such fee shall not be re- funded by the County until final resolution by the Health D~t- meat of an a eals made b the owner from such denial. (. A lications shall be limited to one site specific ro osal When site conditions change, or the needs of the appli- cant chap e or the a licant ro oses and re uests another site be evaluated, and a new site evaluation is conducted, a new appli- cation and fee is required. 7. Any person, firm, or corporation violating any pro- visions of this ordinance shall be subject to a Class 3 misdemean- or for each offense; and a separate offense shall be deemed com- mitted on each day during or on which a violation occurs or con- 3 tinues. Further, any violation or. attempted violation of this ordinance may be restrained, corrected, or abated by injunction or other appropriate proceeding. 8. The effective date of this ordinance shall be September 1, 1988. 4 Internal Revenue Service District Director S1 HOPKINS PLAZA BALTIMORE MD 21201 Date: 3p~ ~~p-P NORTHSIOE BANG Ec00STERS 6753 NDRTHSIDE NIGH SCHODL ROACs ROANOKE+ VA 24019 Dear Applicant Department of the Treasury Emplc~yEr Identificaticm Number; 54-1294190 Cuntac~t Person: Mks. C. SMITH Cc~ntact Te I ephc,ne Number: (a^01) 9b2-9423 Our Letter tsated: June 12e 1936 Caveat Applies; N{~ This modifies our letter of th~~ ab~~ve date in which s.se stated that you would be treated as an organizati~an which is not a the expiration of your advance ruling period. Private foundation until . Eased ,an the inf~armation y~,u submitted see have determined that you are hot a.private foundation within the meaning oaf section 509<a) of the Internal Revenue Code because you are an organization of the type described in se ', S09(a)(2). Your exempt status under Code ser_tion a01(~)(3) of the c,ade c~san still in effect.' Grantors and contributors may rely •an this determination until the Internal Revenue Service publishes notice to the contrar lose your section 509(a)(w) status, a grantor or contributorHmayvnot sf you rely on this determination if he or she ,s.ras in aware of, the act or failure to act that resultedr~nryournlosseofosuchrstatus, or acquired knowledge that the Internal Revenue Service had given notice that You would be removed from classification as a section 509(a)(2) organiza- tion. If the heading of this letter indicates that a caveat applies, the caveat below or on the enclosure is an integral part of this letter. Y questions about your private foundatlonsstatus,IpJeaseckeep htlPnryoulverma - P nent records. If you have any questions, please c.ontac.t the pers,~n whose name and telephone number are shown above. Sincerely yours, W ./ .- ~, District Oirect,ar Letter 1050(DO/CG) Parents of Band Students - 1988-1989 :~ Seniors 362-0912 1. Shawn Carter- Trimmie & Betty Lou 366-3400 2. Jennifer Mallard- Lowell & Joyce 362-2409 3. Tracie Overstreet- John & Dottie 366-3810 4. Matt Sullivan- Hank & Amy 563-5833 5. Karen Tiller- Wayne & Mildy Juniors 387-9140 1. Laura Arthur- Audry & E.J. 5E~3-0460 2. Merideth McDonald- Mike & Alice Gilespie 366-0838 3. Steve Meador- Marilyn & Charlie 362-0705 -Carol 4. Tasha Robertson- Wayne & Carol ~ 1-703-721-3808 Y~:ayne 366-3291 5. Scott Schmidt- Ruth & Bill McCown Sophomores 1. Heather Ammerman- Giff & Eleanor 563-9471 .265-0112 2. Robert Baldwin- Randy & Dinah '562-1033 3. David Brust- John & Diane 362-0912 4. Melanie Carter- Trimmer & Betty Lou 5E,3-1559 5. Matt Cook- John & Edna 563-1151 6. John Futrell- Lee & Kathy 366-8513 7. Lauren Hutton- Marva 563-2334 8. George Jacob- George & Catherine 563-4834 9. Jennifer Morrison-Barbara & R.J. . 862_2409 10. John Overstreet- John & Dottie 362-3567 11. Carrie Rogers- Tommy & Robbie 366-0425 12. Wendy Schaeffer- Sharon & Donald 362-5225 13. Jeff Sturn- Lewis .& Diane 362-5568 14. Sarah Wilkerson- Charles & Marlyn 362-0822 15. Brian Tucker- S.P. & Carolyn 563-8042 16. Bill Hurd- Rodney & Patrice Smelser 563-1226 AFTER NOV. Bill & Margaret Hurd Freshmen 1. Christy Bryant- Randy & Charlotte, 384-7224 562-1047 2. Anika Dutton- Wayne & Joyce 563-2433 3. Karen Fisher- Don & Shirley 362-2773 4. Marty Martin- Mearis & Kay 366-0621 5. Kim Mattox- Jim & Nancy 362-1907 6. Errin McGary- George & Sylvia Long 563-4714 7. Aimee Parsons- Ed & Linda 362-0586 8. Miranda Partridge- Rachel & Thomas 384-6519 9. Christa Van Ravestin- Derrick & Jenny 362-8992 10. Brian Robertson- Robert & Sandra 366-1531 11. Heather Saunders- Royce & Pam 366-1071 12. Jane Guyer- Beverly Danahy I ~' :r :age 2 Flags 1. Dana Conner- Margaret 2. Laura Nelson- Vivian & Jim 3. Debbie Ratliff- Gene & Darlene 4. Shea Shilling- Steve & Mar~Gregory:~~:~'`. 5. Stacy Bayse- Sharon & Wesley Saferight 6. Jill Batton- Jack & Joan 7. Beth Emory- William & Nancy 8. Laura Lauth- Bob McNichols & Elyn Lauth 9. Jean Martin- Mary Martin 10. Tomeka Brown- Carolyn 11. Margot Marshall- Douglas & Juanita 12. Tonya Poff- Ruth & James Penn 13.Tracy Harper- Evert & Patricia 14. Allison Brown- Danny & Carol 15. Jennifer Martin- Brenda & Joe Rifles 1. Terri Simmons- Terry & Karen 2.Laura Mallard- Lowell & Joyce 3. Shannon Owens- Vivian Ellison 4. Suzie Vanover- Anna 5. Anita Porter- Ed 6. Allison McClintic- Stephen & Patricia 7. Tessie Plunket- Tim & Jeanna Murphy 8. Anne Marie LaScala-Angie & Steve 366-3549 362-5164 366-4800 563-2464 563-4826' 366-1062 366-6906 366-2187 362-8110 362-1335 387-1740 366-9041 384-7262 362-7199 362-8874 563-9607 368-3400 563-8750 384-6431 563-5627 362-4847 366-1002 366-0987 v, O~ V't 1-~ W N ~--~ :O W OD V CT V1 .ia W N -•+ voc~cnc.~c~c..c.dre.~3v:v= -~• ~n+roroaororoQ+oo+rosyoro -- -r• -s -o ~ -s ~ ~ o c a e+~ -~ < Q a ~ ~ ~ ~. -+. co ro o a -s ~ = cn ro o -., ro ~ -n n -~. r+ ro C -1 ~~ N < ro C O ro O '7 d f7 -+ '~ ~ O 'S W C "S 7C C7 fC fL A 7C' 7c' ~ ty ~ N 3 A rr ro ~ N -~ ~ tL ro rota rr O O c+ -r 'S et Q. ~ 'S "f -~ ro "S "f CT V -~ r* ~ ro O lU VI ro -+• ''s O ~ ~ -s r+ v/ a o a ~ o O c7 0 0 0 0 0 0000 p0 0 00 tJi b cr N •.! tt~ W W O~ 01 O~ 00 N N Q1 tJl ~;iW t--•O~NO--+NAODCTWl.7~CbW W N C O U~ .PN N~ W O N O CT 49 N l:, v. V G: ~D ANO W(J1 Q-Cl~NCTW S cam=car-1-~c ~~oorw~rz~z ro -s z~ f~ a ~, ss+ o p+ ro o ro~ -s o 'S CT C LL ~ ro "r Z fl. 'T N ? "'~ ro c+ G+ O t/r -w 3~ 'T Oro ro ~ O ? '77C' Vf O < -~f ~ SJ ro SC7~ a O r ~c -s ro n+ fs+ vl -s a+ -s c+ r 7C O O ,~ •• --~ Z d ro~ O ro+ 7r 7 [D Z ro O Z 'S O d ro O ~ ~ 7.Z7pro ~ :~~ N • .. ~ V ro .'U a 'S ro ~ O CD T ro ~ ~ ~ V V ~ 70 (D ~ 70 ~ ro ro 7c'.. c~ ~ rororo Cx mow. 70 • C ~ fL (p C C ro ~ ~ V ~ {L ~ V J V •f( • • Q/ ~ • ro 7r W ro ~ fV.c• C:D CCC N C AtL O+ N fl+ fL Oi ., J~ tL N N C O C .. .AN O AIsG+ r+ W O A C--•• 00 WN• NCO NNN 0+ IDN--+r~+ A .r, a, ~o~-..aa.a. ~-+~o~N ON O X0000 .7 1~ r-•A --• ~-+ -~r ~-+ N f-• O l0 O t0 N ~0 l0 t:) A t0 r+ rr A O tD '.0 J -r ~ ~ W W W W W W W C71 U7 W Cl~ V 7 W V I N CTI rnrnrnrn c~rno,rnrnrno,rnrnrnrno~ NNNN O~NN WW OlW WR)NCTt W I l l l l l l l l l t l l l l l O 03 tT N A CT W (b W CJt -•+ C71 tp O t-• A ANCTNN~IOWW 1--~V1CJ1-~Wr'V NN W cntn V tOAAW-•-r1pNwN-•+ =s ro ^I N a+ cn •~• w N ~-+ V1 -I N 3 f ~w ~+roa ov+ •ro-sc t'h S < lU Z e+ a ro a. ar ~o -~- N~ro 3r*Y f7O roro ~''~ S Q' d Gr ~+ ~ ro cs. 3 ~ •~. 'S O f7 C d et "S O 'f e~ to O O O 3 ~ a M-~ 1•'+ N F~ F+ F~ H+ --+ -+~ --+ r-+ ~--~ A O N N t,T1 Q1 N O Q~ O~ --+ Ot F... V W W W TJ -~ p o O D 3 O<<x rrw0 ro O ro '< c+ ~ VI O ~G O c'+ e-1• D ~ Cr v ~v < su ~. = Z i1 ro O ~. 7[7 ~~ V r V Q S ~. ro arornro~? • • . 7r c'F • (0 N C C C ~ a fl+ fl+ v ~.. ~ ^s ro ~ . N N N ro u .PAp• OO= N G rr--.~CfL tL tD ~O lp W -r • ro 3 N N " A +'~ oG r--• r-+ N ~' N A ~-+ G71 W WWWWCIIW rn a, rn rn rn o0 01N01Ct1 WV 1 1 1 1 1 1 W ONO00 IV VOW-C+1-+ ~OOW WcTA ~' V1NUDp0 ~~~, -s w' Ll ro -s N v,~•wN-~ x :. -1 ~ N a,a~ro ~' ~ ~ a o ~ ror*n7 Z 7 ~. ~. O N ro -li --~ c ro n ~. -~ O "S N -• -~ < "S ro ~ ~ W ~ O ~~ ~ ~ ro ~ ro a c+ +-~ z Na ~+ ~ ~ r~ »I a 1~1 N NNNfV 3~ O r*1 •A CT OD CT N ~ N ~•-' N (.fi O O N O O ~.1 W i~ ~ 00 f-'C~:EZf o, c.suoo o ~ ~•+~ -s n e+ 3 ro ft ~' ro O 'S ? 'S O -h S o c+a tna -+7 < • 'S 7 :s • -S .~ ~ .J + 7 T :~ '~ ~ ro 7C'~ fp r .'O • r*1 ~ C ~ro G+ C 7r • ~ •~ ro • 7r • C N ro a AN• •C O A L1r N O C • N l0 1-+ fY A ~Q• N O ~+ -.+ Nom .~. w J ~ r.+ O r~ N N tJt W W W W ~"'I rna,a~rnrn rn W O~ N O'. N 1<' 1 1 1 1 1 Td CT W N W O 'O pp W A .P tp S WrrOOr-+ O WOIDON X r*1 > -r O r - s O CL O ro Gr rp ... O• ew fD p, p, ~ N -.. O ~D G7 V Cn to A W N --+ ~ ~ '`*°' Za r^wtn~ ro w n ~° o c o ~ xoan.:~,Arn7c3x3*n , n 0 2 0 ~ ~ (tl' °' o w '~ a o c+ ~. a ~ o~ • 7C O Z ~ ~ o, .... -s ~ 3 '^t ~ ~s ~ -+• '~s r. W ~ -fi iL 'Z Ct c ~~ J -s r+ ~c a ro rt tL r. a !D -~. of ro 7r .+. ~ ~ ~ ro -s a -a c~ ro ~ ;. a ro o a tc ~ ~+ v~ E r~E -s s~ ~ or ~ ....rp ....0 ~ c -s ~Cy a v3e+3C~7v-.. a o v •s c -s ~ -s o .-s .•. ro o ~c ~ fD n d N ~ 'S N ~ `< p.. ~ ~D O Gr -.. ~y. ~ r-r to ro cry rD in ~p O --+ r.. tp tO ~O O O O O -r t-+ N N ~D ~D tD --•. tp ~O tO ~ ~G IG ~O VCS N O N I~ J 0 E 0 c _.., a. J rn rn Cfl •A N CJO V tit t1Y tit tiY CT1 A Q1 A ' ~ ~ N V A V r+ N C0 ~.• p~ ~i O r-. tO + V rn Q1 is .A V ~-+ Ci1 01 V N CJl a QU ro Orn.isp.ApNti1~7-Ot11V~aO~ OOWC..IVO~ONVNQDO p '~Q~'Vti1~D.A~p01r.+VVa+ODOAp NA-.•f-+NVW~-+N01OQ1 ~ N W Cif tU rn W A .ia• .is Oo ~-+ CT . o -'wzc~r~tn3r,7~Ex2wr ' a -s o a n. rp ~y a ro fl, r.o c ~ ~ on ~wrZ:~~r-~.-=~c r -~a,-s-sc~+u,~n-arox~-s~o oo~z>~ooroc~ ~mro .~ -+ a rr < -s ro fl. o -+. ^s 3 --' e* ~- rt 3 < ~, ~ ~ ~ H P .+..r. -p - ° ' am o • s f a x ~. ~ a :n -s ~-* _ . a c , a s a, ~ sy c+. ro ~ o •s . ~ ~~ 'f C7 O ~1 Y 'T c'- 7t' ro ro >r C/f O ~ ~ < 'r' ~.• G "1 ~ ~ w I • V Q~ _ • • '~' ~ N N Q ro ro V V t~ ~ /v • 1~ V / ~ T~ ..I ro V Y 7C' X ~ V ~ 7r ~ N • ~ ~ ro ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ ~ ro Y ro ro 7r ro ro ~'x.. • ro ~'~ ~•cY ~'C-- 7o a n+ ,. sv. Y ~ ro 3 a ro < Y za .o ~ w x _... ,, Y ¢+ ,. ¢ a Y ~•~ • ~ C ro ro ro ~C y ro ~ + N G+s` ~ N• a~~ ~+ W •C N G • {N r C' a 'C `C N C A .~ ,. ,. a N•coa a a .p.a ON !D Jv CCC O J :O ~sv --• taO ~+ -~ .A CL tr fl+ --+ { t0 C~ ~" ~J J A N "V lrJ 'V b.+ ' 'n ' D r.+ . ~ : V .. ~ ~.. J A A A tp fp C11 .. +~. ~.+ ~D r.a O J J W O Cit •O f-+ r-• --+ ~ W ~~ ~ O ~~ ~-r Ai n ro ~ . ~-* (y~wwwwwwwwwwv,crlww w ~' ~•rnwrnwoarnrnc~rncnrnrnrn wcawwWV,wwwci,cilw a~o- O ~NArnAVNNrnrnCS.Wwrnrvo- rnrnrncarnrnrnrno~v,rnpo Z 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 OrnN'AN W N7INWNA 1 1 V V l0 N At ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (J7 W -I `~Q--+n~OOVW~v~pOAODW + r''•-r 0oO10A--+pNNr-+V ,- v~ ^I 'vlOtT 1aV AW-..OONCTN Otll ~CJ7C11 V tpCT V.AON OtT ~A ~~ ~tCN--+CTOVIOVp~CTAQ~pAt Vw~---~CC~-+ONVW AN p n ~-'--'N~CTA Va+W W Via 0 G' w a ro 'f N Z a 3 r*t L:7 r*1 ~v p v d ~m N N 2 O a a c0 ro N C "h N LL C ~. ~ . '~ f"* ~ ~ "I ~ l Pf ro N n ~ ~ -~t -s -+, a c~ 'T't a. a, a ~. -y -s v ci ~ T7 A~ ~+~ V• fL -+. . ~ rD O ro a ~+ e-r u~ o, -s -+, fD ~. O: -.+. N "h 1 "S I v 1 O "~• C7 O ..~. ~ Or 1 f7 ~ 1 1 (!i v 1 ro-s 1 ' roa ~ + 3 ~ ty G. n rh a --i ro n o -s ~-+ "~ "r• "5 ~ 1 ..~. ~ fD ro, ~ O A a c'-N .y a0 ^l 1 fD....n O O ~ -.+ ~. D s~ro ro ~....~ p, 3 to of -.~ a n : 'S O O fD O ro O O 'S 3 ~ fP [p Vf N a ...,, c+ ~ c v ~~ Z 'S Cs. rr u, ro o ~ g w a .~ ~ ~ 1 a ~ ~ w (!f y ro ? ~' ~ °' ~ ' ~ g ~, ~ ~~ -+, O ~p n ~ Z ~ fp ~ "s 3. c+ <-+ a ro N .~, -r o .._. ~ tv d O 1 W tL d -~/ A• ro N w a .J ^n D rn N V O'~ U t A W N ¢-,~ ~I-tDDVINI--..r (~ ro "~ ~ ~ O' ~ fD Z- to -~ ~. N W C ~! -~~ fD p lD O d .r. 7 ~« 3N C c~ ct o g .-~ g ro ...~. ~ to d 1/- ~.~0 ~i7 ct ~• tDOOO+-+r-+N v cn w cr, cr cn N Cn01--+AN W NOVWOO~... NOOtp WAVQ1 ~~vice~z:n O .p CL -S d O C ~ ~~ w~ ~ 3 O ct e-+ [Y. ~ ~ -' ~G O to O T ro ro O ?O Z p+ A W fs+ Ar N -A < g ~ J v:~ c~.~a~..~ r • ~.• ~ V • V • r tl ~ r 0 ~ro xcn~-~ ro ~~ • ra w ti . ro V • ~~ • ~ V • ~ /A r V Q+ C •. K 7S' a ~C LL p~ :D • ~ C, • N W N 'a N N < .A N J ~A A 3r ,a OJT-+A~... ~ ~.'~ ~O ~"' to N ~ V7 .~- W O --~ ""~ W W CTi W (n W ~ rn rnrnrnaoo+rno, 1" o~Nw~wrnw m 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q~rnwv.a~ O 01sNr..~00 N V V'~ O V m ~~. sa z r. D -h 3 --' m r~ O 'S ~~ m v 1'*1 N --1 m r m ~~ x O 2 ~ m a R G ti , .t~..~ ;( ,~ ~( ;~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~, --- PUBLIC NC7I'ICE Please be advised that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, at its meeting on August 23, 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 question of the adoption of a resolu- tion pursuant to Section 15.1-238(e) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, concerning acquisition by Roanoke County of certain easements to extend public sewer to Nichols Estates. The same to traverse certain properties located in the Cave Spring Magisterial District of Roanoke County being owned by Valley Developers Inc., Mabel Naff Bowman, James C. Pate and Judy B. Pate, and Barbara W. Bova Croy. All members of the public interested in the matter set forth above may appear and be heard at the time and place aforesaid. ~~~ a. ~~ Sarah A. Rice, Esquire Assistant County Attorney Roanoke County, Virginia Publish on the following dates in the morning edition: August 9, 1988 August 16, 1988 Send invoice to: Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 `-~.. _ t r r ~, ' ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ! ~ ,.,. ~ ~~ s ., AT A REGULAR .MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE:. August 9, 1988 AGENDA ITEM: Proposed Change to the County Ordinance Concerning the Collection of Fees for Septic Tanks and Private Wells. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: On June 23, 1987, the Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance allowing Roanoke County to regulate the installation of septic tanks by requiring any person desiring to install a septic tank to secure a permit at a cost of $50. When the General Assembly passed House Bill 418 at its 1988 session which authorizes the State Board of Health to establish fees for applications for permits to construct on-site sewage disposal systems and private wells, the State Board of Health approved a $50 fee for filing an application for an on-site sewage disposal system permit and a $25 fee for filing an application for a private well construction permit, both effective on July 1, 1988. On July 26, 1988, the Board decided to retain the County's septic tank permit fee and have the County ~'reasurer collect both the County and State fees for both septic tank and private well construction permits. As well, the Board requested that the -- staff develop a process by which a County resident could complete " the application and fee process in one location. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: County staff met with the local Health Department staff and made arrangements for the application for both the septic tank and private well construction permits to be made to the County's = Department of Development and Inspection and that collection of the permit fees be made by the County Treasurer at the time application is made for a permit and before the application will be processed by the Health Department. These procedure changes require an amendment to the County Code and a first and second reading. The revised ordinance is attached for the Board's review. ,, . ., . ALTERNATIVES ANn TMPA!'Tfi ~-/ Staff recommends a first reading of the revised ordinance on August 9, 1988 and approval of the revised ordinance after the second reading on August 23, 1988. Respectfully submitted, .t ~C ` ~.c.c~L'u1Z Reta R. Busher, Director of Management and Budget Approved by, Elmer C. Hodg County Administrator -------------------------------------------_----------------------- ACTION ~ VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs 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, AUGUST 9, 1988 .;: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, SEWERS AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL, CONCERNING THE PROCEDURES AND PRESCRIBED FEES FOR ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR SEPTIC TANKS AND WELLS WHEREAS, by ordinance adopted on June 23, 1987, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, amended Chapter 18, Sewers and Sewage Disposal, to require that any person desir- ing to ,install a septic tank secure a permit to do so and pre- scribed reasonable fees for the issuance of such permits; and WHEREAS, legislation adopted by the 1988 session of the General Assembly, Acts of the Assembly 1988 Session, Chapter 203 (House Bill 418), authorized the Board of Health to establish fees for applications for permits to construct on-site sewage disposal systems, not to exceed Fifty Dollars ($50), and private wells, not to exceed Twenty-five Dollars ($25); and WHEREAS, the State Board of Health meeting on May 10, 1988, has adopted emergency regulations to implement a fee system for applications for permits for both on-site sewage disposal systems and private well construction effective July 1, 1988; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the County to modify its procedures to achieve coordination between the County and the Department of Health as to the processing of application for and payment of both County and State permit fees for on-site sewage disposal systems and state permit fees for private well construc- tion. 1 . . BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Su ervisors of Ro~ ` / p noke County, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Sewers and Sewage Disposal, of r' the Roanoke County Code be, it hereby is, amended to read and provide as follows: 1. All building in the County in those areas where septic tanks are permitted shall have an on-site sewa e disposal system or septic tanks installed for the disposing of sewage and other human waste. 2. Before any on-site sewage disposal or septic tank systems or private wells are constructed or installed; it shall be the duty of the landowner upon whose land the construction or installation i9- to shall take place to secure a permit f~em to be issued by the Health Department. Application for such permit(s) shall be made to the County's Department of Devel- opment and Inspection, or its successor, upon forms prescribed by the Health Department. 3. There is hereby established a County permit fee of fifty dollars ($50.00) for each on-site sewage disposal system or septic tank. This permit fee, along with the state permit fee of fifty dollars ($50.00) shall be paid to the Treasurer at the time application is made for a permit and before the application will be processed by the Health Department The state permit fee of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for construction of a private well likewise shall be paid to the Treasurer at the time application is made for such permit and before processin by the Health Department. The Treasurer shall not collect the state fee(s) 2 from owner's whose family income is at or below the applicable Income Guidelines as provided under state re ulation . , 4. The Health Department shall review this permit ~egc~est application based upon the requirements and regula- tions promulgated pursuant to Title 32.1 of the Code of Virginia. Any septic tank permit issued under this section shall be valid for a period of fifty-four (54) months from the date of issuance unless there has been a substantial, _intervening change in the soil or site conditions where the septic system is to be located. The availability of a public sewer system shall constitute a sub- stantial intervening change in the site conditions to void a per- mit. 5. In the event the Health Department denies a permit on the land on which the owner seek to construct his rinci al dace of residence, the county's portion of the state application fee shall be refunded to the owner. Such fee shall not be re- funded by the County until final resolution by the Health Depart- ment of any appeals made by the owner from such denial 6. Applications shall be limited to one site specific ro osal. When site conditions chan e, or the needs of the appli- cant change, or the applicant proposes and requests another site be evaluated and a new site evaluation is conducted a new a li- cation and fee is required 7. Any person, firm, or corporation violating any pro- visions of this ordinance shall be subject to a Class 3 misdemean- or for each offense; and a separate offense shall be deemed com- mitted on each day during or on which a violation occurs or con- 3 ~~ + tinues. Further, any violation or attempted violation of this ordinance may be restrained, corrected, or abated by injunction .,: or other appropriate proceeding. 8. The effective date of this ordinance shall be September 1, 1988. 4 O~ ROANp~.~ ~ ~ G . :~ z Z J a 18 _ E50 ~ $$ SFSQUICENTENN~P~' A Beautiful8eginrcing COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE August 8, 1988 Ms. Mary Hogan Roanoke Times and World-News 201-209 Campbell Avenue Roanoke, VA 24010 Dear Ms. Hogan: 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 Please cancel the legal notice of the Board of Supervisor's public hearing on the petition of Occidental Development Corp. scheduled to appear in the evening edition of the Roanoke Times on August 9, 1988 and August 16, 1988. Thank you. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 772-2003. Sincerely, `~ Q~.cy ..~`~' . Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors ep C~n~~~~ u~ ~nttnnk~e BOARD OF SUPERVISORS P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004 L E G A L N O T I C E iven to all interested persons that the ublic hearing at their Notice is hereby g AUGUST 23 1988, in Roanoke County Board of Supervisors milonhTuesday, 3738 evening session beginning at 7:00 p• Administration Center, the Community Room of the Roanoke v°rginia, on the petition of GERALD W• S.W., Roanoke, 2C of a tract Brambleton Avenue, rezoning from B-1 BUSINESS to B- ATKINS requesting CRE and located ON THE SOUTHSSINTERSECTIONSWITHESOUGH containing 0.28 A (ROUTE 117) APPROXIMAT~he HOOLLINSTMagisterial District. DRIVE (ROUTE 18 6 4 ) 1 s been requested to OPERATE R EOSFICThelCountyES AND Rezoning ha SERVICE OF ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT USED IN SUPS fission recommends APPROVAL WITH PROFFERED CONDITIONS• is Planning Comm and amendmen A copy of the Zoning Ordinance of Roanokelan,lnand other thereto as well as a copy of the petition, site p to this request may be examined in the office of the documents relateanning and Zoning, located in Room 600 of the Roanoke Department of P1 County Administration Center. ed ersons Roanoke County will provide aSuch individualsdare requested to ublic hearings. 703] 772-2018) if desiring to attend p contact the County office of Personnel Services special provisions are necessary for attendance. Given under my hand this 4TH day of AUGUST, 1988• ~' H, llen, Deputy Clerk Mary Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Please publish in the evening edition of the Roanoke Times and World News on: TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 1988 Direct the bill for Publication o: TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 198 GERALD W. ATKINS 3100 D. PETERS CREEK ROAD ROANOKE, VA. 24019 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, AUGUST 23 1988, in the Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, on the petition of THE HOBART COMPANIES, LTD. requesting TO AMEND THE PROFFERRED CONDITIONS OF A TRACT containing 4.974 ACRES and located IN THE 6600 BLOCK ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PETERS CREEK ROAD in the HOLLINS Magisterial District. Rezoning has been requested to MODIFY THE PROFFERED ACCESS POINTS TO AN OFFICE/RETAIL/LIGHTING MANUFACTURING CENTER. The County Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL WITH 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 ([7031 772-2018) if special provisions are necessary for attendance. Given under my hand this 4TH day of AUGUST, 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, AUGUST 9, 1988 TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 198 Direct the bill for Publication to: OSTERHOUDT, FERGUSON, NATT, AHERON & AGEE P. 0. BOX 20068 ROANOKE, VA. 24018-1699 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, AUGUST 23 1988, in the Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, on the petition of OCCIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LTD. requesting rezoning from R-1 RESIDENTIAL to R-3 RESIDENTIAL of a tract containing 24.94 ACRES and located IMMEDIATELY WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF COLONIAL AVENUE AND OGDEN ROAD in the CAVE SPRING Magisterial District. Rezoning has been requested to CONSTRUCT A 264 UNIT RENTAL APARTMENT COMPLEX. 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 4TH day of AUGUST, 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, AUGUST 9, 1988 TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 1988 Direct the bill for Publication to: MR. DONALD L. WETHERINGTON 1100 CRESTAR ROANOKE, VA. WETHERINGTON & MELCHIONNA BANK BUILDING 24002 ., a ~A~~Ag4. W ill crayrman- lWe1~arel oaeslc~, B°ar a m 4 ' $ of - ~aY Se~v1ces °~ Wi11ya i551°r 5 pi5~1 t- aaa °G1a1 teem t cow ~ lllr yst .i~l~ ,~'~ Ye 1~ 1~ 8a . ra 5ate se°°r r ~11 ex yre 15 ex41 t o ti°~' a tie° Windt - W it A ea 5 orta ~ °~ ei~". tri° aria lln r5 erm st ys t5 ~°1 Ss a ee Y eae Lion 54r iug p Aa • vst~et- 3 ar r ett - Trs 1°tt cave d °~ epe CY'a ryori' e g°ar ao Eu S . ~°~' lair c°a m °~ e 11221$ avi tex ex4'~ gg. v~ Ye ~ Wi11 , to 21231 ~~ sty l0 11 ex~1 mes w ~ OAgY 4a,~e1 W gi Eamil FE$R GzleVance rm °~ doe ~ Youth aid s to ; ~ ~rG,,L1 ~° Yea AaVj,9°~ Co Dlstrl~~i e Onit B°ara Catawba ehead ~ ~p,RC~ Servl~isbr Cur~1ShirilYn Mvinton wY~ ~ vices p,d °~ Ger ~ stt Carew ,~rcr11S Dls~ri.ct- .e ~ teLmCataWb ~ . ~ . AWindsO~ H1 ~° e e smiti ~rlot, g°b15on4 ~ member grot R°g limey ~ S,ner~Y sChila~ y°u'~ ~~ str e 3/22/a~ ~ TracY ed!22/aa' urner exQ,,s a~ te~~Wi 1 exPls. ,` Pointment Toad T o ave SQxiag -, °~ ,uaicla P C term ~° lie 321/g8.z ~eri°at CountiY Represen~a1 exQ °f ~lde ~ ~,on - ue ~ Web Lea term ° 1/ 6a ~, e 3 One 1 egpl~ 3l and -A eats wll °~ Stments YRZL C°ae B°ard Builain 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 Mana ement 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 Valle , Communit 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 Valle , Communit Services Board Three year term of Barbara Higgins, County appointee, will expire 12/31/88. Roanoke County Plannin Commission Four year term of Michael J. Gordon, Windsor Hills District, will expire 12/31/88. 3 D R A F T L E G A L N O T I C E Notice is hereby given to all interested Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a ppbliconhearin tat t evening session beginnin g heir g at 7:00 p.m, on Tuesday, ,~uc~yST ~ 3 1988, in the Community Room of the Roanoke Count 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S,W, Y Administration Center, Roanoke, Virginia, on the petition of ~ L. W 1 N -_____- rezoning from _~ _,[ requesting to - Z. ~ of a tract containing p , Z located ~_~--IS ~~ ~.~ ~- ~_ ~CRg and ~q~cTtc-.1 wm~ SDUrN r~~~ (~N„~ -, lin the FFd~-L.~A~s ~~~ `~rF ~~~ AP Ma. L (D~ F'k~T wE'Si or m / Magist 1 Roanoke County will provide assistance to handica desiring to attend public hearin s, Peed persons contact the g Such individuals are requested to County office of Personnel Services ([703] 772_2018 if special provisions are necessary for attendance. Given under my hand this day of 1988, Rezoning has been requested to op~-~,_. erla District. ~ EL.G~TI2ANIf E&~tuTl~ia.o-r ~N bFF1C,E 11'H ~ VIC.E acv 1 ~~'~veR1CJiTS The County Plannin recommends ~~ WiT+1 ~~~ g Commission ~ ~NDI oN5 . A coPY of the Zoning Ordinance of Roanoke County and amendments thereto as well as a co pY of the petition, site plan, and other documents related to this request may be examined in the office Department of Planning and Zoning, located in Room 600 of the Roaf the County Administration Center, noke Please publish in the evenin of the Roanoke Times and WorldeNewsoon: Tuesda Apt I Tuesda ,~ Direct the bill for Publication to: GEI~,t_p W . ~+cINS 3100 -P~T>=cam ~E ~A4- 2PANty~ t ~INIA of . ~ D R A F T L E G A L N O T I C E Notice is hereby giver. 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, ~G~Giusf' Z ~ 1988, in the Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, on the petition of ~e ~ d e N f 0.1 ( eye (o~-•~e,t-F L-~'el reauestina rezoning from ~- ~~ to /2''.3 of a tract containing Z~.9'~'~ Qeyes and located _;N,Meod~4fe(y K1esf of frj~ „~eisee-7~.'o.J o~' Ca/oti1;a/ ~~eNcle an/d ©QdeN ,~i~.a/ in the ~QC.h S,o~,•,vg Magisterial District. Rezoning has been requested to Co~vsfista~f a 26~ v,~;¢- re~~a/ _a,~arf~.te~r~ C~oe.c,o/eu The County Planning Commission recommends Q~p~o%/ ~.v; ~t pro~ied C~onb;•-~o,Ns. 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-thin 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 3~~ day of ~w,~usf 1988. Please publish in the evening edition of the Roanoke Times and World News on: Tuesday, ~~Ksf 4; (Q8g Tuesday, ~~q~sf ({ (qgg Directc~the bill for Publication to: ter- ~I.~~lald L~ lt~e~ter.~vg 7~'•.~l (Ne't.~ey~N~ 7~0~1 f /~eC~e:o,VNa /l~~ Ci'2S'~st~ ~Qa/,~ ~~ti'/~'tiy r o s t~ ~~c~ ~o x 9v t( QnJo L'P, Z~oQZ . ~ D R A F T 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, ~ti ~~ iQ4SS~ 1988, in the Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, on the petition of . requesting ~ cc' _ ~ Can ~~~ n p r "~"A 1 hYt t ~O ~'e Ournr.~ ~ ~~r~C •~-€ a tract containing y.9 ~~ ucr~`~ and located rn -1~u. (~ o6G ~i~~~k crn ~~ 5c~~ S-cc~t tTF- ~} e.~'tiT~ cz-~t~. ~:~z~ -^ in the ~-}cT{,~.i~ Magisterial District. Rezoning has been requested to fhed~~a -N~. ~co~C~c-rr~ ct~~~~s_'~•~'~ -~-~ a o~i~ !~'~.~0.•1~ ~ ~yh~'an4 rn~,nU~Cc~'~rru14~ ~,n~~r The County Planning Commission recommend s ~_ fl~ w~.~n, c:~h,~ ~~o~ 5 A c py 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. o~ ,.y Given under my hand this ~~ day of 1988. Please publish in the evening edition of the Roanoke Times and World News on: Tuesday, ~~~~~~ Tuesday, i ~ ~~ Direct iithe ibill for Pubnlication to: 11 ® `a~~ ~1C T F i v cL ~i ____zS l~.d ~c o1O0 (v~i COMMITTEE VACANCIES IN 1988 JANE Y Social Services Board (Welfare) Chairman, will Four year term of William P. Broderick, expire 1/1/88. Trans ortation and Safet Commission ear terms of Leo Trenor, Hollins District, Windsor Hills District, and May Three y ire 1/1/88. CharlotteCavehSpring1District, will exp Johnson, eals Buildin Code Board of Ad"ustments and A ollins ear term of Norman Eugene Jarrett, H Four y ire 1/22/88• District will exp FEB~_ Grievance Panel ire 2/23/88• ear term of Joe W. Himes will exp Two y~ MARCH Service Unit Advisor Council/Youth and Fami Court Board Services Advisory - Catawba District, Two year terms of Gerald CurtisMarilyn Morehead, Roger Smith, Catawba District, Vinton will Dr. J. Andrew Archer, Hollins District-Robison, Windsor Hills District, District, Sherry expire 3/22/88. Rothschild, youth member from One year term of Tracire 3/22/88• Cave Spring, will exp term of judicial appointment Todd Turner will Two year expire 3/21/88. Lea ue of Older Americans Representative, ear term of Webb Johnson, County One y will expire 3/31/88. APRIL eals Buildin Code Board of Ad'ustments and A 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 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 Communit 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 Development Authority Board Appointed by School Board 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, Communit 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, Communit 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 VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE BOARD OF_COUNTY_SUPERVISORS OF_ROANOKE COUNTY ------------------- IN RE: ) RECOMMENDATION A 4.974 acre parcel of land, ) generally located in the 6600 Block ) on the South side of Peters Creek ) Road, within the Catawba Magisterial ) District, and recorded as a portion ) of Parcel #27.14-2-12 and a portion ) of Parcel #27.14-2-13, in the Roanoke j County Tax Records OSTERNGUGT, FERGUSGI NATT, ANERGN & AGEE ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW RGANGKE, VIRGINIA 24018-1699 TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: WHEREAS, your Petitioner, THE HOBART COMPANIES, LTD., has filed with the Secretary to the Planning Commission a petition to amend the proffers for the "use not provided for" on the above-referenced parcel of land for the purpose of providing a revised entrance pattern to the property. 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 August 2, 1988; and WHEREAS, at that public hearing all parties in interest were afforded an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Corrnnission, after due con- sideration has recommended to the Board of County Supervisors that the proffers for the "use not provided for" be amended as follows: (1) Development will be in substantial conformity with the site plan of Ernie Rose, Inc., previously submitted herewith, with the exception of the entrance pattern which will be in substantial conformity with the plan of Buford T. Lumsden and Associates, dated June 29, 1988. If permitted by the Virginia Department of Transporation, Petitioner agrees to attempt to co-ordinate median crosscut on Peters Creek Road with Roanoke County, to serve Hollins Branch library. !NOUDT, FERGU50N AHERDN & AGEE ~ORNEYS-AT-LAW ANDKE, VIRGINIA 24078-1b99 (2) Uses to be limited to: office, retail sales, service industry uses together with warehousing and light manufacturing as allowed in Section 21-24-I, M-1, Light Industrial District, (A)(1), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of the Roanoke County Code with the provision that no M-1 uses will be permitted on the outparcel. (3) Stand-alone sign shall not be greater than 48 square feet exclusive of the signage on the outparcel. signage on the outparcel shall not exceed 36 square feet. (4) There shall be no outside storage of materials. (5) All lighting shall be directed away from the adjoining residential property. (6) All building shall be constructed with brick on the front thereof. NOIrV, THEREFORE, BE I T RESOLVED tha t the P I ann i ng Commission recommends to the Board of County Supervisors that the above-referenced parcel of land be granted as "use not provided for," subject to the proferred conditions. The above action was adopted on motion of Mr. Massey, and upon the following recorded vote: AYES: Gordon, Robinson, Mass~y~ Witt, Winstead NAYS: None R s 1 submitted ABSENT: None P y ~ 2 2 Alternate Secretary oanoke County Planning Commiss~ .on VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY A 1~ /4 _ acre parcel of land, generally located Parcel B Green Ridge South) D.B. 1195 , )pg. 109) Peters Creek Road within the Hollins ~ ~DATION Magisterial District, and recorded as parcel # B Tax D4ap # 27.13-5-28 1 in the Roanoke County Tax Records. ) ~ THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: WHEREAS, your Petitioner has filed with the Secretary to the Planning Commission a petition to rezo above-referenced parcel of land from B1 ne the to B 2 District Electronic equipment used in supermarketpurpoScal Sales & service of CS, SAwc_ mil, est. and office use. Bookee in `' "~`1`'°~'- grins WHEREAS, the p g- accounting, est. petition was referred to the Planning Ccenr-ission which, after due legal notice as required by Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia of 1950 amended, did hold a public hearing on Au ust 2 as WHEREAS, at that g - 19 88; and public hearing all parties in interest were afforded an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due consideration has reconunended to the Board of County Supervisors that the rezoning be a roved with proffered conditions. pp NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Conrtnission recommends to the Board of County Supervisors that the above-referenced tercel of land be rezoned from B-1 to B-2 with proffered conditions The above action was adopted on motion of Mr. Massey following recorded vote: and upon the AYES: Gordon, Robinson, Massey, Witt, Winstead NAYS= None ABSENT: None Respect~u y submitted, A~1. t /awl( ernate ecretary Roanoke County Planning Commission