Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/27/1989 - Regularieiou) s~otle~atlnS ;o p~aog Ajuno~ a~louaoa ~I~alO A jnda0 'uaIIY'H A~aW '6Y61 'aunt' ;o Aap y1L s141 puny Aw ~apun uaAlO •aauap -uajja ~o; rUassaaau ua suols -leo~tl lalaatls;I BIOL-b/1 (f0U saale~ag lauuos~ad;o aal~o µ -uno0 ay j jaajuoa of pajsanbu a~a slanPlMPuI 4anS'stlul~aay allgntl puajja of Oul~lsap suos -~atl padtlglpuay of aauajsls -sa apl~atl IIIM Ajuno~ e~louaoa •~ajw~ uoga~j -sluluiPY AjunoO a~louaoa ayj ;oppgwooa ul pa;aaol'Ouluoz pua Ouluuald ;o juawj~ada0 ayj;o aalyo ayj ul paulwaxa aq Aaw jsanba~ slyj of pajal -a~ sjuawnaop ~ayjo pua'uald ajls 'uoljµatl ayj;o Atloa a sa IIaM sa oja~ayj sjwwpwwa pua Ajuno~ a~louaoa ;o aauaulp~0 6uluoZ ayj;o Adoa y 'SNOI110N0~ H11M lY •/10addY spuawwoaa~ uols -slwwo~ Ouluuald Ajuno~ aVl 'l~lal -SIO lYla3lSl•JYW 'JNII'IdS 3/~Y~ 3Hl NI (El9 31f10tl) OYOa NYWIaa3W H1141 N011~3Sa31Nl Sll WOa! 1334 OOB '(-t9 31f)Oa) OYOa 31a3A.3O d0 301S 1SY3 3H1 NO 031Y~01 l~Yal 3aJY OS Y NO llld -ONYI SIa830 NOIl~flalS -NOS 31YAlad Y 31Ya3d0 Ol llWa3d 3Sf1 1Y1~3dS Y aOd ',NI 'NOS Y A,ONY9 30f ;o uoljljad ayj uo 'alul~ -CIA 'a~louaoa '•M•g 'anua~Y uojalgwa~g jIfLE '~ajua~ uoµ -a~jslulwpY µuno0 a~louaoa ayj ;o wooa Ajlunwwo~ ayj ul 6Bbl 'LL 3Nflf 'Aapsanl uo •w•tl QQ:( ja Ouluul6aq uols -sas euluaea ~layj ja 6ul~aay allgntl a PIo4 IIIM s~osl~~atl -ng;o p~aog Ajuno~ a~louaoa ayj. jayj suot~ad' pajsaaj -ul Ila of uaelG Agway sl aaljoH 3~IlON lY~J3l ~1..~ l ~{ ~I 1 C. 1I C71wr' n.,,I!,~~1-i~J ',~l~ C~--~ c?i ~r{!,?~;~° ;M1, rl T N (: ~! I (? ~ ~-' ~ I 'l ') ~l ~ Cs ~-! M -''1 I ~ ~ ~~~ ~'' ~: Y 1, °°"~' '-t .L 1"'NI ~-1I1?'_{~ '?r^' e6rl~,•I..:1~, fir: ~~H~+~ -~1~1 w e^~°.~~~.!_r-;-1~.'T~t" ~ C-",iI t a~`~r,w-~rv ~;t11 -!'1 ~~ c I l f' i f ~{ ~l I n ri 1 l Y~ Y'r ~ ~t r 1 F ~ ~ T ~~ AA a \~ rl I { 51 ~~. ~) ~ n-~7j~E(l~l.ln~-± ~,~',r (r~~,,c`,Ic-~ ,;~~ 'F~j) eT +~~•r=DTI? - --,.~ ~ ~;:.:;;.,CT~^~,t ~~'7'7' o~ aoaNO,~~ >' , w ~ 2 ~ J 2 a 1B ~~ 88 SFSQUICENTENN~P~ A Beauti~u/Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE C~aunfy of tiRnttnnke The Honorable Richard Roanoke County Board P. 0. Box 29800 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS July 11, 1989 W. Robers of Supervisors Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Dear Mr. Robers: LEE GARRETT, CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE•CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT This is to advise that at their meeting held on Tuesday, June 27, 1989, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to reappoint you as a member of the Fifth Planning District Commission for a three-year-term. Your term will expire June 30, 1992. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed or reappointed to any body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act; your copy is enclosed. The FOI Act was amended on July 1, 1989, and we are attaching a summary to the front of the 1987 copy. We are also sending you a copy of the Conflict 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 reappointment. Very truly yours, Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh Enclosures CC: Mr. Wayne Strickland Fifth Planning District Commission P.O. BOX 29800 ROANUKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004 O~ ROANp~.~ ti Z ~ A v a? W, 18 ~~ 88 SFSQUICENTENN~P~ A Beauti'ul Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE C~nunt~ of ~nttnnkr BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Mr. Robert A. House 7439 Franklin Road Boones Mills, Virginia Dear Mr. House: July 11, 1989 24065 LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS, VICE-CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 808 L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT This is to advise that at their meeting held on Tuesday, June 27, 1989, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint you to the Landfill Citizens Advisory Committee to represent the Cave - -Spring i~tag~=5terial District. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed or reappointed to any body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act; your copy is enclosed. The FOI Act was amended on July 1, 1989, and we are attaching a summary to the front of the 1987 copy. We are also sending you a copy of the Conflict 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, Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh Enclosures CC: John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4 018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004 OF tiOANp~.~ ~ t, Z L p ~ .a2 18 E50 88 SFSQVICENTENN~P~ A Btautifu/Bcginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE July 11, 1989 The Honorable Richard W. Robers Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P. 0. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Dear Mr. Robers: 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 Ths___i_s__t,o__advise that at their meeting held on Tuesday, June 27, 1989, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint. you to the Clean Valley Council to serve a two-year term as an honorary advisory member. Your term will expire June 30, 1991. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed or reappointed to any body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act; your copy is enclosed. The FOI Act was amended on July 1, 1989, and we are attaching a summary to the front of the 1987 copy. We are also sending you a copy of the Conflict 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, ~'12a-^---r ~~ CLc-~c.2- Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh Enclosures CC: Ms. Anne E. Weaver Executive Director Clean Valley Council C~nun#y of ~2attnnke BOARD OF SUPERVISORS P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2C04 O~ ROANp~,~ ~ A Z 2 J a 18 ~~ 88 s~SQU1CENTENN~P~ A Bcauti~u/Bcginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON July 11, 19 8 9 HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Mr. Eldon L. Karr 8011 Poor Mountain Road Bent Mountain, Virginia 24059 Dear Mr. Karr: This is to advise that at their meeting held on Tuesday, June 27, 1989, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint you to the Board of Zoning Appeals to fill the unexpired five-year term of Frank W. Martin. This term will expire June 30, 1991. State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed or reappointed to any body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act; your copy is enclosed. The FOI Act was amended on July=1~=1989, and we are attaching a summary to the front of the 1987 copy. We are also sending you a copy of the Conflict of Interest Act. It is necessary that you take an oath of office before the Clerk of the Roanoke County Circuit Court. This oath must be administered prior to your participation on this Committee. Please phone Mrs. Elizabeth W. Stokes, Clerk at 387-6208 as soon as possible and arrange to have the oath administered. On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County, please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your willingness to accept this appointment. Very truly yours, ~~ P Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh Enclosures CC: Elizabeth Stokes, Clerk of Circuit Court Claude Lee, Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals C~Dltn~l~ II~ ~A~IYCDI2P BOARD OF SUPERVISORS P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703> 772-2004 o~ aonN ~.~ ti p J a2 ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ 18 '~ 88 sFSCU1CENTENN~P~ A Beauti~i+IBeginning BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN ELMER C. HODGE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW June 2 8 , 19 8 9 CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Ms. Rebecca T. Sparks 9189 Willow Branch Road Boones Mill, Virginia 24065 Dear Ms. Sparks: By October or November of this year, the State should notify us which of our Part A applications for landfill permits has been approved, Smith Gap or Boones Chapel. You and I have discussed on several occasions what assistance Roanoke County would provide to people who rent or lease property that would be purchased for landfill construction. I believe that the County Board wishes to help people who rent as well as people who own. It is my understanding that at the present time, you rent the property at the above address, which is within the boundaries of the Boones Chapel site. You have requested assistance from the County in the event that you have to move. From our discussions, your request seems reasonable and it will be my recommendation to the Board that we assist you as follows, contingent upon Boones Chapel being the chosen site: [1] After the purchase, you may continue to rent the property from the County, at the same rate, until construction begins, unless other arrangements are made sooner. f2] Well in advance of the beginning of the construction, I will ask the County Assessor and his staff to help you find comparable living arrangements, comparable meaning a single-family residence, not an apartment, with at least three bedrooms, and for no more than your current monthly rent of $225. Because you are a life-long resident of southwest Roanoke County and prefer living there, the comparable residence will be located in southwest County if possible. Although County staff will be searching for a house that meets your specifi- cations, it is agreed that if you find one, you will advise us. [3] The County will pay normal moving expenses within the Roanoke Valley area, and the move will be done during a weekend of your choice. P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 • (703) 772-2004 Ms. Rebecca T. Sparks Page 2 June 28, 1989 [4] It is understood that the household appliances, including dish- washer, wood stove, air conditioning units, etc., are your personal property and will be moved to your new location. If you agree to these terms, please let me know. If you prefer that the Board of Supervisors ratify the agreement, I will place it on their June 27, 1989, agenda. I look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ECH/meh cc - Board of Supervisors Mr. John D. Willey, Director Real Estate Assessment Department O~ ROANp,I,~ ti ~~ 2 A J a 1$ ~~ $$ SFSQUICENTENN~P~ A Beauti~u/Bcginning C~nixnt~ of ~~~tn~r~r BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE Ms. Mary Beth Layman Town of Vinton 311 Pollard Street Vinton, Virginia 24179 Dear Ms. Layman: June 30, 1989 LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS, VICE-CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Attached is a copy of Action Number 62789-17.c concerning approval of your fireworks permit for July 4, 1989, congtingent upon following the safety plan outlined in your letter. Fire Marshall Ken Sharp has reviewed the permit and recommended approval. This action was adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on June 27, 1989. ___ ___ If you need further information, please do not hesitate to._-_ _- = eorr~act me . ___. Sincerely, Attachment 7`-` Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004 OF (iOANps,~ ~, Z ~ _~ J a ,;;; 18 E~ 88 sFSQU1CENTENN~P~ A Beauti fu/Beginning ~D1IItt1J Af i~IIMriU~2P BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE June 30, 1989 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 Mr. John Parrott, Chairman Roanoke Valley Regional Solid Waste Management Board 714 Wildwood Road Roanoke, Va. 24014 Dear Mr. Parrott: Attached is a copy of Resolution Numbers 62789-11, 62789-12 and Action No. 62789-10 concerning Adoption of the Roanoke County Landfill Permit Conditions and Operating Policies and granting of Special Exception Permits for the proposed landfill sites at Smith Gap and Boones Chapel. These actions were adopted by the Board of Supervisors at their meeting on June 27, 1989. ._: If you need further information, please do not hestate_-to contact me . __~ ~_ ~-~- - _~_ Sincerely, Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Attachment P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-C 798 (703) 772-2004 O~ AOANp,~.~ ~. Z .A J ? a ~8 E~ 88 SFSQUICENTENN\P~' A Beauti fu/Bcginning C~aunfg of ~2nttnake BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE June 3 ~, 198 9 Mr. George Nester Vinton Town Manager 311 Pollard Street Vinton, Va. 24179 Dear Mr. Nester: LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Attached is a copy of Resolution Numbers 62789-11, 62789-12 and Action No. 62789-10 concerning Adoption of the Roanoke County Landfill Permit Conditions and Operating Policies and granting of Special Exception Permits for the proposed landfill sites at Smith Gap and Boones Chapel. These actions-.were-.adopted;;by--the° Board of Supervisors at their meeting on June--27;-1-g . If you need further information ~ ~~~~ _ contact me. ~ Please do not hestate~_to.-- Sincerely, Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Attachment P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004 O~ pOANp,S.~ a z~ ~~ o a. a, 18 ~~ 88 sFSQUICENTENN~P~ A Bcautifu/8cginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE Mr. Randolph Smith Salem City Manager 114 North Broad Street Salem, Virginia 24153 Dear Mr. Smith: June 30, 1989 LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Attached is a copy of Resolution Numbers 62789-11, 62789-12 and Action No. 62789-10 concerning Adoption of the Roanoke County Landfill Permit Conditions and Operating Policies and granting of Special Exception Permits for the proposed landfill sites at Smith Gap and Boones Chapel. These actions were adopted by_the_==_- - -= Rnard of Supervisors at their meeting on June~27,_-~1989 °~`- ~"""-"""""~'""` If you need furthe contact me. r information, please doT"not=_hest~t~~ -_ _ ~_ _- Sincerely, ./~ Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Attachment C~uunfy of lRnttnnke BOARD OF SUPERVISORS P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703> 77L-2004 O~ ROANp~.~ ~ 'A 9 v a~ 18 ~,~ 88 sFSGU1CENTENN~P'~ A Bcauti~u/8tginning C~uix~t~~ of ~nttn~kr BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE June 30, 1989 Mr. W. Robert Herbert Roanoke City Manager 215 Church Avenue S. W. Roanoke, Va. 24011 Dear Mr. Herbert: LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE•CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Attached is a copy of Resolution Numbers 62789-11, 62789-12 and Action No. 62789-10 concerning Adoption of the Roanoke County Landfill Permit Conditions and Operating Policies and granting of Special Exception Permits for the proposed landfill sites at Smith Gap and Boones Chapel. These actions.-were.adopted__by the- Board of Supervisors at their meeting on Jurie ,27, , 198~9~ ~~ If you need further information, please do n_ot_hes_itate_to contact me. -- Attachment Sincerely, /~ Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004 OF P~AN~'fF ~ L ~ A 2 7 _ _ a ~~~~~ ~ ,~ ~r~ ,.~~r~~~r 18 .~ 88 ~ ~~ S~SaVICENTENN~P~ A Beauti~u/Btfinnin~ ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ACTION AGENDA JUNE 27, 1989 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 are held at 7:00 fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this scheduple willthe be announced. A- OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1• Roll Call. SUPERVISOR JOHNSON ABSENT FOR AFTERNOON SESSION 2• Invocation: The Reverend Larry Sprouse Melrose Baptist Church 2• Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B• REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS 689-2 BEAR TRAP INN PETITION WITHDRAWN 689-3 SPRADLIN PETROLEUM PETITION CONTINUED TO JULY 25 C3- RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS TO WAYLAND WINSTEAD CONTINUED TO THE EVENING SESSION C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS 1• Alfred C. Anderson to express appreciation for support. MR ANDERSON EXPRESSED APPRECIATION FOR SUPPORT WHEN HE HOSTED THE TREASURER'S ASSOCIATION OF VIRGINIA CONFERENCE 2• Resolution of Appreciation upon the retirement of George R. Wright. R-62789-1 HCN/SAM URC WITH BLJ ABSENT 3• Resolution of Congratulations to Wayland Winstead upon being named Local Official of the Year by the Virginia Chapter of the American Planning Association. CONTINUED TO EVENING SESSION D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Termination of agreement between Roanoke County and Corrugated Container Corporation A-62789-2 RR/HCN TO APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION URC WITH BLJ ABSENT 2• Approval of 1990 Legislative Recommendations, Virginia Association of Counties A-62789-3 HCN/LG TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATIONS URC WITH BLJ ABSENT E- REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS 1. Request for Work Session Planning Commission WORK SESSION TO BE HELD ON AUGUST 8, 1989 F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES on July 25, 1989 with the 1. Ordinance authorizing the conveyance of 26.742 acres of real estate (North Lakes Property) to the Roanoke County School Board. HCN/SAM TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - JULY 11, 1989 URC WITH BLJ ABSENT 2. Ordinance authorizing the acceptance and acquisition of 6 acres of real estate (Southview) 2 from the Roanoke County School Board, and further, authorizing the conveyance of 2.281 acres of real estate being a portion thereof, to the Commonwealth of Virginia. HCN/SAM TO APPROVE 1ST READING OF ORD. AMENDED TO INCLUDE REVERSIONARY CLAUSE WITH A FIVE-YEAR TIME FRAME . 2ND READING - JULY 11, 1989 URC WITH BLJ ABSENT H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance appointing a separate individual to hold the position of Clerk to the governing body and to perform certain duties as specified. 0-62789-4 RR/SAM TO ADOPT ORD. AND APPOINT CLERK URC WITH BLJ ABSENT 2. Ordinance amending and readopting Section 12-8, Article I of Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the Roanoke County Code. 0-62789-5 HCN/SAM TO ADOPT ORD URC WITH BLJ ABSENT 3. Ordinance accepting an offer for and authorizing the sale of 37.86 acres located in the City of Salem. 0-62789-6 HCN/SAM TO ADOPT ORD URC WITH BLJ ABSENT H. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS NONE I - APPOINTMENTS 1. Board of Zoning Appeals 3 RR NOMINATED JAMES HARMON TO REPRESENT CAVE SPRING MAG. DISTRICT 2. Community Corrections Resources Board 3. Fifth Planning District Commission 4. Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission 5. Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board. J. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSIDERED THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE ENACTED BY BY THE BOARD TO ONE RESOLUTION BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE BELOW. IF IN THE FORM OR DISCUSSION IS DESIRED THAT FORMS LISTED ITEM REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND , WILL BE WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. R-62789-7 HCN/SAM TO APPROVE RESO URC WITH BLJ ABSENT 1. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Clean Valley Council, The Fifth Planning District Commission, the Board of Zoning Appeals, and the Landfill Citizens Advisory Committee. A-62789-7.a 2. Acceptance of water and sewer facilities serving Roanoke Hyundai. A-62789-7.b 3. Approval of Fireworks Permit for the Town of Vinton. A-62789-7.c 4. Acceptance of Horsepen Mountain Drive and Horsepen Mountain Circle into VDOT Secondary System. A-62789-7.d EC. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS NONE 4 L. REPORTS HCN/LG TO RECEIVE AND FILE URC WITH BLJ ABSENT 1. Accounts Paid - May 1989 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 4. Board Contingency Fund 5. Recycling Report. M. WORK SESSION 1. Valleywide Library Automation Project. STAFF TO BRING BACK RECOMMENDATIONS ON 7/25/89 N. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 A. NONE RECESS AT 4:05 P.M. EVENING SESSION (7:00 P M ) SUPERVISOR JOHNSON ARRIVED FOR EVENING SESSION O. RESOLUTIONS OF CONGRATULATIONS 1. Resolutions of Congratulations to National Merit Scholarship Finalists: BLJ/HCN TO ADOPT RESOLUTIONS URC a. Todd Ammerman R-62789-8.a b. John Parr R-62789-8.b c. David Sar R-62789-8.c 5 d. Karen Bender R-62789-8 d e. Paul Stancil R-62789-8.e 2. Resolution of Congratulations to Wayland Winstead for being naming local planning official of the year R-62789-9 HCN/SAM TO APPROVE RESO URC P. OLD BUSINESS 1. Adoption of Landfill Permit Conditions and Operating Policies. A-62789-10 LG/BLJ TO ADOPT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS PLUS AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH AN ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR AN ALTERNATE ACCESS TO THE SMITH GAP SITE. AYES: BLJ, HCN, LG NAYS: RR, SAM 2. Special Exception Permit to publicly own and operate a regional landfill on what is known as the "Boones Chapel Site". (PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON APRIL 25, 1989) R-62789-11 BLJ/HNC TO APPROVE RESO AND THAT AGREEMENT WITH RENTER ON PROPOSED LANDFILL SITE PROPERTY BE APPROVED. AYES: BLJ,RR,HCN,LG NAYS: SAM 3. Special Exception Permit to publicly own and operate a regional landfill on what is known as the "Smith Gap Site". (PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON APRIL 25, 1989) R-62789-12 HCN/LG TO APPROVE RESO AYES : BLJ, HCN, LG NAYS: RR, SAM Q. PUBLIC HEARINGS 689-1 WAS HEARD ON JUNE 14, 1989 689-2 Petition of Stephan Rice, Bear Trap Inn requesting rezoning from R-1 Residential to B-3 6 Business and to amend the future Land Use Map Designation from Neighborhood Conservation to Transition of a tract containing 0.24 acre and located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Custis Avenue and Bunker Hill Drive in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. (CONTINUED FROM MAY 23, 1989) WITHDRAWN AT PETITIONER'S REQUEST 689-3 Petition of Spradlin Petroleum requesting rezoning from B-2 Business to B-3 Business of a tract containing .848 acre and located on the west side of U. S. 220 200 feet north of its intersection with valley Drive in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. (CONTINUED FROM MAY 23, 1989 CONTINUED TO 7/25/89 AT PETITIONER'S REQUEST 689-4 Petition of St. John's AME Church for a Special Use Permit to operate a clean landfill on a 0.775 acre tract located at 3019 Rutrough Road in the Vinton Magisterial District. A-62789-13 HCN/RR TO APPROVE PERMIT URC 689-5 Petition of Joe Band & Son Inc. for a Special Use Permit to operate a private construction debris landfill on a 50 acre tract located on the east side of Deyerle Road, 800 feet from its intersection with Merriman Road in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. A-62789-14 HCN/LG TO APPROVE PERMIT URC 689-6 Petition of Samuel R. Carter III for a Special Use Permit to operate a private construction debris landfill on a 2.03 acre tract located on the south side of West Main Street approximately 0.3 mile from its intersection with Pleasant Run Drive in the Catawba Magisterial District. CONTINUED TO 7/25/89 TO EVALUATE THE SITE 689-7 Petition of Marty Lord to rezone a .268 acre tract from B-2, Business to B-3, Business to operate an import auto parts business with repair service, located at 3228 Brambleton Avenue in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. 7 LG/RR TO APPROVE WITH PROFFERED CONDITIONS URC 689-8 Petition of Landon Hall Construction to rezone a 2.597 acre tract from M-1 Industrial to M-2 Industrial to operate a construction storage yard, located on the north side of Carr Rouse Road at its intersection with Jae Valley Road in the Vinton Magisterial District. HCN/BLJ TO APPROVE WITH PROFFERED CONDITIONS URC 689-9 Petition of Roanoke County Plannincr Commission to rezone a 0.57 acre and 0.481 acre tracts from M-2 Industrial to R-1, Residential to bring an existing nonconforming use into conformance with the zoning ordinance, located at 5602 and 5612 Woodland Lane in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. RR/BLJ TO APPROVE URC R. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 689-10 Petition of Carlin Nucholls and Marty and Elizabeth Poff, requesting vacation of the southern portion of an unimproved 50 foot right- of-way referred to as Chelsea Street, recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 170, Section 1, Western Hills Subdivision. 0-62789-15 HCN/SAM TO ADOPT ORD ABSTAIN: BLJ AYES : R.R, SAM, HCN, LG 689-11 Petition of F. F. E. Development Corporation, requesting vacation of a portion of a 25 foot waterline, ingress and egress easement, recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 41, Section 1, Fairway Forest Estates. 0-62789-16 LG/SAM TO ADOPT ORD URC 689-12 Petition of Boone and Company requesting vacation of a portion of a 20 foot sanitary sewer easement dedicated to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors in Deed Book 1228, Page 35 and located 8 on Va. Route 419 in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. 0-62789-17 RR/BLJ TO ADOPT ORD. URC S. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 1. WILL LINDSEY, ATTORNEY FOR RESIDENTS OF BOONES CHAPEL LANDFILL SITE REQUESTING THAT IF ONE OF THE SITES IS REJECTED AFTER PART A APPLICATION THAT THE NEXT RATED SITE BE BROUGHT INTO THE PROCESS. 2. ROXEY FISHER, BOONES CHAPEL RESIDENT REQUESTED: (1) REMINDED THE BOARD OF THE FLOODING PROBLEMS AT THE PROPOSED LANDFILL SITE; (2) CONSIDERATION OF ANOTHER ACCESS ROAD TO THE SITE: (3) REQUESTED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AREA. 3. DEBORAH ZAMORSKI, BOONES CHAPEL RESIDENT PRESENTED PETITION REQUESTING THAT THE MOUNT PLEASANT SITE BE INCLUDED IN THE LANDFILL SITING PROCESS AND THAT ROANOKE COUNTY STAFF BE WILLING TO MAKE INFORMATION CONCERNING THE SITES FOR ACCESSIBLE TO HER IN THE FUTURE, AND THAT SOME ACTION BE TAKEN TOWARD MANDATORY RECYCLING IN THE FUTURE. T . ADJOURNMENT HCN/BLJ TO ADJOURN AT 9:45 P.M. - UVV 9 ~. ACTION # 62789-2 ITEM NUMBER ~-~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: June 27, 1989 Termination of agreement between Roanoke County and Corrugated Container Corporation COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~, '' J ~ ~..~ , ~ ' G i ,J L ~' ~j~ i } .~ ~, e ~. c f ,.~~, [ ~ L_~Gt~ ~ .~~ t - ~ /r _.~. r1'lr.=~~~.~~'. /`_~`~-t .//-. f. Y... `' .7 ~-! p,-P7.'..67., d.i ~- BACKGROUND ~~~'w,-'t_z.,ti~~.~_ ~-a __ _:) - ~f :I /J ./•:~ ~}( Corrugated Container was the original owner of 16.19 acres of land upon which Southwest Industrial Park was planned and constructed. Roanoke County and Corrugated Container Corporation entered into an agreement in August 1986 that set forth condi- tions under which Southwest Industrial Park was to be developed and the land sale proceeds disbursed. This agreement has been extended twice, but Corrugated Container Corporation does not wish to amend the agreement to extend it for another year. According to the terms of the agreement, Roanoke County must either buy the remaining parcels (three tracts of 2.99, .55 and 1.87 totaling approximately 5.41 acres) or return them to Corrugated Container by August 4, 1989. A public right-of-way has been platted to serve the property beyond the cul-de-sac and to ensure for safe, adequate access to adjacent properties. There is still active interest by prospects in purchasing land in the industrial park. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS 1. Return the unsold tracts in Southwest Industrial Park to Corrugated Container Corporation after August 4, 1989 per the terms of agreement with no cost to Roanoke County. 2. Purchase the land for County use at a cost of approximately $138,000 and continue to market the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Continue to market the remaining tracts in Southwest Industrial Park to prospects and return all unsold land to Corrugated Container Corporation after August 4, 1989. ~^" a ~-i SUBMITTED BY: vv Timoth W. Gub la, Director Economic Development APPROVED BY: ,~ /: r, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (X~I Motion by: Robers/Nickens to aot~rove No Yes Absent Denied ( ) staff recommendation Garrett X Received ( ) Johnson X Referred McGraw X To Nickens X Robers X CC: File Tim Gubala, Economic Development Director John Willey, Real Estate Assessment ACTION NO. 62789-3 ITEM NO. ~ ~.- AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 27, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: 1990 Legislative Recommendations, Virginia Associa- tion of Counties COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND' The Virginia Association of Counties (VACO) has requested that each member locality submit its legislative recommendations for the 1990 session of the Virginia General Assembly by July 1, 1989. Several legislative study committees are meeting and studying issues that could have significant impact upon Roanoke County. These include the Joint Subcommittee studying the Freedom of Information Act, the on-going study by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission of state support for constitutional officers, and the continuing efforts of the Commission studying local government structures and relationships. Staff will continue to monitor these legislative activities. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Last year the County was very successful in achieving many of its legislative goals. Two priority issues still call for action: solid waste management and one-half cent local option sales tax. Last year the County called for a comprehensive state-wide initiative to address solid waste management. This would include amending the Virginia Public Procurement Act (Chapter 7 of Title 11) to authorize a preference for the procurement of recycled goods and materials by the Commonwealth and local governments; funding incentives for regional cooperative agreements for recycling programs; the statutory prohibition of certain non-bio-degradable plastic and styrofoam containers and packaging; and authorizing deposits for disposable beverage containers. In the alternative if the State is unable or unwilling to act on a statewide basis, then local governments should be specifically authorized to act in this area. This would include the repeal of Section 10.1-1425. This section supersedes and preempts any local ordinance which attempts to regulate the size or type of any ~a-a container or package containing a food or beverage or which requires a deposit on a disposable container or package. The failure of the Commonwealth to fully fund mandated programs in the areas of education, social services and health have placed tremendous fiscal pressures upon local government budgets. A local option increase in the sales tax would allow local govern- ments to better respond to the needs and demands for increased services. The General Assembly should either provide full state funding for mandated programs or adopt permissive legislation allowing local governments to achieve new sources of local revenue. New sources of local revenue could be utilized for education, flood control, stormwater management and drainage, or economic development. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board authorize the County Administrator and County Attorney to communicate these legislative priority issues to VACO for its consideration in adopting its 1990 legislative program. Respectfully submitted, .:~ .~ ~ ~ ~1rv ,~ ~ 1~ v~~~~~~ti •~ Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Approved (X~ Motion by Nickens/Garrett to Garrett Denied ( ) approve staff recommendation Johnson Received ( ) McGraw Referred Nickens to Robers Vote No Yes Absent X X X X X CC: File Paul Mahoney, County Attorney AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1989 RESOLUTION 62789-1 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY TO GEORGE R. WRIGHT FOR TEN YEARS OF SERVICE TO ROANORE COUNTY WHEREAS, George R. Wright was first employed in July, 1979, as a Transportation Officer in the Corrections Division of the Roanoke County Sheriff's Office; and WHEREAS, George R. Wright has also served as a Lieutenant/Assistant Chief Correctional Officer in the Corrections Division, since June, 1984. 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 GEORGE R. WRIGHT for Ten years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes to George R. Wright 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 Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors CC: File D, Keith Cook, Director of Human Resources Resolution of Congratulations File ITEM NO. ~- o~ ------ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1989 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO GEORGE R. WRIGHT FOR TEN YEARS OF SERVICE TO ROANOKE COUNTY WHEREAS, George R. Wright was first employed in July, 1979, as a Transportation Officer in the Corrections Division of the Roanoke County Sheriff's Office; and WHEREAS, George R. Wright has also served as a Lieutenant/Assistant Chief Correctional Officer in the Corrections Division, since June, 1984. 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 GEORGE R. WRIGHT for Ten years of capable, loyal and dedicated service to Roanoke County. FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does express its best wishes to George R. Wright for a happy, restful and productive retirement. ITEM NUMBER ~ 1 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 27, 1989 SUBJECT: Request for a Work Session on July 25, 1989 with the Planning Commission. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: A work session with the Board of Supervisors for the July 25, 1989, meeting has been requested jointly by the Planning Commission and staff to discuss issues and make plans for fiscal year 1989-90. Among the topics to be discussed will be: Economic Development Planning Commission Priorities Planning Commission Work Program Members of the Planning Commission and staff will be available for questions and comments on these or any other issues of interest to the Board of Supervisors. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that a work session between the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission be authorized for the July 25, 1989 meeting. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: ~_--- y ~~~ Terrance L. Ha ington Director of Planning & Zoning Administrator ,, y' ~Z~it'u.- ~" ~_C . Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ------------------------ ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: Denied ( ) No Yes Abs Received ( ) Garrett Referred Johnson To McGraw Nickens Robers ACTION NO. ITEM NO . ~ ' / AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 27, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: OF REALCESTATEO(NORTH LAKES PROPERTY)OTO THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~% ~ ~-' .~ BACKGROUND' The County Administrator and Superintendent of schools have discussed an exchange of real estate between the Board of Super- visors and the School Board to implement the Southview transaction. The School Board has indicated an interest in acquiring' that 26.742 acres tract of real estate adjoining existing School Board property. This tract of real estate is identified as the North Lakes Property", formerly known as the Womack property (tax map parcel number 37.05-13). The first reading of the ordinance authorizing the conveyance of this real estate from the County to the School Board is scheduled to be held on June 27, 1989; and the second reading is scheduled for July 11, 1989. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Board of Supervisors will convey this 26.742 acres tract of real estate to the School Board in exchange for the conveyance of 6 acres of real estate from the School Board to the Board of Supervisors. This 26.742 acres tract of real estate is encumbered by several easements for water lines, utilities and access; and a well lot and a tank lot have been separated from the original tract of land. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the adoption of the proposed ordinance. ~i Respectfully submitted, Paul M. Mahoney ` County Attorney Action Vote No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers G-I AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1989 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF 26.742 ACRES OF REAL ESTATE (NORTH LAKES PROPERTY) TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject property is being made available for other public uses by conveyance to the Roanoke County School Board. 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading on this ordinance was held on June 27, 1989; and a second reading was held on July 11, 1989, concerning the conveyance of 26.742 acres of real estate, more or less, identified as tax map parcel number 37.05-13. 3. That the conveyance of 26.742 acres of real estate, more or less, to the Roanoke County School Board for other public uses is hereby authorized and approved. 4. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary to accomplish the conveyance of this property, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. ACTION NO. ITEM NO . (S - AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 27, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE AND ACQUISITION OF 6 ACRES OF REAL ESTATE (SOUTHVIEW) FROM THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, AND FURTHER, AUTHORIZ- ING THE CONVEYANCE OF 2.281 ACRES OF REAL ESTATE, BEING A PORTION THEREOF, TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COM/MENTS: BACKGROUND' The County Administrator and the Superintendent of schools have been discussing the exchange of real estate between the Board of Supervisors and the School Board to implement the utilization of the Southview facility as a Public Safety Center. In addition the Administrator has been contacted by the State Forensics laboratory for the donation of land at this site to construct a new facility. This ordinance authorizes the acceptance of this real estate from the School Board. In addition it authorizes the conveyance of a portion of this property to the Commonwealth of Virginia for a forensics laboratory. The first reading of this proposed ordinance is scheduled for June 27, 1989; and the second reading is scheduled for July 11, 1989. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: This ordinance completes the transaction between the Board of Supervisors and the School Board, exchanging tracts of real estate around the Northside High School complex. In addition it authorizes the conveyance of a portion of the Southview tract of real estate to the Commonwealth of Virginia for a forensics laboratory. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: None. G- a STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board favorably consider the adoption of the proposed ordinance. Respectfully submitted, Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers Vote No Yes Abs ~`~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1989 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE AND ACQUISITION OF 6 ACRES OF REAL ESTATE (SOUTHVIEW) FROM THE ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, AND FURTHER, AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF 2.281 ACRES, BEING A PORTION THEREOF, TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading on this ordinance was held on June 27, 1989; and a second reading was held on July 11, 1989. 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a portion of the subject real estate is being made available to the Commonwealth of Virginia for other public uses, namely, the State Forensics Laboratory. 3. That the acceptance and acquisition of six (6) acres of real estate from the Roanoke County School Board is hereby authorized. 4. That the conveyance of 2.281 acres or real estate, being a portion of that real estate conveyed to the County by the Roanoke County School Board, to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the purpose of constructing a forensics laboratory, is hereby authorized and approved. 5. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary G-a to accomplish these transactions, all of which shall be on form approved by the County Attorney. ? s ACTION NUMBER ITEM NUMBER~_ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE• June 27, 1989 AGENDA ITEM• Ordinance appointing a the position of Clerk to perform certain duties as COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND separate individual to hold the governing body and to specified The State Code of Virginia, Section 15.1-117 states that under the County Administrator form of government, the County Administrator must also serve as Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. This section was previously amended to allow large urban counties with populations between 100,000 and 143,000 to appoint a separate position of Clerk. At the request of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, the General Assembly, at its 1989 session, amended the section further to allow counties with populations between 70,000 and 143,000 to appoint a separate individual to serve as Clerk to the governing body. This change extends the amendment to include Roanoke County. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION Cities in the Commonwealth of Virginia and large urban counties such as Fairfax, Henrico, Prince William and Chesterfield Counties have previously established a Clerk position separate from the chief administrator. The Clerk is responsible for the record keeping and administrative duties for the governing body. Smaller counties throughout the state have continued to designate the County Administrator as Clerk who is responsible for management of these functions, while assigning the routine clerical duties to a Deputy Clerk. With the recent amendment to the State Code, I am requesting that the Board of Supervisors appoint a separate individual to manage the responsibilities of the Clerk. This change will more accurately reflect the duties now assigned to the Deputy Clerk and will shift the management and responsibilities for these duties to the new position. y-I The duties of the Deputy Clerk are now being filled by Mary Allen. She has five years experience in handling the various responsibilities of that position. She has also begun a four- year education program towards designation as a Certified Municipal Clerk, and presently serves as a Director of the Virginia Municipal Clerks Association. Her previous experience as Deputy Clerk and Administrative Secretary to the Board makes her the logical candidate for the appointment. FIS AL IMPACT None. The new position will be an exempt position eliminating the overtime expenses previously incurred to attend the Board of Supervisors meetings and other necessary overtime. One secretarial position will be deleted and the present Deputy Clerk position will be reclassified to a lower grade. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve the ordinance following second reading on June 27, 1989. It is further recommended that the Board of Supervisors appoint Mary H. Allen to serve as Clerk to the Board of Supervisors effective July 1, 1989. The present secretarial position will be reclassified to the position of Deputy Clerk to assist the Clerk with the clerical responsibilities, to assume the duties of Clerk when necessary and to handle the secretarial responsibilities for the board members. There will be no new positions added to the Pay and Classification Plan as a result of this action. /// ~r Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ---------------------------------------- Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To: ACTION Motion by: ._ VOTE Yes No Abs Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1989 ORDINANCE 62789-4 APPOINTING A SEPARATE INDIVIDUAL TO HOLD THE POSITION OF CLERK TO THE GOVERNING BODY AND TO PERFORM CERTAIN DUTIES AS SPECIFIED WHEREAS, the 1989 session of the Virginia General Assembly amended Section 15.1-117 (Acts, 1989, Chapter 30) to authorize certain counties to appoint a separate individual to act as clerk to the governing bodies in order to perform certain record-keeping activities rather than the county's executive secretary (county administrator); and WHEREAS, Section 4.01 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that the County Administrator shall have all the powers and duties prescribed by Section 15.1-117 of the Code of Virginia, and that such other powers, duties, and responsibilities may be established by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 14, 1989; and the second reading was held on June 27, 1989. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows; 1. That the Board may appoint a county clerk who shall serve at the pleasure of the Board under the direction of the County Administrator. He or she shall be clerk of the Board and will serve as custodian of the corporate seal of the County and shall have such other duties as prescribed by general law or as the Board may prescribe. The clerk shall in addition (a) record in a book 1 to be provided for that purpose all of the proceedings of the Board; (b) make regular entries of all the Board's resolutions, ordinances, and decisions on all questions concerning the raising of money; (c) record the vote of each Board member on any question submitted to the Board if required by any member present; (d) preserve and file all accounts and papers acted upon by the Board with its action thereon; (e) give information to persons presenting communications or petitions to the Board of the final action of the Board thereof; (f) publish or cause to be published all reports, notices, ordinances, or other documents required by this charter or by general law to be published, except as otherwise expressly provided; (g) maintain all disclosure forms as required by Chapter 40.1 of Title 2.1 of the State Code; (h) prepare all papers and documents for the meetings of the Board; (i) issuance of solicia- tion permits pursuant to Chapter 19, Article II, Section 19.21- 19.27. 2. That the clerk may, and with the consent of the Board, appoint one deputy and such number of assistants as the Board may authorize. Either the clerk or the deputy shall attend all meetings of the Board. Any of the duties of the clerk may be performed by the deputy. 3. That if the Board chooses not to appoint a county clerk such duties and responsibilities shall be performed by the County Administrator. 4. Before entering upon the duties of this office, the clerk 2 ~+-i AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELDOrJATUESDAYOAJUNE 2OUN198gDMINISTRATION CENTER, ORDIT ONEOFPCLERK TO THEE GpVERNINGDBODY AND TO PERFORM POSI CERTAIN DUTIES AS SPECIFIED WHEREAS, the 1989 session of the Virginia General Assembly amended Section 15.1-117 (Acts, 1989, Chapter 30) to authorize certain counties to appoint a separate individual to act as clerk to the governing bodies in order to perform certain record-keeping activities rather than the county's executive secretary (county administrator); and WHEREAS, Section 4.01 of the Roanoke County Charter provides that the County Administrator shall have all the powers and duties prescribed by Section 15.1-117 of the Code of Virginia, and that such other powers, duties, and responsibilities may be established by the Board of Supervisors; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on June 14, 1989; and the second reading was held on June 27, 1989• BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows; 1. That the Board may appoint a county clerk who shall serve at the pleasure of the Board under the direction of the County Administrator. He or she shall be clerk of the Board and will serve as custodian of the corporate seal of the County and shall have such other duties as prescribed by general law or as the Board may prescribe. The clerk shall in addition (a) record in a book 1 ACTION NO. ITEM NO. "~-° ~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 27, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Amendment and readoption of Section 12-8 of the Roanoke County Code; adopting provisions of Title 46.1 and 18.2 of the Code of Virginia COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~ ., BACKGROUND• SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Chapter 12, headed Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the Roanoke County Code, contains within Article I, a Section 12-8 entitled Adoption of state law. The purpose of Section 12-8 is to incor- porate by reference those sections of Virginia law found in Title 46.1, Motor Vehicles, and Article 2 of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2, Crimes, of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, which are applicable to the regulation of traffic within Roanoke County. As a result of a decision of the Virginia Court of Appeals in 1986 in the case of Mitchell v. County of Hanover, 1 Va. App. 486 a question exists as to whether amendments, additions, or deletions to these referenced portions of the Virginia Code by the General Assembly subsequent to the date the Board of Supervisors adopted Section 12-8 would have the proper legal force. The purpose of this amendment is to make clear that the Board of Supervisors has taken affirmative action once the General Assembly has passed any amendments to bring these changes in the law into proper effect for Roanoke County. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: Failure to adopt this amendment risks having any traffic charge issued as a County violation which involves incorporation by reference of any Virginia code section amended by the General Assembly being dismissed as not properly subject to the County Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board favorably consider this AT A REGULAR MHELDNAT THEHROANOKE COUNTYEADMINISTRATION CENTER, COUNTY, VIRGI , ON TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1989 ORDINANCLE 6I 70F CHAPTER I12 OF THEE ROANOKEG COUNT O CODE-8 OF AR BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Section 12-8, Adoption of state law, Article I, In General, of Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, be amended and readopted to read and provide as follows: Sec. 12-8. Adoption of state law. Pursuant to the authority of Section 46.1-188 of the Code of Virginia, all of the provisions and requirements of the laws of the state contained in Title 46.1 and in Article 2 (Section 18.2-226 et seq.) of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia, except those provisions and requirements which, by their very nature, can have no application to or within the County, are hereby adopted and incorporated in this chapter by reference and made applicable within the County. References to "highways of the state" contained in such provisions and requirements hereby adopted shall be deemed to refer to the streets, highways, and other public ways within the County. Such provision and requirements, as amended from time to time, are hereby adopted and made a part of this chapter as fully as though set forth at length herein, and it shall be unlawful for any person within the County to violate or fail, neglect or refuse to comply with any such provision or requirement; provided, that in no event shall the penalty imposed for the violation of any provision or requirement hereby adopted exceed the penalty imposed ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETINGTOTHEHROANOKE OCOUNTYE ADMINISTRATIONNOCENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD A MEETING DATE: June 27, 1989 SUBJECT: Ordinance accepting an offer for and authorizing the sale and conveyance of surplus real estate - 37.86 acres located in the City of Salem ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On May 26, 1989, the County rRoanoke Countyrand whichshas 37.86 acre tract of land owned by ro erty is located within the been declared as surplus. This p p described boundaries of the City of Salem and theeLloydlproperty. County as Salem Tax Map Number 194-1-1, staff has reviewed the offer,inlthe County'se bestfinterestkto value, and believes it ro erty. dispose of this surplus p p Section 18.04 of the Roanoke Couonpte Y be eaccomplishedhby any sale or disposition of public p ro osed ordinance was held ordinance. The flthe second reading ~s scheduled for June 27, on June 14, 1989; 1989. FISCAL IMPACT: A written offer has been received. The net proceeds from the sale of this property shall be allocated to the capital improvements funds. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Authorize the County Administrator to execute suas documents and take such actishsthe salelandfconveyanceooftsaid are necessary to accompl on form approved by the County property, all of which shall be up Administrator. {~-3 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 sale and conveyance of said property, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Administrator. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends Alternative #l. SUBMITTED BY: J n D. Willey 'rector of R stat Assessments APPROVED: -t !~~ '~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator --------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE ,,,.. V,.., r ~,~ Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To Motion by: Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers ~-3 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1989 ORDINANCE ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF 37.86 ACRES OF REAL ESTATE, MORE OR LESS, LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SALEM (THE LLOYD PROPERTY) BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject property has been declared to be surplus, and has been made available for sale; and 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading on this ordinance was held on June 14, 1989; and the second reading was held on June 27, 1989, concerning the sale and disposition of 37.86 acres of real estate, more or less, located in the City of Salem; and 3. That offers having been received for said property, the offer of to purchase 37.86 acres of real estate, more or less, for the sum of is hereby accepted and all other offers are rejected; and 4. That the proceeds from the sale of this real estate are to be allocated to the capital reserves of the County, to be expended solely for the purpose of acquisition, construction, maintenance or replacement of other capital facilities; and 5. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as are necessary to accomplish the conveyance of said property, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. F AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1989 ORDINANCE 62789-6 ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF 37.86 ACRES OF REAL ESTATE, MORE OR LESS, LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SALEM (THE LLOYD PROPERTY) BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the Charter of Roanoke County, the subject property has been declared to be surplus, and has been made available for sale; and 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading on this ordinance was held on June 14, 1989; and the second reading was held on June 27, 1989, concerning the sale and disposition of 37.86 acres of real estate, more or less, located in the City of Salem; and 3• That offers having been received for said property, the offer of Bishop Walter Sullivan of the Catholic Dioceses of Richmond to purchase 37.86 acres of real estate, more or less, for the sum of Five Hundred Eighty-six Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($586,400) is hereby accepted and all other offers are rejected; and 4. That the proceeds from the sale of this real estate are to be allocated to the capital reserves of the County, to be expended solely for the purpose of acquisition, construction, maintenance or replacement of other capital facilities; and 5. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute such documents and take such actions as are necessary to accomplish the conveyance of said property, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and carried by the following recoreded vote: AYES: Supervisors Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson A COPY TESTE: ~. Q~.111~2in~ Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Paul Mahoney, County Attorney John Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessments Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance ACTION NUMBER ITEM NUMBER ~ r- AT A REGULAR ~ DT AT THE OANOICE CCOUNTY UADMINISTRp,TIONRCENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA MEETING DATE: June 27, 1989 SUBJECT: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Board of Zonina Appeals Five-year term of well ex•i ew June 30pr198gting the Cave Spring Magisterial District P Communit Corrections Resources Board One-year term of Edmund J. Kielty, Alternate. His term expired August 13, 1988. Fifth Plannin District Commission Three-year term °membernw 1 bexpare Junez30, 1989esentative and Executive Committee Mr. Hubbard does not wish to serve another term. Although Mr. Hubbard is on the County staff, this appointment must only be a a Roanoke County citizen, and not necessarily on the staff. Parks and Recreation Advisorv Commission Three-year term of Alice Gillespie, Hollins Magisterial District will expire June 30, 1989. SUBMITTED BY: / 7 Mary H. Allen Deputy Clerk APPROVED BY: lM '^ `« ( ,a~~a~.~~~1 '. 'C Elmer C. Hodge` County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To: ACTION Motion by: _ .~" 1- `~ VOTE Yes No Abs Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers .- ~~ BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS A. COMPOSITION:(Summarized from State Code 5.1-494 and the Roanoke County Charter) To consist of five (5) members, appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Their term of office shall be for five years. Appointments to fill vacancies shall be only for the unexpired portion of the term. Members may be reappointed to succeed themselves. B. DUTIES: (Summarized from State Code 15.1-495) To hear and decide appeals from any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative officer in the administration or enforcement of this article or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto. To authorize upon appeal or original application in special cases such variance from the terms of the ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, when owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions will result in unnecessary hardship; provided that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. To hear and decide appeals from the decisions of the zoning administrator or applications for special exceptions. To hear and decide applications for interpretation of the district map where there is any uncertainty as to the location of a district boundary. C. MEETING SCHEDULE: Third Wednesday of each month; held in the Roanoke County Administrative Center at 7:30 p.m. ' ~ ~ ~~ - ,. COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS RESOORCES BOARD A• COMPOSITION: (From Bylaws and Section 53.1-183) To consist of seven members appointed as follows: one member from Roanoke County; one member from Salem City; three members from the judges in the 23rd Judicial District; one member from the Department of .Corrections. The term of office shall be yearr~ined by the appointing authority (Roanoke County's is one B• DUTIES: Review felony referrals from the Circuit Courts of Roanoke City, Roanoke County and the City of Salem for possible diversion from state penal system and local jails. C- MEETINGS: Third Tuesday of each month at 4:00 p.m. ~~ ~ FIFTR PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION `A' COMPOSITION Commission to consist Roanoke County based on' °f five (S) representatives of shall be elected members population, three representatives who who shall be non-elected citizensovernin three g bodies, and two members years. The term of office shall be Committeene of the members shall also serve on the Ex ecutive The Fifth Plannin participating local g District Commission represents delineated by the Common wealthsofnVirdini in the composed of 21 geographic area partici elected and citizen g a- The commission is pating jurisdictions. representatives of the B' DUBS The pur ose Area Develo P °f the pment Act is ~~ COm'nission as defined b development of the '"'tO Promote Y the Virginia District b Physical orderly and efficient Y plannin ~ social and economic elements of the subdivisions g~ encouraging and assistin to plan for the future." g governmental basic or The general management ganization and mana Program category provides the routine administrative Bement of commission activities and supports functions. Because costs the entire operation general management allocated to the °f the commission' as administratiye_or pro ram s work program, 9 activity are generally considered -- --_ categories- indirect costs and char Plan. ~° - 1~ ac~°rdance with the 9ed to other --- --- --- Commission's program - -_ Cost Allocation C' MEETING SCHEDULE ConferenFourth Tha~sday of each ce Room month; held in Commission •00 p.m. (time subject to change,) ,, ~, ., . PARKS i~ RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION Z- `/ ~-. A. COMPOSITION: (Resolution 85-151.N, September 10, 1985) To be composed of two (2) members from each magisterial district and one (1) member at large from the County. All members to be appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Original terms shall be staggared. Upon expiration of their original terms, each succeeding term shall be for three (3) years, expiring on June~~30th. B. DUTIES: The Commission shall serve as the advisory body to the Director of Parks and Recreation of Roanoke County; the Commission shall suggest policies to the County Administrator and the Board of Supervisors through the Director of Parks and Recreation, within its powers and responsibilities as stated in this resolution. The Commission shall serve as a liaison between the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Board of Supervisors, and the citizens of the community. The Commission will work through the Parks and Recreation staff on all related matolicies, The Commission shall consult with and advise recreaui°inp and programs, personnel, finances, and the need for acq g disposing of lands and properties related to the total co amnfor recreation program, and to its long-range, projected prog recreation. The Commission shall assume duties for the recreation purposes as follows: Make recommendations (1) for the establishment of a system of supervisadkseCplayg°ounds,the County; (2) to set apart for use as p recreation centers, water areas, or other reco~eieasedatoathend structures, any lands or buildings owned byervisors and may County and for approval by the Board of Sup suggest improvements of such lands and for the construction and ____ for the equpping,.and staffing of such buildings and structures -- ro ram within those funds -- - - as -may- be-_~ecessa~to the recreationpp g the County of any --- -- _ - - ~ allocated;--C3~ --~ac- --advise in the acce tance by ro erty ersonal or real p p -_ _--_-_ grant,-gift:% eque~~- or donation, any P ur oses and which it _ ___ -~ offered or made-~av~ilable for recreation p P judges to be of present or possible future use o~ recreataevise. Any gift, bequest of money or other property, an grant, of real or personal property so acquired shall be held, by the County, used and finally disposed of in accordance with the terms under which such grant, gift or devise is made and accepted; (4) and advise in the construction, equipping, operation and maintenance of parks, playgrounds, recreation centers and all _____-_- buildings and structures necessary or useful to the Department function, and will advise in regard to other recreation facilities which are owned or controlled by the unit or leased or C loaned to the unit. ACTION N0. J ITEM NUMBER ~~ JC AT A REGULAR MEETING THE ROANOKERCOIINTY ADMINIOTRATOONROENOER COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT MEETING DATE: June 27, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Appointments to the Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: On December 13, 1988, the Board of this Board and appoint new members. Court Services has contacted the Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth Board to determine whether they wished Supervisors voted to continue Michael Lazzuri, Director of present members of the Court and Family Services Advisory to continue serving. The following terms expired in 1988 or will Appointments to this committee are not made district; however, the magisterial district is member. Two-year term of James L. will expire March 22, 1989. Lazzuri's letter. Two-year term will expire reappointed. Two-year term expire March term. expire in 1989. by magisterial listed for each Trout, Vinton Magisterial District, Mr. Trout has not responded to Mr. of Ted R. Powell, Cave March 22, 1989. Mr. Spring Magisterial District, Powell would like to be of Hoyt C. Rath, Vinton Magisterial District, will 22, 1989. Mr. Rath does not wish to serve another Two-year term expired March reappointed. of Dr. Andrew Archer, Vinton Magisterial District 22, 1988. Dr. Archer does not wish to be In addition to the appointments listed above, it is ne ~e ng rHigh appoint four ide uHi h S ho 1, Glenvarc High oSchoole Wplliam Byrd School, Norths g ointments run High September throughzSeptembemmend hereforehe appopn ment made in from S p 1989 will expire September 1, 1989. Thereafter all terms will expire September 1, coinciding with the school year. SUBMITTED BY: ~• Mary H. Allen Deputy Clerk APPROVED BY: /r ~~/ /~~/f ~ Elmer C. Hodg County Administrator -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: Yes No Abs Denied ( ) Garrett Received ( ) Johnson Referred McGraw To• Nickens Robers 2 AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1989 RESOLUTION N0. APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That that certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for June 27, 1989, designated as Item J - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 4, inclusive, as follows: 1. Confirmation of committee appointments to the Clean Valley Council, The Fifth Planning District Commission, the Board of Zoning Appeals, and the Landfill Citizens Advisory Committee. 2. Acceptance of water and sewer facilities serving Roanoke Hyundai. 3. Approval of Fireworks Permit for the Town of Vinton. 4. Acceptance of Horsepen Mountain Drive and Horsepen Mountain Circle into VDOT Secondary System. 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THTHEO OR ANOKESCOUNTYSADMINISTRATOON COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD A 1989 CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 27, RESOLUTION N0. 62789-7 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH FORTTHISOD DEODESIGNATEDOAS ITEM J - 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 and of Supervisors for June 27, 1989, designated as Item J - Bo Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 4, inclusive, as follows: 1, Confirmation of committee appointments to the Clean Valley Council, The Fifth Planning District Commission, the Board of Zoning Appeals, and the Landfill Citizens Advisory Committee. 2, Acceptance of water and sewer facilities serving Roanoke Hyundai. 3, Approval of Fireworks Permit for the Town of Vinton. g, Acceptance of Horsepen Mountain Drive stemHorsepen Mountain Circle into VDOT Secondary Sy 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and upon the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson A COPY TESTE: 0 Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 6/29/89 CC: File Clifford Craig, Director of Utilities Phillip Henry, Engineering Director Fireworks Permit File ACTION N0, 62789-7•a AT A REGULAR MEETING ITEM NUMBER COUNTY, VIRGINIA OF THE BOARD OF HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY UPERVISORS OF MEETING DATE: ADMINISTRATION RO~~ER June 27, 1989 AGENDA ITEM• COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION The following nominations and must now be confirmed. Board of Zonin A eals Supervisor Garrett has Magisterial District to Frank W. Martin. The term Clean Valle Council were made at the June 14, 1989 meeting nominated Eldon Karr fill the unexpired five-lndsor Hills will expire June 30, 1991, year term of Supervisor Garrett year term has nominated Richard June 30 as an honorary advisor Robers to serve 1991. Y member, His term will a two- Fifth Plannin eX~ire District Commission Supervisor Garrett three-year terms has nominated Richard expire June as an elected Robers to serve 30, 1992, representative, another His term will Landfill Citizens Advisor Committee Supervisor Robers Cave Sprin has nominated Robert g Magisterial District. House to represent the SUBMITTED By; ~'~c~ Mary H. Allen Deputy Clerk Confirmation of Committee of Zoning Appeals, CleanppOlntments to the Board Planning District Commission,V and Landf 111 Advisory Committee ~ Fifth 1 Citizens APPR OV ED By; ( / r ~.~,~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administr t a or ~ '~ . . ~ ~i Approved (~ Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To: ACTION Motion by: NICKENS/MCGRAW CC: File Board of Zoning Appeals File Clean Valley Council V Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers ATE Yes No Absent X X X X X Fifth Planning District Commission File Landfill Citizens Advisory Committee File ACTION No. 62789-7.b ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 27, 1989 SUBJECT: Acceptance of water and sewer facilities serving Roanoke Hyundai COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Lewis-Gibbs Corporation, the Developer of Roanoke Hyundai, has requested that Roanoke County accept the Deed conveying the water and sewer lines serving the subdivision along with all necessary easements. The water and sewer lines are installed, as shown on development plans prepared by Lumsden Associates, P. C. entitled Roanoke Hyundai, dated February 26, 1988 which are on file in the Engineering Department. The water and sewer line construction meets the specifications and the plans approved by the County. FISCAL IMPACT: The values of the water and sewer construction are $15,456 and $17,120 respectively. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the water and sewer facilities serving the subdivision along with all necessary easements, and authorize the County Administrator to execute a Deed for the transfer of these facilities. SUBMITTED BY: Phillip T. Henry, P. Director of Engineering APPROVED: ~ , ,~ ~ .A~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ""~ ---------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (X~ Motion by: Nickens/McGraw to approve No Yes Ab~nt Denied ( ) Garrett X Received ( ) Johnson X Referred McGraw X To Nickens X Robers X CC: File Phillip Henry Clifford Craig Paul Mahoney 2 i ,~ .--~ ~ -. i.rcr r I ~ PLANT ,,~~'','' f:Bc F . ~ fN~fL ~' 0,~ ~ COAP ~ ~\ ~ ~~ (~MA/YAh ~~~ ~ ~ 'F~ aKtr' ~ ^''.:.. CwrA ~• o ih C nE1 ~'rY/ ..~ (AKEV~[w ~. ~sh.v ...huc~ / VICINITY MAP ~~ ~~ 4(\ ~..~f ~ -L'J NORTB ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER SERVING ROANORE COMMUNITY SERVICES HYUNDAI AND DEVELOPMENT 3 -- ACTION N0. 62789_~'c AT A REGULAR MEETING OF COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ITEM NUMBER *-~-~ MEETING DATE: June 27, 1989 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER AGENDA ITEM: Approval of a Fireworks Permit for the Town of Vinton COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Town of Vinton has requested a permit for a fireworks display to be held on July 4, 1989. Fireworks Unlimited of North Carolina will conduct the display and the attached letter outlines the safety plan. Fire Marshal Kenneth Sharp has reviewed the plans for the fireworks display and he recommends approval of the permit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the fireworks display with the precautions outlined above. SUBMITTED BY: ~• Mary H. Allen Deputy Clerk APPROVED BY: lF Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ----------------- _________ ACTION -----'-- Approved (~ Motion by: _Nickens/McGraw to ap.Qrove VOTYes No Denied ( ) Abs'nt Received ( ) Garrett X Referred Johnson X To: McGraw X Nickens X -' Robers X CC: File Fireworks Permit Files Town of Vinton Ken Sharp, Fire Marshal GEORGE W. NESTER Town Manager P.O. BOX 338 VINTON, VIRGINIA 24179 (703) 983-0607 June 16, 1989 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administration Center 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24015 Dear Board Member: ~~ VVV All- AMENICAH ROANOKE VAllf 1' 197f-79 The Town of Vinton is applying for a Fireworks Display Permit for July 4, 1989 at 9:30 p.m., 814 Washington Avenue, Vinton, Virignia. The following safety plan will be implemented for the duration of the display. A) The Vinton Police Department will have four off-duty policeman supervising traffic control prior to and after the fireworks. During the fireworks exhibit two policemen will be stationed at the perimeter of the restricted fallout zone and two policeman will be stationed at Meadow Street and Washington Avenue. Additional town staff will be assisting at the fallout zone. B) The Vinton Volunteer Fire Department will have a fire fighting crew on duty at the location of the fireworks display. C) The Vinton First Aid Crew will have on location a squad vehicle, ambulance, and ample personnel to assist with first aid and to assist with crowd control at the restricted fallout zone. The company responsible for the display will be Fireworks Unlimited of Yanceyville, North Carolina with $1,000,000. combined single limit insurance coverage provided by the Allied Specialty Insurance Inc., T.H.E. Insurance Company, of Treasure Island, Florida. Should you have any questins, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Geor a W.-Nester Town Manager GN/ml ' .l ~.{ i~~~ ,. 'I'O'V~N OF VINTON FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT APPLICATION Pursuant to the provisions of Section 11-2 of the Roanoke County Code the following organization hereby applies to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County for a display of fireworks within Roanoke County. 1. Name of organization - m-x,r, ~f Vinton -- 311 S. Pollard Street 2. Address of organization - Vinton, Virginia 24179 3. Date of fireworks display - July 4, 198, 9:30 p.m. 4. Location of fireworks display - 814 Washington Ave. Vinton, Virginia 24179 5. Name and address of qualified expert who will conduct such display and basis for his qualification as an expert - Bernard Bangley, Quaker Nletnorial Church, Lynchburg, Virginia 17years experience in conducting and shooting fireworks displays The undersigned hereby certifies that the provisions of Section 11-2 of the Roanoke County Code have been read and will be complied with by said organization. Any fireworks that remain unfired after the display shall be immediately disposed of in a safe manner. ~; Name nd ' tl,e L IN RA ~CE~• T j AL..I...IEI{ 5F'EI;IA TY 5U N . N ~• S.{ ~ {. ..F :i ,~. ... ..i..` ', .,. t:',:'., i • '{' i j' i i:: %i t i:.. e { t.4 : { S!:! ii} F Cw~:RTI~'ICASTE OF INSURANCE: {~~..r._....... NAME b: ApL1F^iE:SS CIF' ItVSURE~: AL1)~ITICINAI.. INSURETJ: • + "" ' -' - ~ '`' •'~ " Tovm of Vinton :...., ~~ s~~'}: 4 :;. ? a.i, x '.. : ; ~•, _,_~ _ Vinton, VA 24179 ~'~~. I.MA~y....G~u~EAS~~ COMPANY: "''.: Et t '~s;:.2,-' ................ POLICY :~UM~ER: ...._............. et''.i..,isi;;.•>:':,..,:xkt ...._.........._........ L.IASIL..xT'Y L..IMIT: Rad i ly In,Jury and ,,; .. ,.t Fi"opei"ty I~ama~~t ........_..:.1>.~,s.:,r~'r::a.:.;:':;?....._.:•:......._. 4V ~x~~~~....CQ~I~P~A~x~ ............................................»...................... ................_.::?k........... r~ .~: ~. .?i. ............ .... ............ ..... .............w- FOL I CY F`ER I OD: :'i~',:1:}.:,. ':~ F'ti" o m . ~'J."it?j'ii~'F • .. i .» ;•~ "i; G'~ t Yl ^ i?'I' r;".a Yti::'.. ..ri'r.. ...:...._; ?~ R; .: ~`r~.b F..i>~ .. ... •t' •t }•f•ti? ;;~;i;??: ;; tt"• rjY7-•r nt;.t•}:,;.i t;`! .. r.ii,:. i, }... .^: i i,:iYt rtx•t i:!r :;n it iri ! .. .. :.,.;r..... t Sri , 'i%!t' tp.••+1J{"lliii!"i{ ttt (`.'. , ..... , r .,.. . ... t ......• ... i.._ ;. t:} j •.- ~~• ui'i ! t : t:J i'c Yi ii 'i i i.. i:•: } 'S ii t {..! i»,+- i i t. i .., r, v .. ,.. _. .... ..... ... i s } tJ ._ Y J i. i i.! t.J , l ! ! c:: c.. 4i i il;:; •:r ! ! i~ w t !. t. i::' .i i t.t t:. <.t v .J ! l .. ,.. ... ... . , ... .... ... t .r. - i.l, i» tc? '~' ii <~4 } 'N ki? `i to i.'. t ! 11 i i ~{: 1 i.. i.n. I ii'1 Q}.! i. 1',!•:i. t { +?Y; i!. {:i O'iY 't'i'I i:;,: i:. iJ iii }:i .:i. i'1 •Y t PATE OF' T}I5F'LAY: ,.tTu~.y,...~.,.-•~.•»1989 NAME ~ AL1I;tRE:55 OF CERTIFICATE !~•i0~-CEP: CAIN DATE: ~1 .r...Night ~~,ary Beth Lay,~an DISPLAY AM~~`i'+ ~' Tovm of Vinton l_CICAT ION C]F D ISF'LAY: 814 Uashington Ave . i;.0. Box 338 Vinton, VA 24179 Vinton, V~ 24179 •,- ... ~ ,.: %:t (:' it ! i (:} } '{' i !.r !'; r;t "{ r, , ! l::' IJ t1 ;, ! f;: ';' i i..l it .. ~ ~t i. f. r~ { { ~" E:i { ,~: •!• `:'.i7_ t.. • ;° iii t:}''•i at f::': is~ ti 'i' .r I'Y iri ,.{ { Iv ~' +', :, a , ft t ::: - '{' it 1' ' ' tt ... ~. c:!:a ::: .... ~ rill t.?.'! .. .. .. ... .°.~: ... i.~y •{•f',i ::,}y,' t'i It l" ~iji:3i;!;:!•F+i ti i:ar{'w''~•'::r [iji,•:;~'it(„~':'. i:a k: '[; i;;'+Yr ii ::. i -• t r • i..+ i ~t t:l (:? i:!'f • '1' {? t" i'3 t:•? i:i {:) v .~ {'1 is ~' t? i. } i:: 'Y' C I to r;. 3 :{ i:? : ~:: t" ! r? C•::• :{ {'i (:•? t.. ii::' t? Yi <• 1'v+J..~ } ~ {~. "+ .{. Yt ~ {'1 fc? ri:: V' . Yt,'( r . 'l' I't t.. ... i. ~ .. .. .• i i t r.: i t. a'.l .. i:; rt t; i.;,l..:;! < in {A,t i 1. f- ~:1 f+ 1~ }. y i- }.t ~ ~E: t•- Y ; YI r? }.. f Yti:. t rpr!t~?;? Yt'[' +td~i::'%:t '~"•Y':'t" i:., t.. i}!'i t ry t '{,~ •:i r i_? 1 :: ... {~ . • .r.. r t 'f: Ci E:;• ... : i •.: -. •• ' ._ ~'i i:i' .. i1 I. t~:r i r. i t t 'i i 'l' 9°i rzi ~ {' t:. t•• : }t ~:: i. ~- 'f~hr•=• i'i~";:}:r ii 'r.•.:. i j•t i i i 7: y t? Y'i %i: °'t+1l... !.. •{ L1 ~i''i! •3' r } v! l r:° i! YI f/i{ ! I '.. f i { t.l 1 :::•~y }. i+ '" ... ...... .... _ ..... _ .. , ..... -, r ... .... i t' L' ti'I' w• '{; {'}'! i:.~ t-,R i :{:} ! I~1 4' .a t~' t.., i...t t.i .}. t r } ~ i,,. I, ~; •: t7 1'i i, l-}:: ,~ :t,.:. i:; r;f !. } r.:. 1 .t ~ .. i. ~r •i ;.: 1 '} 7 r;i Yi ;. .'•i .::;; it i'~ 1 ;:f } i r!~ t: T l {"t F.c :: i-' iJ Yi?:r Cs e ' .. ... .............. .. .. r ~ . , i i t ...r i i Yi i° +.}. 4 ~ t•:~ i~{ i;; , ~:t Yt `:~ 'i• "t e t" ii '~' ?~: {:i , ;:: ri }. {" i{:' i? .~, t i' i? •}" t f•,rc;c;!•;ir: tj'Y ::; ~•I'..•' {:, t.. r'ril'! i ::i4ia;:i tAii:. i I'r:•: i' it {. t. %i ist } Yli;i pt i.. i.y ,.t r.1 t:4 ! ~~. !.':Y ,ta t t tY'1;? .. ... ... ... _. ... r:. r e? YY:i i? t" ' Y1{:l CJ i" ?a %:t 'rt i ;;; r! 't ! i? Yi ri r' t:: i? i}ltlt , C !:..... ry :::}r ... .; c}Y';)Yi-!' Yi« <it {a„~•~'if11 '}: •t ii 't'i'ti:;~ ('~:.1{{ii•','i. ::. t• ..} ~:?1' .~.{..ti;_, ;;;ai!Yi:?i~ .{.Yi~:>lAt"i°'ti:{, i?C' ~iY1.4 G%lAl:i :. ! t. t..~.t t y- _ .. ,.. .. ... ... - ... .; :. sg i•• ia'.i;l:i ii?3::: '{' <:: :a i:; t:: { i:{ t:?' Y: ~ i.. ''I 3' i i.. 1'.=! fi {t,'{. ;i .{. '':f { .. ;. Y1~::•s!. t-' {'i:{ :: I:i lA l' (? 1t }.; t .. -> r;i'w'i:+{•:~ ~ +3 i:: '~ Ytr~j I `it{..t {..; is?r•. .. (., t,A t:. •::>i: i:t Yii:i { . t~=:3' •.. ~..{ .{: ti: i-fA'{'ir.{{ ii {~i't ~.. ~^t il:i;;•i;{ {. iki; l,{t"ii'?i:i ''~i• }r~f1'{{' {• i• ! .} :_ r:. t; ...... ,..~^. .. z...::. ' .. ;::p', i i. t?'r tf'++::r'i','{' , t°t I. ~; u p .' :::~ ::+ t.l is i '~' I tJ Yt(d r. i~<a cnl•:•l.t .{: Ys ~~ ie ! t-'t:i ;• <i! Y't v .i.'itl.t c:~i:i i•;? i"ii:i tE;' Yi t l.; i? 'rj... °. .. --. M1 .. ..... i .. ,{, ,,', .,. ,.... ~ ...,. ...., i;; " , •, } -3 - s».... '}; i ~i ii ~ i.{ , !:: {:i {.. _i 'r' i3 'i i t:i li? i't .:i {. -~' i) '{' t e 'i L.r ~'•{ ::i i i is i i.i .i. i i ~: YA F ~ { i i ~i a t"i }J '~ i ' '!'I ti i t,?. it sit 1 t i:, is ;. f. ;,' 't. i? <'il '{t'y 4~ <s E i. ib-,_ ;:; .~. ii }:; ii I. t i:. E• iii !. t:i'~t Yii1.}:i '}: i't r:. t:I ( ' Thies ceti°tificate is not valid unless an of"iginal si9natuti"e appeay-s below. tCapics Nat Valid.) Caves"age ~nd Lei cab LepNat i ona L Fire} Pi o'ntect i onnAssoc iatmani tNFFAb?yco~es~ and~"eds with all pp standa~°ds i n effect at the time of d i sp LaY. ... ... .. . .. ~ .. .. ., .}. E't .:: F ;...... .. -i i t ~ Je..i i 'i'r . I f .:a ~{' r:~.' (! '{' f..: r; •• •(• 't f '1' 1 r,; ::! '}: a s } ....., f t %.i t't t:: 1'" 'r ..... .., ........ rA• ...................................................'..... ..... :i: ACTION N0. 62789-7.d ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 27, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Acceptance of Horsepen Mountain Drive and Horsepen Mountain Circle into the Secondary System by the Virginia Department of Highways COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION• Roanoke County has received acknowledgment that the following roads has been accepted into the Secondary System by the Virginia Department of Transportation effective June 16, 1989: - 0.50 miles of Horsepen Mountain Drive (Route 1035) - 0.05 miles of Horsepen Mountain Circle (Route 1036) SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Mary H. Allen Deputy Clerk r'~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator --------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved (X~ Motion by: _ Nickens/McGraw to a rove Denied ( ) Yes No Abs:nt Received ( ) Garrett X Referred Johnson X To: McGraw X Nickens X Robers X CC: File Phillip Henry Arnold Covey ITEM NUMBER ~"" AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD A'I' THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER IN ROANOK.E, VA., ON TUESDAY, MEETING DATE: June 27, 1989 SUBJECT: Accounts Paid - May 1989 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Payments to Vendors: $12,629,694.58 Payroll: 5/12/89 $399,526.51 5/26/89 396,523.80 796,150.31 13,425.844.89 A detailed listing of the payments is on file with the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors. SUBMITTED BY; ~ ~ ~. ~ Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance APPROVED: Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ------------------------------------------------------------------ ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To Garrett Johnson McGraw Nic.kens Robers L " COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CAPITAL FUND - UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE Beginning Balance at July 1, 1988 Additional Amount from 1988-89 Budget Nov..snber 22, 1988 Improvements at Administrative Center Balance as of June 27, 1989 Submitted by Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance $12,644 50,000 (6,450) 56 194 ~-3 COUDFi'Y OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE - GENERAL, FUND Balance at July 1, 1988 $3,037,141 August 9, 1988 Dixie Caverns Landfill Cleanup (400,000) September 13, 1988 Transfer to Board Contingency (50,000) September 26, 1988 Design Phase of Spring Hollow Reservoir (175,000) October 25, 1988 Funding for Public Information Officer (46,500) November 9, 1988 Dixie Caverns Landfill Cleanup (260,000) November 22, 1988 Lease Additional Office Space (34,783) February 28, 1989 Primary Election Expenses (23,855) April 25, 1989 County Administrator's Vehicle (14 685) April 25, 1989 All America City Expenditures (20,000) Balance as of June 27, 1989 $2.012.318 Submitted by Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance June 28, 1988 July 26, 1988 September 13, 1988 September 26, 1988 September 28, 1988 October 6, 1988 October 6, 1988 October 11, 1988 Octo'oer 20, 1988 October 25, 1988 November 3, 1988 November 9, 1988 December 13, 1988 December 20, 1988 January 10, 1989 January 24, 1989 January 24, 1989 May 9, 1989 June 14, 1989 COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY Original Budget at July 1, 1988 Funding of Length of Service Benefit for Volunteer Fire, Rescue, and Auxiliary Sheriff's Deputies Tweed's Access Road Add to Board Contingency from Unappropriated Balance Beautification of Brambleton Avenue Economic Development Trip to Northern Virginia (Approved Administratively) Typewriter for Clerk of Courts (Approved Administratively) Economic Develo~cxnent Pr~tion (Approved Administratively) Safekeeping of Securities Informational Brochure for November Election (Approved Administratively) Additional Allocation to Total Action Against Poverty (TAP) Survey Fees - Safety Center and Forensics Lab Site (Approved Admin.) Bushdale Road C. L. & 0. Investors Stonebridge Park Parking Lot (Approved Administratively) Salaries for Board of Zoning Appeals Contribution to Arts Festival Sesquicentennial History Books Contribution to Better Beginnings Coalition Cable Television Consultant Balance as of June 27, 1989 Submitted by Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance $50,000 (9,000) (39,405) 50,000 (3,500) (1,000) (966) (1,025) (2,000) (b,500) (10,000) (1,000) (365) (5,000) (625) (1,000) (300) (500) (2,947) 12 394 ~- y. ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~ -y AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 27, 1989 SUBJECT: Information Report on Recycling COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: At the May 23 Board meeting, Supervisor Steve McGraw requested additional information concerning valleywide recycling efforts. The following is information addressing the issues raised. WHAT RECYCLING EFFORTS ARE BEING MADE BY OTHER LOCALITIES IN THE VALLEY? Roanoke County: ° Curbside collection of paper, glass, and aluminum in Penn Forest (1,000 homes), Cherokee Hills subdivision, and Fort Lewis (900 homes) ° County office buildings (Public Service Center and Administration Center) - paper, glass and aluminum ° Leaf_ and brush diversion (50~ of amount collected) ° Fort Lewis School drop off for community recycling Roanoke City: ° Downtown paper recycling ° Drop-off center at Service Center ° Public meetings and surveys ° Brush and leaf diversion Salem: ~- °Separation of glass, aluminum and metal at incinerator Vinton: ° Voluntary newspaper recycling ° Some leaf and brush diversion WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED SAVINGS IN LANDFILL SPACE THAT COULD BE REALIZED IF A VALLEYWIDE RECYCLING EFFORT WAS MADE WITH AUTOMATED COLLECTION OF COMMINGLED RECYCLABLES? ° According to the Olver Recycling Report, 19~ of the residential waste stream could be recycled by commingled curbside collection. The estimated annual residential waste stream that could be recycled is 12,000 tons. This recycling effort would be equivalent to 24 working days of landfill space. ° Total annualized capital and operating costs are estimated by Olver Incorporated to be $2.3 million. SUBMITTED BY: ~ ~~ J hn R. ubbard, P.E. Assistant County Administrator Community Services & Development APPROVED: fj, (/jj Elmer C. dodge ~ " County Administrator ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers I ' '•' AT A REGULARAMHELD ATOTHEHROp,NOKE COUNTY, VIRGIN OF 5UPEADMINISTR.ATION oENTER COUNTY JUNE 27, 1989 MEETING DATE • V~LEy~nTIDE A ITEM:• WORK SESSIOO~DIONRpROJECTE AGEND LIBRp,Ry AU COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: ervisors, 1988 meeting of the Board of Sup rocess roceed through the bidding P At the December 13, the Board authorized stefa d C P Y of Salem to detAu~omationeSysteml with the City of Roanok ide Library of a Valleyw impact and feasibility 6 vendors whiin hdepartment andathe Bids were received from sixand)Data Process g b staff from each Library ned to Y ve resented a hands on nneo 27 ras de og their t~,,~o (2) finalists ha The work session of J abilities respective systems. ort of the the Board of Supervisors an overview ° ours supp give to stem and to solicit ystem. Of the two of a library automation sY automation sY be the t of a valleywide library to the concep the choice would not necessaa ed anticipated as comp vendors who are finalisotf'Roanoke p of Salem, and the County of same if only the City City of Roanoke to joint use by the City of Roanoke, for the County Roanoke, therefore it is necess near future. indicate its intent in the very OVERVIEW: a er intensive and the erations are very labor and p P Library oP is are necessary to provide minimumAu~omation leve rovided. erformed current staffing being P for the hours and lev~heocleric 1 tasks nc rre to Y assist patrons. will reduce many of them more time a cost thus allowing be considered by staff , therefore can not necessari y Automation cost avoidance. savings, but rather a CIRCULATION ntif Library Automation with out ofl books and Most people ide Y checking in/checking to this o erations ( offers many advantages aspect of Lib a d automation materials), operation• control - Inventory when it is due) Immediate shelf status of items who has it, Information aboduu note es ecked out - Automatic over went patrons Immediate ability to reserve items - The ability to identify and block delinq t rn-~ - Management reports to determine the usage of the collection and report library service patterns CATALOGING Another operation which is improved for patrons by automation is that of an on-line cataloging system. Here, the patron has improved search capabilities, print-out capabilities of the bibliography of materials, access to the availability of materials at all branches covered by the automated system, and the ability to receive information which has been updated on a timely basis. Depending on the level of sophistication of the system selected, a patron may search electronically for a particular author, title, subject, or by some type of key word or phrase identifier. The response to the computer terminal would be a bibliography of the collection available which could be produced in a print out form to allow assistance in finding the books on the shelf. The days of the old card catalog have already been replaced by microfiche and now will be automated to the computer terminal. SERIALS Serials (magazines, technical bulletins, etc. which are received on a systematic basis) are difficult to manage and control and automation can greatly assist the patron in his attempt to locate a particular issue. These items can be recorded into the inventory upon receipt and thereby allow anyone on the system to access this information by simple inquiry. ACQUISITIONS One of the important management tools of the automated system is the acquisitions and fund accounting module. This tool allows any branch library on the entire valley wide system to monitor the types of books being acquired by dollars, type (children, adult, research, etc.) and could provide savings by reducing the number of duplicate items being ordered and overall giving the system a broader selection of materials. VALLEYWIDE AUTOMATION offers several other distinct advantages. Patrons will have access to the information on the collection of each Library system (Roanoke City, Roanoke County, and Salem), continued use of the union catalog (now on microfiche which will be on-line after automation), and continued delivery service among the libraries which allows borrowers to return items to any library in the Valley, regardless of the location of the branch from which the material was checked out. The valleywide program could improve the level and quality of the total valley collection of materials by coordinating items ordered and quickly determining their availability within the valleywide system. Today, library patrons do not seem to recognize a separate library system since the geographical proximity of the branch library to their location seems to be their main concern. rn-~ Attachment A shows the projected fiscal impact to the County of Roanoke to participate in the Valleywide Library Automation program. At this time, it appears that the City of Roanoke and perhaps the City of Salem will move forward with the project regardless of the intention of the County. The decision of the County is necessary, however, to properly size the system to be acquired. For example, the system selected for a truly valleywide system (3 jurisdictions) could be from a different vendor than the system selected to serve the needs of the City of Roanoke only. Should the County of Roanoke and/or the City of Salem choose to participate in the Valleywide program, a contract among the participating localities must be developed to provide for the sharing of costs associated with the project, to determine the governance of the system, and to provide a means to assure operational integrity of the system. This document must be developed by the Attorney of the participating localities and will be returned to the governing body for ratification. The City of Roanoke and City of Salem need to know of the County's intent by July 31, 1989 in order to take advantage of the bids received. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: °John M. Chambliss, Jr. Elmer C. Hodge Assistant County Administrator County Administrator Human Services Approved Denied Received Referred To Motion by: ACTION Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers VOTE No Yes Abs '. Attachment A ROANOKE AREA PUBLIC LIBRARY AUTOMATION PROJECT COST ESTIMATE TOTAL RKE CITY RKE CO 50~ 42~ Central site hardware Telecomm. Hardware Software Miscellaneous Online user stations (111 @ 1129/station) System total cost Library preparation cost 333,547 166,773 140,089 209,495 104,747 87,987 85,000 42,500 35,700 58,451 29,225 24,549 125,375 75,643 37,257 (67} (33) 811,868 418,888 325,582 97,125 55,858 15,644 Onetime project cost total Monthly maintenance and 5,949 telecommunications cost Additional cost considerations: Personnel Back-up circulation equipment Supplies 516,013 381,440 2,974 2,498 SALEM 8~ 26,683 16,759 6,800 4,676 12,419 (11) 67,337 82,981 476 m~ ITEM NO.~ AR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ES COUNTYS ADMINISTRATOION AT A REGUL HELD AT THE ROANOK COUNTY, VIRGINIA. TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1989 CENTER ON R E S O L U T I O N UPON BEING NAMED TODD AMMERMA p, NATIONAL MERIT SCHOLARSHIP FINALIST FOR 1989 school WHEREAS, Roanoke County has an outstanding as received national recognition for its teachers, system which h and students, and administration; stem produces WHEREAS, an outstanding school sy ents who likewise gain national recognition for outstanding stud lishments; and their academic accomp r ade WHEREAS, each year students in the eleventh g taking a similar repare for the Scholastic Aptitude Test by p s are test from which National Merit Scholarship em preliminary School Syst rded, and five students from the Roanoke County Scholarship awa were recently named finalists in the National Merl Award Program; and of special WHEREAS, these students are deserving their successful academic achievement and their commendation for continued efforts towards excellence that the Board of Supervisors THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED ratulations of Roanoke County, Virginia, offers its sincere cong AN for being named a finalist in the National to TODD AMMERM Merit Scholarship Award Program; and resses its pride ervisors exp FURTHER, the Board of Sup ' vement and extends its best wishes to Todd Ammerman in this achle for continued success in future academic endeavors. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1989 R E S O L U T I O N 6 2 7 8 9 CONGRATULATING 8 a UPON BEING NAMED TODD AMMERMAN SCHOLARSHIP FINALIST FORT1989L MERIT WHEREAS, Roanoke County has an outstanding school system which has received national recognition for its teach students ers, and administration; and WHEREAS, an outstandin g school system produces outstanding students who likewise gain national reco niti their academic accomplishments; and g on for WHEREAS, each year students in the eleventh grade prepare for the Scholastic Aptitude Test b y taking a similar preliminary test from which National Merit Scholarshi s awarded, and five students from the Roanoke Count p are were recently named finalists in the National M y School System erit Scholarship Award Program; and WHEREAS, these students are deservin commendation for their successful academic achievemg of special continued efforts towards excellence, ent and their THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, offers its sincere con ratu to TODD AMMERMAN for bein g lations g named a finalist in the National Merit Scholarship Award Program; and FURTHER, the Board of Su ervisors ex resses its p p pride in this achievement and extends its best wishes to To for continued success in future academic endeavors dd Amerman On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor Nickens and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None A COPY TESTS: Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors CC: File Bayes Wilson, School Superintendent Resolution of Congratulations File ULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OKESCOUNTYS ADMINISTRATOION AT A REG HELD AT THE ROAN 1989 COUNTY, VIRGINIA, JUNE 27, CENTER ON TUESDAY, 6 2 7 8 9- 8 b R E S O L U T I O N CONGRATULATII~N AL MER IT SCHOLARSHIP NAMED A NAT FINALIST FOR 1989 school WHEREAS, Roanoke County has an outstanding ' h has received national recognition for its teachers, system whic and students , and administration; r o du c e s school system p WHEREAS, an outstanding dents who likewise gain national recognition for outstanding stu their academic accomplishments; and rade WHEREAS, each year students in the eleventh g taking a similar repare for the Scholastic Aptitude Test by p s are test from which National Merit Scholarship tem preliminary School Sys warded, and five students from the Roanoke County Scholarship a were recently named finalists in the National Meri Award Program; and ecial deserving of sp WHEREAS, these students are their ion for their successful academic achievement and commendat continued efforts towards excellence that the Board of Supervisors THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED its sincere congratulations Virginia, offers of Roanoke County, the National Merit to JOHN PARR for being named a finalist in Scholarship Award Program; and resses its pride the Board of Supervisors exp FURTHER, ent and extends its best wishes to John Parr for in this achievem continued success in future academic endeavors. On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor Nickens and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~ ` Mary H. A len, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors CC: File Bayes Wilson, School Superintendent Resolution of Congratulations File i ITEM NO . ~/ - AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1989 RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING JOHN PARR UPON BEING NAMED A NATIONAL MERIT SCHOLARSHIP FINALIST FOR 1989 WHEREAS, Roanoke County has an outstanding school system which has received national recognition for its teachers, students, and administration; and WHEREAS, an outstanding school system produces outstanding students who likewise gain national recognition for their academic accomplishments; and WHEREAS, each year students in the eleventh grade prepare for the Scholastic Aptitude Test by taking a similar preliminary test from which National Merit Scholarships are awarded, and five students from the Roanoke County School System were recently named finalists in the National Merit Scholarship Award Program; and WHEREAS, these students are deserving of special commendation for their successful academic achievement and their continued efforts towards excellence. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, offers its sincere congratulations to JOHN PARR for being named a finalist in the National Merit Scholarship Award Program; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors expresses its pride in this achievement and extends its best wishes to John Parr for continued success in future academic endeavors. R MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ES CPpUNTYS ADMINISTRATOION AT A REGVIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOK 1989 COUNTY- CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 27- 6 2 7 8 9- 8 c R E S O L U T I O N CONGRATULATING DAVID SAR UPON NAMED A NATIONAL MERIT BEING SCHOLARSHIP FINALIST FOR 1989 school HEREAS, Roanoke County has an outstanding W received national recognition for its teac ers, system which has and students, and administration; stem produces WHEREAS, an outstanding school sY nts who likewise gain national recognition for outstanding stude lishments; and their academic accomp r ade in the eleventh g WHEREAS, each year students taking a similar re are for the Scholastic Aptitude Test by p p s are est from which National Merit Scholarship tem preliminary t School Sys rded, and five students from the Roanoke County t Scholarship awa re recently named finalists in the National Merl we Award Program; and o f special WHEREAS, these students are deserving it successful academic achievement and their commendation for the continued efforts towards excellence that the Board of Supervisors THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED ratulations oanoke County, Virginia, offers its sincere cong of R in the National Merit to DAVID SAR for being named a finalist Scholarship Award Program; and resses its pride FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors exp and extends its best wishes to David Sar for in this achievement continued success in future academic endeavors. motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor On Nickens and carried by the following recorded vote: . u ervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett AYES . S p NAYS : None A COPY TESTE: J~ g. Allen, Deputy Clerk Mary Board of Supervisors Roanoke County CC: File School Superintendent gayes Wilson, ratulations File Resolution of Cong ITEM N0. © _ / G AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1989 RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING DAVID SAR UPON BEING NAMED A NATIONAL MERIT SCHOLARSHIP FINALIST FOR 1989 WHEREAS, Roanoke County has an outstanding school system which has received national recognition for its teachers, students, and administration; and WHEREAS, an outstanding school system produces outstanding students who likewise gain national recognition for their academic accomplishments; and WHEREAS, each year students in the eleventh grade prepare for the Scholastic Aptitude Test by taking a similar preliminary test from which National Merit Scholarships are awarded, and five students from the Roanoke County School System were recently named finalists in the National Merit Scholarship Award Program; and WHEREAS, these students are deserving of special commendation for their successful academic achievement and their continued efforts towards excellence. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, offers its sincere congratulations to DAVID SAR for being named a finalist in the National Merit Scholarship Award Program; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors expresses its pride in this achievement and extends its best wishes to David Sar for continued success in future academic endeavors. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE HEOROANOKESCOUNTYSADMINISTRATION COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT T 1989 CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 27, R E S O L U T I O N 6 2 7 8 9- 8 d RAREN BENDER CONGRATULATING NATIONAL MERIT UPON BEING NAMED A SCHOLARSHIP FINALIST FOR 1989 WHEREAS, Roanoke County has an outstanding school s stem which has received national recognition for its teachers, Y students , and administration; and r o d u c e s stem p WHEREAS, an outstanding school sy outstanding students who likewise gain national recognition for their academic accomplishments; and rade WHEREAS, each year students in the eleventh g re are for the Scholastic Aptitude Test by taking a similar P p reliminary test from which National Merit Scholarships are p School System awarded, and five students from the Roanoke County were recently named finalists in the National Merit Scholarship Award Program; and e c i a l of sp WHEREAS, these students are deserving commendation for their successful academic achievement and their continued efforts towards excellence. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, offers its sincere congratulations to KAREN BENDER for being named a finalist in the National Award Program; and Merit Scholarship ride FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors expresses its p in this achievement and extends its best wishes to Karen Bender for continued success in future academic endeavors. ~~ On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor Nickens and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Jam` Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors CC: File Bayes Wilson, School Superintendent Resolution of Congratulations File ITEM NO . '^- ! C~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1989 RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING KAREN BENDER UPON BEING NAMED A NATIONAL MERIT SCHOLARSHIP FINALIST FOR 1989 WHEREAS, Roanoke County has an outstanding school system which has received national recognition for its teachers, students, and administration; and WHEREAS, an outstanding school system produces outstanding students who likewise gain national recognition for their academic accomplishments; and WHEREAS, each year students in the eleventh grade prepare for the Scholastic Aptitude Test by taking a similar preliminary test from which National Merit Scholarships are awarded, and five students from the Roanoke County School System were recently named finalists in the National Merit Scholarship Award Program; and WHEREAS, these students are deserving of special commendation for their successful academic achievement and their continued efforts towards excellence. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, offers its sincere congratulations to KAREN BENDER for being named a finalist in the National Merit Scholarship Award Program; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors expresses its pride in this achievement and extends its best wishes to Karen Bender for continued success in future academic endeavors. ,. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINENTEREON TUESDAYt,OJUNEE27OU198gADMINISTRATION C RESOLUTION 62789-8.e CONGRATULATING PAUL STANCIL UPON BEING NAMED A NATIONAL MERIT SCHOLARSHIP FINALIST FOR 1989 WHEREAS, Roanoke County has an outstanding school system which has received national recognition for its teachers, students, and administration; and WHEREAS, an outstanding school system produces outstanding students who likewise gain national recognition for their academic accomplishments; and WHEREAS, each year students in the eleventh grade prepare for the Scholastic Aptitude Test by taking a similar preliminary test from which National Merit Scholarships are awarded, and five students from the Roanoke County School System were recently named finalists in the National Merit Scholarship Award Program; and WHEREAS, these students are deserving of special commendation for their successful academic achievement and their continued efforts towards excellence. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, offers its sincere congratulations to PAUL STANCIL for being named a finalist in the National Merit Scholarship Award Program; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors expresses its pride in this achievement and extends its best wishes to Paul Stancil for continued success in future academic endeavors. On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor Nickens and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors CC: File Bayes Wilson, School Superintendent Resolution of Congratulations File ITEM N0. ~./ ~ / ~, AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1989 RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING PAUL STANCIL UPON BEING NAMED A NATIONAL MERIT SCHOLARSHIP FINALIST FOR 1989 WHEREAS, Roanoke County has an outstanding school system which has received national recognition for its teachers, students, and administration; and WHEREAS, an outstanding school system produces outstanding students who likewise gain national recognition for their academic accomplishments; and WHEREAS, each year students in the eleventh grade prepare for the Scholastic Aptitude Test by taking a similar preliminary test from which National Merit Scholarships are awarded, and five students from the Roanoke County School System were recently named finalists in the National Merit Scholarship Award Program; and WHEREAS, these students are deserving of special commendation for their successful academic achievement and their continued efforts towards excellence. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, offers its sincere congratulations to PAUL STANCIL for being named a finalist in the National Merit Scholarship Award Program; and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors expresses its pride in this achievement and extends its best wishes to Paul Stancil for continued success in future academic endeavors. AT A REGULAR MEETING DFATHTHEOROANOKESCOUNTYSADMINISTRATOION COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HEL CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1989 RESOLUTION 62789-9 OF CONGRATULATIONS TO WAYLAND WINSTEAD UPONIA CHAPTER OFLTHE AMERICCAN POLANNING EAR BY THE VIRG ASSOCIATION WHEREAS, Wayland Winstead has served on the Roanoke County Planning Commission for many years and has made invaluable contributions to the County during that time, and WHEREAS, Mr. Winstead was instrumental in implementing the Explore Project's planning process, which was cited by the County when it successfully won the All America City Award, and WHEREAS, Mr . Winstead was named Local Planning Official of the Year by the Virginia American Planning Association, based on his initiative in the creation of the Roanoke River Corridor Study, his leadership in working with the citizens on the Explore Project, and his continued work towards an updated zoning ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors does hereby extend its congratulations to Wayland Winstead for receiving the Virginia Local Government Planning Official Award, and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does extend its deepest appreciation to Mr. Winstead for his dedicated service to the people of the County. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and upon the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None A Cppy TESTE; ~~~ ~~~ peputy Clerk Mary H. Allen,goard of Supervisors Roanoke County 6/29/89 CC: File Congratulations File Resolution of c-.~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1989 RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS TO WAYLAND WINSTEAD OPON BEING NAMED LOCAL OFFICIAL OF THE YEAR BY THE VIRGINIA CHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION. WHEREAS, Wayland Winstead has served on the Roanoke County Planning Commission for many years and has made invaluable contributions to the County during that time, and WHEREAS, Mr. Winstead was instrumental in implementing the Explore Project's planning process, which was cited by the County when it successfully won the All America City Award, and WHEREAS, Mr. Winstead was named Local Planning Official of the Year by the Virginia American Planning Association, based on his initiative in the creation of the Roanoke River Corridor Study, his leadership in working with the citizens on the Explore Project, and his continued work towards an updated zoning ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors does hereby extend its congratulations to Wayland Winstead for receiving the Virginia Local Government Planning Official Award, and FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors does extend its deepest appreciation to Mr. Winstead for his dedicated service to the people of the County. M4~y } ACTION N0. 62789-10 ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 27, 1989 AGENDA ITEM• Adoption of the Roanoke County Landfill Permit Conditions and Operating Policies When the search for a new landfill began more than a year ago, the Board of Suuervisors instructed staff to make every effort to protect the property values of the affected areas. Attached is a copy of the proposed Landfill Permit Conditions and Operating Policies. These recommendations were derived primarily from the Landfill Citizens Advisory Committee (LCAC) report that was presented to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors in April. A subcommittee made up of Carl Wright, Glen Prather and Jim Hensley of the LCAC, Don Witt and Wayland Winstead of the Planning Commission and John Hubbard and Paul Mahoney with the County staff reviewed the report and compiled the attached document. I wish to express my appreciation to the Landfill Citizens Advisory Committee and to the subcommittee for the time and effort they spent on this process. Both groups were given the difficult challenge of meeting the concerns of the effected citizens while recognizing the importance of going forward with a new landfill. They met many times to fulfill their responsibilities and I congratulate them on the results of their efforts. The subcommittee's report generally agrees with the LCAC report except in two areas: property value protection and host municipality considerations. The differences are as follows: Property Value Protection: The LCAC recommended purchasing properties determined to be adversely affected by the landfill if the owners were unable to sell after six months. The attached report recommends that the County limit this liability to the difference in sale value and fair market value. (See page 8 ofthe original LCAC report.) Host Municipality Considerations: This section has been deleted. The concept of other localities compensating Roanoke County for its loss of real estate taxes could become complicated when there are regional facilities presently located in other municipalities without host municipality considerations in force. (See page 14 of the original LCAC report.) ~- I am submitting the attached Permit Conditions and Operating Policy report in its entirety for consideration and adoption. It is an excellent document that is reasonable and fair to both the surrounding community and Roanoke County. However, there are several amendments that I would like to recommend. Smith Gap Access Road (Page 17 - Permit Conditions and Operating Policies) If the Smith Gap site passes the Part A application review and is chosen as the landfill site, a new road or access mechanism should be constructed if at all possible, but the Board should not proffer this as a condition of the Special Exception Permit. We should continue to study the option of an alternate access to the Smith Gap site, but it may be necessary to use Bradshaw Road. The County must do everything possible to assure the safety and convenience of the citizens in the impacted areas, but considering the difficulty of siting a landfill we cannot rule out any site until we know what the alternatives are. Property Value Protection (Page 13 - Permit Conditions and Operating Policies) The LCAC and the subcommittee have recommended property value protection for the entire length of the secondary road from the landfill site to the primary road. This would include parts of Montgomery County if the Smith Gap site is chosen and parts of Franklin County if the Boones Chapel site is chosen. The greater the distance from the landfill site, the more difficult it would be to determine the extent of any negative property value impact to homes or businesses caused by the landfill. While additional traffic may be generated, road improvements and growth may offset any negative impact to property. The Board may choose to offer property value protection for the entire length of the secondary road or they may limit this protection to 5,000 feet from the landfill site boundary line. Property value protection should begin only after the completion of the Part B application, granting of the permit and selection of the site. I further recommend that the Permit Conditions and Operating Policy report be clarified to include those who rent property as well as property owners. This clarification should include reasonable moving expenses and other reimbursements. Renters living directly on the site should receive assistance from the County in finding suitable housing at similar rent. Roanoke County has taken every precaution for the protection of the environment surrounding the proposed landfill sites as well as other localities concerned about potential impacts to their communities. The County reserves the right to refuse to participate in property value protection when there are obvious attempts to manipulate the property value for personal benefit. _~ staff from the Cities of Roanoke reviewed the report with I have Town of Vinton. and Salem and the fiscal impact, but staff FISCAL IMPACT exact will be borne by ossible to determine an All costs It is not P this to be excessive. fees. does not expect h the necessary all the landfill users throug RECOMMENDATION of Supervisors adopt the STAFF Board recommended that the amendments: It is following of the attached report with the not be a condition Gap access road That the Smith ~l~ special exception permit. be for property value protection That all provisions renters. ~2~ specifically extended to only to those rotection be extended line. ro erty value P landfill site-boundary (3) That p p 000 feet of the after who live within 5~ begin only of the value protection ranting That property part B application, g (4) completion of the be done on an alternate permit and selection of the site' study ineering feasibility site. That an eng to the Smith Gap propposed ~5~ access road SUBMITTED SY: ~~~~/ Elmer C. Hodge County A~inistrator ------------------------ VOTE ____ ----- ----- Yes No Abs ------- ACTION Johnson to approve _ - Garrett/ X App Motitionn of Landfill Permit Condi- Garrett X - - roved ~~ adop Johnson = X Denied ~ ~ tions with staff recommended McGraw X and the addition of Nickens - X Received ~ ~ amendments endation. - - Referred #5 amendment to recomm Robers - To:~- CC: Paul Mahoney Manager John Hubbard Roanoke City W. Robert Herbersalem City Manager Randolph Smith, Tonal Solid Waste e Nester, Vinton Town ManagValley Reg Georg Chairman, Roanoke John Parrott, Management Board urua~uu~~~~u~~u~~uu~~u~~u~uu~~~~~~~u~u~u~~u~uu~~u~uuuuuu~u~uuu~u~u~u~~u~~ru~~~uru~ - ~~r~~ I / _ ~ ._ ~ .~ ,~ -_ N CE RE QUE 5 _ _ - APPEAR _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ A ITEM NO AGEND ~~. ~ P~,,l ~~ ~~ 1 ~-r~.~ s = G,?r~ ~ .S~", ~ ~ ~ ~ _ =_ sus1ECT = the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to = I would like - urin the ublic hearing on the above~matter = recognize me d g p nt.WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM, - so that I may comme = _ IVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FORT _ = I WILL G = _ - . I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELI _ RECORD _ = LISTED BELOW. • h s esker will be given between three to five minutes to comment Eac p = c eakin as an individual or representative. The k ~n an issue, whether sp g = decide the time limit based on the number of citizens spec g he rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to .= and will enforce t do otherwise. ' 1 be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Ques- _ • Speakers v~nl ' __ bons of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. "" Debate between arecognized • All comments must be directed to the Board. '- speaker and audience members is not allowed. the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. • Both speakers and keys are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments _ • Spea with the clerk. c DIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED • IN -_ P SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATIO c GROU THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT FROM __ THEM. LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO DEPUTY CLERK - PLEASE PRINT . _ . _ ~~Nslt NAME CIA m E c ~~ ADDRESS ~S ~ ~~ ~ ~''~ ~ ~'~ `~ ~- a/ = V = PHONE ~ ~ ~ v~ ~- _ _ - IIIIIIIIIIIIIIilllilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll mlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllll ACTION NO. AT A REGU ITEM NO. ~ '~ COUNTY, LAR MEETING OF THE'BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROA1`1OKE VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATI MEETING DATE; ON CENTER June 27, 1989 AGENDA ITEM• Smith Ga P Landfill Site - Special Exception Permit COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ ~ BACKGROUND: Attached is a copy of the re ort Planning Commission on the 456 p and recommendation from the application for the Smith Ga Review and Special Exception Permit grant the special exception p Landfill Site. operatin Permit with the a The Board should g policies, including the followin PProved conditions and g issues: (1) That the Smith Gap access road not be a coed' special exception permit, ition to the (2) That all provisions for specifically extended to renters y value protection be (3) That property value who live within 5 protection be extended onl ,000 feet of the landfill site to those (4) That property value tion of the Part B application.begln only after comple- STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that tion. SUBMITTED BY: the Board approve the attached resolu- J n R• H bard, P.E. Assistant County Administrator Community Services & Development APPROVED: Elmer C Hodge `t' 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 BO ARD OF SUPERVISORS OF RVIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIOANOKE COUNTY, ON TUESDAY, JUNE 27 ON CENTER, , 1989 RESOLUTION GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PUBLICLY OWN ROANOKE COUNTY TO THE AND OPERATE A SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY ON WHAT IS NIA TO KNOWN AS THE "SMITH GAP SITE" WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on April 18, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a public hearing on this matter on April 25, 1989. NOW, THEREFORE be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1• That the Board finds that the granting Exception Permit of a Special for the location and operation facility is substantiall Of a solid waste Y in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions o 456(b) of the f Section 15.1- 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. 2• That the Board hereby grants a Special Exception Permit to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to publicly Aerate a solid waste disposal facility own and on what is known as the "Smith Gap Site" located on 640.39 acres on the Fort Lewis Mountain between Smith Ga P and northwest side of Catawba Bradshaw Road in the Magisterial District subject to the permit conditions and operating Policies.approved landfill 3• That the Board acknowledges, g to the extent permitted by law, that it has a non-binding moral obligation to pay such amounts as may be needed to address the adopted operating policies including property value protection, and that such ' payment is J subject to future appropriations. ~~ Nothin operating policies shall be deemed to cons g in the approved a debt, the lending of the credit titute the creation of nor a pledge of the credit of the County under the Constitution and laws of the Com Virginia, nor shall an monwealth of y provision thereof give any person any legal right to enforce the terms thereof against the Count Y• F S ERVISORS 1~~~ PETITIONER: ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD 0 UP CASE Nt~RBER: SU6-4/89 -~.. Planning Commission Hearing Date: April 18, 1989 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: April 25, 1989 A. Rff2UEST A Special Exception Request of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to publicly own and operate a regional landfill on what is known as the "Smith Gap Site," located on 640.39 acres on the northwest side of Fort Lewis Mountain between Smith Gap and Bradshaw Road in the Catawba Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN PARTICIPA'T'ION Jim Woltz addressed the Commission regarding the impact of higher fees on roadside dumps. He said that higher fees may cause an increase in illegal dumping and requested that the County do whatever is necessary to begin legislation to deal with stricter roadside dumping laws. He suggested that the County establish a fund to clean up existing dumps and any new roadside dumps, and conduct a public awareness program. Jim Hensley requested that the Commission consider the following recomnnendations contained in the Landfill Citizens Advisory Committee report, dated April 4, 1989: extend groundwater protection beyond 1,000 feet; consider the Host Ccx~mwnity Fund as proposed by LCAC. Curtis Ayers questioned the accuracy of the Olver scoring matrix and the circumstances identified after the Smith Gap site was selected. He noted the following: additional land will need to be purchased for the construction of an access road; the impact of a baling station in a quiet rural area (Dixie Caverns); costs need to be addressed; transfer stations may require condemnation of more property throughout the area; noise, litter, vermin; sufficient cover soil does not exist at Smith Gap site; the cost involved in handling cover material; potential contamination of groundwater. Ed Kohinke, Sr., stated that a landfill would be the worst land use for the Smith Gap site. The landfill will adversely affect the community and encourage residents to relocate. Bob Butterworth said that the Smith Gap site is twice as costly as another site; added costs for transfer station; more equipment required to transport garbage; cost of transporting soil to the site; contamination of public water supply; iced roads during the winter months; natural beauty (Dragons Tooth) will be destroyed by -the landfill. William Rutherford, a resident of Fincastle, spoke on behalf of Rural Virginia Inc. He asked that the Commission consider coverting trash into a useable product (compost fertilizer). 'T'his would reduce landfill costs and pollution, etc. C. REC'ONB.~NDED CONDITIONS Tykes of Waste (1) No hazardous waste will be allowed at any time during the entire life of the landfill. (2) No demolition debris or grubbing waste may be put in any area suitable for sanitary waste. (3) No yard waste may be put in any area suitable for sanitary waste. (4) Non-hazardous incinerator ash may be disposed of in a designated monofill area in the new landf i 11. Y- 3 The Planning Commission recommends the following operating controls, and recommends that objective standards for enforcement be established: Operating Controls (1) Noise: Noise levels generated by the landfill machinery and equipment may not exceed the following amounts: 80 dB(A) landfill site borders; 65 dB(A) surrounding residences. Landfill opeations vehicles must be equipped with the best possible muffler or exhaust system available to minimize noise. (2) Dust: Fugitive dust emissions should be monitored continuously by an authorized agent of Roanoke County or by the landfill operators for compliance with state regulations. Problem areas arising during dry seasons should be controlled with water. Access roads should~be f 11 areaaof intermediate over must belseeded sinew getative dust are generated. y cover within 30 days of fill. (3) Odor: Odor problems will be minimized if the landfill operation is conducted properly and active fill areas are covered daily. If problem odors exist that adversely impact surrounding residents, deodorizing agents should be used. All holding tanks for leachate collection systems shall be in enclosed underground structures. (4) Lights: Sufficient lighting must be maintained at all times to facilitate normal operation and to provide adequate security over the landfill site. Lighting must be directed inward to keep the main body of light and glare off surrounding residents. Adjoining property owners should be consulted as to light placement, direction and height. Lighting shall be limited to fixtures attached to buildings as necessary for security and operations and freestanding poles of not more than 16 feet in height, and no lights shall exceed one footcandle of light measured at the base of the pole or structure. (5) Pests: A bonded, licensed pest control company should be retained by the landfil agency throughout the active life of the landfill to provide preventive inspections and treatments. Adjoining property owners who incur pest problems that are proven to be directly related to the landfill operation must be provided proper extermination at the expense of the landfill agency. Breeding areas for flying insects must be treated as often as is necessary to prevent the breeding cycle. (6) A telephone number should be provided for the use of surrounding residents to call in complaints about noise, dust, odor, or pests. These calls should be recorded and corrective actions documented. Hours of Operations Y g Y m.; Saturda 8 (1) Hours for delivery of waste: Nlonda throu h Frida , 8 a.m. to 5 p. Y- a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Operation of all equipment: Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.; Saturday 8 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. (2) Emergency operations shall allow for extended hours on all days and Sundays whenever an emergency has been duly declared by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. (3) Residential drop-off areas will operate during the hours of normal operation. (4) Operating hours can only be changed by action of the Board of Supervisors, after public notice and hearing. F]nergency Access An access point for emergency vehicles responding to emergency situations shall be permitted fran Bradshaw Road. Other vehicles associated with the operation of the landfill, such as employee vehicles, refuse vehicles or vehicles hauling soil or material for daily cover or final closure are to be prohibited access to or entry from Bradshaw Road. This condition is not intented to prohibit controlled ccmununity access for intermediate uses of the landfill property, such as those recaYanended by the 4-8-89 LCAC Report on page 25, or prohibit construction vehicles using Bradshaw Road prior to the opening of the landfill. - 2 - f'- 3 Screening and Buffering (1) The following buffer yard and plantings shall be established around the perimeter of the landfill property, except adjacent to an existing residential property or public or private right-of way. Trees shall be planted in three separate rows or in clusters, where natural land characteristics allow within the buffer yard. 50 foot buffer yard; three large deciduous trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard; five large evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard; and seven small evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 15 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard. (2) In areas adjacent to an existing residential property or public or private right-of-way, the following shall be established and maintained around the perimeter of the landfill property. Trees shall be planted in three separate rows or in clusters, where natural land characteristics allow within the buffer yard. 100 foot buffer yard; six large deciduous trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard; 10 large evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard; and 15 small evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 15 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard. (3) The buffer yard may only be used for passive recreation, such as pedestrian, bike or equestrian trails provided that no plant material is eliminated; the total width of the buffer is maintained; and all other requirements and conditions are met. (4) Buildings, act d innsuchlaamannereaslpoeenhancea but not necessarily screen)t the shall be landscap visual appearance from adjoining properties. (5) The administrative standards and procedures contained under Section 21-92 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance shall apply unless more restrictive or specific standards are required above. Active Fill Areas Active areas shall be designed to allow for final cover as soon as possible. Fill areas should be designed as far as practical from adjoining properties to provide maximum buffering, and in no case should extend within 100 feet of the landfill boundary line. Site Security (1) All facilities shall be surrounded on all sides by natural barriers, fencing or equivalent means of controlling access and preventing illegal disposal. with lockss will be limited by gates and such gates shall be securable and equipped All fencing utilized at the facility shall be adequate to control unauthorized access. Gates shall be at the main entrance as well as the entrance to additional service areas. (2) Access to a solid waste disposal facility shall be permitted only when an attendant is on duty and only during daylight hours, unless otherwise specified in the facility permit. Access shall be permitted to any refuse vehicle owned and operated by a member of the Roanoke Valley Regional Landfill. Access shall be permitted to any private hauler or company operating in the Roanoke Valley Regional Landfill Service area who has applied for and obtained a permit f ran the landfill operator. A permit shall be refused at any time if the operator of the vehicle has been found not to be abiding by the regulations set forth in the application/contract. Access shall be permitted to any resident of a jurisdiction who is a member of the Roanoke Valley Regional Landfill showing proof of residency. (3) Each solid waste disposal facility should be provided with an adequately lighted and heated shelter where operating personnel can exercise site control and have access to essential sanitation facilities. Lighting, heat and sanitation facilities may be provided by portable equipment as necessary. Dusk to dawn lights shall be placed around buildings and at each of the security gates. - 3 - fJ_,3 (4) The sanitary landfill should be equipped with permanent or mobile telephone or radio cannunications. The main security gate should be able to communicate with all necessary areas of the landfill. (5) The operator is responsible for safety hazards to operating personnel through an active safety program. Security rules and regulations shall be posted at each gate. Security guard or landfill personnel shall be on site 24 hours each day. (6) Salvaging may be permitted by a solid waste disposal facility operator, but shall be controlled within a designated salvage area to preclude interference with operation of the facility and to avoid the creation of hazards or nuisances. A designated salvage area to be set up with adequate drop off and pick up area. A security person shall oversee this area. Enviror~anental Monitoring (1) The responsible landfill agency must have all landfill facilities inspected at least annually by a qualified independent contractor to determine compliance with all special exception permit conditions and all other landfill conditions. Any violations must be reported to the responsible landfill agency and shall be made public information and the landfill agency shall take whatever steps are necessary to immediately correct the violations. (2) The .responsible landfill agency will be required to log all complaints from any adjoining residents or businesses and all reasonable and legitimate complaints shall _receive the proper attention and shall be corrected immediately. The complaint log shall be open to the public inspection. (3) Monitoring should be undertaken continuously and an annual report prepared and filed with the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission, and a copy placed in each public library in the communities participating in the regional landfill. Fire Protection and Public Water (1) Fire protection for the site shall be provided on site with adequate storage, distribution, and hydrants to property extinguish fires. The system shall be designed as a potable water system in conformance with the standards of Roanoke County and the system shall be deeded to Roanoke County for ownership and operation. The system shall be designed to serve all on-site water needs as well as being capable of serving adjoining properties. (2) At least one fire hydrant shall be installed outside the perimeter fence and gate to provide an additional source of water for fire fighting equignent. (3> Expansion of the water supply system, except when groundwater contamination has been documented, shall be prohibited without prior review for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. This review shall follow the requirements and criteria outlined in Section 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia, and shall also apply to any proposal submitted under Section 15.1-475 (subdivision) and Section 15.1-491(h) Site Plan Review, of the Code of Virginia. Site Rejection The Special Exception Permit for this landfill shall became null and void upon official notification of the rejection of this site for a landfill by the Department of Waste Management or on the date that a Part B application is submitted for an alternative site to the Department of Waste Manag~nent. - 4 - Conformance with the 1985 Comprehensive Plan r In conjunction with the review of this Special Exception application, the Planning Commission has evaluated this request to determine whether or not this petition is in substantial accord with the 19$5 Comprehensive Plan. It is the finding of the Planning Commission that this request is in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan if approval of the request by the Board of Supervisors is subject to all of the various Special Exception conditions referenced above, and in addition the Board takes whatever actions are necessary to ensure that the use and operation of this landfill complies, at a minimum, with the intent of the various policy recommendations for groundwater and property value protection of the LCAC as contained in their report dated .April 4, 1989 (see attached). The Planning Commission believes that a joint work session with the Board of Supervisors would be an appropriate forum to discuss the various policy recommendations of the LCAC and we request that such a work session be scheduled prior to such time that the Board evaluates or acts on the LCAC policy recommendations. E. COMMISSIONER'S NK7rI0N, VOTE AND REASON Mr. Winstead moved to approve the request with the recommended conditions. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: ,AYES: Massey, Winstead, Gordon, Robinson, Witt NAYS: None ABSENT: None E . A'ITACHME[~PrS Concept Plan (8~" x 11") Vicinity Map (8~" x 11") X Staff Report X Other• LCAC Report, pages 5-8, dated April 4, 1989' -~--~ . ~ - , ,Y~._---, Terrance Harrington, retary Roanoke County Planni g Commission - 5 - ~~ P_ s Page S GROUNDWATER PROTECTION The single greatest concern of all ceaidents surrounding a Landfill site is the potential contamination of groundwater sources. Residents must be assured that the water supplies will be protected at all times. 1. The responsible Landfill Agency will take all necessary actions as required by state, fedccal or local laws or regulations, including permit conditions to protect the groundwater and water wells from contamination as a result of the landfill construction and operation. 2. If private groundwater sources are contaminated as a result of landfill leakage, construction, and/or operation, the responsible Landfill Agency will, at its ezpenae, provide to each eligible resident or business a clean source of replacement water. a.) The Landfill Agency may select any source of water they ao desire but it must meet all applicable health standards. The newly established water system will be eztended to each residence or business and connected at the Agency's ezpensc within 120 days after the daft the contamination is verified. All interior plumbing contaminated to the eztent that it is rendered hazardous for continued use will be replaced at the Agcncy'a czpcnae. b.) Eligible residents or businesses will receive fret water up to 6,000 gallons pet month for as long as they own and occupy the residence. All water usage over 6,000 gallons per month will be paid by the resident or business at the rates in effect at that time. Hcira of residents will qualify for free water under this proviaioa. e.) The Landfill Agency agrees to continue to provide water to subsequent owners of affected rcaideacea or businesses. However, these residents or busiaessea moat pay the normal charge foe water services being paid by other County water users. d.) The Landfill Agency will provide water during the interim period between providing a new source and the well contamination. 3. This guarantee will remain in force for a period equal to the State and EPA required monitoring period after closure, but not leas than 2S years. 4. To be eligible for groundwater protection, each surrounding property owner (within 1,000 feet of landfill property boundary) moat sign an agreement and must agree to allow water samples to be taken and tested at the Landfill Agency's czpcnae. - 6 - ~3 Page 6 a.) For all wells in czistcnce befoce the opening of the landfill, the initial water sample must pass all health standards and must include chemical and bacteria teats. b.) All eligible residents or businesses must allow water samples to be taken on a quarterly basis for testing by the Landfill Agency. All testing is to be done at the Landfill Agency's a:pease. e.) For all wells which pass the initial test, if subsequent tests show contamination, it will qualify under the terms of thin agreement for guaranteed replacement, unless the Landfill Agency can prove that the source of the contamination is not the landfill. d.) For all wells that fail the initial teat, the ezact astute of the existing contamination must be recorded and aufficicnt additional tests taken to establish an accurate base-line of data against which to compare future teats. If future tests demonstrate a deterioration of water contamination the well will qualify under the to:ms of this agreement for quaranteed replacement. e.) All new wells drilled (within 1000 feet of the landfill property boundary) during the life of the landfill that pass an initial water sample test (chemical and bacteria) will qualify for groundwater protection under the terms of this agreement. S. All surrounding property owners within 5,000 feet of the Landfill property boundary may elect to have their water tested at the Landfill Ageacy'a ezpease. This will be a one-time only test prior to the opening of the Landfill, and is to include chemical and bacteria analysis. 6. A Contingency Plan moat be designed and approved, for providing potable mater to surrounding residents covered under this agrcement, prior to the opening of the Landfill. 7. 'Ibe Landfill Agency will escrow aufficicnt money from landfill tipping fees to =uarantce fulfillment of this agreement. - 7 - P3 Page 7 PROPERTY VALUES A second major concern of residents surrounding the Landfill site is the potential devaluation of their property. This is particularly true since people's homes usually represent the majority of their assets. Residents must be assured that their property values will be protected. 1. 'Ibe responsible Landfill Agency will take all necessary actions as required by federal, state or local laws or regulations, including landfill permit conditions, to insure residents surrounding the Landfill site that their property values will not be adversely impacted by the Landfill. 2. Any resident or business owning property within 5000 feet of the Landfill site border on the day the site is selected for permit Part B application by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will be eligible for compensation if they can prove their property was devalued as a result of the Landfill. ;. The resident moat establish the value of the affected property prior to the Part B application date (Initial Value) by either obtaining an appraisal by a "Professionally Certified Appraiser" or by use of the current Roanoke County taz assessments. Taz assessments must reflect 10096 of fair market value. 'Ibe responsible Landfill Agency will pay 5096 of the coat of the initial appraisal up to a total of ;150. 4. 'Ibe property value at the time of sale (~ndcz Value) will be calculated by applying an Annual Indcz of Appreciation to the Initial Value determined under paragraph 3. This rode: is to be determined by the Roanoke County Taz Assessor's office each year and is to equal the average increase in Roanoke County real estate values. S. Any resident who sells their property for an amount (Sale Value) which is less than the Indcz value determined under paragraph 4 will be eligible for compensation from the responsible Landfill Agency for the amount of this difference, subject to the following conditions: a. The responsible Landfill Agency must be given the "Right of First R fus 1" to buy any property for which a bonafide offer to purchase has bees received in an amount below the Indez Value. b. The responsible Landfill Agency must ezercise their rights under paragraph 5a within 30 days of the dart they are notified by the resident of a bonafide purchase offer. e. If the responsible Landfill agency determines that the property value has been adversely impacted by a failure on the part of the resident to properly maintain the property, the Indez Value will be adjusted accordingly. The amount of the adjustment is to be determined by the office of the Roanoke County Taz Assessor and is to ezclude normal wear and tear. - 8 - ~~~ P3 Page 8 6. ff the resident is unable to sell their property within a period of 6 months, after listing with a Realtor who is a member of the local Multiple Listing Service and who has determined the listing price through comparable sales or a valid appraisal report, the responsible Landfill Agency will purchase the propcrty within 60 days at the Inde: Value determined undcr paragraph 4 and S. 7. 'I~e foregoing agreement to compensate residents for loss in property values will only apply to properties sold before the termination date, which is defined as car after the date the Landfill is closed. Heirs of resident: qualifying undcr paragraph 2 will be cligible for compensation undcr the terms of this agreement. 8. IIigibility for compensation will be eztended under tht same terms to include any Roanoke County rcaident or business owning property adjoining any secondary road used as the main access road to the Landfill site. 9. Any resident who is cligible for compensation for propcrty devaluation undcr the foregoing terms of this agrccment will also qualify for reimbursement of the following ezpenaea: a_ Reaidenta will receive reasonable Moving Ezpenaes to move to s new location within the boundaries of Roanoke County. Moving ezpenaea are limited to the costa of transporting household goods. b. Reaidenta will receive reimbursement for the Interest Differential between their eziating mortgage loan and any new loan assumed on any replacement propcrty within the boundaries of Roanoke County. This reimbursement will be defined as the present value of the remaining principal payments, discounted at the difference between the interest rates on the original loan and on the replacement loan. 10. It shall be the responsibility of the resident to carry adequate propcrty insurance to cover any loss hazards. In the event that a total loan does occur, the Landfill Agency will compensate the rcaident (who qualities undcr the preceding terms of thin agrccment) for the difference between the Indez Value and the Insurance Settlement. However, if the Insurance Settlement is for any amount leas than the Sale Value, the amount of compensation will be the difference between the Indcz Value and the Sale Value. For purposes of thus provision, the Sale Value is uadcratood to be the Replacement Value of the property on the date of the insurance loan. - 9 - ~~'"° I STAFF REPORT ~ ..~, REVIEWEDBBY: HARRINGTON/HARTLEY/CASTELLOW/BEARDUNDATEOARAPRILS18ER1989RS This is a Special Exception Request of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to publicly own and operate a regional landfill on what is known as the "Smith Gap Site," located on 640.39 acres on the northwest side of Fort Lewis Mountain between Smith Gap and Bradshaw Road in the Catawba Magisterial District. 1. NATURE OF REQUEST a. In addition to the Special Exception permit, the Board of Super- visors must also receive the approval of the Virginia Department of Waste Management, prior to constructing or operating the land- fill. The state application process. is proceeding simultaneously with the review of this request. State action on the Board's Part A application is expected later this summer. If the Smith Gap site is selected by the Board, and permitted by the state, operation of the landfill is slated for the summer of 1992. b. In addition to the Special Exception Permit, the Planning Commission is charged with evaluating this proposed site against the 1985 Comprehensive Plan, to determine whether or not the site is substantially in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS a. Section 21-102-3 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance requires that a Special Use (Exception) permit be granted by the Board of Supervisors prior to the location and operation of a sanitary landfill. The Board has the explicit authority to attach conditions to any permit granted. b. The Board of Supervisors has requested that the Planning Commission review and make a recommendation to the Board on any sanitary landfill Special Exception Permit submitted. c. Should the Special Exception Permit be approved and the landfill thereafter permitted by the state Department of Waste Management, the landfill owner/operator must submit a site development plan to the County for administrative review prior to commencement of construction. The site plan review process ensures compliance with all applicable zoning ordinance regulations and Special Exception conditions. 3. SITE CHARACTERISTICS a. Topography: The proposed site rests near the base of the northwest slope of Fort Lewis Mountain. Elevations vary from approximately 1,450 feet above sea level at Bradshaw Creek (northern site boundary) to approximately 1,900 feet at the site's upper (southern) border. Actual landfill usage is projected to occur at elevations between 1,500 feet and 1,800 feet. Site includes steeply sloped ridges and deeply cut drainage ways running generally perpendicular to the northeast- southwest trending crest of Fort Lewis Mountain. [A limited amount of gentle-to-moderate (less than 20$) slope areas exists within the site. Majority of site acreage exceeds 20$ slope.] The trellis or interlacing drainage pattern formed by these mountainside stream valleys is commonly found throughout northwestern Roanoke County. No geologic faults, major structural features or groundwater recharge zones are known to exist based on preliminary investigations. -in- P-3 y$q<F b. Ground Cover: Area is completely wooded. Upland deciduous vegetation dominates with scarlet, white and chestnut oaks and sourwood. Scattered evergreen growth consists of Virginia, white and shortleaf pine with hemlocks occurring along drainage ways. No buildings or other improvements are present on site, other than power line maintenance roads. 4. AREA CHARACTERISTICS a. Future Growth Priority: Situated within the Mason's Cove Community Planning Area. It is in a rural service area, designated for limited growth in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. b. General area is rural with scattered low density residential development in the Bradshaw Community, extending east along Bradshaw Road towards Mason's Cove and west towards Montgomery County. Limited residential development and one church use are located on the southeast side of Fort Lewis Mountain near exit 39. While these uses will be topographically separated from the proposed landfill, they will be located near the proposed access road through Smith Gap. 5. LAND USE COMPATIBILITY a. Comprehensive Plan: 1985 Comprehensive Development Plan has placed this area within a Rural Preserve land use category. The Comprehensive Plan was developed as an overall guide to assist public officials in arriving at equitable decisions regarding the future land use and development of the County. It is, by design, intended to be general, focusing on issues of the compat- ibility of land uses and methods of design which will mitigate any negative impacts on adjoining uses. Given this approach, many uses are not specifically mentioned in the plan, including the existing or proposed regional sanitary landfill sites. In these instances, the purpose and intent of the plan, in addition to pertinent guidelines and policies in the plan have been used to evaluate the consistency of a project with the plan. The most intensive use listed in the Land Use Compatibility Matrix of any comparability to a sanitary landfill is mining and extraction. Although there are major differences (particularly environmental and resource protection issues), there are also similarities between a sanitary landfill operation and mining and extraction activities. The plan lists mining and extraction as a limited use of moder- ate compatibility in the Rural Preserve land use category. This is in recognition that these activities, like a landfill, must be located where geological conditions are most suitable. However they are a limited use of only moderate compatibility due to potential harmful effects on housing, farming and resource protection areas. A detailed discussion of land use issues and methods proposed for minimizing potential harmful effects can be found under Surrounding Land and Neighboring Land. - 11 - P-~ ~~~~ The Resource Protection Guide portion of the Comprehensive Plan addresses such areas as groundwater recharge areas, critical slopes, woodlands, historical and archaeological sites, and rivers, streams, and lakes. The primary resource concerns related to the siting of a regional landfill include: evaluating the impacts on groundwater and ensuring that the site is not located in a major groundwater recharge area ensuring adequate drainage controls and stormwater management (see Water); requiring measures to minimize erosion and reduce sedimentation (see Soils); encouraging timber management and preservation plans (see Natural Amenities); and encouraging historical and archaeological evaluations where sites are identified, preserving or sufficently documenting the site to prevent loss of valuable information (see Amenities). b. Surrounding Land: The adjoining land uses are generally compris- ed of open space, vacant land, forest land and scattered residen- tial development. In particular, the site is surrounded by woodland to the south, east and west, and pastureland, woodland and a single family residence on the north. A power line of Appalachian Power Company crosses the east corner of the site. c. Neighboring Area: The neighboring area, like the adjoining uses, consists primarily of open space and vacant land, and dispersed residential development. The scattered residential development is limited primarily to the valley floor on either side of Bradshaw Creek, as is the agricultural land (primarily pasture land). The balance of the area is in forest land. Two residences and one cabin are located on Berrybrooke Drive on the north side of Bradshaw Valley which may overlook the landfill site. The proposed access road over Smith Gap, and possibly the site, will be visible from the Appalachian Trail, and in particular Dragon's Tooth, a rock formation located at the south end of Cove Mountain in Catawba Valley. The LCAC has recommended that property value protection provisions be implemented by the County. These provisio~so include: (1) property protection provisions would apply properties within 5,000 feet of the proposed landfill site; (2) create a procedure for establishing the initial value of property; (3) require the County Assessor to determine an annual index of appreciation based on the average increased value in Roanoke County; (4) establish conditions of a bona fide sale; (5) provide for a reimbursement of the difference between the initial value and the accumulated value of appreciation; (6) give the landfill agency the "right of first refusal" on a sale; and (7) require the landfill agency to purchase the property if unable to sell within six months. d. Site Layout: Preliminary designs have placed the debris fill area to the east of the road from Smith Gap with the solid waste fill area located west of the road. Additional details of the specific site layout such as the location of any baler located on the site, will not be available until a Part B application is submitted, should this site reach that stage in the permitting process. - 12 - ~~ ~~ The VA Department of Waste Management Regulations require that no active landfill area be located within the followi(2g distances: (1) 100 feet from any regularly flowing stream; 500 feet from any well or spring used for drinking water; (3) 50 feet from any public right of way; (5) 200 feet from any residence, school or park; and (6) 50 feet from the facility property boundary. Waste Management Regulations also require a heated shelter must be provided for employees. Other facilities and improvements required on site include: stormwater diversion and management systems; leachate collection and storage facilities; a network of groundwater monitoring wells and double liner/cap systems for active fill areas. The Landfill Citizens Advisory Committee has also recommended a number of site improvements or conditions including: (1) active fill areas should be no closer than 100 feet from the property boundary; (2) a fire protection system with adequate storage capacity be provided on site with sufficient capacity to serve adjoining properties, should groundwater sources become contaminated; (3) a landscaped buffer yard be maintained around the perimeter of the site (see Screening and Buffering); (4) provide recreational opportunities for intermediate use and upon closure; and (5) establish composting and salvage areas to reduce waste stream and recycle usable materials. e. f. Architecture: N/A Screening and Landscape: Current ordinance provisions do not specifically address landfill development. Recommended standards are as follows: (1) The following buffer yard and plantings shall be established around the perimeter of the landfill property, except adjacent to an existing residential property or public or private right-of-way. Trees shall be planted in three separate rows or in clusters, where natural land characteristics allow within the buffer yard. 50 foot buffer yard; three large deciduous trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard; five large evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard; and seven small evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 15 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard. (2) In areas adjacent to an existing residential property or public or private right-of-way, the following shall be established and maintained around the perimeter of the landfill property. Trees shall be planted in three separate rows or in clusters, where natural land characteristics allow within the buffer yard. 100 foot buffer yard; six large deciduous trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard; 10 large evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard; and 15 small evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 15 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard. - 13 - Q~'° ~~ ~~'v (3) The buffer yard may only be used for passive recreation, such as .pedestrian, bike or equestrian trails provided that no plant materand all othernrequirementstand conditions arfe mets maintained; (4> Buildings, active landfill areas, equipment storage areas and other facilities shall be landscaped in such a manner as to enhance (but not necessarily screen) the visual appearance from adjoining properties. (5) The administrative standards and procedures contained under Sectionmore9restrictiveaorkspecific standardsdarenrequired abovey unless g. Amenities: Adequate soil types and properties to support proposal. The Olver report indicates that required soil volumes for daily cover material may be inadequate. Landfill useful life has been projected at greater than 60 years (including solid waste and debris). Parking requirements are anticipated to reflect those of industrial material storage and call for one space per employee on major shift, plus one space per company vehicle and piece of mobile equipment. As defined by the Resource Protection Guide, one significant archaeological site, a cemetery, lies only 1,000 feet north of proposed site on the south side of VA 622. LCAC recommendation regarding lighting include (1) Sufficient lighting must be maintained at all times to facilitate normal operations and to provide adequate security over the landfill site. (2) Lighting must be directed inward to keep the main-body of light and glare off surrounding residents. (3) Adjoining property owners should be consulted as to light placement, direction and height. h. Natural Amenities: Preliminary indications are that no known endangered plant or animal species reside on-site, although the purple cone flower "Echinacea laevigata" has been known to exist in the general area but has not been documented since 1944. According to the VA Department of Forestry, timber quality for forest products is poor. If large areas are clear cut, market possibilities exist for pulpwood or for fuelwood if small areas are cleared. VA Department of Forestry has recommended, and is capable of providing, a forest management plan for reserve areas within the overall site to better manage future wood products, aesthetics, visual screening, recreation and wildlife habitat. Several intermittent natural drainage ways will cease to exist with landfill development. Critical slope protection (guarding against soil erosion and increased runoff, among other damages) may be difficult. TRAFFIC i. Street Capacities: Circulation After a preliminary assessment of access alternatives, Olver Inc. has identified three potential routes to this site. Olver suggested that access could be gained from either Dow Hollow Road, north of the I-81 interchange at Dixie Caverns, or from Bradshaw Road. More specifically, from Bradshaw Road, access could be gained either through Montgomery County via Routes 603 and 629, or through Mason's Cove via Route 311. The staff has reviewed each of the three access alternatives and an assessment of each is listed below. - 14 - .~ Alternative 1: Utilize Bradshaw Road via Route 311 (Catawba Valley Drive). The site would be situated approximately 12 miles west of the intersection of Route 311 at Bradshaw Road. Existing land uses along this route are predominantly residential with some commercial and institutional uses. Although existing roadway facilities are adequate for residential volumes, additional truck or heavy equipment along this route would necessitate several improvements. Staff has been advised, to accommodate landfill traffic, all primary access roads should be constructed to a minimum cross section of 24 feet with shoulders 4 to 6 feet in width. To meet this minimum standard several portions of Bradshaw Road would have to be upgraded. Staff suspects that structural improvements would be required as well to support heavily loaded truck traffic. In addition to upgrading Bradshaw Road, it may be necessary to construct turning lanes, both northbound and southbound, on Route 311 at its intersection with Bradshaw Road. If necessary, the turning lanes should include ample storage area to support the large volume of truck traffic passing through this intersection. The existing regional landfill generates approximately 250 vehicles trips per day (500 trip ends). Depending upon the success of waste stream reduction measures and the ultimate location of baling facilities and/or transfer stations, this site would initiate generate traffic volumes similar to those at the existing landfill. Over the life of the landfill, Olver estimates the number of vehicle trips generated at the site would double. According to traffic surveys conducted in 1986, traffic volumes along this route (traveling west from the intersection of Route 311 at Bradshaw Road) were as follows: From Route 864 to Route 699: ADT 1,871. 1989 ADT 1,908. From Route 883 to Route 914: ADT 1,294. 1989 ADT 1,320. From Route 914 to Route 873: ADT 1,065. 1989 ADT 1,086. Based on information provided by the Fifth PDC, staff estimates that since 1986, traffic volumes (ADT) along these secondary routes have increased by approximately 2$. Using this figure, an estimate of traffic volumes for 1989 is included above in the last column. Although the consultant reviewed this route as a viable access alternative, the LCAC has recommended against providing any access to this site from Bradshaw Road. As a condition of development, the LCAC has recommended: "Upon the opening of any landfill on Smith Gap, there shall be no access to the landfill from Bradshaw Road." This condition would not preclude a temporary access route to accommodate construction and development of the site; however, once complete, primary access would be prohibited. This prohibition is not only directed to residential and commercial users of the landfill, but emergency access as well. - 15 - ~}"~ ~, Alternative 2: Utilize Bradshaw Road via Routes 603 and 629 through Montgomery County. Using the existing network, the proposed landfill would be located approximately 6.5 miles from the Ironto/I-81 exit and 1} miles from the Montgomery/Roanoke County boundary. Existing land uses along this route are almost exclusively residential or institutional with the exception of one commercial use situated at the I-81 exit. As Olver points out in its preliminary assessment of the site, selection of this route would not only increase haul distances but necessitate extensive improvements to the existing roadway network. This route currently traverses several water bodies where drainage structures would require major reconstruction. Existing pavement widths along this route range between 16 and 18 feet with minimal shoulders. To support landfill traffic, an additional 6 to 8 feet of pavement with improved shoulders would be required. As previously mentioned, the existing regional landfill generates approximately 250 vehicle trips per day (500 trip ends). Depending upon the success of waste stream reduction measures and the ultimate location of baling facilities and/or transfer stations, this site would generate traffic volumes similar to those at the existing landfill. Over the life of the landfill, Olver estimates the number of vehicle trips generated at the site would double. According to traffic counts supplied by the Montgomery County Planning Department, ADT along this route range between 169 and 937 vehicles per day. As expected traffic volumes are highest along Route 603 near the I-81 interchange and continue to decrease as you travel toward the Montgomery/Roanoke County boundary. Listed below is a summary of the most recent traffic counts available. From Route 603 to Route 629: ADT 937 (1987 count) From Route 629 to Route 622: ADT 255 (1983 count) From Route 622 to County limits: ADT 169 (1987 count) Like alternative 1, the LCAC has recommended that this route not be constructed as a primary access to the Smith Gap site• on the condition of development, the LCAC has recommended: "Up opening of any landfill on Smith Gap, there shall be no access to the landfill from Bradshaw Road." Again, this condition would not preclude a temporary access route to support construction and development of the site; however, after completion, primary access would be prohibited. This prohibition is not only directed to residential and commercial. users of the landfill, but emergency access as well. Similarly, because~of the increased haul distances associated with this route, Olver dismissed this route as a viable access alternative as well. - 16 - ~- Alternative 3: The third access alternative would be to construct a new roadway extending from the vicinity of Dow Hollow Road, north of the I-81 interchange at Dixie Caverns, north over Smith Gap into the proposed disposal site. The new road would be approximately four miles in length. Existing land uses along this route are predominantly unimproved with several single family residences, a church and one commercial establishment located at the southern base of Smith Gap. Because a majority of the land along this route is unimproved, this alternative would impact fewer residents than either of the two routes proposed from Bradshaw Road. Based on traffic volumes at the existing landfill, staff estimates the proposed site would generate approximately 500 trip ends per day. Traffic surveys conducted in 1986 along Dow Hollow revealed an ADT of 740 north of the I-81 interchange and 3,363 south of the interchange between I-81 and US 460. LCAC recommendations: Because of the volume and type of traffic generated by landfill operations, selection of either of the three routes could have a negative impact on abutting residential properties. Vehicle noise, litter and concerns regarding traffic safety are all factors which potentially impact neighboring residences. To mitigate impacts associated with access, the County's LCAC has recommended a series of conditions aimed at preserving adjoining properties. The conditions, which the LCAC has recommended be attached to either the Special Exception Permit or the landfill operating policies, are summarized below: (1) The landfill operator, along with VDOT, will properly maintain the road in good safe order. (2) The landfill operator will keep the road and adjoining rights of way and properties free and clean of litter and debris originating from vehicles traveling to and from the landfill. Litter pickup is to be made a minimum of once a week, weather permitting. (3) Roanoke County will strictly enforce the speed limits along the access roads to and from the landfill. ~4) With the construction of the landfill and prior to its opening, all secondary roads utilized as the main access to the landfill will be reconstructed to the appropriate geometric design standards and pavement category to safely handle the projected type and volume of traffic. State regulations also address issues relating access. Specifically, Virginia Waste Management regulations specify that all access roads leading to the entrance of the facility and to the disposal area shall be all weather and be constructed with a base capable of withstanding heavy loads. j. Circulation: See above. UTILITIES k. Water: Public water is not available or anticipated to be available to this site in the foreseeable future. The LCAC has recommended that a potable water supply system, with adequate storage, be developed at the landfill site. This system should be designed with sufficient capacity to serve surrounding properties in the event of groundwater contamination. - 17 - /) It is suggested by staff that access be available to this water supply system to provide additional water to fire fighting equipment. Also, expansion of this system, except when groundwater contamination has been documented, should be prohibited without prior review for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan (pursuant to Section 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia). 1. Sewer: No public sewer is available or anticipated for this site. Installation of a septic system may be necessary for the convenience of landfill personnel. DRAINAGE m. Basin: The proposed landfill site is located in the Bradshaw Creek drainage basin which is a tributary of the north fork of the Roanoke River. The site is located approximately 21 miles upstream from the raw water intake for the Salem water supply system. Four wastewater discharge points between the Salem water intake and the proposed landfill site have been approved by the Virginia Water Control Board (see Water). n. Floodplain: The proposed landfill site is outside any area designated as a 100 year floodplain under the National Flood Insurance Program. County regulations apply to all watersheds with 100 or more acres and prohibit the construction of buildings within the 100 year floodplain. PUBLIC SERVICES o. Safety/Security: Recently adopted Virginia Waste Management regulations include several provisions regarding safety and security at the proposed regional landfill. With regard to security, the state regulations require that all facilities be surrounded by natural barriers, fencing, or equivalent means of controlling access to prevent illegal disposal. Access is to be controlled by gates which should be securable to regulate entry. The regulations also limit access to times when a landfill attendant is on duty, and then, only during daylight hours unless otherwise specified in the facility permit. The state regulations also include provisions requiring an active safety program to prevent hazards to the landfill staff and hauler. In accordance with state regulations, the LCAC has recommended several conditions relating to the development and operation of the future landfill. Specifically, the LCAC has recommended: (1) All facilities shall be surrounded on all sides by natural barriers, fencing or equivalent means of controlling access and preventing illegal disposal. (a) All fencing utilized at the facility shall be adequate to control unauthorized access. (b) Gates shall be at the main entrance as well as the entrance to additional service areas. (2) Access to a solid waste disposal facility shall be permitted only when an attendant is on duty and only during daylight hours, unless otherwise specified in the facility permit. (a) Access shall be permitted to any refuse vehicle owned and operated by a member of the Roanoke Valley Regional Landf ill . - 18 - /"~' ~. (b) Access shall be permitted to any private hau er or company operating in the Roanoke Valley Regional Landfill Service area who has applied for and obtained a permit from the landfill operator. (c) A permit shall be refused at any time if the operator of the vehicle has been found not to be abiding by the regulations set forth in the application/contract. (d) Access shall be permitted to any resident of a jurisdiction who is a member of the Roanoke Valley Regional Landfill showing proof of residency. (3) Each solid waste disposal facility should be provided with an adequately lighted and heated shelter where operating personnel can exercise site control and have access to essential sanitation facilities. Lighting, heat and sanitation facilities may be provided by portable equipment as necessary. (a) Dusk to dawn lights to be placed around buildings and at each of the security gates. (4) All sanitary landfills should be equipped with permanent or mobile telephone or radio communications. (a} The main security gate should be able to communicate with all necessary areas of the landfill. (5) The operator is responsible for safety hazards to operating personnel through an active safety program. (a) Security rules and regulations shall be posted at each gate. (b) Security guard or landfill personnel shall be on site 24 hours each day. (6) Salvaging may be permitted by a solid waste disposal facility operator, but shall be controlled within a designated salvage area to preclude interference with operation of the facility and to avoid the creation of hazards or nuisances. (a) A designated salvage area to be set up with adequate drop off and pick up area. A security person to oversee this area. p. Rescue/Fire Protection: Depending upon which access route is ultimately selected, County fire and rescue officials advise that protection for this site could be provided by either the Mason's Cove or Glenvar Fire and Rescue stations. If, for example, access is limited from Dow Hollow Road, as recommended by the LCAC, Fire and Rescue Station #9 located on West Main Street in Glenvar would be the appropriate station to respond to this site. However, if access is permitted from Bradshaw Road, either as a primary or secondary emergency access, Fire and Rescue Station #10 located on Bradshaw Road in Mason's Cove would be the appropriate station to respond. According to fire and rescue officials, a secondary access from Bradshaw Road would cut response time to this site in half and improve the quality of service that their department could provide to this site. - 19 - ~~ Virginia Waste Management regulations include provisions prohibiting open burning at the landfill site unless a permit from the State Air Pollution Control Board has been secured. The regulations also state that appropriate on-site facilities will be available to extinguish any non-permitted open burning and to the protect the solid waste disposal facility as a whole. The state regulations specify that a fire control plan will be formulated and available for public review. As part of their review process, the LCAC has recommended that fire protection measures be provided on site with adequate storage, distribution, and hydrants to properly extinguish fires. The LCAC's recommendation further states that the system shall be designed as a potable water system in conformance with the standards of Roanoke County for ownership and operation. Also, the system shall be designed to serve all on-site water needs as well as being capable of serving adjoining residences. q. Parks and Recreation: As part of the design phase, the LCAC has recommended that the master plan be formulated to include recreational uses as both an intermediate and ultimate use of the site. Actual implementation of this recommendation may be difficult depending upon the access route ultimately selected. As part of their review, the LCAC has recommended that access be limited from a new roadway extending from the vicinity of Dow Hollow Road, over Smith Gap, to the proposed disposal area. Should the Board of Supervisors include this recommendation as a condition of the Special Exception Permit, access to any intermediate recreational facilities may be problematic. Since this route is likely to include steep grades and carry large volumes of trucks and landfill equipment, it may not be appropriate for parks and recreation traffic. r. School: With the exception of concerns regarding traffic safety, development of this site as a regional landfill would have little impact on County school operations. According to school officials, eight school buses currently operate from Mason's Cove School. Five of these buses, serving elementary, junior and senior high schools, maintain morning and afternoon routes along Bradshaw Road. These buses generally operate between the hours of 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. and in the afternoon between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. Similar conflicts would occur if access to the site is constructed from Dow Hollow Road. Two buses serve the area south of the proposed site at the base of Smith Gap. Two morning and two afternoon bus routes are located along Dow Hollow and Twine Hollow roads. Since many of the vehicles accessing the landfill would travel via Route 460 to Dow Hollow Road, staff also examined the number of bus routes along west US 460. Currently, five buses, serving morning and afternoon routes, operate along US 460 in the vicinity of Dow Hollow Road. - 20 - ~"' .,, TAX BASE s. Development of this site as a regional landfill would remove 5 parcels containing approximately 640 acres from the County's tax roles. Based on information supplied by Olver Inc., the total assessed value of these five parcels is approximately $170,000. If the Smith Gap route is used for access, the County would also loose tax revenue from the land necessary for this route. Since the regional landfill would be owned and operated by a governmental or quasi-governmental body, improvements associated with the landfill would not be subject to local taxes. The landfill would generate local revenues through the fees charged to landfill haulers. According to preliminary estimates made by Olver Inc. users of this site could expect to pay a minimum of $24 per ton of waste. This figure is significantly higher than the fees presently charged at the existing regional landfill. According to the records of the County Assessor, there are 119 parcels in Roanoke County with a total of 4,594 acres within the 5,000 foot area of influence established by the Landfill Citizens Advisory Committee (LCAC); excluding parcels on the south side of Fort Lewis Mountain and the north side of Catawba Mountain. This includes 55 improved parcels which have an assessed value of $38,000 (ranging from $3,000 to $87,500). The total assessed value of land and buildings within 5,000 feet of the proposed landfill site if $5.4 million. LCAC has recommended that the host community be reimbursed for lot tax revenues associated with siting the landfill. ENVIRONMENT t. Air: Dust carried by prevailing southeasterly and westerly winds may negatively impact residents of Catawba and Mason's Cove. Impacts may be lessened by widespread sprinkling. LCAC recommendations include the following: Dust. (1) Fugitive d ust emissions should be monitored continuously by an authorized agent of Roanoke County or by the Landfill Operators for compliance with state regulations. (2) Problem areas arising during dry seasons should be controlled with water. (3) Access roads should be cleaned and dust controlled with water if excessive amount of dust are generated. (4) Any fill area of intermediate cover must be seeded in vegetative cover within 30 days of fill. Odor. (1) Odor problems will be minimized if the landf ill operation is conducted properly and active fill areas are covered daily. (2) If problem odors exist that adversely impact surrounding residents, deodorizing agents should be used. t3) All holding tanks for Leachate colletion systems shall be in enclosed underground structures. Pests. (1) A bonded, licensed pest control company should be retained by the landfill agency throughout the active life of the landfill to provide preventive inspections and treatments. (2) Adjoining property owners who incur pest problems that are proven to be directly related to the landfill operation must be provided proper extermination at the expen ectsfmust be teatedaasnofte(n )as rsdnecessary fto flying ins prevent the breeding cycle. - 21 - +~ ,~~ ~"" °• u. Water: Surface drainage consists of four ravine type stream valleys, which drain generally northward and discharge into Bradshaw Creek. All of these streams appear to be intermittent (periodically flowing) in nature. No major springs are known to exist on the site, although springs may exist above the site on Fort Lewis Mountain. According to Olver, Inc., stormwater, particularly from the upper slopes of Fort Lewis Mountain, would be diverted around the site by major diversion channels. The ravine type stream channels existing on the site would not be used for landfilling purposes. A leachate (liquid waste) collection system within and below each liner will be installed to further reduce potential pollution. The leachate collected would be pumped over Fort Lewis Mountain to a sanitary sewer or transported by truck to the regional sewage treatment plant for further treatment and disposal. According to Roanoke County Groundwater, prepared by the Virginia Water Control Board (July, 1976), the proposed landfill site is located in the Mississippian-Devonian-Silurian Aquifer system which is composed of shale and sandstone. Water is stored and transmitted in joints, fractures, fault zones, and contacts between different rock types. Recharge to this aquifer system is local in nature, with springs usually discharging water which entered the groundwater within a two square mile area. The permeability of the shale is very low, unless the shale is highly fractured. In fact, some of the shale in this aquifer system forms a barrier to the movement of water. However, this system may also feed a certain amount of water to underlying rocks (sandstone and limestone) and adjacent aquifer systems. Based on preliminary geological testing apaOityrduen to the bedrock on site has a low water supp y nature of the sedimentary stone found in the formation (shale, mudstone, siltstone, and fine grained sandstones) and its low fracture potential. Also no fault or major structural features are known to exist on the site based on preliminary evaluation. This would indicate that the site possess a minimum thr oval groundwater. Further testing must be completed before app by the Virginia Department of Waste Management. The Virginia Department of Waste Management regulations require extensive provisions to be followed in order to protect surface and groundwater resources. This includes the following: - all surface water shall be diverted away from active fill areas; - no solid waste shall be deposited in a stream or allowed to become waterborne; - no active landfill area is to be located within 100 feet of any regularly flowing stream or within 500 feet of any well or spring used for drinking water; - 5 feet vertical separation must be maintained between the deposited solid waste and the water table or bedrock; - all active fill areas shall be underlain with an impermeable liner material (clay or synthetic); - 22 - ~'" - a leachate collection and removal system shall be installed, with provision for proper disposal; and - an extensive network of groundwater monitoring wells shall be installed and regularly tested, with specific requirements for rigorous testing, record keeping and reporting should contamination be detected. The LCAC has recommended that additional groundwater protection measures be provided to eligible residents. This includes: - protection applies to properties within 1,000 feet of the landfill site; - procedures for establishing eligibility including testing wells prior to opening of the landfill to ensure they are free of pollution and entering into a contract to allow regularly testing wells during the life of the landfill at the expense of the landfill agency; 1 of water be - providing a permanent clean potable supp y provided to residents with 120 days at no charge should their water supply become contaminated; - detailed plans for providing water to residents in the event of groundwater contamination be developed prior to opening of the landfill; and - provision for one-time testing of wells within 5,000 feet of the landfill at the expense of the landfill agency. v. Soils: Based on the soils evaluation conducted by Olver, Inc., dominant soil types on this site consist of the Montevallo series and the Muskingum and Rockland series. The Montevallo series are silty soils generally less than 14 inches thick over relatively hard shales. Due to their silty nature, high shale fragment content and shallowness, these soils are generally very droughty. The Muskingum series are usually less than 18 thick consisting of fine sandy loan with some cobbles of sandstone material. The Rockland series consist of 70-90$ rock outcrop interspersed with thin, stony soils and are found on the upper portions of the site. Also found on the site along the foot of Fort Lewis Mountain are colluvial soils of the Jefferson and Leadville series. These soilraV ~ fa de water heaccumulat g at material moved downslope by g Y the base of steep slopes and in wide stream valleys. These soils are moderately well drained and have thicknesses of up to 20 feet along some drainage ways. According to Olver, Inc., insufficient quantities of suitable soil are available for liner/cap material. Also, limited quantities of soil suitable for daily cover appear available, which may require establishing an off-site borrow area. The Virginia Department of Waste Management regulations require any landfill facility to be designed to minimize soil erosion. This includes the following: - divert surface water away from disposal areas in a manner that erosion is controlled; - drainage structures shall be installed and maintained to prevent ponding and erosion; and - finished slopes shall be less than 25$ and long slopes shall incorporate runoff control to minimize erosion. - 23 - w. ~~ ~ -~ ~~' Noise: One nuisance associated with landfill operations is the noise emitted from industrial equipment and heavy truck traffic. Noise, depending upon local conditions, can be transmitted over long distances. Topographic conditions such as valleys and ravines, can exacerbate noise levels by channelizing sound waves. Land uses particularly sensitive to excessive or constant noise include schools, churches, hospitals and single family residences. To mitigate noise levels associated with landfill operations, Virginia Waste Management regulations call for the use of artificial or natural screens for site screening and noise attenuation. The regulations specify that noise levels must be less than 80 dB(A) when measured at the landfill site boundary. The regulations further specify that the design reflect those requirements, if any, that are determined from the long-range plan for future use of the site. In accordance with state regulations, the LCAC has recommended that noise levels generated by landfill machinery and equipment not exceed 80 dB(A) at the landfill boundaries and 65 dB(A) when measured at surrounding residences. To provide the Planning Commission with some perspective as to the maximum noise levels recommended by the LCAC, staff has included a listing of sound levels associated with eight everyday occurrences. This information obtained from "Timesaver Standards for Landscape Architecture," published by McGraw Hill. Typical Sound Levels of Everyday Occurrences Occurrence Sound Level, dB(A) Rural area at night 25 Library 30 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Residential area during daytime - rural - suburban - suburban adjacent to airport City center Major roads - township road - highway - freeway (12-lane) Diesel truck (at 15 meters) Noisy metal working shop Jet taking off {at 165 feet) 40 50 60 60 50 60 75 90 100 120 The path and distance of sound transmission is an important variable in any noise reduction strategy. At Smith Gap, noise mitigation should focus on two sources: Equipment noise generated in the disposal area and traffic noise generated along the access road. (A baler would constitute a third source if located on-site.) Because of the natural topography, noise emitted from the disposal area would be partially contained by Smith Gap and the neighboring ridge along the site's northern boundary. Barriers constructed of landscaping, earth berms and natural vegetation could be erected along the eastern and western boundaries to contain the noise at the disposal area. For maximum effectiveness, these barriers should be located close to the source of noise as possible and be tall enough to essentially redirect the path of the sound transmissions. - 24 - /~+~ .. ~.~~~ ~~ U A more difficult problem is reducing the noise associated with vehicular traffic accessing the site. If, for example, an access road is constructed over Smith Gap, noise levels will be difficult to contain. Noise levels generated by traffic generally depend on the following variables: (1) volume of traffic; (2) mix (e.g. cars to trucks); (3) speed; (4) road characteristics (e.g. gradient and surface). Staff recommends that appropriate barriers be constructed along the access route to reduce traffic noise. Where appropriate, earth berms, barrier walls and vegetation should be used to not only con- tain vehicular noise, but screen neighboring residences from sound transmissions as well. As previously mentioned, these devices should be located close to either the source or receiver of the noise. x. Signage: Staff recommends the petitioner limit, as a condition of the Special Exception Permit, on-site Signage to those signs specified by Virginia Waste Management regulations. Staff recommends limited off-site directional signs be erected in strategic locations to direct citizens and commercial haulers to the landfill site. 6. PLAN CONSISTENCY This area is designated as Rural Preserve. The proposed regional landfill site would be deemed consistent with the Comprehensive Plan on the basis that the following measures are taken: (1) The requirements of the Virginia Department of Waste Management are strictly adhered to and strictly enforced in the design and operation of the landfill . (2) All conditions of the Special Exception Permit recommended by the Planning Commission are adopted by the Board of Supervisors. (3) The recommended policies developed by the LCAC, and in particular the Groundwater Protection and Property Value provisions outlined in their report dated April 4, 1989, be adopted by the Board of Supervisors and implemented through legally enforceable means by the affected property owners. - 25 - AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1989 RESOLUTION 62789-12 GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, TO PUBLICLY OWN AND OPERATE A SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY ON WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE "SMITH GAP SITE" WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter on April 18, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, held a public hearing on this matter on April 25, 1989. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board finds that the granting of a Special Exception Permit for the location and operation of a solid waste facility is substantially in accord with the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.1- 456(b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. 2. That the Board hereby grants a Special Exception Permit to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to publicly own and operate a solid waste disposal facility on what is known as the "Smith Gap Site" located on 640.39 acres on the northwest side of Fort Lewis Mountain between Smith Gap and Bradshaw Road in the Catawba Magisterial District, subject to the approved landfill permit conditions and operating policies. 3. That the Board acknowledges, to the extent permitted by law, that it has a non-binding moral obligation to pay such amounts as may be needed to address the adopted operating policies, including property value protection, and that such payment is subject to future appropriations. Nothing in the approved operating policies shall be deemed to constitute the creation of a debt, the lending of the credit, nor a pledge of the credit of the County under the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, nor shall any provision thereof give any person any legal right to enforce the terms thereof against the County. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor Johnson, and carried by the following recoreded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: Supervisors Robers, McGraw A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Terry Harrington, Planning Director W. Robert Herbert, Roanoke City Manager Randolph Smith, Salem City Manager George Nester, Vinton Town Manager Jeffrey Cromer, Roanoke Valley Regional Solid Waste Management Board ACTION NO. ITEM NO. ~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 27, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Boones Chapel Landfill Site - Special Exception Permit COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~~ BACKGROUND' Attached is a copy of the report and recommendation from the Planning Commission on the 456 Review and Special Exception Permit application for the Boones Chapel Landfill Site. The Board should grant the special exception permit with the approved conditions and operating policies, including the following issues: (1) That the Boones Chapel access road not be a condition to the special exception permit. (2) That all provisions for property value protection be specifically extended to renters. (3) That property value protection be extended only to those who live within 5,000 feet of the landfill site. (4) That property value protection begin only after comple- tion of the Part B application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached resolu- tion. SUBMITTED BY: ~ 41 Jo n R. bbard, P.E. Assistant County Administrator Community Services & Development APPROVED: ~• ~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ~° D OF SUPERVISORS OF ROp,NOKE COUNTY, THE BOAR I,p,R MEETING OF Op,1.TOKE COUNTY ADMI9ISTRp,TION CENTE AT A REGU HELD AT THE R JUNE 27- 198 VIRGINIA- ON TUESDAY, THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT TO TO TING A COUNTY, VIRGINIA- ROANOKE RESOLUTION GRAN OF DISPOSAL FACILITY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SOLID WASpEL BITE" PUBLICLY OWN AND OPERATE „BOONES CHA ON WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE on this Commission held a public hearing WHEREAS, the Planning on April 18, 1989; and Virginia, matter of Roanoke County, the Board of Supe~15Ors WHEREAS, on April 25, 1989' ublic hearing on this matter ervisors of held a p the Board of Sup NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by County, Virginia, as follows: Special Roanoke ranting °f a finds that the g 1, That the Board solid waste 't for the location and operation of a Perms with the adopted 1985 Exception in accord _ substantially of Section 15.1 facility is rovisions ursuant to the p Comprehensive Plan p as amended. of of Virginia, 456(b) the 1950 Code a Special Exception pelt 2, That the Board hereby grants of Supe~isors to publicly own and County Board as the to the Roanoke on what is known rate a solid waste disposal facility southern on 445.81 acres ope °n the Chapel Site" located County line- ~~Boones the Franklin oanoke County, adjacent to Spring portion of R 677 in the Cave east of Route 220 via Route ermit two miles to the approved landfill p Magisterial District, subject o eaating p°licies. nowledges, to the extent permitted by conditions and p 3, That the Board ack to pay such amounts moral obligation that it has a non-binding olicies, law, the adopted operating p as may be needed to address ~-a including property value protection, and that such payment is subject to future appropriations. Nothing in the approved operating policies shall be deemed to constitute the creation of a debt, the lending of the credit, nor a pledge of the credit of the County under the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, nor shall any provision thereof give any person any legal right to enforce the terms thereof against the County. ERVISORS ~~~ PETITIONER: ROiANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUP CASE ~ggt; SU5-4/89 Planning Commission Hearing Date: April 18, 1989 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: April 25, 1989 p,, ~t7EST rvisors to publicly A Special Exception R~lelandfilleon whateiso;cnowngoaasrd he °B° nes d agent to the own and operate a region rtion of Roanoke County, J located on 445.81 acres in the southern po Franklin County line, 2 miles east of Route 220 via Route 677 in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Deborah Zamorski requested that the Commission place the following conditions on find similar housing at a similar cost the site acquisition: the purchaserrskhsato rent; moving expenses for household items in the Clearbrook area for the Spa should be paid by the purchaser. Also the following cost addi~C nsta;ge loanc closing interest already paid plus additional interest on a higher pe ts• moving expenses with no stipulation as to locat o s made to our curr nt home cos , expenses of time and material for imprn~~n~enp~~haser of all costs associated and an additonal provision for the PaY~ non-refundable amount for option on with the search for lied ~ar3 the pu~ha~price. our property to be app Woltz addressed the Omission regarding the impact of higher fees on roadside Jim in and He said that higher fees may cause an increase inlnll~ slation to deal dumps. requested that the County do whatever is e ~~ that the County establish a fund with stricter roadside dumping laws. He sugg can u existing dumps and any new roadside dumps and conduct a public to cl P awareness program. nc7ations dated April 4, 1989: Jim Hensley requested that tensCAdvisory Co~mi.tteerreport~ll~ing r it Fund contained in the Landfill Cltiz extend groundwater protection beyond 1,000 feet; consider the Host Conmun as proposed by L~C• William Rutherford, a resident of Fincastle, spoke on behalf of Rural Virginia Inc. e asked that the Commission consider coverting trash into a useable product H llution, etc. (compost fertilizer). This would reduce landfill costs and po C, gECOpgKENDED CONDITIONS Tvnes of Waste time during the entire life of the (1) No hazardous waste will be allowed at any area suitable for sanitary landfill. rubbing waste may be put in any (2) No demolition debris or g waste. ~ put in any area suitable for sanitary waste. (3) No yard waste may ~ disposed of in a designated monofill area in (4) Non-hazardous incinerator ash may the new landfill. ~.~,.~~ r- 1f rating controls, and reconn~ends Commission recommends n~~ ~ established The Pla ectlve s~ndards for enforc ment may not that obj and equ1P the landfill machinery 65 dB(A) surrounding ratin Controls enerated by rders; ossible Noise levels g dB(A) landfill site bopped with the best p (l) Noise: amounts: 80 must be etI exCee~i the following eations vehicles b an authorized available to minimize noes . monitored continuously Y residences. Landfill oP exhaust sys~ for compliance with state muffler or fissions should be erators controlled with water. (2) fit: ~,igitive dust em or by the landf ill oP cessive mounts °f Roanoke County during dry seasons should~ljer if eX etative agent of areas arising seeded in veg regulations. Probl 1d be cleaned and dust controlled of must be fill area of intermediate cov~r conducted Access roads shou Ant eratlon is enerated• landfill op odors exist that dust are g s of fill. minimized if the If problem cover within 30 danroblems will be used. All holding (3) Odor: Odor ~ orizing agents shouldo d structures. d active fill areasidents ~ deod dal Y• sed underg Tate normal properly an ct surrounding res shall be in enclo times to faclll must be adversely impa ;maintained at all Lighting tanks for leachate collectihntl gsm~ ~ over the landfill site. residents. (4) Lights: Sufficient lig uate securitht and glare off surroundin direction and rovide adeq of lig to light placement- operation and t°° keep the cc~ain body s as necessary for directed inward consulted as to building in height, and to fixtures attached roperty owners should be re than 16 feet ole or Adjoining phting shall be limited les of not ~ the base of the p height• Llg erations and freestanding Po ht measured at and oP one footcandle of fig b the landfill security retained Y no lights shall exceed ny should be ctions and structure. licensed Pest control c rovide preventive re proven to be p, bonded, P landf ill to P st problems that (5) Pests: life of th_ roper extermination at the bout the active owners who incur ~ agency throng roperty rovided P treated as Adjoining P ration must be por flying insects must be treatments. to the landfill oPeBreeding areas to call directly related ency. cle. residents expense of the landfill ag e use of surrounding recorded and to prevent the breedfog ~ ,~,dese calls should be often as is necessaryr should be provided sts. (6) p, telephone n~~ noise, dust, odor, or Pe in complaints abo nted. corrective actions doge to 5 p.m•7 Saturday- 8 through Friday, 8 a•m' m. to 8 erations Monday Monday through Friday- 8 a. Hours of of waste: uipment: (l) Hours for deliveration of all eCI on all days and Sundays a•m, to 3:30 P•m' Ito 6:30 P•m• hours County Board of Saturday 8 a•m' shall allow for extended the Roanoke p'm•' ency operations duly declared by ( 2 ) Emerg ency has been 1 operation. after whenever an emerg the hours of nO~ ervisors, rate during of Sup Supervisors. ff areas will ope action of the Board (3) Residential drop-O be changed by (4) Operating hours can only public notice and hearing. meter established around the Pe ferin ard and p residential proPe or Public Ste.-PPnin and Buf ~- ' aclent to ansexisting or in clusters, buff er Y t ad3 tee separate taws ard; (l) The follow g rty, exCep lanted in ~ ard• 50 foot buffer r 100 of the landfill proPe Trees shall be P e buffer Y feet or greater pe ht-of waY• within height of 50 height of 50 or private rig characteristics allow ltimate n ultimate trees where natural land trees with an 11 evergreen large deciduous five large evergreen trees wa ~ Seven sma three ard; buffer yard; of buffer yard. linear feet of buffet 100 linear feet of r 100 linear feet reater P , ht of 15 feet or greater Pe feet or g with an ultimate helg _ 2 1 i\~ " ublic or private residential property °r P rimeter of ac e nt to an existing intained around the ~ (2 ) I n area s ad J shall be established and ma rate rows or in clustard the following lanted in three Sepa right-of-~Y- rty. Trees shall be P ard. 100 foot brf100 1 near within the buffer Y reater Pe feet or the landfill PrO~ ht of 50 feet or g ht °f 50 with an ultimate heig heig with an where natural land cha~~~sristics al °`i4 trees with an ultimate trees six large deciduous e evergreen Teen ard; 10 larg ard; and 15 small efergyard. feet of buffer y feet of buf edestrian- bike greater per 100 linear feet °eaberfper 100 linear such as p ultimate height of 15 feet or~g used for passive recreation, the total width of ard ~Y °n1Y lant material is eliminated: (3) The buffer Y rovided that no p r equestrian trails P• and all other requirements and eo areasnand other facilities ° intained, e uipment storag screen) the the buffer is ma Bu ch a manner as to enhance (but not necessary Y l 9 Tidings, active landfill areas, q _ 2 of the shall be landscaped in su roperties. oining P ecific visual apL~rance from adj roc~ures contained under Section acficninistrative standards Ce shall apply unless more restrictive or sp (5) The Zoning Ordinan Roanoke County above. standards are required Fill ssible. ro erties to provide Active Fill Areas designed to allow for from adjoining P P as f the landfill Active areas shall be Tactical feet o and in no case should extend within 10 areas should be designed as far as p maximum buffering, boundary line. fencing or natural barriers, rite al disposal. All access Site Seca reventing illeg with locks. acilities shall be surrossdand Pall sides Yable and ~-IuiP1~ cess. ac (l) All f ns of controlling ac equivalent mea ates and such gates shall be recur be limited by g shall be adequate to control unauthorize t s well as the entrance t~~ only nal service area t will ilized at the facility when an attendant p,],1 fencing u at the main entrance a shall be permit cified in the facil Y Gates shall be sal facility rated by a member daylight hours, unless otherwise spe (2) Access to a solid a r ng isp° ~ and °Pe to any private is on duty and only rmitted to any refuse vehicle c~wn ermitted Access shall ~ ~ Tonal Landfill. .Access shall be P permit. Valley Reg Tonal Landf ill Derv ~etashall be in the Roanoke Val ltehye Rean~ ill operator . A I~ of the Roanoke rating abiding by hauler or company °~ ermit from n found not to ~ rmitted to has applied for and obtained a P ntract. Access shall on~ Landfill time if the operator of the Vehicle has refused at any lication/co the reg 'sdiction who is a member of the Roan°ke Valley Reg lighted ulations set forth in the aPP uately any resident of a juri rovided with an adeq showing proof of residency • osal facility should be P lid waste disp rsonnel can exercise siteri motion fa al tiesamayc d (3) Each so rating Pe Lighting, heat and sa and heated shelter where ope hts shall be p a necessary. Dusk to dawn lig to essential sanitatiouif men i ases • it gates. hone or provided by portable eq P ui ed with permanent or mobi ~ Pate with all around buildings and at each of the recur Y able to c~ (4) The sanitary landf i11The madinbsec~uripY gate should be rating personnel througaten radio co areasa~fi the landfill. hazards to ope osted at each g necessary onsible for safety ulations shall be p (5) The operator is resp rules and reg but shall r ram. Security on site 24 hours each o erator- active safety P °`3 rsonnel shall be sal facility P ° ration Security guard or landfill Pe b a solid waste disp° A designated may .~ permitted ~~ salvage area to preclude interference wi (6) Salvaging p, security person to avoid t'ne creationo f hazards or nuisanc be controlled within a designa off and pick up area. of the facility and set up with adequate dr p salvage area to be _ 3 shall oversee this area. . .~~+. Environmental Monitorin (1) The responsible landfill agency must have all landfill facilities inspected at least annually by a qualified independent contractor to determine compliance with all special exception permit conditions and all other landfill conditions. .Any violations must be reported to the responsible landfill agency and shall be made public information and the landfill agency shall take whatever steps are necessary to immediately correct the violations. (2) The responsible landfill agency will be required to log all complaints fran any adjoining residents or businesses and all reasonable and legitimate complaints shall receive the proper attention and shall be corrected immediately. The complaint log shall be open to the public inspection. (3) Monitoring should be undertaken continuously and an annual report prepared and filed with the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission, and a copy placed in each public library in the communities participating in the regional landfill. Fire Protection and Public Water (1) Fire protection for the site shall be provided on site with adequate storage, distribution, and hydrants to property extinguish fires. The system shall be designed as a potable water system in conformance with the standards of Roanoke County and the system shall be deeded to Roanoke County for ownership and operation. The system shall be designed to serve all on-site water needs as well as being capable of serving adjoining properties. (2) At least one fire hydrant shall be installed outside the perimeter fence and gate to provide an additional source of water for fire fighting equipment. (3) Expansion of the water supply system, except when groundwater contamination has been documented, shall be prohibited without prior review for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. This review shall follow the requirements and criteria outlined in Section 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia, and shall also apply to any proposal submitted under Section 15.1-475 (subdivision) and Section 15.1-491(h) Site Plan Review, of the Code of Virginia. Site Rejection The Special Exception Permit for this landfill shall became null and void upon official notification of the rejection of this site for a landfill by the Department of Waste Management or on the date that a Part B application is su}~mitted for an alternative site to the Department of Waste Manag~nent. Conformance with the 1985 C rehensive Plan In conjunction with the review of this Special Exception application, the Planning Commission has evaluated this request to determine whether or not this petition is in substantial accord with the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. It is the finding of the Planning Commission that this request is in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan if approval of the request by the Board of Supervisors is subject to all of the various Special Exception conditions referenced above, and in addition the Board takes whatever actions are necessary to ensure that the use and operation of this landfill complies, a t a minimum, with the intent of the various policy recatmendations for groundwater and property value protection of the LCAC as contained in their report dated April 4, 1989 (see attached). And moreover, that the Board of Supervisors take whatever action may be necessary to mitigate the impact of site acquisition on those families living within the site including, but not limited to, reasonable relocation assistance. The Planning Commission believes that a joint work session with the Board of Supervisors would be an appropriate forum to discuss the various of the LCAC and we request that such a work session be schedpuloed prior two sudch time that the Board evaluates or acts on the LCAC policy recommendations. - 4 - D • COr'A'IISSIONER' S MOTION, VOTE AND REASON .._~--~ ~~ Mr. Winstead moved to amend the recommended conditions to include the stat "And moreover, that the Board of Su rvisors ement, to mitigate the i ~ take whatever action may be necessary mpact of site acquisition on those families living within the site including, but not limited to, reasonable relocation assistance." Th carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: e motion Massey, Winstead, Gordon, Robinson, Witt NAYS: None ~~`1': None Mr. Witt moved to approve the request with the amended conditions. carried with the following roll call vote: ~'he motion AYES: Massey, Winstead, Gordon, Robinson, Witt NAYS: None SENT: None E. ATTACHMENTS Concept Plan (8~" x 11") Vicinity Map (8~" x 11") X Staff Report X Other: LCAC Report, pages 5-8, dated April 4, 1989 r'~~7 y Terrance Harrington, refs Roanoke County Plan 'n ~ g Commission - 5 - . ti GROUNDWATER PROTECTION Page S Tht single greatest concern of all residents surrounding a Landfill site is the potential contamination of groundwater aourcea. Residents must be assured that the ~-ater supplies will be protected at all times. _~- a 1• The responsible Landfill Agency will take all necessary actions as required b state, federal or local laws or regulations, includia protect the groundwater and water wells from contamination aa~tlteault of y the landfill .construction and operation. 2• If private groundwater aourcea are contaminated as a result of landfill leakage, construction, and/or operation, the res at its ezpenae, provide to cacti eligible residento rs bus esadallcleannsourcelof replacement water. a•) The Landfill Agency may select any source of watts they ao desire but it must meet all applicable health standards. The newly established water system will be cztended to each residence or business and connected at the Agency's ezpenae within 120 days after the date the contamination is verified. All interior plumbing contaminated to the eztent that it is tendered hazardous for continued use will be replaced at the Agency's czpenac. b•) Eligible residents or businesses will receive fret water u gallons per month for as long as they owa and occu p to 6,000 All water usage over 6,000 gallons per month will be pahd byathe ce. resident or business at the rates in effect at that time. Heirs of residents will qualify for free water under this provision. ~-) The Landfill Agency agrees to continue to provide r~'atet to subsequent owners of affected residences or businesses. However, these residents or businesses must pay the normal charge for water services being paid by other County water users. d•) The Landfill Agency will provide water during the interim period between providing a new source and the well contamination. 3• 'Ibis guarantee will remain in force for a period equal to the State and EPA required monitoring period after closure, but not leas than 25 years. 4. To be eligible for groundwater protection, each surrounding property owner (within 1,000 feet of landfill property boundary) must sign an agreement and must agree to allow water samples to be taken and tested at the Landfill Agency's czpenac. - 6 - S. 6. 7. ~- a Page 6 a-) For all wells in existence before the o enin water sample must pass all health atandardagand mustannc udet chemitcal and bacteria teats. b•) All eligible residents or businesses must allow water as taken on a quarterly basis for testing by the Landfill p `neca to be testing is to be done at the Landfill Agency's ezpenae.g y' All ~•) For all wells which peas the initial test, if subsequent tests show contamination, it will qualify under the terms of this agreement for guaranteed replacement, unless the Landfill Agency can prove that the source of the contamination is sot the landfill. d•) For all wells that fail the initial teat, the enact nature of the ezi contamination must be recorded and sufficient additional tests takenl to establish an accurate base-line of data against which to compare future teats. If future tests demonstrate a deterioration of water contamination the well will qualify under the terms of this agreement for quaranteed replacement. ~•) All new wells drilled (within 1000 feet of the landfill property boundary) during the life of the landfill that peas an initial water sample test (chemical and bacteria) will qualify for groundwater protection under the terms of this agreement. All surrounding property owners within 5,000 feet of the Landfill propert boundary may elect to have their a-atcr leafed at the Landfill AgeIICy~s y ezpenac. This wtll be a one-time only test prior to the opening of the Landfill, and is to include chemical and bacteria analysis. A Contingency Plan moat be designed and a aster to surrounding residents covered undepp~°.se8greementviding potable opening of the Landfill. ,prior to the 'Ibe Landfill Agency will escrow sufficient money from landfill tipping fees to Euarantee fulfillment of this agreement. - 7 - ~~~ ~ ~ - / PROPERTY VALUES Page 7 A second major concern of residents aurroundin potential devaluation of their property, Thin is g the Landfill site is the homes usually represent the majority of their asseta.lc Reaidentse m ate People's that their property values will be protected. be assured 1• The responsible Landfill Agency will take all necessary actions as re federal, state or local laws or regulations, includin landfill qulred by to insure residents surrounding the Landfill site that their propermty val ~siona, not be adversely impacted by the Landfill. will 2• Any resident or business ownin site border on the day the sitegisrselected forte 0• f of the Landfill permit Part B application by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will be eligible for tom ensati P on if they can prove their property wan devalued as a result of the Landfill. 3. The resident must establish the value of the affected property riot t Part B application daft Qaitial Valu) b P o the "Professionally Certified A " y tither obtaining an apprau,al by a taz assesamenta. Taz asaeasments mus t reflect f i 096 of rfait Roanoke County The responsible Landfill Agency will pay g0~, of the coat of the rinitial lue. appraisal up to a total of ;150. ~• The property value at the time of sale aPP1Yin8 an Annual Indez of Appreciation~ih ~ ial Va ue determm by paragraph 3. This indez is to be determined by the Roanoke County Taz Assessor': office each year and is to equal the average inert ed under County real estate values. sae in Roanoke S• Any resident who sells their property for an amount than the Indez value determined under paragraph 4 will be eligible for compensation from the tes h'hich is leas difference, subject to the following condiitions envy for the amount of this a- The reaponaible Landfill A eat ~~" 8 y mat be given the "Right of First R fu 1 to buy any property for which a bonafide offer to beta received in as amount below the Indez Value. purchase has b• The reaponaible Landfill A enc m paragraph Sa within 30 days of theMdatc rth~ y arecinotified b dt r resident of a bonafide purchase offer. y he ~• If the responsible Landfill agency determines that the property value h been adversely impacted by a failure on the part of the resident to properly maintain the ro err as accordin 1 P P y. the Indez Value will be adjusted g y. The amount of the adjustment is to be determined by the office of the Roanoke County Taz Assessor and is to ezclude normal wear and tear. - 8 - ~~i1~ 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ff the resident is unable to sell their property within a Page 8 after listing with a Realtor who is a member of the local M Service and who has determined the listin period of 6 months, a valid appraisal report, the responsible Landfill A enc ultiple Li:ling g price through comparable sales or Property within 60 days at the Inde: Value determined u all ara S. purchase the P graph ~ and The foregoing agreement to com vrill only apply to penaate residents for loss in defined as PfOpettiea sold before the termination datep which is ear after the date the Landfill is closed. Heirs o y values qualifying under paragraph 2 will be eligible for compensation of this agreement. f residents under the terms Eligibility for compensation will be eztended under the aam ~y Roanoke County resident of business ownin a terms to include secondary road used as the main access road to he Landfilllsi~g an y ~y resident who is eligible for compensation for te. the foregoing terms of this agreement will also q property devaluation under tl~e following ezpenaea: ualify for reimbursement of a• Residents will receive reasonable Movin location within the boundaries of Roanoke Count anew limited to the costa of transportin g Ezpcnses to move to g household y~ Moving eZPenaea ate b• Residents will receive reimbursement for th goods. between their eziatiag mortgage loan and an Interest Differential replacement property within the boundaries of Roanoke Co8aumed on any reimbursement will be defined as the principal payments, discounted at the diffe en e~between tutnema~iags rates on the original loan and on the replacement loan, he interest It shall be the reapo~ibility of the resident to carr insurance to cover any loss hazards. occur, the Landfill A enc ~ the event thatdagtotal loasedoes the preceding terms of this agrcement~for the d ffere t (who qualities under Value and the Insurance ScttIemeat. for any amount leas than the Sale Value, the amount nCe between the Iadez However, if the Insurance Settlement is the difference between the Indez Value and the Sale Valu Ibis provision, the Sale Value is understood to be of compensation will be t~ property on the date of the insurance loss. ~' For purposes of the Replacement Value of - 9 - STAFF REPORT ~ i~ CASE NUMBER: SU5-4/89 PETITIONER: ROANORE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REVIEWED BY; HARRINGTON/HARTLEY/CASTELLOW/BEARD DATE: APRIL 18, 1989 This is a Special Exception Request of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to publicly own and operate a regional landfill on what is known as the "Boones Chapel Site," located on 445.81 acres in the southern portion of Roanoke County, adjacent to the Franklin County line, 2 miles east of Route 220 via Route 677 in the Cave Sprin Magisterial District. g 1. NATURE OF REQUEST a. In addition to the Special Exception permit, the Board of Super- visors must also receive the approval of the Virginia Department of Waste Management, prior to constructing or operating the land- fill. The state application process is proceeding simultaneously with the review of this request. State action on the Board's Part A application is expected later this summer. If the Boones Chapel site is selected by the Board, and permitted by the state, operation of the landfill is slated for the summer of 1992. b. In addition to the Special Exception Permit, the Planning Commission is charged with evaluating this the 1985 Comprehensive Plan, to determiner whetherlor notlthe site is substantially in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS a. Section 21-102-3 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance requires that a Special Use (Exception) permit be Supervisors granted by the Board of prior to the location and operation of a sanitary landfill. The Board has the explicit authority to attach conditions to any permit granted. b. The Board of Supervisors has requested that the Planning Commission review and make a recommendation to the Board on any sanitary landfill Special Exception Permit submitted. c. Should the Special Exception Permit be approved and the landfill thereafter permitted by the state Department of Waste Management, the landfill owner/operator must submit a site development plan to the County for administrative review prior to commencement of construction. The site plan review process ensures compliance with all applicable zoning ordinance regulations and Special Exception conditions. 3. SITE CHARACTERISTICS a. Topography: Proposed site rests in a small valley at the headwaters of Willow Creek along the crest of the Blue Ridge between Simmonds Gap and Murray Gap on the Roanoke-Franklin County border. Elevations vary from a above sea level along the Blue Ridge crest (westernybou dary)eto 1,200 feet at Willow Creek (eastern boundary). Actual landfill usage is projected to occur at elevations between 1,600 feet and 1,200 feet. The deep natural basin comprising the site is drained by the perennial Willow Creek which is fed by special seasonal tributaries and local springs forming a dendritic or treelike branching pattern common in southern Roanoke County. Geologically, massive on-site rock outcrops are common along with strongly jointed bedrock and thin to very thin soils. No major faults or groundwater recharge zones are known to exist based on preliminary investigations. Virtually the entire site consists of severe slopes (greater than 20$). - 10 - ,"" b.' Ground Cover: Majority of site is heavil ~~ poplar, red, black, white, and chestnut oaksy and dlamited areas of Virginia and white pine. Listed hardwoods (some recently clearcut) are of high quality. Within the site are three homes, several barns, a one-acre man-made pond adjacent to a variety of deciduous marshland plants and a natural gas pipeline. 4. AREA CHARACTERISTICS a. Future Growth Priority: Situated within the Clearbook Community Planning Area. It is in a rural service area, designated for limited growth in the 1985 Comprehensive Plan. b. General area is rural with scattered low density residential development along Route 677. 5• LAND USE COMPATIBILITY a. Comprehensive Plan: 1985 Comprehensive Development Plan has placed this area within a Rural Preserve land use category. The Comprehensive Plan was developed as an overall guide to assist public officials in arriving at equitable decisions regarding the future land use and development of the County. It is b design, intended to be general, focusing on issues of compaty ibility of land uses and methods of design which will mitigate any negative impacts on adjoining uses. Given this approach, many uses are not specifically mentioned in the plan, including the existing or proposed regional sanitary landfill sites. In these instances, the purpose and intent of the plan, in addition to pertinent guidelines and policies in the plan have been used to evaluate the consistency of a project with the plan. The most intensive use listed in the Land Use Compatibility Matrix of any comparability to a sanitary landfill is mining and extraction. Although there are major differences (particularly environmental and resource protection issues), there are also similarities between a sanitary landfill operation and mining and extraction activities. The plan lists mining and extraction as a limited use of moderate compatibility in the Rural Preserve land use category. This is in recognition that these activities, like a landfill, must be located where geological conditions are most suitable. However they are a limited use of only moderate compatibility due to potential harmful effects on housing, farming and resource protection areas. A detailed discussion of land use issues and methods proposed for minimizing potential harmful effects can be found under Surrounding Land and Neighboring Land. The Resource Protection Guide portion of the Comprehensive Plan addresses such areas as groundwater recharge areas, critical slopes, woodlands, historical and archaeological sites, and rivers, streams, and lakes. The related to the siting of a regional landfill includes evaluating the impacts on groundwater and ensuring that the site is not located in a major groundwater recharge area; ensuring adequate drainage controls and stormwater management (see Water); requiring measures to minimize erosion and reduce sedimentation (see Soils); encouraging timber management and preservation plans (see Natural Amenities); and encouraging historical and archaeological evaluations where sites are identified, preserving or sufficently documenting the site to prevent loss of valuable information (see Amenities). - 11 - . ~~~ b. Surrounding Land: The land uses adjoining the proposed landfill site generally consist of open space and vacant land, and dispersed residential development. Specific uses which adjoin the proposed site include: facilities of the Isaac Walton League, a non-profit outdoor recreation and hunting organization; an 8-inch underground petroleum pipeline (connecting Roanoke and Greensboro, NC) which bisects the valley at the east end of the proposed landfill site; and seven residences along Willow Branch Road. Pasture land is found to the south and east (in Franklin County>, with the balance of the perimeter in woodlands. Residents have also indicated that a number of private and family cemeteries exist within and around the site. c. Neighboring Area: The neighboring area, like the adjoining uses, consists primarily of open space and vacant land, and dispersed residential development. Northeast of the site are approximately 25 residences in the rural settlement of Wright located around the intersections of Routes 614, 615 and 676. South of the proposed site are two large lot subdivisions (14 lots ranging from 2 to 20 acres) have recently been established with approximately ~ dozen of these lots improved. These lots would share access from Route 220 with the proposed landfill. Located further south in Franklin County is the Maggodee Creek Valley. This valley contains significant farmland (cropland and orchards) as well as numerous scattered residences. Maggodee Creek is also widely known as an excellent trout stream. The LCAC has recommended that property value protection provisions be implemented by the County. These provisions include: (1) property protection provisions would apply to properties within 5,000 feet of the proposed landfill site; (2) create a procedure for establishing the initial value of property; (3) require the County Assessor to determine an annual index of appreciation based on the average increased value in Roanoke County; (4) establish conditions of a bona fide sale; (5) provide for a reimbursement of the difference between the initial value and the accumulated value of appreciation; (6) give the landfill agency the "right of first refusal" on a sale; and (7) require the landfill agency to purchase the property if unable to sell within six months. d. Site Layout: Details of the site layout including the location of any on-site baler facility, will not be available until a Part B application is submitted, should this site reach that stage in the permitting process. Preliminary designs have placed the debris fill area to the north of Willow Branch Road with the solid waste fill area located south of the road. The VA Department of Waste Management Regulations require that no active landfill area be located within the following distances: (1) 100 feet from any regularly flowing stream; (2) 500 feet from any well or spring used for drinking water; (3) 50 feet from any public right of way; (5) 200 feet from any residence, school or park; and (6) 50 feet from the facility property boundary. - 12 - r~ . shelter must reQuire a heated ulations also and improvements ement Reg facilities and management Waste Manag to ees. Other be provided for emp y stormwater diversion a network site include: .storage facilities systems for required on double liner/cap leachate collection and systems; monitoring wells and of groundwater active fill areas. has also recommended a Committee (1) active Advisory including: ro erty The Landfill Citirovements or conditio100 feet from the p p of site imp than with adequate storag e number should be no closer to Serve rotection system acity fill areas(2) a fire p with sufficient cap become boundary; rovided on site roundwater sources around capacity be poperties, should g ard be maintained (4) adjoining P ed buffer Y and Buffering); (3) a landscaSee Screening and upon contaminated; of the site t intermediate use to erimeter ortunities for and salvage areas the P recreational opP. composting provide and (5) establish closure; stream and recycle usable materia s• reduce waste do not N/A ordinance provisions e, Architecture: Current Recomn1ended standards and Landscape= ment. ard and plantings f . Screening address landfill develop buffer Y of the 1 andf i 11 specif ically (1) The following erimeter ro erty or are as follows: around the P residential p P be established to an existing lanted in three shall except adjacent Trees shall be p property, ht-of-way' natural land charter ee Marge public or private rig clusters, where ard; rows or in 50 foot buffer 50 feet or greater separate the buffer yard. height °f trees within ltimate large evergreen allow trees with an u ard; five er 100 linear deciduous feet of buffer 5Y0 feet or greater ptrees with an per 100 linear height of small evergreen feet of with an ultimateard; and seven er l00 linear of buf feht o f 15 feet or greater p feet hei9 ultimate ropertY b e buffer yard. residential P an existing following shall areas adjacent to waY ~ the landfill (2 ) In r fight-of the perimeter of the or in or private around crate rows public maintained in three sep established and lanted allow within the Trees shall be p characteristics trees property. natural land six large deciduous linear where ard; neater per 100 clusters, 100 foot buffe50Y feet or g with an ultimate buffer yard. height of trees and; ltimate 10 large evergreen with an u and; er 100 linear f Neigh toff 15 feet feet of buffer Y neater P ultimate height of 50 feet or gtrees with an ard. and 15 small evergreen of buffer Y or greater per 100 linear feet recreation, for passive that no may only be used rovided is uestrian trails P the buffer (3) The buffer Yar bike or eq total width of are met. edestri isf eliminated; the such as P and conditions plant material reQuirements a areas all other eQuipment storag to and maintained; areas, a manner as active landfill ed in such earance from (4) Buildings, shall be landscap facilities screen) the visual app and other of necessarily enhance (but n adjoining properties. - 13 - rocedures contained under standards and P Ordinance shall apply County Zoning aired above. (5) The administrative 92 of the RoaookSpecific standards are req 25 years. Section 21- ro ected at those of unless more restrictive to reflect Landfill useful life has ected J are exp for one space per g, Amenities: reQuirements a and call vehicle and On-site parking and storag er company materials 7.us one space P by the Resource industrial major shiftuipment• As defined a log cabin) employee on eQ historic site ( LCAC of mobile significant of proposed site. piece Guides one east (1) Suff icient protection ~ mile include roximately lighting facilitate normal lies aPP regarding at all times to the landfill recommendations adequate security over kiting must be maintained to keep the main-body lig to provide inward ( 3 ) Adjoining operations Lighting must be directed residents. lacement, site. (2) off surrounding as to light p ht and glare be consulted of l ig should property owners are there are nO and height' indications According to direction preliminary on-site. and small Amenitie lant or animal species ulpwood h• Natural eyed p markets for P artment of known endang of Forestry- VA DeP management pepartment inating on-site exist. the VA timber orig can provide a forest impact, aesthetics, visual diameter saw recommended anroducts, areas within the Forestry arcing future wood P , for reserve Dint, Willow plan (reg wildlife habitat) standp and rotection slope protection recreation From a reimpa~t a• Critical among other overall site. reatlY and runoff, Creek will b ncreased soil erosion (prevent ~ Y be difficult. damages) in South Roanoke County is located Access is limited TRAFFIC acities: This site of Route 220• and Route 614 Street CaP two miles west via Route 220 and i. in character approximately The area is rural residential from Route 677 (Willow Branch Roa single family Chapel Road) redominantly (BooneS land uses are P abutting Inc. conducted a or unimproved. elver site. rocess- for this the site selection P reQuire major As par t of ation of access alter nat would l e t e investig facilities comp preliminary to Olver, existing Olver recommended According s • Specif icallY • and major reconstru614 na°e improvement existing roadway 677 and Route nment of the Route Staff has been realig drainage structures.. all primary access existing in width with minimal shoulders. of 24 the landfill-cross section substandard to accommodate to a minimum T o me e t this advised that, in width- have to be should be const 4 to 6 feet would roads shoulders e structures may have to be feet with existing drainag stream bed reQuirement~ and the adjacent reconstructed relocated. - 14 - _~ _~~`,~ associated with truck traffic also evaluate the large volume of etitioner To accommodate 220 at Route 677 landfill, staff recomnteaSection of RWOUld increase sight the the existing This nment of Route relocating 500 feet to the northmprove the alig approximately location and the petitioner evaluate at this staff recommends movements of slow distances ment. One 677• In addition, to accommodate turning n alternatives trucks and landf it 220 u30 feet to the desig sanitation Route Route accelerating n northbolane in the median of ht be to realig option mig acceleration lane will be necessary east to provide for an from south a left turn decelentering the site ht 220, Similarly, vehicles at this intersection mig landfill turning to accommodateOther improveme ntsllghts- deceleration/ Route 220 • ellow caution and a reduction in the 55 include flashing Y exiting Route 220, lanes for vehicles mph speed limit. roximately 500 landfill generates aPP waste r eg i ona 1 Depending upon the success of The existing er day, location of baling trip ends P and the ultimate would initially vehicle measures this site at the existing stream redand/on similar to those life of the facilities or transfer stations, the traffic volumes Inc,, over g e n e r a t e t o O l v e r the landf i 11 would double . landfill . According enerated at vehicle trips g ADT of 19,905 for facility, in 1987, revealed an surveys also s conducted o f Route 677 . The along this Traffic suinethe vicinity average daily traffic Route 220 of the e trucks. Similar that 11$ comprised of larg 188 for the section reveale of Route 220 is ADT of sectionalong Route 677 reV614ed an counts Route 220 and Route landfill between of traf f~ic generated by h av e a and type site could of the volume of this Vehicle Because of either roperties. all operations, selection residential P safety are impact on abuttingregarding traffic To negative hboring residences. noise, litter and concernslmpact rieig the County's LCAC has which potentially which the associated with access, factors acts These conditions, tion mitigate imp of conditions. eCial Excep formulated a series attached to either the Sp ended be olicies, are summarized bele r 1 y LCAC has recomm erating P with VDOT, will prop Permit or the landf ill oP alon9 The landfill operator, and adjoining (l) ood safe order. the road and debris maintain the road in erator will keep clean of litter (2) The landfill op o eeties free andto and from the law ether rights of way and P P traveling a week, from vehiclemade a minimum of once originating is to be along Litter pickup eed limits permitting. will strictly enforce the sP landfill. and prior to its ~ 3 ) Roanoke Coun~oY and from the landf ill to the the access roads of th a access roads utilized as the main eometr is (4) With the construction the appropriate g opening, all secondary to to safely handle the landfill will be reconsavement category design standards and P rojected type and volume of traffic. P - 15 r -~ _~ access. issues to relating that also address ulations specify to ulations Waste Management reg the facility and State reg Virginia to the entrance of constructed with a Specifically. leading all access roads weather and be osal area shall be alheavy loads. the disp able of withstanding base cap Circulation: See above. to be j. or anticipated UTILITIES is not availablefuture. Public water k. Water: to this site in the foreseeab a system, available otable water suPPly This ed at the landfill sit to serve The LCAC has recom een beddevelop P acity with adequate storag with sufficient cap should be designehe event of groundwater contamination. system roperties in t ated for this surrounding P or anticip for the No public sewer is avaistememay be necessary 1. Sewer: of a septic sY site. Installation ersonnel. will be of landfill p this site for convenience f r om lant leachate collected e treatment P D i s p o s a l ° f truck to the regional sewa9 transported by and disposal. further treatment Creek drainage of the Back drains into DRAINAGE Located within a tributary ltimately Back Creek u or e, but above Smith m. Basin: as Willow Creek. River g g basin known the Roanoke River below the Roano a area Mt. Lake. is outside any ro osed landfill site the National Flood lain: The P P floodplain under all watersheds n, Floodp 100-year ulations aPPly to o f designated as ram. County reg the construction grog acres and prohibit Insur100 or more lain. with the 100-Year f loodP buildings within Management inia Waste SERVICES adopted Virg safety and PUBLIC Recently regarding and to Safety/gecuritY~ several provisions With reg be o. include tonal landfill. facilities eans of regulationat the prop°$ed re9 require that all security ulations fencing. or equivalent is to be security, the state reg osal. Access natural barr1eillegal disp ulate entry. surrounded access to prevent Securable to reg l an dfill e ates which shoul daylight hours controlling access to times when a controlled by g also limit then, only during The state The regulations and ermit. attendant is on duty. in the facility P an active safety s ecified requiring hauler. unless otherwise pnclude provisions regulations also to the landfill staff and the LCAC has recomn1endoef program to prevent hazards regulations. ment and operation In accordance with state to the develop the LCAC has recommend natural landfill. Specifically. on all sides by access several conditions relatingbe surrounded controlling the future shall of (l) All facilities or equivalent means adequate barriers, fencing al disposal. shall be and preventing illeg at the facility utilized as Well as the (a) All fencing access. the main entrance to control unauthorizat areas. (b) Gates shall be entrance to additional ser 16 e ~,~~' ~ ' (2> Access to a solid waste disposal facility shall be permitted only when an attendant is on duty and only during daylight hours, unless otherwise specified in the facility permit. (a) Access shall be permitted to any refuse vehicle owned and operated by a member of the Roanoke Valley Regional Landfill. (b) Access shall be permitted to any private hauler or company operating in the Roanoke Valley Regional Landfill Service area who has applied for and obtained a permit from the landfill operator. (c) A permit shall be refused at any time if the operator of the vehicle has been found not to be abiding by the regulations set forth in the application/contract. (d) Access shall be permitted to any resident of a jurisdiction who is a member of the Roanoke Valley Regional Landfill showing proof of residency. (3) Each solid waste disposal facility should be provided with an adequately lighted and heated shelter where operating personnel can exercise site control and have access to essential sanitation facilities. Lighting, heat and sanitation facilities may be provided by portable equipment as necessary. (a) Dusk to dawn lights to be placed around buildings and at each of the security gates. (4) All sanitary landfills should be equipped with permanent or mobile telephone or radio communications. (a} The main security gate should be able to communicate with all necessary areas of the landfill. (5) The operator is responsible for safety hazards to operating personnel through an active safety program. (a) Security rules and regulations shall be posted at each gate. (b) Security guard or landfill personnel shall be on site 24 hours each day. (6) Salvaging may be permitted by a solid waste disposal facility operator, but shall be controlled within a designated salvage area to preclude interference with operation of the facility and to avoid the creation of hazards or nuisances. (a) A designated salvage area to be set up with adequate drop off and pick up area. A security person to oversee this area. p. Rescue/Fire Protection: County Fire and Rescue officials advise that service to this site could be provided by Fire/Rescue Station #7 located on south Route 220. If necessary, assistance would be available from Station #3 at Cave Spring and Station #6 at Mount Pleasant. Virginia Waste Management regulations include provisions prohibiting open burning at the landfill site unless a permit from the State Air Pollution Control Board has been secured. The regulations also state that appropriate on-site facilities will be available to extinguish any non-permitted open burning and to protect the solid waste disposal facility as a whole. The state regulations specify that a fire control plan will be formulated and available for public review. - 17 - A /t a ~i As part of their review process, the LCAC has recommended that fire protection measures be provided on site with adequate storage, distribution, and hydrants to properly extinguish fires. The LCAC's recommendation further states that the system shall be designed as a potable water system in conformance with the standards of Roanoke County for ownership and operation. Also, the system shall be designed to serve all on-site water needs as well as being capable of serving adjoining residences. q. Parks and Recreation: As part of the design phase, the LCAC has recommended that the master plan be formulated to include recreational uses as both an intermediate and ultimate use of the site. Actual implementation of this recommendation may be difficult depending upon the availability of a secondary access route to accommodate recreation traffic. Because traffic along the primary access route would be comprised of heavy trucks, and to a limited extent local residential traffic, it may not be suitable for parks and recreation traffic. r. School: With the exception of concerns regarding traffic safety, development of this site as a regional landfill would have little impact on County school operations. Additional truck traffic along Routes 220 and 677 would pose some traffic safety concerns for school buses operating in this area. County school officials advise there are six (six morning and six afternoon) bus routes in the vicinity of this site. Two of the bus routes pick up children along Route 677 and adjoining secondary routes, while the remaining four routes are along Route 220. In the morning, these buses generally operate between the hours of 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. and in the afternoon between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. Bus stops along each of these routes are intermittent since state law mandates that school children not cross a public right-of-way to board a public school bus. TAX BASE s. Development of this site as a regional landfill would remove 15 parcels containing approximately 445 acres from the County's tax roles. Based on information supplied by Olver Inc., the total assessed value of these 15 parcels, including improvements, is approximately $384,000. Since the regional landfill would be owned and operated by a governmental or quasi-governmental body, improvements associated with the landfill would not be subject to local taxes. The landfill would generate local revenues through the f ees charged to landfill haulers. According to preliminary estimates made by Olver Inc. users of this site could expect to pay a minimum of $25 per ton of waste. This figure is significantly higher than the fees presently charged at the existing regional landfill. According to the records of the County Assessor, there are 184 parcels in Roanoke County with a total of 3,157 acres within the 5,000 foot area of influence established by the LCAC. This includes 59 improved parcels which have an assessed value of $1.94 million, with an average assessed value of $33,000 (ranging from $1,000 to $103,000). These records also indicate that 205 acres is in agricultural use, 768 acres is forested land, 218 acres is existing or potential homesites, with the balance (1,948 acres) in vacant land and open space (steep slopes, wasteland, etc.). - 18 - LCAC has recommended that the host municiaplity be reimbursed for lost tax revenues associated with siting the landfill. ENVIRONMENT t. Air: Dust control through sprinkling should reduce any undesirable increase in airborne particulates (especially for nearby residents to the east of proposed site) which may lead to reduced visibility and deterioration of rain water quality. The prevention of or protection from wildfire may be most successful by the maintenance of cleared soil areas immediately adjacent to active fill locations in order to reduce fire spread potential and by adequate maintenance of access roads. LCAC recommendations include the following: Dust. (1) Fugitive dust emissions should be monitored continuously by an authorized agent of Roanoke County or by the Landfill Operators for compliance with state regulations. (2) Problem areas arising during dry seasons should be controlled with water. (3) Access roads should be cleaned and dust controlled with water if excessive amounts of dust are generated. (4) Any fill area of intermediate cover must be seeded in vegetative cover within 30 days of fill. With a limited supply of cover material available, conditions regarding odor will be of great significance. LCAC recommendations include the following: Odor. (1) Odor problems will be minimized if the landfill operation is conducted properly and active fill areas are covered daily. (2) If problem odors exist that adversely impact surrounding residents, deodorizing agents should be used. (3) All holding tanks for Leachate collection systems shall be in enclosed underground structures. Regarding pests, LCAC recommendations include the following: Pests. (1) A bonded, licensed pest control company should be retained by the landfill agency throughout the active life of the landfill to provide preventive inspections and treatments. (2) Adjoining property owners who incur pest problems that are proven to be directly related to the landfill operation must be provided proper extermination at the expense of the landfill agency. (3) Breeding areas for flying insects must be treated as often as is necessary to prevent the breeding cycle. u. Water: The proposed landfill site encompasses the entire headwaters of Willow Creek, which is a tributary of the Back Creek Drainage Basin. Willow Creek runs through the center of this site and is a perennial (constantly flowing) stream fed by numerous intermittent (periodically flowing) streams and local springs. Residents have indicated that some of the springs found on the site flow throughout the entire year. Diversion of stormwater above active fill areas and piping of water out of active areas will be necessary to avoid surface water and groundwater contamination. This will require special consideration in the permitting of this site by the Virginia Department of Waste Management and will require considerable care in the design and construction of a landfill should this site be approved by the state. According to Olver, Inc., development of a landfill at this site will require a double synthetic liner and synthetic cap in order to protect surface and groundwater. - 19 - `~_~,~~ According to Roanoke County Groundwater, prepared by the Virginia Water Control Board (July, 1976), the proposed landfill site is located in the Pre-Cambrian-Cambrian Aquifer system which is composed of igneous, metamorphic and clastic rocks from the Blue Ridge Complex and Chilhowie Group. Water is stored and transmitted in joints, fractures, fault zones, and contacts between different rock types. Recharge to this aquifer system is local in nature and is accomplished by water percolating slowly through the soil into openings in the rock. This aquifer system produces highly variable yields and is not considered an aquifer of regional significance. Based on preliminary geological testing by Olver, Inc., the bedrock on site is strongly jointed (bonding between differing rock layers is very tight), with no evidence of fracturing. Also no major fault zones are known in the vicinity of the site. This would indicate that the site possesses a minimum threat to groundwater. Further testing must be completed before approval by the Virginia Department of Waste Management. The Virginia Department of Waste Management regulations require extensive provisions to be followed in order to protect surface and groundwater resources. This includes the following: - all surface water shall be diverted away from active fill areas; - no solid waste shall be deposited in a stream or allowed to become waterborne; - no active landfill area is to be located within 100 feet of any regularly flowing stream or within 500 feet of any well or spring used for drinking water; - 5 feet vertical separation must be maintained between the deposited solid waste and the water table or bedrock; - all active fill areas shall be underlain with an impermeable liner material (clay or synthetic); - a leachate collection and removal system shall be installed, with provision for proper disposal; and - an extensive network of groundwater monitoring wells shall be installed and regularly tested, with specific requirements for rigorous testing, record keeping and reporting should contamination be detected. The LCAC has recommended that additional groundwater protection measures be provided to eligible residents. This includes: - protection applies to properties within 1,000 feet of the landfill site; - procedures for establishing eligibility including testing wells prior to opening of the landfill to ensure they are free of pollution and entering into a contract to allow regularly testing wells during the life of the landfill at the expense of the landfill agency; - providing a permanent clean potable supply of water be provided to residents within 120 days at no charge should their water supply become contaminated; - detailed plans for providing water to residents in the event of groundwater contamination be developed prior to opening of the landfill; and - provision for one-time testing of wells within 5,000 feet of the landfill at the expense of the landfill agency. - 20 - _ _ 1 '. ~ ~. v. Soils: Based on soils evaluation conducted by Olver, Inc., the dominant soil types on this site are soils of the Porters- Brandywine-Rockland Association. The Porters and Brandywine soils are generally homogeneous brown, fine, sandy, loan formed o n steep to very steep slopes with a depth of 0 to 36 inches deep. The Rockland Series consists of 70-90$ rock outcrop interspersed with thin, stony soils and are found on the upper portions of the site. Also found on the site along the foot of the Blue Ridge and north of Willow Creek are areas of Chester and Eubanks Series soils which are usually less than 6 or 7 feet in depth and composed of a fine, sandy, loam. The Eubanks soils also have a red clay loan subsoil. According to Olver, Inc., insufficient quantities of suitable soil are available for liner/cap material. However, limited quantities of soil suitable for daily cover appear available. This material may not be sufficient for the entire life of the site, requiring establishment of a borrow area on adjacent property. The Virginia Department of Waste Management regulations require any landfill facility to be designed to minimize soil erosion. This includes the following: - divert surface water away from disposal areas in a manner that erosion is controlled; - drainage structures shall be installed and maintained to prevent ponding and erosion; and - finished slopes shall be less than 25$ and long slopes shall incorporate runoff control to minimize erosion. w. Noise: One nuisance associated with landfill operations is the noise emitted from industrial equipment and heavy truck traffic. Noise, depending upon local conditions, can be transmitted over long distances. Topographic conditions such as valleys and ravines, can exacerbate noise levels by channelizing sound waves. Land uses particularly sensitive to excessive or constant noise include schools, churches, hospitals and single family residences. To mitigate noise levels associated with landfill operations, Virginia Waste Management regulations call for the use of artificial or natural screens for site screening and noise attenuation. The regulations specify that noise levels must be less than 80 dB(A) when measured at the landfill site boundary. The regulations further specify that the design reflect those requirements, if any, that are determined from the long-range plan for future use of the site. In accordance with state regulations, the LCAC has recommended that noise levels generated by landfill machinery and equipment not exceed 80 dB(A) at the landfill boundaries and 65 dB(A) when measured at surrounding residences. To provide the Planning Commission with some perspective as to the maximum noise levels recommended by the LCAC, staff has included a listing of sound levels associated with eight everyday occurrences. This information obtained from "Timesaver Standards for Landscape Architecture," published by McGraw Hill. - 21 - ~ ~ a Typical Sound Levels of Everyday Occurrences Occurrence Sound Level, dB(A) 1. Rural area at night 25 2. Library 30 3. Residential area during daytime - rural 40 - suburban 50 - suburban adjacent to airport 60 4. City center 60 5. Major roads - township road 50 - highway 60 - freeway (12-lane) 75 6. Diesel truck (at 15 meters) 90 7. Noisy metal working shop 100 8. Jet taking off (at 165 feet) 120 Th a path and distance of sound transmission is an important variable in any noise reduction strategy. At Boones Chapel, noise mitigation should focus on two sources: Equipment noise generated in the disposal area and traffic noise generated along the access road. (A baler would constitute a third source if located on-site.) Because of the natural topography, noise emitted from the disposal area would be partially contained by the natural ridge that encircles the site. Barriers constructed of landscaping, earth berms and natural vegetation could be erected along the eastern boundary, or in the vicinity of neighboring residences, to either shield neighboring residences or contain the noise to the disposal area. For maximum effectiveness, these barriers should be located close to the actual source of noise and be tall enough to essentially redirect the path of the sound transmissions. To further mitigate noise impacts, staff recommends the petitioner ensure that all on-site trees and natural vegetation be preserved, to the extent possible. Vegetative cover will help to reduce the level of noise emitted from the site. A more difficult problem is reducing the noise associated with vehicular traffic accessing the site. Noise levels generated by traffic generally depend on the following variables: (1) volume of traffic; (2) mix (e.g. cars to trucks); (3) speed; (4) road characteristics (e.g. gradient and surface). Staff recommends that appropriate barriers be constructed along the access route to reduce traffic noise. Where appropriate, earth berms, barrier walls and vegetation should be used to not only con- tain vehicular noise, but screen neighboring residences from sound transmissions as well. As previously mentioned, these devices should be located close to either the source or receiver of the noise. x. Signage: Staff recommends the petitioner limit, as a condition of the Special Exception Permit, on-site signage to those signs specified by Virginia Waste Management regulations. Staff recommends limited off-site directional signs be erected in strategic locations to direct citizens and commercial haulers to the landfill site. - 22 - 6. PLAN CONSISTENCY This area is designated as Rural Preserve. The proposed regional landfill site would be deemed consistent with the Comprehensive Plan on the basis that the following measures are taken: (1) The requirements of the Virginia Department of Waste Management are strictly adhered to and strictly enforced in the design and operation of the landfill. (2) All conditions of the Special Exception Permit recommended by the Planning Commission are adopted by the Board of Supervisors. (3) The recommended policies developed by the LCAC, and in particular the Groundwater Protection and Property Value provisions outlined in their report dated April 4, 1989, be adopted by the Board of Supervisors and implemented through legally enforceable means by the affected property owners. - 23 - OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, THE BOARD CENTER, MEETING OF COUNTY ADg89ISTRP'TION AT A REGULAR HELD AT THE RO~O~JUNE 27, VIRGINIA, ON TUESDAY, -11 GRANTING A SPECIAL EXCEPTIVIRGINZp'- 62789 OF ROANOKE COUNTY, RESOLUTION A SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVIOp gp,TE pEI, SITE" Y ON WHA~ Ig KNOWN AS THE "BOONES CHA TO PUBLICLY on this FACILIT ublic hearing WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a p on April 18, 1989; and of Roanoke County, Virginia, matter ervisors WHEREAS, the Board of Sup 1989• on April 25, held a public hearing on this matter ervisors of EREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Sup NOW, TH Virginia, as follows: Special Roanoke County, ranting of a finds that the g 1• That the Board solid waste ermit for the location and operation of a tion P with the adopted 1985 Excep in accord facility is substantially of Section 15.1- to the provisions Comprehensive Plan pursuant f the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. rants a Special Exception Permit 456 (b) o 2• That the Board hereby g to publicly own and Board of Supervisors to the Roanoke County on what is known as the o erate a solid waste disposal facility p on the southern 445.81 acres located on "Boones Chapel Site" line, e County, adjacent to the Franklin County portion of Roanok 677 in the Cave Spring east of Route 220 via Route to the approved landfill permit two miles Magisterial District, subject conditions and operating policies. acknowledges. to the extent permitted by 3, That the Board ation to pay such amounts that it has a nonbinding moral oblig law, the adopted operating policies, as may be needed to address a ent is value protection, and that such p Ym roperty the approved including P Nothing in subject to future appropriations. e deemed to constitute the creation of operating policies shall b ledge of the credit of of the credit, nor a P a debt, the lending of the Commonwealth of under the Constitution and lawslve any person any legal the County it inia, nor shall any provision thereof g V g ainst the County. right to enforce the terms thereof ag isor Johnson, seconded by Supe~isor On motion of Superv on Boones a reement with renter presently residing Nickens and that g and carried be approved and entered into the record, Chapel site by the following recoreded vote: Garrett Supe~isor Johnson, Robers, Nickens, AYES NAYS: Supe~isor McGraw A COpy TESTE: (~-~' ) l~'-~. ~~ Deputy Clerk Mary H. Allen, ervisors Roanoke County Board of Sup File Assistant County Administrator CC: John Hubbard, County Attorney Paul Mahoney-ton, Planning Director Terry Hawing Roanoke City Manager W. Robert Herbersalem City Manager Randolph Smith, ement George Nester, Vinton Town Manager omen, Roanoke Valley Regional Solid Waste Mana Jeffrey Cr Board LAW OFFICE Msili~ni Address P. O. Box 246 Vinton, Virginb 24179 BRUCE E. MAYER ATTORNEY AT LAW 1106 E. Washington Awnw Suite A Vinton. Virginia 24179 May 18, 1989 Terry Harrington, Secretary Roanoke County Planning Commission P.O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Teleptwne (703) 342.3787 Telecopkr Number (703) 985-0511 _~, .. ~• ~. Re: Petition of Cherokees of Roanoke, Inc. t/a Bear Trap Inn Dear Terry: I have just received a call from Bud Fisher, president of Cherokees of Roanoke, Inc., advising me that the petition which was referred to the Planning Commission is going to come before the Board of Supervisors on May 23, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. On behalf of my client, I am asking that this matter be continued until the June meeting, as I will be out of town the entire week of May 20th, and will be unable to represent my client at that time. Please advise if there is any problem concerning this. BEM/kme cc: Steve Rice cc: Bud Fisher Very truly yours, B ce aye ,__, CE AND BEAR -TRAP INN ~ ~ r~'" RI PET~TIONF~Et:. 1 CASE ~~~ ril 4, 1989 and May 2, 1989 Planning C~rnission Hearing ate' May 23 - 1989 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: Inn to amend the future land use map A. QUEST Trap han Rice, Bear hborhood Conservation to Transition an Petition of Step Neig Business to construct a designation of a Oroperty fr mtR 1~ Residential to B-3- ezone said p rner of the intersection of Custis Avenue and Bunker to r parking lot at the northwes co Hill Drive in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. ICIPATION Keefer voiced the following concerns: B, CITIZEN PART Rudy hborhood; noise; Robert Baynes, Allen Phibbs and traffic in residential neig to parking ro rty values; increased and privacy of residents; ade~iua decreased p pe h~rhood; safety ublic. A petition in delivery trucks in neig ro rly~ customers urinating in p ssion. 81 signatures was presented to the Cor~-i is available if utilized p Lam, opposition and containing FACTORS ent Plan has placed this area C. SIGNIFICANT FACT rehensive Developm or Neighborhood 1. Comprehensive Plan: 1985 Comp. ination ' hin a Neighborhood Conse~blished residential blocks~~ds m~ be in wit rformance s Conservation areas delineate es nt ttern. Since this designation is of exclusive land use controls anaevelopne ivpa se amendment is requested in place to conserve the existing a land u not appropriate for comme~ t o uses, addition to the rezoning pe uest to amend the Future fro used parking tion to Transition to accommodate the p P The Petitioner has submitted a r~ is to specify particular highway Neighborhood Conserves nation attemp sis of The Transition desig ment is encouraged- Staff analy expansion. develop follows. frontage strips where orderly 'tioner's proposed ~ndment to the Future Land Use Map pets rtion of the northern boundaation ect to rezoning represe~e ~ g ° Conservation desig The site subj i hborhood limits, south to within this Neighborhood Conservation area. Forge Ave. m asses all parcels east ass~a to ~eSt~noreland Drive and Valley side enco p on the north 300 feet of Colonial Ave. and we ro rties fronting mile nation includes those p L~ oint 0.1 The Transition desig roximate depths of 150 f~limits and those parcels of Brambleton Avenue (at app roximate depths of 200 west of Pinevale Road, east to the Roanoke City the of on the south side e f Brambleton Avenue (at P ons in established land fronting east to the city limits. Variation in dep Feet) from Kenmore are due to corresponding varies nd Use Plan. Transition territory nation further tterns prior to the formulation of the ROaione land use desig unker use pa the Transi a roaching B residential property PP The staff does not favor et.famly rotected through south into establEstablished neighborhoods can only be p H i 11 Drive . development pattern. conservation of the existing service commercial secondary Single-family residential; 2, Surrounding Land: highway and heavily traveled urban arterial. s /y ,' ~~~~~ ~T south of P stockade La out: New proposed access from Custis Acennaerlbloc rage Y 3• Site Y ro sed parking spaces. Existing nds that petitioner 14 additional p 1~ fence and sparse vegetatludet25bebuffereyard onf south ~~ aea f°Oea ane by amend the site plan to inc subject property. The "new drive" access is not requl Roanoke County. roffered Type D screening and Petitioner originally p lan reducing buffer on 4• Screening and Landscape offered a revised concept p buffering but subsequently southern boundary from 25' to 6'. structure out relieves congestionro sed access onto 18 5• Circulation: Revised site lay but encourages increased traffic to use sout'nernmost p P foot wide Custis Avenue. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS 1, Use will be limited to parking only. 'n access to Custis Avenue and construct new access as shown on 2• Close ex lanl g lot and shall not concept p rking lighting shall be directed toward pa 3• Per ordinance, exceed 8 feet in height. na e to be installed. 4. Per ordinance, directional sig g rt of the screening and buffering. 5• A 6 foot fence will be included as Pa ~^ MClI'ION- VOTE AND REASON that the E• ISSIONF~ft ~ noting the amendment to h~rhood Conservatio P area, setting a Mr. Witt moved to deny r~uest would be an intrusion into a Neig uld occur further down Brambleton Avenue. The motion carried wi precedent troll call vote: the following Witt AyE,,; Gordon, Massey, NAYS: None p,BSTAIN: Robinson p~~; Winstead titioner should have addressed the petition and said that pe roll Mr. Witt moved to ornto ~pansion. The motion carried with the following parking problems p call vote: Masse Witt Aye ; Gordon, Y - LAYS : None p~,T~N; Robinson p~E~; Winstead from discussion and vote on this Mr. Robinson state ssible conflict of i terest ing petition due to a Po F• DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G • A`ITACHMENTS Concept Plan (8~" x 11") Vicinity Map (8~" x 11") Staff Report of 5/9/89 Other: M~ Petition Terrance Harrinpla -ing ~unission Roanoke County - 2 - _y}-o Nc'-~ `~ V J 1 ~~ ~ ~~ \, V 1 d 1 ~i i i -~ ~~~ ~~.;~ d'1 ~-x i s T ~ N ~ 1° ~_ OI 4~ r~ O ,r- Z ~y_-o?oscn ~~' I -.---- i 3 ,acydra~~ p~ N ~ ~'`~ ~ 4 _ -- _ ~~'N ~.- - ~--fir`------i-~~Q' :,,~ - 3 - - - -_--- ~~ ~- _~_ ~-- ~---- So ~~ --- ._ - - ~-- • "' NORTH d ~ 2 'b ! M. ~ B ~, a~ ~ g2C C~ ~ / g2 4 ~ I ` M v~ / g2C • ` r • ss: oeo gY ! ~`~~~~cA/ B2Cio P ~ t~ sib ~ ~ ~ s \ \ ~ ~~~ u 9 • ,~ ~T ~ a7 N / ! \ \ ,R2 ~ \ u • 44 ~ c s. s~ ~ ~ ` 40 ,. • 4~ ~~i-c lDl ~ ° 41 = O 1 ~ k IiCI q ~ ~ ~ __ / 4 4 • • ` 5~~ 1 \ e . I ~ ~ • ~ . 1! ' l dl ~ I e ~ ~ N ~ ~ • ,. ~ ~ ~ r ~ ej nom- es~ '" ~ , ~ • 4b • ~ ~ Ib A ~ ~ • ~ 17M M N M ' ~~ ~ OC ~ i 11 ~ 44 ~ ~ • ~ e • ~ ~~ ~ _ / r • ~ ~~ ~ ~f' ~ /~1 ~ ~ .w 154' N yp ~ ~~, • ~ ' ' ~ ~' ~ / 1'R AY 17J7~ ~ r htEPPA7J 4l~CE I t~f~R - 4 - MMUNI?'YSERVICES \ Y~LE`ti R'L ~~ . ~3 - t - 2~ . z5 . t 6 CO ~~ pND DEVELOPMENT ~a ~~ o~+~u,.~ ,.'~ti~ .. ~3-~`-.;---.~„- STAFF REPORT ~ ~ ~`~ °~` _ 89 .PETITIONER: ST1989N RICE i BEAR TRAP INN CASE NUMBERS 17 4/ DATES MAY 2, REVIEWED BYs TIM HEARD to han Rice, Bear Trap Inn to amend the future land use ma Petition of S P x,17 acre tract from Neighborhood Conservation to designation of a ro erty from R-1, Residential to B 3, Transition and ttructoaeparkding lot at the northwest corner °f ring ' n of Custis Avenue and Bunker Hill Drive in the Cave p Business to cons intersectio Magisterial District. a urtenant arking PP 1. NATURE OF REQUEST a, Conditional reque aurant °nstruct additiona P nd to an existing rest 'oner's request requires an amendment to thTtie la d use b. Petite plan from Neighborhooe Conservation to Transition.f _ zoning proposal will be revisueervisorsa amendment and the r Commission and the Board o P neously by the Planning ro ect more hed concept plan and vicinity map describe the p J c. Attac fully. 2. AppLICABLE REGULATIONS ermits a limiteer~Y bwillf be tused sfor a. B_3, Business district p Petitioner has proffered that the prop parking only. ermit required. b. VDOT commercial entrance p fiance with County c. Site plan review required to ensure comp regulations. flat; slopes gently uphill toward 3. SITE CHARACTERISTIpTedominantly lot addition. a. Topography' ro osed parking northwest corner of p P e building. Grass; metal storag b, Ground Cover: ring 4. AREA CHARAeTGrowthSPriority: Situa~ d asi ahstable g owth area; a. Futur p,rea. Designa Community Planning currently receiving urban services. residential, General area is developed with single family b. institutional, office and retai uses. act of the proposed 5. LAND USE IMPACT ASSESSMENT to the imp Rating: Rate each factor according eable impact, action. Use a scale of 1 throug ble impact, 3 = manag act, 2 = negli9. and N/A = not applicable. 1 = positive imp act, 5 = severe impact, 4 = disruptive imp COMMENTS RATING FACTOR rehensive Development Plan has LAND USE COMPATIBILITY 1985 Comp 5 a. Comprehensive Plan: hborhood Conservation land use Neighborhood Conservation aortas delineate establishe - placed this area within a Neig of exclusive land use category. lace residential blocks where aerfo~a Cei standardSincetthi s desig- controls and restrictiv development pattern. a land use to conserve the existing fate for commercial usesetition. nation is not approp amendment is requested in addition to tie to amend t e Future Land The Petitioner has submitted a reques nation n from Neighborhood ConservationThe Transition desigcommo Use Pla arking expansion. date the proposed p - 5 - n attempts to specifyarticular highway frontage strips where orderly development is encouraged. Staff analysis of peti- tioner's proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map follows. The site subject to rezoning represents one portion of the north- ern boundary of this Neighborhood Conservation area. The Neigh- borhood Conservation designation encompasses all parcels east as far as the Roanoke City limits, south to within 300 feet of Colo- nial Ave. and west to Westmoreland Drive and Valley Forge Ave. The Transition designation includes those properties fronting on the north side of Brambleton Avenue tat approximate depths of 150 feet) from a point 0.1 mile west of Pinevale Road, east to the Roanoke City limits and those parcels fronting on the south side of Brambleton Avenue tat approximate depths of 200 feet) from Kenmore Avenue east to the city limits. Variation in depths of Transition territory are due to corresponding variations in established land use patterns prior to the formulation of the Roanoke County Land Use Plan. The staff does not favor extending the Transition land use designation further south into established single family residential property approaching Bunker Hill Drive. Established neighborhoods can only be protected through conservation of the existing development pattern. 4 b. Surrounding Land: Single-family residential; service commercial secondary highway and heavily traveled urban arterial. 3 c. Neighboring Area: Institutional, office and retail commercial, secondary highways and heavily traveled urban arterials. 4 d. Site Layout: New proposed access from Custis Avenue lies immediately south of 14 additional proposed parking spaces. Existing cinder block garage, stockade fence and sparse vegetation to be removed. Staff recommends that petitionez amend the site plan to include 25' buffer yard on south and west borders of subject property. The "new drive" access is not required as a fire lane by Roanoke County. 2 e. Architecture: Exterior includes stone (first floor front), brick (first floor rear), and wood frame (second floor>. Existing block garage must be razed immediately north of fence. 5 f. Screening and Landscape: Petitioner originally proffered Type D screening and buffering but subsequently offered a revised concept plan reducing buffer on southern boundary from 25' to 6'. 3 g. Amenities: Newly established five-year lease agreement to park vehicles on property immediately west of existing restaurant ensures ample parking for current use. 2 h. Natural Features: Flat site lacking existing vegetation; not projected to lie within approximated floodplain (100+ acre drain- age areas for which no detailed flood profiles are provided). TRAFFIC 3 i. Street Capacities: 1986 ADT for Brambleton Ave. (US 221) is 21,450 vehicles. 1986 ADT for Custis Ave. (VA 1603) was 284 vehicles. Anticipated additional ADT is 131 vehicle trip ends per day due to front and rear building additions. Between Jan. 1987 and Feb. 1988, 11 accidents occurred on US 221 between the intersection with Renmore Ave.(VA 682) and Pinevale Rd.(VA 1601). 4 j. Circulation: Revised site layout relieves congestion near existing structure but encourages increased traffic to use southernmost proposed access onto 18 foot vide Custis Avenue. - 6 - ~7 - .L UTILITIES 2 k, Water: Adequate source and distribution. ~ r` 2 1. Sewer: Adequate treatment and transmission. ~j DRAINAGE 2 m, Basin: Mud Lick Creek. No problems noted. 2 n, Floodplain: Not located within FEMA flood hazard zone. PUBLIC SERVICES 2 0, Fire Protection: Within established service standard. 2 p, Rescue: Within established service standard. N/A q. Parks and Recreation: N/A r. School: TAX BASE 2 s, - Land and Improvement Value: $120,700 prior to recent expansion - Taxable Gross Sales/Year: Not provided - Total Employees: Currently 12 roximatel $1, 388 Total revenue to the County/Year: App Y real property tax prior to recent expansion excluding gross sales tax. ENVIRONMENT 2 t, Air: 2 u, Water: 2 ~, Soils: 2 w, Noise: 2 x. Signage: See requested proffer. (. PLAN CONSISTENCY This area is designated as Neighborhood Conservation. Petitioner's request is inconsistent with the Land Use Plan map and stated policies; specifically NC-1 (protect residential neighborhoods from disruptive impacts of land use changes), NC-2 (provide screening and buffering of adjacent land use changes along neighborhood perimeter) and NC-4 (maintain open space, yards and grounds in residential neighborhoods). Petitioner has submitted a request to amend the land use map designation from Neighborhood Conservation to Transi- tion. Staff does not support petitioner's request and recommends the future land use map designation remain Neighborhood Conservation at this location. 7. STAFF EVALUATION a. Strengths: None. b, Weakness on land)use category.l(2)nProposedwuse threatensoto Conservati disrupt adjoining residential uses. c. Staff analysis indicates that the merits of this petition do not justify the requested rezoning. However, should petitioner's request be approved, the following proffers are suggested: (1) Type D screening and buffering shall be implemented. (2) No additional signage of any type shall be used. (3) No additional access to or from Custis Avenue shall occur. (4) Any additional lighting which may be installed on- site shall be limited to low-intensity, security lighting directed only toward parking area with footcandle power not to exceed .5 footcandle on adjacent Pstructure shall nottexceed 8afeetsin height lighting structure - 7 - ~~~~ v ~ ~ ~ ~. VIRQN~ BEFORE `T'HE ~~ OF StJpgZ~SORS OF ROANOKE COUN'T'Y ,~f>~ ~UL~ ~ i' ~~^~ ~e parcel of land, ~ A ~ generally located ~ ~ FINAL ORDER i ~ ~ ~_ within the ~ Magisterial District, andr , ~ recorded as parcel # ~ ~'~-~ ~ Tax Records. ~ in the Roanoke County ~; \ Tp THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COU~TN///T/~-Y: /(~~/re~ ~~vp~~~~~ ~~ ~ arcel w WIiEREAS~ your Petitioner ~ F' a Board of County Supe~isors to rezoner the above-reference District o did petition th r- District to /~ v from ~~ j ~ for the purpose of 'n Commission did hold a public Q the Planning o ~~~5, after due legal not M y 2 19 89 ~ at which time, all parties ~ of the petition on a hearing to be heard; and ~ iven an opportunity in interest were g held on May 23 ,5, after full consideration at the public hearing 8 the Board of County Supe~isors determined that the rezoning be 19 ~ rcel of land, which is BE IT ORDERED that the aforanentioned Pa _25, and recorded NOW, THEREFORE- 77,13-1-24, Tax Maps as Parcel contained in the Roanoke County 1550 11 described below, be rezoned fran 1270 page - and lega Y in Deek Book District. District to - 8 - ~ ~.~ Legal Description of Property: ` Description of Property ro erty owned by Beginning at an iron pin at the P Phan Rice et al; Cherokee's Of Roanoke, Inc. and Step degrees 0' along Custis Avenue, thence running S 32 ~ ~ o a degrees 0 , 50' '0~ to a point; thence S 5$ thence rees 0' , '~0' to a point; point; thence ~'32~S~g to the point of beginning. A ~; 5$ degrees, tion to be set forth in the deed. more complete descrip Deed Book 1270, page 1550 ~~ THER ORDERED that a copy of this order be transmitted to the e ontthe BE IT FUR e Planning Commission and that he be directed to reflect that c ang of th official zoning map of Roanoke County. and upon the' ADOPTED on motion of Supervisor following recorded vote: AYES: I~,YS ABSENT: Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supe~isors - 9 - rn rn FILL ORDER ~ ~i G ~,,, May 2 3 , 19 89 ublic hearing held on ~~, after full consider sorstdetermined that the ~n~nent to the Future 19 ~ the Board of County Supe nt plan be Land Use Guide of the Roanoke County Comprehensive Developme rcel of land, which is ~gtF,FORE, BE IT ORDERED tY1at the aforementioned pa NOw~ 77.13-1-24,-25~-26and recorded Tax fps as Parcel nated contained in the Roanoke County 11 described below- be redesig 1270 Page1550 and legs Y in Deed Book ~ from Legal Description of Property: Description of Property the property owned by at an iron Pin at d Stephan Rice et al; an } Beginning Of Roanoke, Inc. ~ Custis Avenue, Cherokee s 2 degrees 0 along ~ 150 to a thence running Sthence S 58 degrees 0 ~ thence ~ to a point; ~ 0' to a point; 0 2 degrees 0 ~ Dint of beginning. A w point; thence N~3 X50 to the p the deed. ~ N 58 domrlete description to be set forth in o more c P U a e 1550 Deed Book 1270, p g O H A W O a a a Rp~p that a copy of this order be transmitted tand UseeCMap be BE IT FURTHER 0 Future L of the Planning Commission and that the Land Use Plan: changed accordingly. and upon the ADOPTED on motion of Supervisor following recorded vote: AYES: LAYS ABSENT: Clerk Board of Supervisors Roanoke County - 10 - VIRGIDTIA: ~ ~ *~ Bg'ORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROp,NOKE COUNTY ~v,~~: ~~ ?~' ~~ parcel of land, ) A ____ ) generally located ~'4' PROFFER OF within the ) ~ ~ ~ .~c:+ G CONDO r?S Magisterial District, a d ) rded as Parcel # Q, recd ) ' ; X13 - l `~ `'~~ 'z~ ~ in the Roanoke County Tax Records. TO TIC HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: of the Code of Virginia and Sec. Being in accord with Sec. 15.1-491.1 et seq. BEAR TRAP INN & ~' Ordinance, the Petitioner z Zoning roffers to the w 21-105E of the Roanoke County hereby voluntarily p E' STEPHAN RICE z conditions to the o Virginia the following v rvisors of Roanoke County, o Board of Supe rcel of land: ~' rezoning of the above-referenced Pa A w arking only. '~ limited to p 'stin access to Custis Avenue and construct new acceSnd U (1) Use will be a (2) Close exi g arking lot a a shown on concept plan. -C lighting shall be directed towar p (3) per ordinance, shall not exceed 8 aereCtionalgsignage to be installed. (4) Per ordinance, art of the screening and (5) p, 6 foot fence will be included as p buffering. Respectfully submitted, ,~~ Petitioner ~~~~ - 11 - ~~~~ T0: Board of Supervi sor~sJ FROM: Terry Harrington ~~. DATE: May 9, 1989 SUBJECT: Stephen Rice/Bear Trap Inn Rezoning Request Brambleton Avenue At the Planning Commission public hearing on this rezoning Mr. Fisher's attorney informed the Commission that a request, conditional zoning proffer attached to the existing Bear rap property required that the existing Brambleton Avenue curb coffer used only as a point of acc~rie site ontosBrambletoneAVenue. prohibits vehicles from exiting The staff had been unaware of this proffer. We subsofgernhad researched the rezoning records and found that the p lied when the property was rezoned from B-1 to B-3 in been app 1983. This type of proffer is very diandcnotify Mrf oFishe r if we will begin to monitor the property see violations occurring. ajb - 12 - f~~~ve.r..~ ~'Rro^'~ A/,bin f~N', d 6.r ~~ ~ - ; ! ~RESE.~TEO T P G ~ i CJr ~~1 ,, '~ s/Z/$~ neck Gre, QPPosED to -the ~~ezon~n~ vJ ~ the,,',,', ~ n er s i 9 '~~~, r track -From Nei hbonc~~ Conserva-~ion -~o ~T'ransi~Eior~ ~ p. ay .,aC ~ ~ ~i I {o B - 3, 8us~nes5 ~~~, i i s'',`~~, r~sen~l zoned- as R - I , Re~~ en a , e~~-~ion o-~ StEph~r R~~.e, B~rTrG~ Tnn to risen ~e c~ ~ ~ the- ~ P .,1 .1 rkin fot in pur nei hbprh~c~d. Cons~ru C'~ C~ ,~; ~,~ .` ~~~ .~~ ~, ~ G~~ ~ , ~Lx,/' ~ k G ~~.~_ ~,, ,~~ ~-c.,o /~ ~,1 ~;~ ,1, ~~ ~r ~ C ~~,~~~ ~ f .~ 31. ~ ~. ~~~ ~ " ~~ ~ ~ 10. ii 3 ~ . ~~ ~ ~~. ~ ~~ ~~ ~~. ~ ~~~ 3~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~--~ -- I ~ j,, ~ ~~x~'~'" y, 7 y . ~ Y ~~~ 11 ~. ~~,, ~n ~a. 11. ~-~ ~. ~„I ~~, ~~.~~~~-~ ' 13 ~I,, . 1i1~~ ~~~ ~, ; ~~~ ~~~.~~ ,~~ ~i ~'?;' ~~il ~8~ ~~. ~ COnkinuecl -~ror~ pages ~ ~~~ ~ - ,~ ~.~ ~2 ~~ ~~ 5o iii ~ !~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ 53~ ; _ ss.,,` 5~~ 57 ~~~;;~ 5~.'~I ~~ / ^ ~ I ~/ i ~~ ~II ~3 ~~ ~I ~I ~~, (~~~ l.oS, I;, ~q, ~, ~lb~ i'i ~1~~~ ~3 /~e~ age ,~, ~ ~~~ ~- loo. ~,~U, ~ . ~ g0~ ~~~ ~f0y/y~}~h ~ mow l `4 r d ~r ,c~~~- ~~' .~ ~; ,,. ~~~ ~ ~, ~ ~. C~.~., ~, ~~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~ - 14 - ,~ ~ ~ ~• ~ - ~ 1 ~t , ~ ~'~ ~ ~ T03 774-0948 '~ ~" " ~ -' ~~ -" . Virginia 24018. ( ) 3604 Brambleton Avenue Roanoke, ~, ~7.. ~ ~ -12.~n't ~ ,' / 8 ~,~ CQ ~J ~-- ~~L4i~ Mfr VYK ~~ ~. ~.r~~ ~--~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~' ~ ~~-~L~ /~y .~ ., ruts:uruururrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr-uuurrurrrrrrruuu _ ~rruruuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrruuuuur! _ _ _ _ ~ RE VEST _ ,ONCE Q APPEAR _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ EM NO. ~~ END A IT ,~ SUBJECT . -~-r ~ ..~ ,_ - • an of the Board of Supervisors to I would like the Chairm on the above ~ matter =_ = reco nine me during the public heariED TO T~ PODIUM, WHEN CALL _ so that I may comment. _ AME AND ADDRESS FOR THE _ = c _ - I WILL GIVE MY N - TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINE _ _ -_ RECORD. I AGRE _ LISTED BELOW. '- ill be iven between three to five minutes to comment n individual or representative The chairman will __ • Each speaker w g whether speaking as a ~ ' • limit based on the number of citizens spec o f he Board toe, -_ decide the time .- ,= and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the mason _ _ .- do otherwise. "' ited to a resentation of their point of view only. Ques- • Speakers will be lim P "" lions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman• _ Debate between a recognized _ • All comments must be directed to the Board. ~= s esker and audience members is not allowed. _ P • kern and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. , __ Both spea ested to leave any written statements and/or comments • Speakers are requ with the clerk. LS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED ORIZATION __ • INDIVIDUA GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN A UP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT FROM THE GRO THEM. - BLY AND GIVE TO DEPUTY CLE _ PLEASE PRINT LEG - ; ~ ...- - ,, c NAME ~' ~J ADDRESS ~~ ~° ~ =_ = PHONE ` ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ `3 =_ II I IIIIIIIIIII Illilllillllllllllllilllillllllllllllililllllllli mlllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllliillllllll l IIIIIIIIIIIIIII ~~~-~ ACTION NO. 52789-13 PETITIONER: ST. JOHN AME CHURCEI CASE mgt; SU 4-2/89 Planning C~rvisorsHHearing Date: June 27,11989 Board of S pe p,. R~QtJES'I' Petition of St. John AME Chur 1 Gated a P 3019 Rutrough Roadopnrthe Vinton landfill on a 0.775 acre tract Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There was no opposition to the request. C. SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FACTORS See attached staff report. D. g'NDED CONDITIONS (1) The material to be landfilled shalksbonlest(2)t~ t tioner shall preserve broken concrete and broken cinder bloc y ro erty boundary. (3) Fill existing trees and vegetation along the southern p P material shall be covered at least once en the hours ofh 7 :30 ua.m ~ and 5x30 P m.g activity shall be undertaken only betwe Monday through Saturday. E. CONP~IISSIONER' S MOTION, VOTE AND RF~~N rove the request with reco~mended conditions. The motion Mr. Robinson moved to app carried with the following roll callWvos~~d, Witt Aye; Gordon, Robinson, Massey, NAYS: None ABSE~; None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G , ATTACHMENTS ~~ Concept Plan (8~" x 11") Vicinity Map (8~" x 11") Staff Report Other APPLICATION Terrance rrington Secretary Roanoke ounty P1 ning Ccmmission a ---------- ------------------------------ VOTE ------------- ACTION Yes Ab Approved (XX Motion by: Nickens/Robers to pprove Garrett No X - Denied ( ) ermit with con itions Johnson ~ - Received ( ) McGraw X - Referred Nickens X - To __ Robers X - CC: File Director of Planning Terry Harrington, .^ Netel . • ?.qut~d -nfertl to wet leeetd 1• a eir.tel tleo~ Auer1 eree ^e fe^ipeu~ 11 tM fecr.uq e! Tbwly ewe Or-^K pevelefe~.et. w • i ~ i ~ i ~ ~ M 7 t ~ -t• 00~ ~ ~Sy i ~ !t.!!' ' s, ~ 1-ST r. ~OOK. YOl FRAME ~ i L~ •T Mid RCN t ' `! CM J ~ \ ~ i • ' \ /'L ~ • 4 `+~ SE r0 J, a0. 1232 PG.6 o ~ PROPERTY Of ro.cA -- ,~, ~ .11l~L_ _ "' ~ JAMES KASEr roc 1 w. 9. 3i PG•366 Mµ,E. QNg ST I ~ TAx N0. !0.01'1•• C C ` • CONC. YO O ~ ~~ A \ ~T It{.e7' y 0'1252 PG. S• ' r~ PROPERTY OF / \ NATIONAL -ARK / SERVICE ~ PR01ERTr Oi ~i CNARIES A,0 OORTNr ~'~ ~ SENNETT ROPERTY O °r O.s.lOStl -G.3i NERBERT a f N R~~wARO C TAx NO. •0.01' 1' 7 _ a wec P~i31 PiM /~T lAX Na iC01.1'AnM ,null! !CT T1.0% \ /PROPERTY pi \ ~ aoeERT SEE CASEY \ 0. e.331 PG. 316 TAx N0. t0.01- t' 6 PLAT OF sURVEY SHOWING PROPERTY OF ST. JOHN A.M.E. CHURCH p~,stsp~r LOCATED IN VINTON I~AAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 1CYLEO.AUSTIN S ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA LlCiN~No• gCALE: 1'^!30' DATE: NOV.1 S. i S8T ~~~o su>t~ LLS MATTERN t CRAiC 701 FIRST STREET ROANOKE. YIRCIN(A 2016 C~1~ # ~ t • '- 2 - ~~4-Y 6z7-Y Q NORTH ',G n ,~ $~~ MoD ~~ i' . a00 ~/ ,~ /~ , ,~~ ~ See Mov 8000 ~.~~. COMMUNITY SERVICES _ 3 _ AND DEVELOPMENT NOTE: ALL PARCELS ZONED RE UNLESS NOTED OTHERSJISE ~~~~- STAFF REPORT CASE NUMBER: SU 4-2/89 PETITIONER: St. John A.M.E. Church REVIEWED BY: Dale Castellow DATE: June 6, 1989 Petition of St. John A.M.E. Church for a Special Exception Permit to operate a clean landfill on a 0.775 acre tract located at 3019 Rutrough Road in the Vinton Magisterial District. 1. NATURE OF REQUEST a. Petitioner is requesting a special exception permit for a landfill at St. John A.M.E. Church located at 3019 Rutrough Road. Petitioner is requesting the permit so that a parcel adjacent to the church may be filled to accommodate future expansion of existing parking facilities. Some years ago VDOT acquired a portion of the church property for realignment of Rutrough Road. As a result, the church is now a nonconforming structure with minimal front yard setback and limited parking. The petitioner advises that because of recent increases in church membership, there is a need to expand its parking facilities. Since the existing site is already constrained, petitioner has aquired an adjacent parcel immediately south of the church. Development of this parcel is also limited due to a large ravine which extends from the church property line south. Petitioner proposes to fill this area to provide the additional parking. A considerable amount of fill has already been placed at this location. b. Attached property map and zoning location map describe the project more fully. 2, APPLICABLE REGULATIONS a. Section 21-102-3 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance requires that a special exception permit be obtained before any "sanitary fill method garbage and refuse sites" are established. Staff has interpretated this to apply to any landfilling of manmade materials. Materials such as soil and stone are considered appropriate for "fill" operations and the disposal of such does not constitute a landfill. b. The Virginia Department of Waste Management, Solid Waste Management Regulations, specifically exempt the disposal of rocks, bricks, block, dirt and broken road pavement from the landfill permit requirements. c. Prior to disturbing any area of 10,000 square feet or more, or in the event a natural watercourse is disturbed or relocated, an Erosion and Sediment Control permit must be obtained from the County. Such a permit for this site has not been issued. Should the Board of Supervisors grant the petitioner's request, an Erosion and Sediment Control permit must be obtained. d. The site is currently zoned R-E, Residential Estates, which would permit future expansion of the church facilities provided the improvements adhere to all existing development standards. 3, SITE CHARACTERISTICS a. Topography: The site slopes away from Rutrough Road towards the south. The rear portion of the site consists of ravine which serves as a natural watercourse for the site. - 4 - church with a gravel parking facility. b, Ground Cover: An existing ortion of the site is covered with mature trees along the The rear p property boundary. 4, AREA CHARACTERISTICS Situated within the Mount Pleasant a, Future Grplanning Area.. The growth initiative for this area is tc Community limit growth. and single- General area is mixture of open space, vacant land, b. The existing regional landfill is locate family residences. approximately one-half mile east of this site. 5, LAND UeEeachAfactor according to the impact of the proposed action Rati::g • Rat through 5 . act, 4 Use a scale of 1 = negligible impact, 3 = manageable imp 1 ?ositive impact, 2 and N/A not applicable. disruptive impact, 5 = severe impact, COMMENTS RATING FACTOR a~ LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ory• Comprehensive Plan: 1985 Comprehensive Development Plan 2 a. address placed this area within a e P1anVdoesgnotaspecificallya eg the Although the Comprehensiv and landfilling operations oof slincludetprovisions for mining Rural Village category d The primary focus on such activities extraction activities. Due to the size and scab is issues of land use compatibithis request should not pose and of the proposed landfill area arcels. If approved, an Erosic: negative impacts on adjoining P and Sediment Control permit will be required to ensu uently. act adjoining properties. Conseq stormwater does not imp olicies 5e= staff believes this illages land use scategory ith p forth in the Rural V uses include a single-family 2 b, Surrounding Land: The adjoining - idence to the southeast, a chur bou daries.eSTheaBlueeRidg1 res the remaining vacant parcels along north of the site. Parkway is located immediately The area consists of a mixture of singTrle 2 c, Neighboring Area: institutional uses, and vacant la one-half family residences, roximately existing regional landfill is located aPP mile east of the site. Access to the site can be gained from Rutroug:': 2 d, Site Layout: ro osing to fill t''= At this time the petitioner is p p Road. south of the church. Site distances and area immediately interior circulation is adequaulingTdebrisetoathetsiteul nc pose any problems fo r truck h N/A e.Architecture: No screening or buffering has bee:. 3 f, Screening and Landscaping: Staff recommends the - provided or proposed by the petitioner. etitioner preserve existing vegetation along the southern most p Staff also recommends the presidency boundaries of the site. screen the active f ill area from the neighboring - 5 - _. .. tv _, , _ ..~ e ,/ ~_..._ f/, ,/ mmediately east of the church. etitionerrreg la ly covernfill i land uses, staff recommends the p materials. N/A g. Amenities: N/A h. Natural Amenities: TRAFFIC The proposed landfill should not have ar.~: street capacities along Rutrough Road. 2 i, Street Capacities: impact on existing both interior ar.= As previously discussed, rc ose~ 2 j, Circulation: exterior circulation is adequate to accommodate t e p landfill activities. UTILITIES should not have any impact on publ~~ 2 k, Water: This request utility service. wer: This request should not have any impact on public 2 1, Se utility service. DRAINAGE mentioned, if approved, an Erosion and 3 m, Basin: As previously uired from Roanoke County _ Sediment Control permit will be req Since the proposed prior to restarting the filling operation. i in; fill area serves as a nat wat rcourse umay be rrequirede~ p P and/or relocation of the N/A n. Floodplain: PUBLIC SERVICES Within established service standard. 2 0, Fire Protection: Rescue: Within established service standard. 2 P• N/A q. Parks and Recreation: N/A r. Schools: TAX BASE Land and Improvement Value: Not Available. N/A s• - Not Available. - Taxable Gross SalesNotaAvailable. - Total Employees: - Total Revenue to the County/Year: Not Availab e. ENVIRONMENT 2 t, Air: ose n~ e of material being landfilled should p , 2 u, Water: The tYP However, the types of materia_ threat to groundwater. restricted t~ permitted at the retie and broken cinderlblocks. gravel, soil, conc ils: As indicated above, an Erosion and Sediment Control 3 v, So Permit is required. - 6 - i ~r Y e; Some additional noise may result as of the landfill 2 w, Nois gtaff recommends the petitioner limit the operations. of operation to minimize noise impacts on permitted h residences. neighboring nage: Signa9e should be limited to those signs aimed at ? x" Sig trespassing and illegal dumping at the site. discouraging 6, PLAN CONSISTENCY e, Due to the size and scale of This area is designated as Rural Villag dfill operation, staff believes it is consistent with land the F roposed lan =~licies and guidelines set forth in the Comprehensive P an. use _ The proposed landfill provides the petitioner with ~, STAFF EVALUATION Strengths: (1) the amount of parking available at the site. a• eXpanding a viable way The size and scale of the proposed landfill is limited to e (2) ose any negative impacts on neighboring extent that it should not p land uses. ermitted a (1) The petitioner has already P b. Weaknesses: to prevent ' nificant amount of fill on thntsitmaY be cneces ary ne serves a_ slg improveme natural watercourse, stormwater runoff onto the adjacent resid@nce• be landfilled shall The material to c. Suggested Conditions: (1~ trees estricted to soil, stone or gravel, broken concrete and bro en be r 2 petitioner shall preserve existing cinder blocks only; ( ) boundary; (3) Fill and vegetation alon the southern property be undertaken only 'al shall be covered with topVOtl shall st once monthly; (4) maters through The hours of landfillilling acts m, Monday between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p• Saturday. - 7 - _._ __ ._ :- ,, ' ROANORE COUNTY ~~ ~~~~``~ ~" ""~ APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE ` ~Ji~(~5 Phone: '3-~-I ~I - `~ oZ ~ ~ ~. !_--~\ ~ ~ 1 • Applicant's Name • -~~ S ~ ~\ ~' Ad3ress: 3019 Rutrou,h Ra. 2401 '~\ Zip: oanoke Vir inia .:~-•~ .. erty owner's name St. John's A.M.E. Church -!~ Ly`, ,`,, 2 . P. oP ~ ' p~nei~ ~ - 02? ~E, ~. ,~ utrou^ pad g "~ Acdress: a(~j~~-,tu ~, 3 • Location of Property : SAME AS ABOVE ro erty 0.?75 acres/sq.ft. i Size of p P acres/sq.ft. Size of proposed special exception use ~ ~ ~,~ - Rn 0=~ Old Tax Map # 4 . Tax Map # : -~.~DEti „~c_ ~srATE 5. Zoning Classification: $e~'} 6• Magisterial District Location: Yinton e ravi.^.e 7 • gaisting Land Use: Not usable because of lar€ zo osed Special Exception Use: Build new san~c'E~aa and rking 8. P P facilit sanctua is a five to ten ear pall. g, Comprehensive Plan Designation: -0- 10. Pzoposed Annual Gross Revenue: -0_ Value of Land Value of Proposed Buildings Numbe ~ to be Employed volunteers Value of Machinery & Tools N/A 11. Check Completed~Items: ~_ Consultation _ g}" x 11" plot plan roperty owners ~_ letter of Application a _ List of adjacent p __~_ Filing fee made payaole to "County of Rcanoke" 20 Special Use Permit for sanitary fil: method garbage and $ refuse site, commercial amusement ga=k, or airpor*_ $40 All other Special Exception Uses 12• r3 to of Application: 13. Applicant's Signature 14 . Omer' s Signature: ~' ~» ~ ~ ~~ ~N SUPPLEMENForYThepLICATION SPECIAL EXCEPerateU aE PERMIT To Op SANITARY FILL METHOD GARBAGE & REFUSE SITE DETAIL THE TYPES OF FOREIGERMp,T ONIAL WHICH WILL BE DESCRIBE IN ~~ ~~t5. C~c~ ~„<.~ G I NVOL~ ED IN ANY LANDF ILL ~ ~ D M~`` GOP ~ ~ r PROPOSED METHOD FOR COVERING THE FOREIGN MATERIAL DESCRIBE YOUR DESCRIBED ABOVE. ~.~' ~~ ~ ~JL _ YOU ANTICIPATE THE PROPOSED OPERATION TO CONTINUE? HOW LONG ~~ ._ - INTAIN CONTROL AND .RESPON__S~I c\LIa~ F~ ~E OP ~R~,TION` - 9 - 6 ~ " PET'ITIONk~t: JOE BADIDY & SON INC. ACTION NO . 6 2 7 8 9 -14 CASE NCA~ABER: SU 2-1/89 Planning Cpnnission Hearing Date: June 6, 1989 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: June 27, 1989 A. RD~UEST Petition of Joe Bandy & Son Inc. for a Special Use Permit to operate a private construction debris landfill on a 50 acre tract located on the east side of Deyerle Road (Route 684), 800 feet from its intersection with Merriman Road (Route 613) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There was no opposition to the request. C. SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FACTORS See attached staff report. D. RECONA4ENDID CONDITIONS In addition to abiding by VA Department of Waste Manag~nent regulations applicable to stump landfills (including and not limited to security, dust, noise, odor and pest control); (1) Landfilling activities will not be conducted on more than 20 acres of the total site with the remaining 30 acres to continue undisturbed including a minimum buffer of at least 400 feet from any portion of fill area to any point on the property boundary. (2) Site shall be closed to all businesses and individuals other than Joe Bandy and Son. (3) Operating hours shall be limited to 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday. (4) No advertising signs of any sort will be erected. (5) Building construction or demolition materials will not be permitted. E. OONA4ISSIONER' S MOTION, W`I'E AND REASON Mr. Witt moved to approve the request with recommended conditions. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: .AYES: Gordon, Robinson, Massey, Winstead, Witt NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHMEDTrS 1~ Concept Plan (8~" x 11") Vicinity Map (8'~" x 11") Staff Report ,, ~' Other APPLICATION ~~ Q Terrance Harrington, cretary Roanoke County Plann ng Canmission ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ACTION ~~ Approved (X~ Motion by: Nickens/Garrett to approve No Yes Abs Denied ( ) permit wit con i ions Garrett X Received ( ) Johnson X Referred McGraw X ~ Nickens _~ Robers _~ CC: File Terry Harrington, Planning Director „"\` -, • . ..G ~• ~ PAR .G -,~~~_-~•~ .~ sR:,i' ~ ~ ";~. .. •., c , ~G ,r o, i ;~ ~~`~~ gyp, , ` `~.~~ ~ - ~.,~ ~~ +j/ -- • 1 ~~ t~ ~•v~~c,y ~ ~f c. 91.0 ' +~ .. - . ~~ ~ q psi ~ P~;~~i :, ~ -~ .. , „ ;~1 ~_n 0.:i , b ,, % ~ iQP~J2o,X. - --• ~ ..~ n~ ~~.Ja`'~~'labd a .a ~ 2.tihrL ..• ..~ ~ ,~ '';:~ ~ ~ Y> t ,'',:; .' ~'~ Jc.'vj~ 717.0. ' ~, ~:'` ~ -..,. -;>, j"~ao~s,0'' ; .i -~ :r. ~`1s~='a K `~~J71a •:- . i ; .,: , . • ,~ _',• K,t. _:~ ~r . I •~ ~ 'Sly' fl ~~. , ~i . ~L, :. ~~ r`~~~ .Jl/ p ~o ~_ a ~~ • ~ ..-.;~ :."~'; r; ... ~ ,. '''~' w '~. .. ?'~ . r. ....''. ~. " 1 / r^r~ +o,. ~ • ~ a \ ~~s ~ ~ ~ `~~ ~ Z ~ ~ ribh~ ~ llMbtO/i0! / wN1~NAMl t ~ ~iAO I! N~i~ ~~ ~ J 1 , VICINITY MAP r ~ i ~- _ a JOB 1vv-av~ y ~~~_ .._- h~c ~ r,ir v5E Y,R ~`'` K X06. ov - 2 - `~`~' ~~, ?..ucEy_h 2va~.v COMMUNITY SERVICES A-~ AND DEVELOPMENT _ 3 _ STAFF REPORT Co 8 9'- S CASE NUMBER: SU 2-1/89 PETITIONER: JOE BANDY & SON INC. REVIEWED BY: TIM BEARD DATES JUNE 6, 1989 etition of Joe Bandy & Son Inc. for a Special Use Permit to operate a private construction debris landfill on a 50 acre tract located on the east side of Deyerle Road (Route 684), 800 feet from its intersection with Merriman Road (Route 613) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. NATURE OF REQUEST a. Conditional request for a Special Use Permit to construct and operate a vegetative debris landfill. Petitioner intends to dispose of tree stumps and brush and guarantees that no other material will be involved and that "the site will not available to any other indiaid rol r'es s i ve / soi lb cover sand„ operalte othe intends to apply P g landfill for 20 years. 2. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS a. Section 21-102-3 of the Roanoke Couroved by the dloverning body that a conditional use permit be app g prior to locating a sanitary landfill or refuse site. The Board of Supervisors may attached conditions to any permit granted. Proposal must also be approved by the Virginia Department of Waste Management (VDWM) prior to constructing or operating any landfill. Among other requirements, state regulations call for site preparation and operation plans, minimum setbacks, hydrogeologic studies/groundwater protection measures, leachate monitoring/collection plans, surface water runoff control, access control, and final closure/future use plans. b. Teviewaand makeeavrecommendation on anynlandfi111Spec al r Use Permit requested. c. If Special Use Permit approval and VDWM approval occur, owner/ operator must submit a site plan to the County for administra- tive review prior to construction, ensuring compliance with all zoning ordinance regulations and Special Use conditions. 3. SITE CHARACTERISTICS a. Topography: Severely sloping from north and south into central basin. Soil is well drained. b. Ground Cover: Dense hardwood forest including yellow poplar, red maple, locust, ash, and white, scarlet and chestnut oak. Generally 8"-15" in diameter. Scattered young pine growth found in understory. 4. AREA CHARACTERISTICS a. Future Growth Priority: Situated within the Clearbook Community Planning Area. Designated as a limited growth area; not receiving urban services. b. General area is undeveloped. Sparsely developed rural residential uses occur west and north of petitioner's site. 5. LAND USE IMPACT ASSESSMENT a. Comprehensive Plan: 1985 Comprehensive Development Plan has placed this area within a Rural Preserve land use category. Landfill uses are not specifically mentioned in the plan. - 4 - ~ Sq-S The use most similar to landfilling listed in the land use compatibility matrix is mining and extraction. This use is limited with moderate compatibility in the Rural Preserve land use category. This is to recognize that these activities, like a landfill, must be located where geological conditions are most suitable. The limited use with moderate compatibility reflects potential harmful effects on housing, farming, and resource protection areas. Resource Protection Guide addresses such subjects as groundwater recharge areas, critical slopes, woodlands, historical and archaeological sites, and surface water. The primary resource concerns in regard to this petition include: evaluating impacts on groundwater and ensuring adequate drainage control and stormwater management (see 5.k and 5.u); requiring measures to minimize erosion and sedimentation (see 5.v); encouraging timber management and preservation plans (see 5.g). b. Surrounding Land: Land use adjoining the proposed landfill includes dense hardwood forests, a Primitive Baptist Church, and a lightly traveled secondary highway (VA 684). c. Neighboring Area: Dense hardwood forest, two single family homes (both located approximately .4 mile west of projected fill area), additional secondary highway (VA 613), and one family cemetery approximately .5 mile east of proposed landfill. d. Site Layout: Fifteen to twenty acres of fill area will be surrounded by 30 to 35 acres of woodland. Petitioner's trucks will enter and exit the northern portion of subject property through a combination of gravel and hard-surfaced roads intersecting northern terminus of VA 684. VDWM regulations require that no active landfill area be located within the following distances: (1> 100 feet from any regularly flowing stream; (2) 200 feet from any well or spring used for drinking water; (3) 50 feet from any public right of way; (4) 200 feet from any residence, school or park; and (5) 50 feet from the facility property boundary. e. Architecture: N/A f. Screening and Landscape: Current ordinance provisions do not address landfill development. Natural hardwood forest offers a partial year-round visual barrier. Existing topography provides additional support. Recommended standards are as follows: (1) The following buffer yard and plantings shall be established around the perimeter of the landf i 11 property, except adjacent to an existing residential property or public or private right-of-way. Trees shall be planted in three separate rows or in clusters, where natural land characteristics allow within the buffer yard. 50 foot buffer yard; three large deciduous trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard; five large evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard; and seven small evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 15 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard. - 5 - ~ 89'- 5 (2) In areas adjacent to an existing residential property or public or private right-of-way, the following shall be e stablished and maintained around the perimeter of the landfill property. Trees shall be planted in three separate rows or in clusters, where natural land characteristics allow within the buffer yard. 100 foot buffer yard; six large deciduous trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard; 10 large evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 50 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard; and 15 small evergreen trees with an ultimate height of 15 feet or greater per 100 linear feet of buffer yard. (3) Buildings, active landfill areas, equipment storage areas and ntCe r(butl n t necessarilylscreenpethe visual appea ance from enha adjoining properties. (4) The administrative standards and procedures contained under Section 21-92 of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance shall apply unless more restrictive or specific standards are required above. If petitioner maintains 30 to 35 acres with a minimum 400' wide undisturbed buffer yard permanently, some relaxation of these recommendations may be considered. g. Amenities: The Resource Protection Guide indicates that no historical or archaeological sites exist within the project site. Trees outside the excavation area should be retained as visual buffer to the maximum extent possible, for erosion control and for future timber benefits as they reach maturity. Useful life of landfill has been projected at 20 years. Petitioner has indicated that lighting will be restricted to dusk to dawn facilities. h. Natural Features: Steep north and south walls lead to a deep central basin. Road building cuts should be stabilized and white pine or locust should be planted for long-term erosion control. The eastern boundary buffer should remain undisturbed to protect Back Creek from sediment caused by erosion on this site. TRAFFIC i. Street Capacities: Site is located at Simmonds Gap, .5 mile north of the Roanoke County-Franklin County border. Access is limited from a private hard-surfaced road (formerly the northern loop of VA 684) via VA 613. 1986 ADT for VA 684 was two vehicles; VA 613 (Franklin County line to VA 684) was 204 vehicles; VA 613 (VA 684 to VA 688/Cotton Hill Road) was 288 vehicles. No accidents were reported in 1987 on VA 684. One accident was reported in 1987 on VA 613 between Franklin County line and VA 688. j. Circulation: Petitioner estimates maximum generation of 10 trip ends per day. The old northern VA 684 roadbed is deteriorating and needs improvement. VDWM regulations call for all weather access roads leading to a facility entrance as well as to the disposal area and that they be constructed of a base capable of withstanding heavy loads. Vehicle noise, debris and traffic safety impacts may be mitigated through the following conditions: - 6 - ~ 8 9_ S (1 ) The landf i 11 °pood safe o Berg with VDOT, will properly maintain the road in g (2) The landfill operator will keep the road and adjoining rights of way and properties free and clean of debris originating from vehicles traveling to and from the landfill. UTILITIES k. Water: Nearest private wells are located approximately .4 mile northwest and southwest of petitioner's property. Public water is not available or anticipated for this site. A drinking water supply system could be designed with sufficient capacity to serve surrounding properties in the event of groundwater contamination. 1. Sewer: The nearest septic tanks are located approximately .4 mile northwest and southwest of petitioner's property. No public sewer is available or anticipated for this site. Septic system installation may be necessary for use by landfill personnel. DRAINAGE m. Basin: Landfill site is located off a seasonal tributary in the Back Creek drainage basin. Back Creek drains into the Roanoke River below the Roanoke River gorge and above Smith Mt. Lake. n. Floodplain: Proposed site is outside any FEMA designated flood- prone areas. County regulations apply to all watersheds with 100 or more acres and prohibit building construction within the 100-year floodplain. PUBLIC SERVICES o. Safety/Security: VDWM regulations require that all facilities be surrounded by natural barriers, fencing or equivalent means of controlling access to prevent illegal disposal. Access must be controlled by gates which should be securable to regulate entry. Also access is limited to when an attendant is on duty during daylight hours unless otherwise specified in the facility permit. An active security program is required to prevent hazards to the landfill staff and hauler. An adequately lighted and heated shelter with sanitation facilities and a communications system is also required. p. Rescue/Fire Protection: Proposed site is not within established service standard. County fire and rescue service can be provided by Clearbrook Station No. 7 located on US 220. If needed, assistance would be available from Cave Spring Station No. 3. VDWM regulations include provisions prohibiting open burning unless a permit from the State Air Pollution Control Board has been secured. The regulations also state that appropriate on- site facilities will be available to extinguish any non permitted open burning and to protect the disposal facility as a whole. State regulations specify that a fire control plan be formulated and made available for public review. q. Parks and Recreation: N/A r. School: N/A - 7 - X89- 5 TAX BASE s, - Land and Improvement Value: Existing $37,000 - Taxable Gross Sales/Year: N/A - Total Employees: One Total revenue to the County/Year: Approximately real property tax of $425 ENVIRONMENT t. Air: Dust control by sprinkling should reduce any undesirable increase in airborne particulates which may lead to reduced visibility and deterioration of rainwater quality. Prevention of or protection from wildfire may be most successful by the maintenance of cleared soil areas immediately adjacent to active fill location in order to reduce fire spread potential and by adequate maintenance of access roads. Fugitive dust emissions should be monitored continuously. Problem areas arising during dry seasons shouenerate excessived amountsaofrdustpecially access roads which may g Odor problems will be minimized if the landfill operation is conducted properly and active fill areas are covered weekly. If problem odors exist that adversely impact surrounding residents, deodorizing agents should be used. Adjoining property owners who incur pest problems that are proven to be direcrtolye~letXaerminationflat the aexpenseuof be provided p P owner/operator. u, Water: Proack Creek water hed n A seasonalrtributaryntofBick 38,000 acre B Creek begins within the petitioner's southeastern border. Diversion of sttiveaareaawill betnecessaryatoaavoid lsurface water out of ac water and groundwater contamination. This will require special consideration in site permitting by VDWM and will require considerableD`c~are No lnergisarequiredrforl thisotypetof d brbs approved by V landfill . VDWM regulations require LnaL - all surface water shall be diverted away from active fill area; - no waste shall be deposited in a stream or allowed to ecome waterborne; - no active landfill area is to be located with 100 feet of any regularly flowing stream or within 500 feet of any well or spring used for drinking water; - 5 foot vertical separation must be maintained between the deposited waste and the water table or bedrock; - a leachate collection system comprised of ponds and/or ditches shall be constructed; - an extensive network of groundwater monitoring wells shall be installed and tested regularly with specific requirements for record keeping and reporting should contamination be detected. v, Soils: Preliminary findings indicate that dominant soil types on this site are of the Porters and Chester-Hayes Field association. These soil to rVerynsteep sl pesfin Sufficient to clay formed on steep quantities of soil suitable for weekly cover appear available. _ g /w ROANOKE COUNTY CJti~-~,rf APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE ~1~,/ '~v ! ~ I ~-~- c 1. Applican t's Name: Joe Bandy S Son, Inc. Phone: . 342-5187 Address: 1000 Murray Road S.W. Roanoke, VA Zip; 24015 2. Property owner's name Joe ~~y E Son, Inc. Address: 1000 Murray Road, S.W. Phone: 341-5187 Roanoke, VA Zip; 24015 3. Location of Property: Southwest Roanoke County Merriman Road, S.W. Size of property 50 acres/. Size of proposed special exception use 15-20 acre s/~QG~Q( 4 . Tax Map # : 106.00 - 2 - '44 Old Tax Map ~ : ~- 5. Zoning Classification: Al 6. Magisterial District Location: Cave Spring 7. Existing Land Use: Forest Nbuntain Land 8. Proposed Special Exception Use: Disposal of stumps and brush from owner's business pdLY! - no others to dispose of same on property. 9. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Ih~ra I Preserve 10. Proposed Annual Gross Revenue: -0- Value of Land 5,000.00 Value of Proposed Buildings Value of Machinery & Tools Number to be Employed 11. CSeck Completed Items: X 8~" x 11" plot plan X Consultation X List of adjacent property owners Letter of Application X Filing fee made payable .o "County of Roanoke" S20 Special ;;se Permit .or sanitary fill z~ethod garbage an3 refuse si=e, commercial amusement park, or airport S40 All other Special?xoepcion Uses 12 . Date of Application: ~a.~ a0 ,19~$ 13. Applicant's Signature: 14. Owner's Signatsre: Q~ ~/l~j.~.~py~~~ Bti ~ v ~ - 10 - ~ 8q_ S SUPPLEMENTARY APPLICATION For The SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE PERMIT To Operate a SANITARY FILL METHOD GARBAGE ~ REFUSE SITE DES` RIBE IN DETAIL THE TYPES OF FOREIGN MATERIAL WHICH WILL BE INVOLVED IN ANY LANDFILL OR DUMPING OPERATION. Tr 5 s DESCRIBE YOUR PROPOSED METHOD FOR COVERING THE FOREIGN MATERIAL DESCRIBED ABOVE. Earth Cover .~x~:- HOW LONG DO YOU ANTICIPATE THE PROPOSED OPERATION TO CONTINUE? 20 ears WHO S~1ILL MAINTAIN CONTROL AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OPERATION? Jce Bandy ~ Son, Inc. - 11 - to SCI- '7 VIRGINIA: BEFD~ ~g BOARD OE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY Z~~ rcel of land, ~ A acre pa ~-orated ~'-w'``~ ~O~b i~ro ~ ~- generally /, ~ ~ ,. - ~ ,~ ~ (k Z~y ~ `~ CATION ~p(Zin~cs - ) within the ~ ~ magisterial District, and ~ 3 ~ ) recorded as parcel # ~? ~ ' ~ ~ ) in the Roanoke County Tax Records. ~ TO THE HONORABLE SUp~~SORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: G~- WHEREAS, your petitioner mmission a petition to rezone the to the Planning District has filed with the Secretary (~ ~ ~~~ above-referenced parcel of land fran f~ se of ~+"~ n ~ District for the Purp° ~ Csz-- - p i~c~~ ssion which, after due EREAS, the petition was referred to the P1ae C de~1Virginia of 1950, as WH Section 15.1-431 of t legal notice as required by June 6 , 19 89; and amended, did hold a public hearing on blic hearing all parties in interest were afforded an WHEREAS- at that pu to be heard; and nded to opportunity after due consideration. has r~'~ the Planning Commission, a roved with proffered WHEREAS, pp the Board of County Supervisors that the rezoning be conditions. Cornnission recommends to the NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning reel of land be rezoned Board of County Supe~isors that the above-referenced pa Business and upon the from B-2, Business to B-3~ Don Witt The above action was adopted on motion of following recorded vote: Winstead, Witt Gordon, Robinson, Massey, AYES: 11y s bmitted, None Respect NAYS: - r ~._- r ~S~' None Secreta y F Commission Roano Coun y Planning ~ ~~= 7 PETITIONER: ~y ~~ CASE NCA~4BER: 26-6/89 Planning Commission Hearing Date: June 6, 1989 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: June 27, 1989 A. REQUEST Petition of Marty Lord to rezone a .268 acre tract from B-2, Business to B-3, Business to operate an import auto parts business with repair service, located at 3228 Brambleton Avenue in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There was no opposition to the request. C. SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FACTORS 1. Site layout: The site layout is dictated by the existing building. The size of the site, the shape of the building, and the location of the overhead doors (3) to the proposed auto repair area severely constrain parking and on-site circulation. Two parking spaces are marked at the front of the building and require backing move'ttents which could interfere with traffic on Brambleton Avenue. Two spaces are located along the south side of the front portion of the building, with space for approximately 8 to 10 vehicles on the north side. Additional space may be available on the adjoining lot to the north which is also owned by the petitioner. Given the potential growth of this business, the number of vehicles that can be stored at one time should be limited to the number of available parking spaces, excluding spaces for ~nployees. Petitioner has proffered as conditions that outdoor storage shall be restricted only to those vehicles awaiting minor repair, outdoor storage will be restricted to the rear parking area, no junked automobiles will be allowed, and that no vehicles will be stored outside for more than 14 days. 2. Screening and Landscaping: Type D screening would normally be required should this petition be approved. This v~rould require a 35 foot buffer yard or a 25 foot buffer yard with a 6 foot fence. The existing structures and lot size prohibit compliance with this requirement. Staff recommends that further expansion of the building or parking area should be prohibited in order to maintain what buffer currently exists. D. PROFFERED CONDITIONS (1) Outside storage of automobiles shall be restricted to only those awaiting minor repair. No junked automobiles will be allowed. (2) Outside storage of automobiles shall be restricted to the rear parking facilities. (3) No automobiles shall be left parked outside for a period exceeding 14 days. (4) Gas stations, car wns'on of restaurant use shall be prohibited. (5) ~pansion of the building and expa the parking area at the rear of the property shall be prohibited. (6) Auto repair activities shall be limited to minor and general repairs and shall specifically exclude major auto repairs and/or body work of any kind. (7) All repair activities shall be conducted within the confines of the building. (8) Total signage on the property shall be limited to no more than 100 sq.ft. and portable and/or temporary signs as well as billboards shall be prohibited. (9) A sewer manhole, acceptable to the Utility Department, shall be installed prior to occupancy of the building for purposes of repairing automobiles. (10) No more than 10 vehicles shall be stored outside the building at any one time. (11) Hours of operation shall be limited to 7.30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Saturday. ~ ~~- ~ E. ~ISSIONER'S MOTION, VOTE AND REASON Mr. Witt moved to approve the petition with proffered conditions. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: pyES; Gordon, Robinson, Massey, Winstead, Witt NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTA~~'S Concept Plan (8~" x 11") Vicinity Map (8$" x 11") Staff Report Other H,arrin ton, Secretary County lanning Commission - 2 - ln/s~°,5'r'F 70~ _n ~ 2 .5~-Tray 2- ~~~~ NOD ~~ ~~.~.. ~v N~~~~-TS ~ ~N v ~ S'~l CAN B~K !3~ 8 ~a' s ~~ ~~ Q~ ~~ - 3 - 36,0• „- .W ~~. 0 `~ p 70' NORTH r~ ' ~.ooAe 13 t?, ~ ~• X11 ~tA~ ~ . i ~ B 2 _ •µ_ ( ~ • ~ •• ~~ i I r ts6 i7 82` ~ \ B3 ' N ~B2 ~~ t ~ M \. I ~ ~ a 82 ~ ~ 0 + ga , ' s •B2 ~ ~ • ~ ~ - ~ ~ r B2 B2 ~ , ~ ~ 2 t0 « . . 82 ~ , ~ ~. ~ ~ i ~ . . B2 1 . ~ M ' _ ' ' 'a~ , ,. 1 B2 ~_ ~~ . ~ • • • ~~' ~ ~ 4 ~ , ~ ~ ~ ' ~.. « ~ 82 i 0, e ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ... ~~ ~ 99 • >n o ' O~ 1 • is ~ x ~• ~ M N ' ~ ar j3. 32 ~~ ~ . !2• • 33 ' ~ ~ IZ ' ~. N • « ` »s . ~ q `ql! , ~ ~ : p ~ it ~ ~ 8 q_ ~ STAFF REPORT SASE NUMBER: 26-6/89 PETITIONER: Marty Lord REVIEWED BY: Jon Hartley DATE: June 2, 1989 Petition of Marty Lord to rezone a 0.268 acre tract from B-2, Business to B-3, Business to operate an import auto parts business with repair service, located at 3228 Brambleton Avenue in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. 1. NATURE OF REQUEST a. Petitioner proposes to convert the existing building on this parcel to an import auto parts sales and minor auto repair business for a local import car dealership. The parcel is 12,600 square feet while the building contains approximately 3,500 square feet. The auto part sales would eventually occupy the front portion of the building when the current lease for the existing business expires. The minor auto repair would take place in the remaining area of the building on this site (approximately 3,000 square feet), and would entail mainly oil changes, tune-ups and similar routine maintenance items. According to the operator, the initial operation will consist of one or two employees working on 4 or 5 vehicles per day, with the potential for 5 or 6 employees working on up to 20 vehicles per day. b. Attached concept plan (sketch) and zoning vicinity map describe project more fully. 2. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS a. The B-3, Business, district permits gas stations, minor auto repair, car washes and restaurants. Used car sales, mobile home sales and similar sales uses are permitted only upon obtaining a Special Exception Permit. Automobile painting, rebuilding, and body and fender work are only permitted in an M-1, Light Industrial, district. b. Minor auto repair is not clearly defined in the ordinance. However, mayor auto repair has been defined by the Roanoke County Board of Zoning Appeals as parts installation and/or service including but not limited to engine rebuilding, overhaul or any other activity requiring the removal of the block assembly from the vehicle, and transmission overhauls. c. Site Plan review would not normally be required for an existing developed site, unless necessary to ensure compliance with proffered conditions. 3. SITE CHARACTERISTICS a. Topography: Proposed site is entirely flat. b. Ground Cover: Site is covered by the existing buildings and paved area, with the exception of a 12 to 15 foot strip at the rear of the property which is in brush. 4. AREA CHARACTERISTICS a. Future Growth Priority: Situated within the Cave Spring Community Planning Area. The growth initiative for this area is to stabilize growth. - 5 - VJ . General area isredominately singlecfamilye residen es offttheAmain surrounded by p corridor. g. LAND USE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Ratinq_: 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 Transition land use category. The proposed use would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan map and policies, and in particular TR-1 ,prevent haphazard commercial sprawl along major highway corridors. The property in question, however, is already improved and is in a historically established commercial strip corridor. In addition, the site is surrounded by a number of similar auto repair related businesses. 3 b. Surrounding Land: The uses adjacent to this site are commercial to the north, east, and west. One single-family residence adjoins the site on the south and is separated by both a steep grade and existing vegetation. Both the steep grade and vegetation appear to be part of the residential parcel. 3 c. Neighboring Area: The area is dominated by the strip commercial development along 8rambleton Ave., which consists of a mixture of restaurants, auto repair and related establishments (car wash, parts sales, gasoline sales), general retail establishments and offices. Off 8rambleton Ave. the area is predominately single-family residential, with some institutional uses. 5 d. Site Layout: The site layout is dictated by the existing building. The size of the site, the shape of the building, and the location of the overhead doors (3) to the proposed auto repair area severely constrain parking and on-site circulation. Two parking spaces are marked at the front of the building and require backing movements which could interfere with traffic on Brambleton Ave. Two spaces are located along the south side of the front portion of the building, with space for approximately eight to ten vehicles on the north side. Additional space may be available on the adjoining lot to the north which is also owned by the petitioner. Given the potential growth of this business, the number of vehicles that can be stored at one time should be limited to the number of available parking spaces, excluding spaces for employees. Petitioner has proffered as conditions that outdoor storage shall be restricted only to those vehicles awaiting minor repair, outdoor storage will be restricted to the rear parking area, no junked automobiles will be allowed, and that no - 6 - ~Bq-7 vehicles will be stored outside for more than 14 days. 2 e. Architecture: The front portion of the building was formerly a fire station. The remainder of the building is block construction. No changes have been indicated at this time. 4 f. Screening and Landscaping: Type D screening would normally be required should this petition be approved. This would require a 35 foot buffer yard or a 25 foot buffer yard with a 6 foot fence. The existing structures and lot size prohibit compliance with this requirement. Staff recommends that further expansion of the building or parking area should be prohibited in order to maintain what buffer currently exists. 2 g, Amenities: 2 h. Natural Amenities: TRAFFIC 2 i. Street Capacities: 1986 ADT on Brambleton Ave. (US 221) was 21,450. No reliable information on traffic generated by the proposed uses is available from Trip Generation prepared by the Institute of Traffic Engineers. According to figures provided by the operator, there will initially be between 10 to 20 ADT generated, with a maximum eventually of 30 to 50 ADT. During 1987 there were 4 accidents reported on Brambleton Ave. between Brandywine Ave. and the City line. 3 j. Circulation: As indicated above under site layout, on site circulation is severely constrained by the lot size and existing building configuration. Access from Brambleton Ave. is adequate, except that the two spaces at the front of the building could interfere with traffic on Brambleton Ave. UTILITIES 2 k. Water: Adequate supply and distribution. 2 1. Sewer: Adequate treatment and transmission. A new sewer manhole must be installed on the sewer lateral to permit sampling of the effluent from this use. DRAINAGE 2 m. Basin: Located within the Mud Lick Creek drainage basin. N/A n. Floodplain: PUBLIC SERVICES 2 0. Fire Protection: Within established service standard. 2 p. Rescue: Within established service standard. N/A q. Parks and Recreation: N/A r. Schools: - 7 ~ 8 q '7 TAX BASE ' s, - Land and Improvement Value: - Taxable Gross Sales/Year: Not Available. - Total Employees: Up to 5 or 6. - Total Revenue to the County/Year: Not Available. ENVIRONMENT 2 t. Air: 2 u , Water 2 v. Soils: 3 w. Noise: Performing repairs to vehicles outside the buildings could cause additional levels of noise in the adjoining residential area. Staff suggests that all repairs be conducted only inside the structures. 3 x. signage: Under the present zoning 280 square feet of signage would be allowed (4 for every foot of frontage). Petitioner has not proffered any limitation on signage. (, , PLAN CONSISTENCY This area is designated as Transition in the Comprehensive Plan. Petitioner's request is inconsistent with the Plan map and policies. However, the site in question is consistent with the historical use of this corridor. 7. STAFF EVALUATION a, Strengths: (1) petitioner has proffered as conditions a number of conditions limiting outdoor storage. b. Weaknesses: (1) The proposed use is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan map and policies; (2) Parking and on-site circulation are severely constrained on the property; and, (3) Existing site is unable to comply with the screening and buffering requirements for a H-3 use which adjoins a residence. c. Proffers Suggested: In addition to the proffered conditions received, the following proffer of conditions are suggested: (1) The following uses on the subject property shall be prohibited: gas stations, car washes and restaurants; (2) Expansion of the building and expansion of the parking area at the rear of the property shall be prohibited; (3) Auto repair activities shall be limited to minor and general repairs and shall specifically exclude major auto repairs and/or body work of any kind; (4) All repair activities shall be conducted within the confines of the building; (5) Total signage on the property shall be limited to no more than 100 square feet, and portable and/or temporary signs shall be s pecifically prohibited; (b) A sewer manhole, acceptable to the Director of the Utility Department, shall be installed prior to occupancy of the building for purposes of repairing automobiles; (7) No more than ten vehicles shall be stored outside the building at any one time; (8) No general advertising signs shall be allowed on the property. - 8 - ~'~`~- 7 rn N r--I H z w H 2 0 U O H Q w 0 x a a VIRGID]IA: BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS O.F ROANOKE COUNTY A ~~(~~ acre parcel of land, ) generally located ~`L~ f3~i~rt~f~-o~ ) within the ~y'~'~~ ~f ~- ~ ~ ) Magisterial District, and ) recorded as parcel #'?° ~ ~ - ~ -.3~ ) in the Roanoke County Tax Records. ) TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: WHEREAS, your Petitioner /i~/7~ did petitio ~ the Board of County Supervi from fo/r the purpose of A TTY ~" WHEREAS, after due legal 'nearing of the petition on in interest were given an oppo~: FINAL ORDER L- - ~~ to rezone the above-referenced parcel District to - ~~~ District notice, the Plann June 6 , 19 ~tunity to be heard; ing Commission did hold a public 89, at which time, all parties and June 27, inl'ciEREAS, after full consideration at the public hearing held on 19 89 , the Baird of County Supervisors determined that the rezoning be with proffered conditions. approved NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED that the aforem ~~ 110 ed p6 rcel of land, which is and recorded contained in the Roanoke County Tax Maps as Parcel in Deed Book 922 Page 102 and legally described below, be rezoned from B-2, Business District to B-3, Business District. - 9 - C~ ~~- rn N VIR~;INIA: BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF RQANDKE COUI~TI'Y A •268 acre parcel of land, ) generally located 3228 Bramb Teton ) PROFFER Ave., SW Cave Spring ) OF within the CONDITIONS Magisterial District, and ) recorded as parcel # 77.10-4-36 ) in the Roanoke County Tax Records. ) TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF RQANOKE COUNTY H z w H 2 0 U 0 H A W O a a a of the Code of Virginia and Sec. Being in accord with Sec. 15.1-491.1 et seq. Marty L. Lord 21-105E of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance- herebylvoluntarily proffers to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia the following conditions to the rezoning of the above-referenced parcel of land: (1) Outside storage of automobNoeSUnkedlautomobilestwallobenly those awaiting minor repair. j allowed. (2) Outside storage of autoNobautomobilesbshalltbecleat to the rear parking facilities. (3) 14 days. (4) Gas stations, parked outside for a period exceeding car wash and restaurant use shall be prohibited. (5) Expansion of the building and expansion of the Autolrepairaactivhtiesashalltbe property shall be prohibited. (6) limited to minor and general repairs anworkaof anyckindal(7) All exclude major auto repairs and/or body repair activities shall be condtheedroperty shallobellimitedtto building. (8) Total signage o p signs as no more than 100 sq.ft. and portable and/or temporary well as billboards shall be prohibited. (9) A sewer manhole, acceptable to the Utility Deparu~eosessoflrepairingaautomobilesto occupancy of the building for p p (10) No more than 10 vehic(11)sHoursbofsoperationsshallhbe building at any one time. th ou h S tu~Y /r: limited to 7: 3 0 a. m. to 5: 3 0 p•'n~~spec°t~u~~yJ~,s~a~xnlt~ed,~ j - 11 - ~ ~`~ - 7 Legal Description of Property (Metes and Bounds): T+ Y ~_:.{. SiEIl, ;)1! f.?ILI::f*1 i31.~t~. 1' F1~I r ~ T BIi,~~ i i313 . Al=G ~~':t' ~ ; Y ~ =1 [v`I' ~~~'° ~ ~ 1 ,: `T ~., . ~i ~; t z},'f i< A:>Ti' , . ~ ~,~it'13[I1Y ~ I~~~1~ ?~','~! ~[~~. °~ e Aj ~;< {:(')~~3~~~ i)~' ~~£E~1~'I1~I.L.TI'iJ r. >t~[I`TIII±.t~~ I'F;1{= > . _~ ii1±.T N{~ ALk>~ ~~ _ g:-; If I±~I~.VI RAS'FEI~i.IIF: l ~Y3I`t`~'! ~~I~ID I31:,i~113N [Ni i'C~1N 1~ i:11+ ~'~?I~; M'~'. +._ NE'~N 1:, ~- ?~ LC)`I'~ 1 ~t3I~ ` '` i i, 13t)1-~'I'ii~,r'~ > i'f%F~.1 T 1 G. ,~~?,1'i~ ft. 11.1 C,E Ai..~)13a.~ 1:6~ t~1.131= t'.~ I~~..[± ,, f~<°I?; ~7,'i3T+ia 'C[~~` _ ,-1 i~j 1)~~~~t~EF`' ~a~' 1R., 1;5~~° .` jlP~y .a°c)Y :~1..~F<S 1I~~. `li).fU 1'' ., [,TNF ~I~E'I'WI';I=t~ i.~?Ta 2 AN:i; ~- .,t t:c~ ~). ;;~t_ `r `~ 1°~I`~~' ~ .. r ~q lt~ ~)I=.(~I~Ii:E:~~J~t~~~7, _ ,. ~ p L* T[iEt3(;it^ ~~?T`I'!1 '1'1-1' i~t} '~)_II3T a 'I'Iii+~3l'.~!.. Lv , }^! S,J~t 13Rt^,MBiTL~ I~5)I`. f[lr"i~ii' s =.il~ 'I'II,t.. A7~1i 1 FE :I~.I~F.I~ L. ZJ ~I3 Lw `. 'r FS iY F;: TtT } ~.i f i_I11J 4T A.J~~~ 1.+G L•~ _i.~4 1! , ~ ~ a. ~. r d, .• ~ fjli,STi ~; ~~t+ ~. `_~~ F~1~:(~1-~1<~;~ t51 f 1f,Ti.ivP3 l ~~'4_''.)-~.a~'tN°` `I'is ~t[,11:. ~i,Essl i.sl `~' ~ I..t= I' 1 T ~Ia Y'' i `x,r.la lc 14'f' zf3l3ii .~Y,~' `~~~~' J I~~ n -c- Y '~ t,d',i"~' `i'kI14T GS!3ti1'~~i1~I`, I".rt~F z ~~.1I'~I~II`>`.>,~N1F:, Oit ~°lt~i~Ilaa.n 1,1~".?efj;rl~~`i I, 3} /;,i7=(7A }, s`[~(~77T~till~~`r .i~~,i7 jj{;f,~~y[r7j,y' T~y' ~~~~ii', "°{~'rl S~L'r 12 ~. 1:S 1~T7f7~ ~AL°i ~J 1 ES~Z~SI-i 7T1,'ff = Tt= :~d ~f~f ~~ 751V 1~ A'1+i:~1..i/11.3~~f'.k.~ w~ ~~ ~ r Ia 'i.~13 j[S~7 [i r l :J y s i. lll~+'~' X \~.;t ,Ti=.1 1' ~ L i` ii?, ~E~I l ~ [ Jti I=t~Y!. ~ :,~ i ''/ a ;.. 1i 1 r~ ~ ~' ~.: ~ i I'%-c h t:S~E~i~~'il)I~ '~ ! ~!! ' , i E.:1~. l 11h ' `' F ~i ~ ., ~ 1 _ c ~, r ~ ~- •~ X13! ~,~.~~~IZT~~:13 _~i~i _~ (` )UF x Ii ~~ t ~ a ~11s": t , .... `.1 iiti~ _, A_ ~~..~ OgDgZEp that a copy of this order be transmitted to the ee on ~h BE IT rURTHER nnin Commi-ssion and that he pe directed to reflect that Chang of the Pla g of Roanoke County. and upon the official zoning map Nickens OPTED on motion of Supervisor Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett following recorded vote: Su ervisors Johnson, AYES: p ~,yS; None ABSENT: ~~ ~,,~ . ,Clerk Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Development & Inspections CC: Arnold Covey, planning & Zoning Terry Harrington, sments John Willey, Real Estate Assg~ _ File PETITIONER: LADIDON HALL CONSTRUCTION CO. CASE 25-6/89 Planning Ccrnnission Hearing Date: June 6, 1989 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: June 27, 1989 A. REQUEST Petition of Landon Hall Construction Co. to rezone a 2.597 acre tract from I~1 Industrial to M-2, Industrial to operate a construction storage yard, located on the north side of Carr Rouse Road (Route 803) at its intersection with Jae Valley Road (Route 116) in the Vinton Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There was no opposition to the request. C. SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FACTORS 1. D. E. PROFFERED CONDITIONS (1) The property will only be used for any uses permitted in the M-1 District plus blacksmith shop, welding or machine shop, excluding punch presses exceeding 40 ton rated capacity and drop hammers; contractors' equiFxnent storage yard or plant, or rental of equipment cc~renonly used by contractors; stone works. [Section 21-24-2 (1),(3),(8),and (12)] (2) Development will occur in conformity with the submitted concept plan. (3) No signage will be erected on the site. (4) Existing vegetation will be preserved where feasible. COAM'IISSIONER' S MOTION, VOTE AND REASON Mr. Robinson moved to approve the petition with proffered conditions. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Gordon, Robinson, Massey, Witt NAYS: Winstead ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None was given. G. ATrACS /'l,Concept Plan (8~" x 11") r~ Vicinity Map (8~" x 11") Staff Report Other Comprehensive Plan: 1985 Comprehensive Development Plan has placed this area within a Rural Preserve land use category. Land uses encouraged in areas designated as Rural Preserve include agricultural enterprises, forest and wood products industries, mining and extraction operations, institutional uses and rural residences. Industrial and/or manufacturing uses, similar to the petitioner's requests, are not differentiated as desirable land uses. Terrance rri g o , Secretary Roanoke unty P1 nning Commission a " y ~ 8q'~ - .--~. ~ ,~ ~ 4-- ~ ~ •~ ~ y ~ ~ t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v 1 l! ~ ; L ;~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ J ., ~ ~ ~ s ..,~,,`~ c ~ ~ o~ +~ 3 S ~ d s` se r v ~ 3 ~~ ~. 1~~~r// I ~~ '. ,1 M~ 1 .~~ ; i u~~l I d~ t `~ ~h r ~ ~ •,/ ~ / ,' ~' /~ ~~ f s R ~ ', e~ ~ ~~ O~ X, ~\ pp ~ ~0 ~ 1 ~ 1 It ~. `\ ` ~ O \\\\` ? tia ~ P`y~ o~ ~~ ~ $~~'~ .,,~ p `~ ,~,~ dr `'~ ~'-~. ~1.A , '`~ R' 0 ~I Y: ., ~~ ~. `. ,\ ~..\ ~~~ ,~ ~ ~~ ~; `, `~,. ~~ • i~ ~ f ~{ °~i L R~ Y .1 ~. ~~-.: ~~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ' ti ~`~ .1 J i 1 .~ \~ 1 .Ills ~ ~ .Si/N yAtLEr ~ a~ ~__ _ _ _ _ __ _____~ R 0 ~ _/~ .. _ ~ '~`~"° gnus -'' ~ ~ _ _ . j~ j J .• r I7W .. ~i , .-r~.J~~~~~ VICINITY MAP '~` ."~; s W W ~\~ ~{ NORTH LA+J~,J I~Al1 Co,.nk. ~ COMMUNITYSERVICES M 1 +~ M 2 ~~AND DBVBLOPMENT - 3 t~.QO- 3 - 3~ J 8~~ STAFF REPORT CASE NUMBERS 25-6/89 PETITIONERS Landon Hall Const. Co. REVZENED BYE Dale Castellow DATE: June 6, 1989 Petition of Landon Hall Construction Company to rezone a 2.597 acre tract from M-1, Industrial to N-2, Industrial to operate a construction storage yard, located on the north side of Carr Rouse Road (Route 803) at its intersection with Jae Valley Road (Route 116} in the Vinton Magisterial District. 1. NATURE OF REQUEST a. Conditional request to rezone a 2.597 acre tract from M-1, Light Industrial to M-2, General Industrial to construct and operate an equipment yard which would include a cinder block storage building 4,000 square feet in size. Petitioner proposes to store and service heavy equipment, concrete forms and other accessory construction equipment at this site. b. Attached concept plan and zoning vicinity map describe the project more fully. 2. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS a. The M-2, General Industrial District permits a variety of of industrial/manufacturing uses including machine shops, auto repair and assembly, equipment storage yards, automobile graveyards and assorted manufacturing activities. Petitioner has proffered conditions restricting the use of the site to one of the followings (1) those uses permitted in the M-1, light industrial district; (2) a blacksmith or machine shop; (3) an equipment storage yard; or (4) stone works. b. Site plan review will be required to ensure compliance with County regulations. c. A commercial entrance permit will be required from VDOT. 3. SITE CHARACTERISTICS a. Topography The rear portion of the site slopes steeply to the south toward Carr Rouse Road. The front portion of the property, where the existing building is located, is relatively flat. b. Ground Cover: Mature trees and low growing vegetation cover much of the site. An existing building is presently situated on the site with at least two inoperative vehicles. 4. AREA CHARACTERISTICS a. Future Growth Priority Situated within the Mount Pleasant - 4 - ~-- ,~ Community Planning Area, this area has been designated as a limited growth area. b. General area is predominantly rural with very low density residential development along Carr Rouse Road. 5. LAND USE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Ratings Rate each factor according to the impact of the proposed action. Use a scale 1 through 5. 1 - positive impact, 2 - negligible impact, 3 - manageable impact, 4 - disruptive impact, 5 - severe impact, and N/A - not applicable. RATING FACTOR COHMENTS LAND USE COMPATIBILITY 4 3 3 3 3 3 a. Comprehensive Plan: 1985 Comprehensive Development Plan has placed this area within a Rural Preserve land use category. Land uses encouraged in areas designated as rural preserve include agricultural enterprises, forest and wood products industries, mining and extraction operations, institutional uses and rural residences. Industrial and/or manufacturing uses, similar to the petitioner's request, are not differentiated as desirable land uses. b. Surrounding Lands Primarily unimproved parcels with an existing mobile home south of the site directly across Carr Rouse Road. c. Neighboring Area: Predominantly rural with scattered single family residences along Carr Rouse Road. d. Site Layout: Petitioner proposes to construct a cinder block storage building 4,000 square feet in size with an accessory parking area immediately west of the building.. Access to the site would be limited from one drive along Carr Rouse Road. Petitioner proposes to enclose the entire complex with chain-link fence. At this time petitioner has not proffered that the development would in substantial conformity with the attached concept plan. Staff recommends the petitioner submit this proffer in writing. e. Architecture: Proposed storage building would be constructed of cinder block. f. Screening and Landscaping: As per the zoning ordinance, Type D screening and buffering would be required. This provision requires either a 25 foot buffer yard with screening feet in height, or a 35 foot buffer yard with large and small evergreen trees and one row of evergreen shrubs. The state forester has recommended the petitioner preserve as much of the existing vegetation as possible. The petitioner could choose to proffer preservation - 5 - ~ -s'~ ~- of existing Bcreeninq and vegetation if it is equivalent to the Type D requirement. With the exceptioD of a notation calling for pine trees along the southern property boundary, the sub®itted concept plan does not include any provisions for screening and buffering. Should the petitioner choose to proffer the attached concept plan, it will not supercede minimum requirements set forth in the county's zoning ordinance. q. Amenities, h. Natural features: TRAFFIC ~ i. Street Capacities: Petitioner estimates the proposed storage yard would generate approximately 5 vehicle trips per day. Traffic counts conducted in 1986 revealed an ADT of approximately 53 vehicles along Carr Rouse Road. Staff estimates existing traffic volumes are approximately the same. The proposed storage yard should have minimal impact on existing street capacities. 3 j. Circulation, Petitioner is proposing one point of access to Carr Rouse Road. Site distances at the point of access are adequate. The existing intersection at Carr Rouse and Jae Valley Roads could pose a problem for large construction equipment as site distances appear to be somewhat limited. Between January 1987 and February 1988 one accident was reported at this intersection. UTILITIES ~, k. Water, The proposed site is outside of the County's public utility service boundary. Petitioner proposes to locate a well on the site. 3 1. Sewer: The proposed site is located outside of the County's public utility service boundary. Petitioner proposes to locate a septic drain field on the site. DRAII~IAGE ~e. Basin, n. Floodplain, PUBLIC SERVICES 2 0. Fire Protection, Within established service standard. 2 p. Rescue: Within established service standard. q. Parks and Recreation, N/A r. School: - 6 - TA% BASE" ~ 89- ~ ~ s. - Land and Improvement Values $31,000 - Taxable Gross Sales/Years N/A - Total Employees 8 - Total revenue to the County/Year: Approximately $378 ENVIRONMENT t. Air: u. Water: v. Soils, w. Noise 3 x. signage: The petitioner makes no reference to signage in his rezoning application. Staff recommends the petitioner proffer that no signage will be erected on the site. 6. PLAN CONSISTENCY This area is designated as Rural Preserve. The petitioner's request is not consistent with the policies set forth in Rural Preserve land use category. 7. STAFF EVALUATION a. Strengths: (1) Despite the fact this parcel is designated Rural Preserve, it is currently zoned M-1, Light Industrial. The light industrial district permits a variety of assembly and light manufacturing uses, many of which pose impacts as significant as the proposed equipment yard. As part of the petitioner's request, he has proffered conditions which prohibit a majority of the M-2 land uses from being conducted on this site. (2) The petitioner is proposing to improve an existing parcel which is in some state of disrepair. b. Weaknesses (1) The primary weakness focuses on the fact that this proposal is not consistent with land use policies and guidelines set forth in the Future Land Use Plan. Industrial uses, such as construction equipment storage yards, are not encouraged in areas designated as rural preserve. c. Suggested Proffers: (1) Staff recommends the petitioner proffer conditions ensuring the development will occur in conformity with the submitted concept plan. (2) Staff recommends the petitioner proffer that no signage will be erected on the site. (3) Staff also recommend the petitioner proffer conditions ensuring preservation of existing vegetation where feasible. - 7 - ~'" VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE BOARD OE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUN'T'Y A off. S4'7 acre parcel of landL, ) generally located ~(-a-~ _S1('C~-IQ , ) ~~~J CCc~ouSe. T~U~ ~l~-~".~~ 2m~Gl-'l~ within the ~ %?y~ ~~y-, n~~ ) Magisterial District, and `" ) recorded as parcel # ~~ j , ~~ ( -- ~ - 3 y` ) ~~~ ~ > in the Roanoke County Tax Records. ) RECONA~NDATION TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: WHEREAS, your Petitioner l^e~;~ ~ Cpl ~ , ~ ~,~,( C~~~, ~'~ , has filed with the Secretary to the Planning Commission a petition to rezone the above-referenced parcel of land from ~~'- , District to f~'1 -- Z District for the purpose of ~-~~~ ~ c, Q--F WHEREAS, the petition was referred to the Planning Ccxnmission 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 ~JL'.h.~~ ~ 19 ~ and WHEREAS, at that public hearing all parties in interest were afforded an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due consideration has reconunended to the Board of County Supervisors that the rezoning be approved with proffered conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Cozrnnission recommends to the Board of County Supervisors that the above-referenced parcel of land be rezoned from M-1, Industrial to M-2, Industrial with proffered conditions. The above action was adopted on motion of Kyle Robinson and upon the following recorded vote: Aye; Gordon, Robinson, Massey, Witt NAyS; Winstead ABSENT: None Respect ly su 'tt d, Sec etar Roanoke'County lanning Commission ~~9-~ VIRGI DTIA BEFORE THE BOARD OE SUPERVISORS O.F ROANOKE COUN`T'Y p, , ~ ~{' acre parcel of land, ) generally locat~ - ~' ) C a ~ u~ - ~ ~,~• ) within the_ `~i/~ ~~~t ~'~ ) Magisterial District, and ) ono recorded as parcel # ~ ~ / ) ~ ~~A d"~ ~ in the Roanoke County Tax Records. H z w H z 0 U 0 H A W 0 a a a FINAL ORDER TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: WHEREAS, your Petitioner ~ U' ~~o~) ~ ~ ~~`' ~ ~ 0171 ~ ~ ~ did petition the Board of County Supervisors to rezone the above-referenced parcel 2 District from ~ ' ~ District to se of ~-~Grr~''~ ~ 4~N~r~.fC'- 'D(dt~7 ..i-v~?~ co~.~~PS>k'ri~ ~. For the purpo WHEREAS, after due legal notice, the Planning Commission did hold a public 'nearing of the petition on ~ ai~ ~ 19 ~~ . at which time, all parties in interest were given an opportunity to be heard; and ~uti ~ Z~7 in]'i-~REAS, after full consideration at the public hearing held on 1g ~, the Board of County Supervisors determined t'nat the rezoning be APPROVED WITH PROFFERED CONDITIONS NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED that the aforementioned parcel of land, which is part of 89.00-3-34 and recorded contained in the Roanoke County Tax maps as Parcel 1262 Pa e 474 and legally described below, be rezoned from in Deed Book g M-l, Industrial District to M-2, Industrial District. - 8 - l0 ~ ~-' Legal Description of Property (Metes and Bounds): BEGINNING at an old iron tree onBush p~opertydand of Route No. 803 on line of Roy being the extreme westerly corner of the J. 0. . Huffman property; thence with the line of land formerly owned by Emma D. Patsel and the land of J. L. Huffman, N. 38° OS' E. crossing the road; in all 464.0 feet to a point in the center of Route No. 803 on top of hill near its intersection with Route No. 116; thence with the center of Route No. 803, S. 68° 00' E. 137.6 feet to a i point; thence°S. 50° O210E8 feet6tota pointpothence , thence, S. 78~ 05 E• oint; thence with the S. 22° 15' E. 16.1 feet to a p800 feet; more or center line °flacetofNBEGINNING. less, to the p BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be transmitted to the e onrthe of the Planning Commission and that he be directed to reflect that Chang official zoning map of Roanoke County. and upon the pp()PTED on motion of Supervisor Nickens following recorded vote: McGraw, Nickens, Garrett py~; Supervisors Johnson, Robers, LQAYS: None ABSENT: ~_~~~ ~ . _, Clerk Roa ko en ounty Board of Supervisors CC: Arnold Covey, Dev. & Insp. Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning John Willey, Real Estate Ass`es~~nts File (p ~ " ~.J ~JIRGINIA: BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ~ ~~ 2.597 acre parcel of land, ~ A VA Route 803 ) generally located PROFFFEt Carr Rouse Road/Mt. Pleasant ) Cave Spring ) OF within the ) ~= ~yagisterial District, and rn recorded as parcel ~ 89.00-3-34 ) ~ (part of) ) ~ in the Roanoke County Tax Records. ) ~ SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE CO(7~TI'Y : TO THE HONORABLE of the Code of Virginia and Sec. •• Being in accord with Sec. 15.1-491.1 et seq. Landon L. Hall E' Zoning Ordinance, the Petitioner z 21-1O5E of the Roanoke County roffers to the w hereby voluntarily p o Construction Company Conditions t0 the ~ Vir inia the following Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County- g ~ rezoning of the above-referenced parcel of land: ~n ~ uses permitted in the w ~l) The property will only be used for any excluding M-1 District; blacksmith shop, welding or machine shop hammers; ~ 40 ton rated capacity and drop a punch presses exceeding a and or plant, or rental of p" contractors' equipment storag Y stone works. [Section ~ ment commonly used by contractors; equip and (12 ) ~ 21_24_2 ~1),(3)-~8)~ with the submitted ~2) Development will occna enwillfbemerected on the site. (4) concept plan. (3) No sig g reserved where feasible. Existing vegetation will be p Respectfully submitted, ,/ r Petitioner - 10 - ~ ~ - ~ PETITIONEk2: RQANORE COUN'T'Y PLANNING CQNYKISSION CASE N[I~ER: 27-6/89 Planning Commission Hearing Date: June 6, 1989 Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: June 27, 1989 A. REQUEST Petition of Roanoke County Planning Commission to rezone a 0.57 acre and 0.481 acre tract from M-2, Industrial to R-l, Residential to bring an existing nonconforming use into conformance with the zoning ordinance, located at 5602 and 5612 Woodland Lane in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. B. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 'There was no opposition to the request. C. SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FACTORS 1. None. D. PROFFERID CONDITIONS 1. None. E. COrM~IISSIONER'S MOTION, VOTE AND REASON Mr. Witt moved to approved the petiton. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Gordon, Robinson, Massey, Winstead, Witt NAYS: None ABSENT: None F. DISSENTING PERSPECTIVE None. G. ATTACHIKErTTS 1•~ oncept Plan (8~" x 11") Vicinity Map (8~" x 11") Staf f Report Other Terrance Harri gton Secretary Roanoke County Pla ing Commission ~~ M^ ~ `~. 0~ ,yK Q 1~I~,QLK ~ W~sSTE~N I .P. N43' ZO'~ --- • I t.~ot' #'~ 7 ~~ I ~ fiT I.P. ~~ ~ . $~ tUT SIIOMIIIIQ tROtERTY (0.57 AC. ~ 9EIM8 CONVEYED TO ~• RO~RT LEE SETCi~L b JILL NARNER SETCHEL eY BRANCH -SHIVERS PARTNERSHIP aITUATEO ALONQ INOQDIAND DRIVE, S.M. ~~ .• ~ ~ ~ CAVE BtRIMA MA4ISTERiAI DISTRICT " ti T H `- ~~~'`'~ ~ ~~~ t~ ~ ROANORE COUNTY, _ 2 _ Y 1 R81 M 1 A a~l+w~. X89-9' t ~1.vv~Y 4'7~ . ~+O n. s. s-,2. ~ r~ . r43 1.~• ~'. ~ 1~ ~ N ~~'~ f ~ I~ ~' -'~ 4tli7~ g ~~,~ ~~ . Wo0'A.~N~ Gi ~• N~chl av~sll~1 ~ • ~I~. ~ ~ ~MAIN-N~ PRoP. .~ ~ ~ ~~; i l~T1.P. 143'Zi1'IN ~ 37Z.~' ~,~ W . ~,.6~.ad' L F~cIiT• I . /'. l~ 8~y a'~ t -xr i.v. .. W S 0 w ,~$' ql 1 ~ f~9-- °' ,~ ~- e I ~_ , 'o ~ s ~ _ ~ 3N to J ~ ~c ~ d iQ ~ ~ ~ N ~~ ~~ 'n ~ ~ ~J ow ~ V_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LL ~ 0: ~. 1- --- -- Q-o~e~ ~ a .Z' bL i - c ~! ~ ~ a ~ g~ z W x ~ ~ o ,~ ~3J s5~o p 0 ~ ~ r ~~ N .e ~ ~~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ a~Z Q V• ~ v ( r V ~ a v ~ ~ ~ ~~ 1.'01 ~ "; 0 ~ ~ o~ a~~ ~N .... . ............... J . _ ... i^ ~ I _..., ~ L i is v~ .. ~. - ~Y1 COI .~ ~ r ~ ~ - -- . .. ~ W - - _ 3 _ ~~` .~ •,`` NORTH ~ -~, .r~ ~- ~_r'~~~ . STAFF REPORT .;ASE NUMBERS 27-6/89 PETITIONER: ROANORE COONTY PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEWED BY: JANET SCBEID DATES JUNE 6, 1989 Petition of Roanoke County Planning Commission to rezone a 0.57 acre and 0.481 acre tract from M-2, Industrial to R-1, Residential to bring two existing nonconforming uses into conformance with the zoning ordinance, located at 5602 and 5612 Woodland Lane in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. 1. NATURE OF REQUEST a. This petition is a request to bring existing nonconforming uses into conformance with the zoning ordinance. The owners of 5612 Woodland Lane have been unable to obtain mortgage financing for their property due to the existing M-2 zoning attached to their property. The owners of 5602 Woodland Lane anticipate the same problem occurring when they attempt to transfer their property at some undetermined time in the future. Upon learning about this problem, the staff contacted several local and regional financial institutions to determine if the nonconforming use of these properties would indeed influence their decision on whether or not to offer financing. These institutions confirmed that financing probably would not be offered due to the existing M-2 zoning of these single family parcels. Since the staff perceived that the zoning ordinance was placing a clear hardship on the owners of these properties, we have filed this request on behalf of the Commission. b. Attached plats and zoning vicinity maps describe the existing sites more fully. 2. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS a. The R-1, Single Family Residential District permits a variety of uses including single-family dwellings. The petitioner has not proffered any conditions which restrict the type of uses permitted on this site. b. Site plan review will not be required. 3. SITE CHARACTERISTICS a. Topography: Both sites slope gently downward to the northwest. b. Ground Cover: On both sites, the ground cover is maintained grass and landscaped shrubs and trees. 4. AREA CHARACTERISTICS a. Future Growth Priority: Situated within the Cave Spring Community Planning Area. The growth initiative for this area is to stabilize growth. b. General area: Both sites are bordered by residences on the eastern and southern sides and industrial sites on the other two sides. Industrial sites to the west are developed and active. - 5 - ~ 8~~ - ~ 5. LAND USE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Rating: Rate each factor according to the impact of the proposed action. Use a scale of 1 through 5. 1 = positive impact, 2 = negligible impact, 3 = manageable impact, 4 = disruptive impact, 5 = severe impact, and N/A = not applicable. RATING FACTOR COMMENTS LAND USE COMPATIBILITY 3 a. Comprehensive Plan: 1985 Comprehensive Development Plan has placed this area within a Principal Industrial land use category. The land use plan designates certain areas that are suited for the development of major industry. The Southwest Industrial area, along the rail line corridor west of Starkey Road, is one of these five areas. The petitioner's request is not in conformance with the land use plan. We have not submitted a land use plan amendment to accompany this rezoning request since we believe that the best future use of these properties is industrial. Beeping the industrial designation on these properties will designate to any future industrial prospect, that the County believes that the best use of these properties is for industrial development. 2 b. Surrounding Land: Residential neighborhoods and industrial sites. 2 c. Neighboring Area: To the east and south are residential areas. To the west and north are industrial sites, some of which are developed. N/A d. Site Layout: Residential single-family dwellings facing Woodland Lane. N/A e. Architecture: N/A f. Screening and Landscape: Both sites have well maintained, large yards with numerous large trees and shrubs. N/A g. Amenities: N/A h. Natural Features: Both sites slope gently downward in a northwesterly direction. TRAFFIC N/A i. Street Capacities: No increased impact. N/A j. Circulation: No increased impact. UTILITIES N/A k. Water: An existing use, adequate supply and distribution. N/A 1. Sewer: An existing use, adequate treatment and transmission. DRAINAGE N/A m. Basin: No increased negative effect. N/A n. Floodplain: No increased negative effect. PUBLIC SERVICES N/A o. Fire Protection: Within established service area. No increased negative effect. N/A p. Rescue: Within established service area. No increased negative effect. - 6 - ~~-.- J A q. Parks and Recreation: No increased negative effect. N A r. School: No increased negative effect. TAX BASE N/A s. - Land and Improvement Value: $53,000 (87.14-2-8.1) $45,400 (87.14-2-10) - Taxable Gross Sales/Year: 0 - Total Employees: 0 - Total revenue to the County/Year: New Revenue: 0 ENVIRONMENT N/A t. Air: No increased impact. N/A u. Water: No increased impact. N A v. Soils: No increased impact. N/A w. Noise: No increased impact. N/A x. Signage: None. 6. PLAN CONSISTENCY This area is designated as Principal Industrial. The petitioner's request to bring an existing nonconforming use into conformance with the County's zoning ordinance is not consistent with this land use designation. 7. STAFF EVALUATION a. Strengths: (1) The proposal brings an existing nonconforming use into conformance with the zoning ordinance. b. Weaknesses: None. c. Proffers suggested: None. - 7 - ~ 8 ~ -g~ VIRGINIA: BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF RQANOKE OOUI~II'Y 0.57 and A 0.481 acre parcel of land, ) generally located .5612 and 5602 ) Woodland Lane ) Within the Cave Spring ) REOCATION Magisterial District, and ) recorded as parcel # 87.14-2-8.1 ) and 87.14-2-10 in the Roanoke County Tax Records. Ta THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY: Roanoke County Planning Commission WHEREAS, your Petitioner has filed with the Secretary to the Planning Commission a petition to rezone the above-referenced parcel of land fran M-2 District to R-1 District for the purpose of maintaining residential use WHEREAS, the petition was referred to the Planning Commission which, after due legal notice as required by Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, did hold a public hearing on June 6 ~ 19 89 ; and WHEREAS, at that public hearing all parties in interest were afforded an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due consideration has recamiended to approved. the Board of County Supervisors that the rezoning be NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recormm~ends to the Board of County Supervisors that the above-referenced parcel of land be rezoned from M-2 Don witt and u on the The above action was adopted on motion of p following recorded vote: ~~~ Gordon, Robinson, Massey, Winstead, Witt None Respectf ly subml tad, NAYS: ,~~ .~ ~~ ~~: None Secre¢ar~o ~nok ounty Planning Commis VIRQNIA: BEEbRE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE OOUNI'Y 0.57 and A 0.481 acre parcel of land, ) generally located 5612 and 5602 ) Woodland Lane ) Wlthlri the Cave Spring ) ~~ ~~ a, Magisterial District, and ) ~ recorded as parcel # 87.14-2-8.1 ) N ~ and 87.14-2-10 ) ~ in the Roanoke County Tax Records. ) TO THE HO(~pRABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUN7.'Y: F' Roanoke County Planning Commission z WHEREAS, your Petitioner w H rvisors to rezone the above-referenced parcel z did petition the Board of County Supe f rom M-2, Industrial D13tr1Ct t0 R-1, Residential DlstrlCt F' for the purpose of maintaining residential use Q w o WHEREAS, after due legal notice, the Planning Commission did hold a public ~ June 6 , 19 89 , at which time, all parties w hearing of the petition on ~ in interest were given an opportunity to be heard; and June 27, 1989 WETatEAS, after full consideration at the public hearing held on 19 , the Board of County Supervisors determined that the rezoning be NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED that the aforementioned parcel of land, which is 87.14-2-8.1 and and recorded contained in the Roanoke County Tax Maps as Parcel .~~ i~-2-io in Deed Book 1128 Page 466 ~d legally described below, be rezoned fran M-2, Industrial District to R-1, Residential District. - 8 - Legal Description of Property (Metes and Bounds): ~ ~ ~--~ BEGIl~NIl~IG at an existing iron pin on the northwesterly side of Woodland Drive, S.W. , designated as point 1 on the hereinafter mer-tiarLed plat; thence leaving Woodland Drive. S.W., and with the line of the Lucas Property. N. 46° 40' W. 200.00 feet to point 2; thence leaving the Lucasof and with two new division lines through tle ranaining property Shivers, N. 43° 20' E. 125.00 feet to point 3; thence S. 46° 40' E. , 200.00 feet to point 4, on the norttwesterl~ side of Woodland Drive, S.W.; thence with Woodland Drive, S. 43° 20 W. 125.00 feet to point 1, the Place of gDGIl~DiIlOG, and containing 0.57 acre, and being as tmre particularly shown on Plat ~g ~P~ty ~~g Co~YVeyed to Robert Lee Sstcttial & Jill Warner Setdtiel, dated May 4. 1982, ~made~b~y,Buford T. Lumsden & pasociatea, P.C., Certified Land Sta~vey BEGINNING at an old iron in the northwesterly boundary of Woodland Lane; thence with the boundary of Woodland Lane, the following two courses and distances: S. 43 degrees 20" W. 94.60 feet to an iron pin, and S. 59 degrees, 50" W. 103.67 feet to an iron pin set; thence leaving the boundary of woodland Lane and with two new lines through the property of Margaret G. Lucas, N. 46 degrees 10" W. 87.09 feet to an iron pin; thence N. 43 degrees 50" E. 193.31 feet to an iron pin set; thence with the boundary of the property of Margaret G. Lucas, S. 46 degrees 40" E. 114.86 feet to the point of BEGINNING, and containing 0.481 acre and being part of Lots 7 and 8 according to the plat showing the property of Noah W. Blevins and Carolyn R. Blevins, and as more particularly shown on plat of survey dated August 11, 1979, and revised August 23,.1979, prepared by C. E. Lacy, Jr., Certified Land Surveyor, a copy of which is attached hereto and recorded in the Clerk"s Office of the County of Roanoke, VA in Deed Book 1126, page 466. BE IT r'URTHER 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 Robers following recorded vote: and upon the AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None ABSEN`T': None ~fM c~c~-' /`-~" • ~~~- , Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors CC: Arnold Covey, Dev. & Insp. Terry Harrington, Planning & Zoning John Willey, Real Estate As~~s~ltents File ACTION # ATyA VIRGINIA HELDNATOTHEHROANOKE COUN MEETING DATE: June 27, 1989 ITEM NUMBER= ~-~® OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER Vacate the southern portion of an unimproved 50 AGENDA ITEM: " recorded in foot right-of-way referred to as „Western Hi1lstSubdivision. Plat Book 2, Page 170, Section 1, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: The etitioner's, Carlin Nucholls and Marty & Elizabeth Poff p the Roanoke ro erty owners, are requesting who are the adjacent p p Ordinance, to vacate the P i a tht e d County Board of Supervisors, by r ev i ous 1 y portion of Chelsea Street, shown on a p ubdivision referred to as Section 1, Western Hills, recorded on S October 1, 1941. 14, 1971, the Board of Supervisors, by order, closed On July the portion of Chelsea Street located in the Southwoo s Subdivision. This request involves the remaining portion of Chelsea et from it's intersection with Overbrook Drive south to end, Stre approximately 240 feet in length. etitioners are requesting the vacation in order that The p their respective properties. they may improve and beautify SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: is requesting that the described Roanoke County ter 11, Title right-of-way, be vacated in accordancethe att ched Ordinance. inia, 1050, by 15.1-482 (b), Code of Virg ections to The Virginia Dept. of Transportation has no obj the closing. ineering and Utility has no objections The Department of Eng conditions• to the proposed vacation on the following ~ ~ ~ o resently crosses mu t reservena 1, A s ewe r m therefore, Roanoke County right-of-way, 20 foot sanitary sewer easement. 2, That a 20 foot waterline o~semgnt be reserved along t e ri ht-of-way. The reason centerline of the fifty fo for the conditions is the lanerl The ~equesteda20 Circle is a 4 inch dead end foot waterline easement WOliaep w th thenwaterline in hook the South Park Cstem is upgraded in the future. Overbrook when the sy The first reading of the proposed Ordinance wasisesa h dined the Public Hearing and the second reading 14, 1989; for June 27, 1989. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: ervisors The County staff recommends that the Board of Sto vacate ro osed Ordinance, after the second readingAttorney, in adopt the p p ht-of-way and instruct the County the referenced rig to reserve an exclusive 20 foot the preparation of the Ordinance, sewer easement has shown on the waterline easement and sanitary attached map. ppPROVED Sp ITTED BY: ~y~ ~ ~~.~~> ~ t-e. lj Elmer C. Hodge A no d Covey In ections County Administrator Development Review/ P Director ---------------------------------- VOTE Yes Abs ------------ ACTION No Approved ( ) Motion by: Garrett Denied ( ) Johnson Received ( ) McGraw Referred Nickens to Robers . ~ ~9-/b OVERBROOK DRIVE T=25 S-84°09' W 65 9,A ~~ R=25 t' \ ARC=39.27 ~~ ~ ;. ~~~ ~~ pp t'~~ •~ 20' WATER LINE Cy ESMT. ~N # `~° ~ ~ 3 RIGHT OF WAY ~' ~; ,, ~ TO BE VACATED ~.: . ~ ~ 3 ~~ ; i __ N Z ~ !~ ° ~ x ` N OD ~ ~~EXIST/n/Gl0' 3~ r~S.wS O N Z ~ S•S. ESMT C 10' EXISTING S_S_E3MT ~~ - - - - - _ ~~_ N = _ - - ~ -- ---- --- _r. zo'saN.sEwER ~yESTERN. HILLS ESMT. ,~ ~__ ~ ~ sueol~ IsION 2 "4~ • ` l 1.01 '~... 139.16 6 ~ VACATED .BY B•0•S• I ON 7/ 14 / 71 _--------- I ~ ~t M ~ ~' J 137 ~1 5 144: I M ti tV SOUTHWOOD N I SUeDI'VI SION 144 SOUTH PARK CIR. TAX MAP N0. 68.17=2 8,77.05-5 4 '~' N-87°44' W F .. . SCALE : 1 " ~ CHELSEA STREET TO BE VACATED Roanoke County Engineering Department Prepared By: Vaic. ,_._..~ (~ '- A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OFNTYPADMINISTRA'I'IONACENTER ONTY, AT VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOK JUNE 27, 1989 TUESDAY, ORDINANCE VACATING THE SOUTHERN REFERRED FTO AS 11"CHELSA FIFTY (50) FOOT RIGHT OF WAY, PAGE 170, SECTION 1, STREET," RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, WESTERN HILLS SUBDIVISION the Whereas, Carlin Nucholls and Marty and Elizabeth Poff, itioners and adjacent property owners, have requested the Board pet of Su ervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia to vacate the southern P referred to portion of an unimproved fifty (50) foot right-of-way s "Chelsa Street," dedicated to the County by plat found in Plat a Book 2, page 170, Section 1, Western Hills subdivision in t e Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia; and, WHEREAS, Section 15.1-482 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, requires that such action be accomplished by the as amended, the governing body; and, adoption of an ordinance by Section 15.1- iven as required by WHEREAS, notice has been g 1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and a first reading 43 ublic 1989; and the p of this ordinance was held on June 14, hearing and second reading of this ordinance was held on June 27, 1989. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 50 foot 1. That the southern portion of an unimproved fifty ( ) ht-of-way referred to as "Chelsa Street," and being the remain- rig ortion of Chelsa Street from its intersection with Overbrook ing p th and Drive south to its end, approximately 240 feet in leng ~ ~ ~' ~~ dedicated to Roanoke County, by plat found in Plat Book 2, at page 170, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and, 2. That as a condition of the adoption of this ordinance, the County reserves and retains a twenty (20) foot sanitary sewer easement for an existing sewer main and reserves a twenty (20) foot waterline easement along the centerline of the fifty (50) foot rade; and, right-of-way for future system upg 3. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. 4. That Carlin Nucholls and Marty and Elizabeth Poff shall record a certified copy of this ordinance with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and shall pay all fees required to accomplish this transaction. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1989 ORDINANCE 62789-15 VACATING THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF AN UNIMPROVED FIFTY (50) FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY, REFERRED TO AS "CHELSA STREET," RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 170, SECTION 1, WESTERN HILLS SUBDIVISION Whereas, Carlin Nucholls and Marty and Elizabeth Poff, the petitioners and adjacent property owners, have requested the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia to vacate the southern portion of an unimproved fifty (50) foot right-of-way referred to as "Chelsa Street," dedicated to the County by plat found in Plat Book 2, page 170, Section 1, Western Hills subdivision in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia; and, WHEREAS, Section 15.1-482 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, requires that such action be accomplished by the adoption of an ordinance by the governing body; and, WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by Section 15.1- 431 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and a first reading of this ordinance was held on June 14, 1989; and the public hearing and second reading of this ordinance was held on June 27, 1989. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the southern portion of an unimproved fifty (50) foot right-of-way referred to as "Chelsa Street," and being the remain- ing portion of Chelsa Street from its intersection with Overbrook Drive south to its end, approximately 240 feet in length and dedicated to Roanoke County, by plat found in Plat Book 2, at page 170, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.1-482 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and, 2. That as a condition of the adoption of this ordinance, the County reserves and retains a twenty (20) foot sanitary sewer easement for an existing sewer main and reserves a twenty (20) foot waterline easement along the centerline of the fifty (50) foot right-of-way for future system upgrade; and, 3. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. 4. That Carlin Nucholls and Marty and Elizabeth Poff shall record a certified copy of this ordinance with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and shall pay all fees required to accomplish this transaction. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and carried by the following recoreded vote: AYES: Supervisors Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: ABSTAIN: Supervisor Johnson A COPY TESTE: ./~" Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections Terry Harrington, Director, Planning Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~-~~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOOKE COUNTYEADMINISTRATIONNCENTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROAN MEETING DATE: June 27, 1989 Vacation of a portion of a 25 foot waterlublic AGENDA ITEM: ortion of a 15 foot p ingress and egress easement and a p Page 41, Section 1, utility easement, recorded in Plat Book 10, Fairway Forest Estates. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: the developer of Section F. F. E, Development Corporation, Forest Estates, has requested r ss easement a d a 1 and 2, Fairway in ress and eg portion of a 25 foot wubliclut~ili ty easement, recorded in Plat portion opage141foSec Pon 1, Fairway Forest Estates. Book 10, to abolish any encumbrance on the The vacation is for Section 3, Fairway Forest Estates. proposed right-of-way SUMMARY OF INFORMATIONS royal of the Roanoke County is requesting, prior to final app Tans, that the described easementter( llf Title subdivision s p attached Plat), boe vacgted in accordance with aP f Vir inia, 1950, by the attached Ordinance. 15.1-482(b), Code ineering and Utility, as well as the The Department~jof Eng Roanoke Gas companies, Appalachian Powerhone~Company have local utility p Telep Comp any, Salem Cable TV and C & ht to the described commented that they will relinquish their rig Forest Estates. Fairway easements upon recordation of Section 3, The first reading of the proposed Ordinance wasiSesa h doled the Public Hearing and the second reading 14, 1989; for June 27, 1989. ~ ~9'-i/ STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The County staff recomme~osvacatettheB~eferencedpeasements, adopt the proposed Ordinance in after the second reading, and instruct the County Attorney~ortion re aration of the Ordinance, clearly state "that the p the p P in ress and egress easement and of a 25 foot waterline easement, g easement, as described, in a portion of a 15 foot public utilion the recordation of the the attached Plat, be vacated only right-of-way for Section 3, Fairway Forest Estates." line of Lot 47, Block 2, Section 1, Fairway The boundary under Section Forest Estates, will be handled administratively 17-23 of the Roanoke County Subdivision Ordinance. APPROVED: SUBMITTED BY: Arno 'd Covey I spections Development Review/ D' ector 3~ /Zrtt.,;l~ C~~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator it -- ---- ----------------- -- VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: Denied ( ) Received ( > Referred to ACTION No YeS Abs Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers I WELL LOT PROPERTY OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, V~ D.B. 1109, PG. 56~ I LOT 47 BLOCK 2 SECTION No. 1 F<~IRWAY FOREST ESTATES P.B. 10, PG. 41 PROPERTY OF FFE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION EXISTING 15' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMEN'~ R/yy FA IRhrgy EST 1-2 2-5A 5A-6 6-1 '~! B ~~ ~qti . e Ac~~~~ ~6. ST C S 0 , ~ ~~S' ~ ~0 yj~O~ \TOTAL /W) ~, j'~ '~ ` NOTE: PORTION OF 25' V IUMSDEN No. 14288 `----~ F PORTION VINCENT K. ® PORTION OF EXISTING 15' P.U.E. TO BE VACATED "4 Fy. O,Q ~ VACATION OF WATERLINE, INGRESS N 49'44'29" W " 26.56" 39 26 W N 10'2644 N 75'39'52" E . 15.10 ' S 12'32'08"' E 48.00 AREA = 487 S.F'. "CH" DENOTES CHORD. & EGRESS EASEMENT nF 15' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT BLOCK 2, SECTION No.1 SITUATED THROUGH LOT 47, FAIRWAY FOREST ESTATES (P.B. 10, PG. 41) PROPERTY OFD-~z.~.~ _ ~1T10N • FFE DEVELOPMENT COf~ • WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DIS7R~T ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGIMA SCALE: 1" 50'' OA'1<E: 21 APRIL 1989 LUMSDEN ASSOCIATES, NNERS• ENGINEERS - _SURVEYORS~~ PLA . ,, ROA~~KE, VIRGINIA ~~ S 75'3952" E 19.25' ' 6A-3 3_4 S 88'2924" W " ' 80.71 39' 15 4-5 30 E N 48'04 75'39'52" E . 85.97' 5_6 N N 10'02'17" W 24.62 CH. 6-6A TOTAL AREA 1712 S.F. NOTE: "CH" DEN07ES CHORD. EXISTING 25~ WATERLINE, INGRESS k EGRESS EASEMENT I w " NEW TRACT A PROPERTY OF FFE DEVELOPMENTPGORPORATION P..B. __-, 4 5 gin. CH. CH. ~: - ~ -~ APR 1989 RECENEq DEPT, OF DEy, dom. ~~~~~ase ®PORTION OF EXISTING ~~~ W EASEMENT!NTOEBE VACATEDS ~ ~_~r' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THIS E DA ~K JUNE N27 ~ AD9 I9 ISTRATION CENTER ON ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF A TWENTY-FIVE (25) FOOT WATERLINE AND INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT, AND A PORTION OF A FIFTEEN (05)PAGET41i,BSECTIONI'1TYFAIRWAYNFORESTOESTATES PLAT BOOK 1 , Whereas, F.F.E. Development Corporation, the developer of Sections 1 and 2, Fairway Forest Estates has requested the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia to vacate a portion of a twenty-five (25) foot waterline and ingress/egress easement and a portion of a fifteen (15) foot public utility easement, dedicated to the County by plat found in Plat Book 10, page 41, Section 1, Fairway Forest Estates in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia; and, WHEREAS, Section 15.1-482 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, requires that such action be accomplished by the adoption of an ordinance by the governing body; and, WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by Section 15.1- 431 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and a first reading of this ordinance was held on June 14, 1989; and the public hearing and second reading of this ordinance was held on June 27, 1989. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That a portion of a twenty-five (25) foot waterline and ingress/egress easement and a portion of a fifteen (15) foot public utility easement as shown on the attached plat dated 21 April 1989 prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., and dedicated to Roanoke ~ ~~°_i/ County, by plat found in Plat Book 10, at page 41, Section 1, Fairway Forest Estates in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and, 2. That as a condition of the adoption of this ordinance, F.F.E. Development Corporation hereby agrees to pay all costs and expenses required to relocate all utility lines and improvements within these easements; and, 3, That the portion of the twenty-five (25) foot waterline easement and ingress/egress easement and the portion of the fifteen (15) foot public utility easement be vacated only upon the recorda- tion and dedication to the County of the right-of-way for Section 3, Fairway Forest Estates. 4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. 4, That F.F.E. Development Corporation shall record a certified copy of this ordinance with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and shall pay all fees required to accomplish this trans- action. T A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OUNTYPADMINISTRATIONACENTER ONTY, A VIRGINIA, HELD AT THT ESDAY R JUNE 27, 1989 ORDINANCE 62789-16 VACATING A PORTION OF A TWENTY-~FDIVEA (2 5 ) FOOT WATERL~E NAND )INFOOT PUBLIEC UTIL TYE EASEMEWAY PORTION OF A FIF ( PAGE 41, SECTION 1, FAIR RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 10, FOREST ESTATES Whereas, F.F.E. Development Corporation, the developer of ections 1 and 2, Fairway Forest Estates has requested the Board S ortion of of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia to vacate a p a twenty-five (25) foot waterline and ingress/egress easement and dedicated a portion of a fifteen (15) foot public utility easement, a e 41, Section 1, b lat found in Plat Book l0, p g to the County Y P airwa Forest Estates in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit F Y Vir inia; and, Court of Roanoke County, g WHEREAS, Section 15.1-482 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, requires that such action be accomplished by the as amended, adoption of an ordinance by the governing body; and, WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by Section 15.1- 431 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and a first reading 1989; and the public of this ordinance was held on June 14, hearing and second reading of this ordinance was held on June 27, 1989. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That a portion of a twenty-five (25) foot waterline and foot public ingress/egress easement and a portion of a fifteen (15) utility easement as shown on the attached plat dated 21 April 1989 prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.C., and dedicated to Roanoke County, by plat found in Plat Book 10, at page 41, Section 1, Fairway Forest Estates in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, be, and hereby is, vacated ursuant to Section 15.1-482(b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as P amended; and, 2. That as a condition of the adoption of this ordinance, F.F.E. Development Corporation hereby agrees to pay all costs and expenses required to relocate all utility lines and improvements within these easements; and, 3, That the portion of the twenty-five (25) foot waterline easement and ingress/egress easement and the portion of the fifteen (15) foot public utility easement be vacated only upon the recorda- tion and dedication to the County of the right-of-way for Section 3, Fairway Forest Estates. 4. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. 4. That F.F.E. Development Corporation shall record a certified copy of this ordinance with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and shall pay all fees required to accomplish this trans- action. On motion of Supervisor Garrett, seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and carried by the following recoreded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections Terry Harrington, Director, Planning Paul Mahoney, County Attorney ~~~~u~~~~u~~~~~u~u~u~u~uuu~u~~ruuu~uu~~u~u~u~u~~u~~~urr~~~uu~uu~u~u~~u~uu~-uu~~uuu~~u~~ur _- 8 ~ -, // ~P _ _ ~jS ... _ (/ _ _ VEST ~~~ PE ARAN CE RE Q ,~ _ _ AP _ _ _ - - - - __ _ _ ~ _ - _ _ AGENDA ITEM NO. - - SUBJECT ~' . ,, ,~ ~ , ,~ ~, ~ ~~~ ~~,-,~~ = like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to I would me durin the public hearing on the above~matter _ - recognize ment.WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM, - so that I may com _ _ L GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FORT _ = I WIL . I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINE _ RECORD = - _ __ _ LISTED BELOW. _ __ • esker will be given between three to five minutes to comment Each sp er s eakin as an individual or representative. The chairman wil = wheth p g '- a the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue, _ = decid _ i11 enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to and w do otherwise. _ • s will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Ques- _ Speaker -_ bons of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. '- Debate between a recognized • All comments must be directed to the Board. -' speaker and audience members is not allowed. • and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. Both speakers • eskers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments Sp with the clerk. _ • INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED UP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION i c _ GRO -' OM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT c FR THEM. INT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO DEPUTY CLE = PLEASE PR -_ - ~ NAME ~° , .~%~~ ~ ' ~~~-~ ,v L,~ ~. _ = ADDRESS ~/~'~ ~~ ~ (~c%•° ~~~ ~' ~"." :~~~%-4 :' , ~,-~:, ~~ l~<~ ~ c~~!~ f s ~ y' .~ ,~,t%~ "~ G' ~~ ~r~ ~ C~~ ~ . y ifr`r t.t •f PHONE 1 _ II1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 mllllliilillllillilllllllllillllllllllllllll r , ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~ ~ ~--~ ~, AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: June 27, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: easement. Vacation of a portion of a 20 foot sanitary sewer COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND: Boone & Company, the developer of Boone Office Park, has requested the vacation of a portion of a 20 foot sanitary sewer easement dedicated to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors on October 18, 1985, in Deed Book 1228, Page 35. (Refer to attached map). The owner, Boone & Company, has plans to construct the third and final office building on the said property. The proposed office building will encroach into the existing easement, thus requiring the need for the vacation. All costs required to vacate and relocate the easement and sanitary sewer line will be incurred by the developer. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Roanoke County is requesting that the sanitary sewer easement be vacated in accordance with Chapter 11, Title 15.1-482 (b>, Code of Virginia, 1950, by the adoption of the attached Ordinance. The County Staff is in agreement with the developers request. The first reading of the Ordinance was held on June 14, 1989; Public Hearing and second reading is scheduled for June 27, 1989. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The County staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the proposed Ordinance after the second reading to vacate the referenced easement. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED: ~ ~~ ~~~ A o d Covey Elmer C. Hodge Development Review and County Administrator Inspections Director ----------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs Denied ( ) Garrett Received ( ) Johnson Referred McGraw to Nickens Robers o~~ c a '>~ S3 /~~. ~j . S ~S O• 2C qo• ~ ~tiV •Q4',\ ~~ ~' PROPEiZTY OF r~ C,EO2GE L. t300NE~ JOANNE PSOONE 01' ~' ~ ~ WORTH t; ~ . P.y00tJE,.IR. 63, ~ b ,~ ~ ~ ~ s~ ~a ~P ~ A a PROPOSED 15' .(~~~ h S.S. ESMT. ~^3• ~ .L~' ~~ d EXIST M.H., .9~~ 7~ SEWER ESMT. TO BE VACATED '~iQsgr, !y i3 0~~~~~` ~~'e6 F~. ti~9 _~ X4.5\ .~ r ~~/ U 11,E > h ~ e OAp` ~~ ~ ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS EX. S.S. ES MT.~ / ~ ~/ 5.~.,. !8 ~~ d~ r ?~ ~ ~ ~ .f; ~ ~~ ~~ ~. ~M / /~ ~ / f .~ y2. J' ~_ PROPOSED 20' S.S. ESMT. i i ' 3 PQOPE.iZTY OF CaEDRC.E L. (300NE t JOANNE PSOONE g9.0lo• i ~ ~ 9(0.50' 8 .- N 80' Z'1' 00' W ~_ TOT t 5 . •- ' VA. t*ZoUYE ~ X419 PLAT SHOWING SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT TO BE VACATED BY .~ scAt.E = I"=so' DATE ~ 6-I-89 ''/ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1989 ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF A TWENTY (20) FOOT SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT IN THE BOONE OFFICE PARK Whereas, Boone & Company, the developer of Boone Office Park has requested the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia to vacate a portion of a twenty (20) foot sanitary sewer easement, dedicated to the County by deed found in Deed Book 1228, page 35 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia; and, WHEREAS, Section 15.1-482 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, requires that such action be accomplished by the adoption of an ordinance by the governing body; and, WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by Section 15.1- 431 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and a first reading of this ordinance was held on June 14, 1989; and the public hearing and second reading of this ordinance was held on June 27, 1989. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That a portion of a twenty (20) foot sanitary sewer easement located within the Boone Office Park, and dedicated to Roanoke County on October 18, 1985, by deed found in Deed Book 1228, at page 35, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.1-482 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and, lf> ~ ~ / 2. That as a condition of the adoption of this ordinance, Boone & Company hereby agrees to pay all costs and expenses required to vacate and relocate this easement and the sanitary sewer line therein; and, 3. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. 4. That Boone & Company shall record a certified copy of this ordinance with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and shall pay all fees required to accomplish this transaction. ._ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 27, 1989 ORDINANCE 62789-17 VACATING A PORTION OF A TWENTY (20) FOOT SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT IN THE BOONE OFFICE PARK Whereas, Boone & Company, the developer of Boone Office Park has requested the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia to vacate a portion of a twenty (20) foot sanitary sewer easement, dedicated to the County by deed found in Deed Book 1228, page 35 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia; and, WHEREAS, Section 15.1-482 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, requires that such action be accomplished by the adoption of an ordinance by the governing body; and, WHEREAS, notice has been given as required by Section 15.1- 431 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and a first reading of this ordinance was held on June 14, 1989; and the public hearing and second reading of this ordinance was held on June 27, 1989. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That a portion of a twenty (20) foot sanitary sewer easement located within the Boone Office Park, and dedicated to Roanoke County on October 18, 1985, by deed found in Deed Book 1228, at page 35, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, be, and hereby is, vacated pursuant to Section 15.1-482 (b) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and, - - ,... 2. That as a condition of the adoption of this ordinance, Boone & Company hereby agrees to pay all costs and expenses required to vacate and relocate this easement and the sanitary sewer line therein; and, 3. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same hereby are, repealed. 4. That Boone & Company shall record a certified copy of this ordinance with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and shall pay all fees required to accomplish this transaction. On motion of Supervisor Robers, seconded by Supervisor Johnson, and carried by the following recoreded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections Terry Harrington, Director, Planning Paul Mahoney, County Attorney y~~u~uu~u~u~~~uuu~u~uruuuuuuuruuuuru~a~r~~uut~uu~~u~uuuuuu~u~uuur~~ru~~~u~~~u~u~uu~i - - _ j - -~ ~ _ ~ = APPEARANCE RE VEST - Q ~ = AGENDA ITEM NO. P z SUBJECT ~~,~' s C~~_ S~r~- = I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to recognize me during the public hearing on the above~matter - so that I may comment.WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM, - I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES LISTED BELOW. • Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment 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. _ • Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Ques- _= Lions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. c • All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. • Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. • Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the clerk. c • INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION c FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. _ PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO DEPUTY CLERK NAME _ GJ i~.C„ LiN os ADDRESS ~a ~o ~ ~,,,-, e N ~~,V~~ g`o G - ~~v~t~ .= PHONE ~- mllllllllllllllllllilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllilllllllllillllilllllllilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllll y~uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrr..rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrruuuuuuuuuuuuuururruuururr, ARANCE RE VEST y~ _ APPE Q - AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ SUB E CT ~~~~~ ~, ~...,~~ ~ ~~ ~ ,:,~ ~_~ 1; ; ~-- ~ ~ J. ~~~' J ~- ~~~ ~v 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.WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM, - I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES = LISTED BELOW. • Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment =_ 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. • Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Ques- Lions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. • All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. • Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. c • Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments =_ with the clerk. • INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT THEM. = PT .F A SF PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO DEPUTY CLERK mllllilllllllllillllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllilllllllllllllllllllllllllil ~ -- a, PRESENTED TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' MEETING ON JUNE 27, 15 7:00 P.M., BRAMBLETON OFFICES. IN MAY, I SPOKE TO YOU ABOUT THE FLOODING AT THE BOONES CHAPEL SITE. AT THP. TIME, I WAS ASSURED BY YOU THAT THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATIC AND I ONLY HOPE THAT THIS IS THE TRUTH, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE BOONE$ CHAPEL COMMUNITY KNOW HOW HEAVY RAINFALL CAN CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE ROAL AND THEIR PROPERTY. THE RESIDENTS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR WAZ CONTAMINATION FROM A LANDFILL SITE. I HAVE SPOKEN TO SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND AFTER VIEWING THE SITE, THEY CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THE COUNTY IS CONTEMPLATING PUTTING A LANDFILL IN THIS AREA. Y CAN BE SURE THAT THEY WILL BE VERY INTERESTED IN THE RESULTS OF THE TESTING BEING DONE AT OUR SITE. ONE ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY, IN PARTICULAR, IS DIRECTL AFFECTED BY THE BOONES CHAPEL SITE. THEY ARE THE ISAAC WALTON LEAGUE, A MEMBERSHIP OF OVER 200, WHO HAVE A PRIVATE RECREATIONAL AREA AND LAKE NEAR T PROPOSED LANDFILL SITE. THE LEAGUE'S ROANOKE CHAPTER HAS WENT ON RECORD AS SAYING THEY WANT THE SITE SELECTION PROCESS TO BE BASED ON THE TECHNICAL MER OF THE TESTING OF ALL SITES AND NOT BASED ON POLITICS OR LOCALITIES. RECENTLY, A SUGGESTION WAS MADE BY ONE OF OUR RESIDENTS TO MR. ROBER THAT TH COUNTY INVESTIGATE THE POSSIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTING ANOTHER ACCESS ROAD TO TH LANDFILL SITE. HIS SUGGESTION WAS FOR THE NEW ROAD TO BEGIN AT APPROXIMATEL 100 FEET NORTH OF THE BOONES CHAPEL ROAD ENTRANCE ON ROUTE 677. WE, RESPECTFULLY, REQUEST THAT THE COUNTY FIND OUT IF THIS ALTERNATIVE ROAD ACCE~ IS FEASIBLE. THE COUNTY PLANS TO SPEND "X" MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON A POSSIBL: ACCESS ROAD TO THE BRADSHAW SITE AND WE ASK FOR THE SAME CONSIDERATION AND COMMITMENT BY THE COUNTY AS THEY HAVE GIVEN TO THE BRADSHAW COMMUNITY. REGARDING, ROAD IMPROVEMENT, OUR ROADS NEED BETTER MAINTENANCE. WE HAD BEEN PROMISED OVER A YEAR AND HALF AGO THAT OUR ROAD WOULD BE WIDEN AND PAVED AND SINCE OUR AREA HAS BEEN CHOSEN AS A POSSIBLE LANDFILL SITE, EVERYTHING CAME ', GRINDING HALT. THE MONEY IS IN AN ACCOUNT WAITING UNTIL YOU DECIDE WHETHER AREA IS TO BE THE NEXT LANDFILL. WE FEEL THAT OUR ROAD SHOULD BE WIDENED AN1 PAVED, REGARDLESS, OF WHETHER THE LANDFILL IS PUT IN OUR AREA OR NOT. WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO SUFFER WITH THE TERRIBLE ROAD CONDITIONS ANY LONGER. HAS BEEN SAID THAT IF A LANDFILL DOES GO IN AT THE BOONES CHAPEL SITE, THEN S COUNTY PLANS TO USE THAT MONEY TO HELP PAY FOR THE ROAD TO THE LANDFILL SITE NOT TO WIDEN AND PAVE BOONES CHAPEL ROAD PAST THE TURNOFF ONTO WILLOW BRANCH ROAD. THE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE ON BOONES CHAPEL ABOVE WILLOW BRANCH ROAD DESEF TO HAVE THEIR ROAD PAVED AS WELL. a IN CLOSING, I WANT TO ASK THE BOARD TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER MANDATORY RECYCLIN IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE TOWN OF VINTON HAS ALREADY ORDERED NEWSPAPER RECYCLING. MAYBE WE SHOULD TO TAKE A BIGGER STEP TO HELP WITH WASTE STREAM REDUCTION. THANK YOU. ROXEY A. FISHER BOONES CHAPEL RESIDENT ~ururruuuuruuruuuuuuuuuuruururrrrrrrr.rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrruruuuuurUUrrruurJrrrrrUUr11 - - ~~ f y - - APPEARANCE REQUEST _ . _ ~ `~J AGENDA ITEM NO. ~- - ~,~~~ SUBJECT ~n f5 ~lS~~~ 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.WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM, - I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE - RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES - LISTED BELOW. • Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment =_ whether speaking as an individual or representative. The chairman will c 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. c • Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Ques- bons of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. c • All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized speaker and audience members is not allowed. • Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times. _ • Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments with the clerk. • INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED __ GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT __ THEM. PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO DEPUTY CLERK mllllllllllllillllllll IIIlilllllllllllllllilllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllliiiliilllllll 3~ J.U.S.T.I.G.~. FOtt THr. BUt7Nl+:~ ClIAP~L SITS ~~. THIw liNDI~RSIGN~U I2~t2U~.ST Tt1A~' '1'Ei(~ INT. ~Lb".ASANT SITS fl~ INCLUn~D IN T1it~ LAN1yF'ILL i~f.12MIT PRUC~'.SS. TtlER~: ~PAIs A L>~"` S THAAt ONE P~RC%NNT DIff'~'FRI~NCI~: IN THt~ MATRIX SCOt2ING IiFTWIr,,I~.N TitL MT. 1'LFA:3ANT AND »OUN~B CIiAAI~L BITS .AND THC ~ITL CUNDITIUN 9CURING SAS ID~NTiCAL. AS THIa: CAUNTY NAD AQRlD TO 'I'HRR~ SITI~.S ~'t3R PART A PE;I2MIT iNIi11<N 1T Tn01C UVCR TIifC BITING I~Rf3CRS8 IT BIr,~~ YERY UNFAIt1~ TU CNOOSIs aN1±. CpNHt7NITX UY~.I2 THi±: UTHFrR TU t1;lCCLUU~ FRC1Y1 TiiIB PRUC~.~i:3 AT StSCH AN EARLY BTAG~. Tttl~ COINMUNITY DI~BERYEB ~UITAHLE GO~YI~;RN~NT ACTIUN. cv~~ ~ ~d- ~ ~ q f ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~''~ . ~~ ~a ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~s ~~ ~t ~ _3 ~ s~ ~-~ ~ ~~-~ ;,,, /2 D, /~.?o a ~w Gar /~i,~L fjA ~~/ /~ ~ 7 6 / ~ .~~~e~~.~~ ~/ i / ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ C~ ~ti. ~~',,II /~~ i?~~ G~ ~ (. ~~Jt/~.a,~ /J. ~'I4-~.~ f3Sb$ S~f-~.r1;~h~ ~~~ Q3oa-,~~ J n-.~ ~ l - - ' ~~1~ ~ ~~~, g$4~d ~ooa,~ C~iflp~ ~- ~no.~~3 N1i`~ CIA ~~~ ~~' ~ ~ ~(09/ ,~,~',~a., ~~.dr~Q,o ~ . r. , ~~,.. _., E .. t , ,.i. ~ , ..,: f ~, . ;+ia~., ,~ ~ ., } a _ _ / ~/ (~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~'y" i ~ e __~ r`' !` ,~ '`~ 7S ~~ ~~~, a ~ ~% ~ ~ ~r ,.~ , ~~~ .- >.( ~ .. ~,~ ~-~--t-~- ~ .~~_ ~ ~ /~ ~ a~~ c~?Z~ ~' , s.r ~ F 1 1 .~ ~~~-~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ `~ 1~~' ~ .~~~t/rI Q c.J, 'l s a ~ _ s~3 a 1~/~l, ~ 4 ~, ~ ra ~~. ~~ DP~~ U ~ ~~j,~; - ~-f~ C+~<%-~.~c~ ~,-~-,- 1 t ~ 0'~ ~~ / 1/; ~~ ~ iii- a ~~ ~ 9 Q _ ,~~ ~ ~;%~ --- , V . ~(~C.~)(,tQ ~: "~' ~~2~b~c.. ~GLt,,C° ~g'6 ~ ~ , ',~~~~d. ~~ i~(.,~-'~x. UC~.~ ~~~ J.tI.:3.T.I.G.~. P't3R THh; 1~~UN~..'i CllAt7LL SITf~ ~~~? TNT: tIPIt'~~k~+IGN~:D Tt-~t2tlr',ST Tl1AT Tti~ MT. i'L~~.Jt.~A~IT SITS AtG YIiCLUn IN TiiiC LANI~'It.L i~i2l~4I'N~' i~iYUCMs~.~. Tti~:ltp= ~iAS A Lt~S~i TiiAN t3Ni. N~I2C:~NT DI~'Y''~R1~NC~~ Iti THC AlATRI~ k3GOKINc~ i~T'W~~N Tii~: MT. ]~'L~~:~ANT AND HOOt~S CHAI'IGL RITE: aNll TNN SITi. CONCIZTIUii #3Gci~iYNG SAS ID~'.NTICAL. AR Ttll~", COUNTY HAIL AtiRD TO THE RI'1'ta.~3 X12 1~AH"T A ~t~i~12T W]{~N IT TUOlC tAV~it TNF SYTINti I~ttOC~5~3 IT :~ Y~ItY t1N~'Axi~ Tv CYlOCt:~~ ONE Ct~iMCtNITY UV~3t THE. UTii~22 TU C:.XCLiIDi~ F~iq-!t THL`3 PRUG~RS AT MUCH AN MANLY ~1TaGi~. THIS GOp!}~1HITY DERV ~~3UY'~Ai GOV~:ItN1T ACT ION . -~~-z- ' ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~z.~ ~ ~,~~~ ~~.~~ ~~:~~ ~J~~n~- ~~~~ ~~~ . i >~ ,~ b ~`7 Cv l j,L.b~ ~~ ~~ ~I~~ ~• ~ ~' -~"~_~ / ~~~ UAL ~ i ,~ ~jlu~~'~C~~(--/^ / ~ :~C..'.(.,.~ yt/'~C~( ~~'.i/C.~''.~./ /"~~'1_ ~ ~^ r a /'~~~ i~ ,~ ~ f . ~ ~ _ ;ry ~ Cam;, `.~~~. F-'~~',x,_: ~-~-~~ l~_ ., ., , ~. ,'fit :~~~-~ ~- -~ ' ~~ V / l ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,, J '/ ~ i ~', ~ dC 7 yr c.d f%_ b/, l~o Zit 6~e_ ~~ /~ ~ ~~ ud~r l~r. .,ly ~-Q! ~ ..~~~ ~~. ~ ~ a.. ~ 'M o r~ro 5e ~v ~ 5~~ ~ ~ o o,r o~c ~', G~ Q~~ d `~ ~ ~ ~(~ y.,~,p ~.~ .~,v~l ~i,,~,~ ~,~,,.,t~, aa, u ~c~.oz(a.uoL C~x• S f. Reorr~el?~, /~. ~~ ~,~~~~~ , ~n1p ~ ~~~ ~ + ~~ - , ~. i 1 ,] -~ / ` I ~/ , / , ~- ~~ ~, r 'max, ~ ,.~. ~ '~ J ~ J ~" "' ~ ~ ,j j, < _. ~ ~ l : ~ ; , f; f ~ ~ /,~~ ~`- _f_ - __. ~ ~~~ ~° ~~~. ,= ,~ G~~-. ,~~ /~ 3 /.~~"" r1~s' ~~ "~ ~~ / /~, ~~ ~~ - -~~~ ~ 93:5 (.,~--> _C! ~~ (~.~~~-._„~~. ~~ ~ v :~ g,d~ tiU "` ' ` '` ~f ~. L E G A L N O T I C E Notice is hereby given to all interested persons that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, JUNE 27, 1989, in the Community Room at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, on the petition of BOONS AND COMPANY, requesting vacation of A PORTION OF A 20 FOOT SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT DEDICATED TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS IN DEED BOOK 1228, PAGE 35 AND LOCATED ON VA. ROUTE 419 IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. A copy of the Zoning Ordinance of Roanoke County and amendments thereto as well as a copy of the petition, site plan, and other documents related to this request may be examined in the office of the Department of Development, located in Room 600 at the Roanoke County Administration Center. Roanoke County will provide assistance to handicapped persons desiring to attend public hearings. Such individuals are requested to contact the County office of Human Resources ([703] 772-2018) if special provisions are necessary for attendance. Given under my hand this SEVENTH day of JUNE, 1989. Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Please publish in the evening edition of the Roanoke Times and World News on: TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 1989 TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 1989 Direct the bill for Publication to: Len Boone Boone and Company P. 0. Box 8615 Roanoke, Va. 24014 L E G A L N O T I C E Notice is hereby given to all interested persons that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at their evening session beginning at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, JUNE 27, 1989 in the Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, on the petition of ST. JOHN AME CHURCH FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A CLEAN LANDFILL ON A 0.775 ACRE TRACT LOCATED AT 3019 RUTROUGH ROAD IN THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 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 ([703] 772-2018) if special provisions are necessary for attendance. Given under my hand this 7TH day of JUNE, 1989. Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Please publish in the evening edition of the Roanoke Times and World News on: TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 1989 TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 1989 Direct the bill for Publication to: ST. JOHN'S AME CHURCH 3019 RUTROUGH ROAD ROANOKE, VA. 24014 L E G A L N O T I C E Notice is hereby given to all interested persons that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at their evening session beginning at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, JUNE 27, 1989 in the Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, on the petition of JOE BANDY & SON, INC. FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS LANDFILL ON A 50 ACRE TRACT LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF DEYERLE ROAD (ROUTE 684), 800 FEET FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH MERRIMAN ROAD (ROUTE 613) IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT 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 ([703] 772-2018) if special provisions are necessary for attendance. Given under my hand this 7th day of June, 1989 ~ GZ~-~~ Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Please publish in the evening edition of the Roanoke Times and World News on: TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 1989 TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 1989 Direct the bill for Publication to: MR. ED NATT 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, JUNE 27, 1989 in the Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, on the petition of SAMUEL R CARTER III FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS LANDFILL ON A 2.03 ACRE TRACT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST MAIN STREET (ROUTE 11 & 460) APPROXIMATELY 0.3 MILE FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH PLEASANT RUN DRIVE IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. 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 ([703] 772-2018) if special provisions are necessary for attendance. Given under my hand this 7TH day of JUNE, 1989. Mary H All~e`~n, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Please publish in the evening edition of the Roanoke Times and World News on: TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 1989 TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 1989 Direct the bill for Publication to: SAMUEL R. CARTER III 141 EMMETT AVENUE SALEM, VIRGINIA 24153 L E G A L N O T I C E Notice is hereby given to all interested persons that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at their evening session beginning at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, JUNE 27, 1989 in the Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, on the petition of MARTY LORD TO REZONE A .268 ACRE TRACT FROM B-2, BUSINESS TO B-3, BUSINESS TO OPERATE AN IMPORT AUTO PARTS BUSINESS WITH REPAIR SERVICE, LOCATED AT 3228 BRAMBLETON AVENUE IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. 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 7TH day of JUNE, 1989. Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Please publish in the evening edition of the Roanoke Times and World News on: TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 1989 TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 1989 Direct the bill for Publication to: MARTY LORD 3135 WOODLAWN AVENUE S.W. ROANOKE, VA. 24015 L E G A L N O T I C E Notice is hereby given to all interested persons that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at their evening session beginning at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, JUNE 27, 1989 in the Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, on the petition of LANDON HALL CONSTRUCTION TO REZONE A 2.597 ACRE TRACT FROM M-1 INDUSTRIAL TO M- 2, INDUSTRIAL TO OPERATE A CONSTRUCTION STORAGE YARD, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CARR ROUSE ROAD (ROUTE 803) AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH JAE VALLEY ROAD (ROUTE 116) IN THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. 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 7TH day of JUNE, 1989. Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Please publish in the evening edition of the Roanoke Times and World News on: TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 1989 TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 1989 Direct the bill for Publication to: LANDON HALL CONSTRUCTION 3993 JAE VALLEY ROAD ROANOKE, VA. 24014 L E G A L N O T I C E Notice is hereby given to all interested persons that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at their evening session beginning at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, JUNE 27, 1989 in the Community Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, on the petition of ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO REZONE A 0.57 ACRE AND 0.481 ACRE TRACTS FROM M-2 INDUSTRIAL TO R-1, RESIDENTIAL TO BRING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, LOCATED AT 5602 AND 5612 WOODLAND LANE IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. The County Planning Commission recommends APPROVAL A copy of the Zoning Ordinance of Roanoke County and amendments thereto as well as a copy of the petition, site plan, and other documents related to this request may be examined in the office of the Department of 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 7TH day of JUNE, 1989. Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Please publish in the evening edition of the Roanoke Times and World News on: TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 1989 TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 1989 Direct the bill for Publication to: ROBERT & JILL SETCHEL 5612 WOODLAND LANE ROANOKE, VA. 24014 L E G A L N O T I C E Notice is hereby given to all interested persons that the Roanoke County Berard of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, JUNE 27, 1989, 1989, in the Community Room at the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, on the petition of CARLIN tdUCHOLLS AND MARTY AND ELIZABETH POFF , requesting vacation of THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF AN UIvII~ROVED 50 FOOT' RZGHT-OF-WAY REFERRED TO AS CHELSEA STREET, CORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 170, SECTION 1, WESTERN HILLS SUBDIVISION. A copy of the Zoning Ordinance of Roanoke County and amendments thereto as well as a copy of the petition, site plan, and other documents related to this request may be examined in the office of the Department of Development, located in Room 600 at the Roanoke County Aaministration Center. Roanoke County will provide assistance to handicapped persons desiring to attend public hearings. Such individuals are requested to contact the County office of Human Resources ((703 772-2018) if special provisions are necessary for attendance. Given under my hand this 1ST day of JUNE, 1989. Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Please publish in the evening edition of the Roanoke Times and World News on: TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 1989 TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 1989 Direct the bill for Publication to: CARLIN NUCHOLLS 2501 CHELSEA STREET ROANOKE, VA. 24018 L E G A L N O T I C E Notice is hereby given to ai, interested persons that the Roa^oke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing at 7:00 p.s:. on Tuesday, JUNE 27, 1989, 1989, in the Community Room at the Roa_^.oke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, on the petition of F. F. E. DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION , req~.~esting vacation of A PORTION OF A 25 FOOT WATERLINE, INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 10, PAGE 41, SECTION 1, FAIRWAY FOREST ESTATES in the WINDSOR HILLS Magisterial District. A copy of the Zoning Ordinance of Roanoke County and amendments thereto as well as a copy of the petition, site plan, and other documents related to this request may be examined in the office of the Department of Development, located in Room 600 at the Roanoke County Administration Center. Roanoke County will provide assistance to handicapped persons desiring to attend public hearings. Such individuals are requested to contact the County office of Human Resources ([703] 772-2018) if special provisions are necessary for attendance. Given under my hand this 1ST day of JUNE, 1989. ~) ~ . Mary H. A len, Deputy Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Please publish in the evening edition of the Roanoke Times and World News on: TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 1989 TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 1989 Direct the bill for Publication to: Bill Reid F. F. E. Development Corporation 4530 Old Cave Spring Drive S. W. Roanoke, Va. 24018 1. petition of Joe Bandy & Son Inc. for a Special Use Permit to operate a private construction debris landfill on a 50 acre tract located on the east side of Deyerle Road (Route 684), 800 feet from its intersection with Merriman Road (Route 613) in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. APPROVED WI'T'H CONDITIONS. BILL: BEd Natt P.O. Box 20068 Roanoke, VA 24018-1699 2. Petition of Samuel R. Carter III for a Special Use Permit to operate a private construction debris landfill on a 2.03 acre tract located on the south side of West Main Street (Route 11 & 460) approximately 0.3 mile from its intersection with Pleasant Run Drive in the Catawba Magisterial District. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS. BILL: Samuel R. Carter III 141 E[miett Avenue Salem, VA 241531 3. Petition of St. John ANTE Church for a Special Use Permit to operate a clean landfill on a 0.775 acre tract located at 3019 Rutrough Road in the Vinton Magisterial District. APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS. BILL: 1St. John's A.M.E. Church 3019 Rutrough Road Roanoke, VA 24014 4. Petition of Marty Lord to rezone a .268 acre tract frccn B-2, Business to B-3, Business to operate an import auto parts business with repair service, located at 3228 Brambleton Avenue in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. APPROVED WITH PROFFERED CONDITIONS. BILL: Marty Lord 3135 Woodlawn Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 240151 5. Petition of Landon Hall Construction Co. to rezone a 2.597 acre tract from M-1 Industrial to M-2, Industrial to operate a construction storage yard, located on the north side of Carr Rouse Road (Route 803) at its intersection with Jae Valley Road (Route 116) in the Vinton Magisterial District. APPROVED WITH PROFFERED CONDITIONS. BILL: 1~Landon Hall Construction Co. 3993 Jae Valley Road Roanoke, VA 240141 6. Petition of Roanoke County Planning Commission to rezone a 0.57 acre and 0.481 acre tracts from M-2, Industrial to R-l, Residential to bring an existing nonconforming use into conformance with the zoning ordinance, located at 5602 and 5612 Woodland Lane in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. APPROVED. BILL: 1ffiRobert & Jill Setchel 5612 Woodland Lane Roanoke, VA 240141ffi for the Secondary System of the State Highways for Fiscal Year 1989/90. HCN/SAM TO APPROVE PLAN URC 589-2 Petition of STEPHAN RICE BEAR TRAP INS requesting rezoning from R-1 Residential to B-3 Business and to amend the future Land Use Map Designation from Neighborhood Conservation to Transition of a tract containing 0.24 acre and located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Custis Avenue and Bunker Hill Drive in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. CONTINUED AT PETITIONER'S REQUEST TC? 6/27/89 589-3 Petition of WITTCO, INC. requesting amendment of the future Land Use Map designation from Neighborhood Conservation to Transition of a tract containing 1.612 acres and located on the north side of U. S. 460, 400 feet south of its intersection with Trail Drive in the Hollins Magisterial District. BLJ/HCN TO APPROVE AMENDMENT URC 589-4 Petition of SPRADLIN PETROLEUM requesting rezoning from B-2 Business to B-3 Business of a tract containing .848 acre and located on the west side of U. S. 220, 200 feet north of its intersection with Valley Drive in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. RR/HCN TO CONTINUE TO 6/27/89 SO PETITIONER COULD REVIEW WATER RECYCLING PLANS - URC 589-5 Petition of JERRY & BONNIE WILKINSON requesting rezoning from B-2 Business to B-3 Business with a Special Exception Permit of a tract containing .459 acres and located at 7637 Williamson Road in the Hollins Magisterial District. BLJ/HCN TO APPROVE WITH PROFFERS URC 589-6 Petition of CENTRAL FIDELITY BANK, requesting to amend the Proffered Conditions of a tract containing 1.02 acres and located on the West Side of U. S. 220 at its intersection with Valley Drive in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. 6 landfill on what is known as the "Boones Chapel Site", located on 445.81 acres in the southern portion of Roanoke County, adjacent to the Franklin County line, 2 miles east of Route 220 via Route 677 in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. BLJ/LG TO BRING BACK REPORT IN 60 DAYS (6/27/89) WITH RECOMMENDATIONS URC LG DIRECTED THAT CHAIRMAN OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND CHAIRMAN OF LANDFILL CITIZENS ADV. COMMITTEE WORK WITH STAFF ON RECONII~NDATION 489-8. Special Exception Request of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to publicly own and operate a regional landfill on what is known as the "Smith Gap Site", located on 640.39 acres on the northwest side of Fort Lewis Mountain between Smith Gap-and Bradshaw Road in the Catawba Magisterial District. LG/SAM TO BRING BACK REPORT IN 60 DAYS (6/27/89) WITH RECOMMENDATIONS - URC 489-9. Petition of J L Woltz and R N Bradley to rezone a 2.92 acre tract from R-1, Residential to R-3, Residential to construct multifamily residences, located at 34364 Chaparral Drive in the Cave Spring Magisterial District. (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 28, 1989. ) RR/HCN TO APPROVE WITH PROFFERS AYES-RR,SAM,HCN,LG PASS-BLJ 489-10. Petition of Holiday Retirement Associates to rezone a 0.52 acre tract from R-3, Residential, to B-2, Business, and obtain a Special Exception Permit, to operate a retirement facility, located on Elm View Roac (Route 706), about 0.6 mile south of Route 419, Cave Spring Magisterial District. RR/BLJ TO APPROVE WITH PROFFERS URC 489-11. Petition of W 0.99 acre tract Residential, to southeast corner (Route 623) and District. Emory and Jack Richards to rezone a from B-2, Business, to R-3, construct apartments, located at the r of the intersection of Florist Road Verndale Drive, Hollins Magisterial BLJ/RR TO DENY AYES-BLJ,RR,LG 7 3. Recognition of John Birckhead, Richard Lively and Larry Onan for receiving Senior Appraiser designation from the American Society of Appraisers 4. Receipt of letter of congratulations from President Bush concerning All America City Award 5. Resolution of Congratulation from Roanoke County School Board concerning All America City Award PRESENTED BY BAYES WILSON AND FRANK THOMAS BLJ REQUESTED APPROPRIATE RECOGNITION TO MERIT SCHOLAR FINALISTS FROM ROANOKE COUNTY OLD BUSINESS 1. Reconsideration of denial of approval for VHDA financing for Grouse Point Apartments and Highgate Apartments R-61489-1 HCN/BLJ SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO RESCIND DENIAL ACTION OF 5/9/89 AND ADOPT RESO OF APPROVAL - URC D. NEW BUSINESS 1. (Item was removed for future consideration.) 2. Request to Virginia Department of Transportation for Revenue Sharing Funds for fiscal year 1989/90. R-61489-2 RR/HCN TO APPROVE SAM - ABSENT AYES - BLJ, RR, HCN, LG 3. Approval of contract for Employee Health Insurance A-61489-3 HCN/RR TO APPROVE ALT. #1 AYES-RR,HCN,LG NAYS-BLJ, SAM 4. Approval of Consent Special Order for Dixie Cavern Landfill A-61489-4 LG/SAM TO APPROVE URC 5. Appropriation for Virginia Amateur Sports, Inc. A-61489-5 2