The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8/8/1989 - RegularO~ ROANpr~ •~ A ~ v a 2 C~~~~~ 18 ~~ 88 aFS4UfCENTENN`P~ ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS A Bcnuti~ulBcginning ACTION AGENDA AUGUST 8, 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 will be heard at 7:00 p.m on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. A.. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call: ALL PRESENT 2. Invocation: The Reverend Quentin White Bethel AME Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS. ECH ADDED ITEM B-3, RESOLUTION REQUESTING VDOT FOR MAINTENANCE TO DRAINAGE PIPES ON TANSY DRIVE C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Recognition of Treasurer Alfred Anderson for receiving designation as Certified Finance Official. -~- PRESENTED BY HCN TO FRED ANDERSON D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for authorization to resolve drainage problem at 5162 Cave Spring Lane A-8889-1 RR/SAM TO APPROVE ALT. #1 URC 2. Approval of new position in the Office of the Sheriff A-8889-2 HCN/SAM TO APPROVE ALT- ~1 URC 3, Resolution requesting VDOT for maintenance to drainage pipes on Taney Drive R-8889-3 BLJ/SAM TO ADOPT RESO URC E. REQUEST FOR WORK SESSIONS NONE F, REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance authorizing conveyance of rights of way in Hollins Community Development Project for acceptance into the State Secondary System. BLJ/RR TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - 8/22/89 URC 2. Ordinance authorizing the dedication of County well lots for benefit of the Department of Health. LG/SAM TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - 8/22/89 URC H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance accepting an offer for and authorizing the conveyance of surplus real estate on Route 1832 (Barrens Road) to the Virginia Department of Transportation. 0-8889-4 HCN/SAM TO ADOPT ORD URC 2 I. APPOINTMENTS NONE 1. Community Corrections Resources Board 2. Fifth Planning District Commission 3. Grievance Panel 4. Industrial Development Authority] 5. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 6. Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board J. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS MCGRAW ANNOUNCED THAT THE GRAYSON COMMISSION WILL MEET ON AUG. 14TH. NICKENS ASKED FOR BOARD CONCURRENCE TO DIRECT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO RESTUDY THE POSSIBILITY OF A POLICE DEPT. PROVIDING LAW ENFORCEMENT AND A SHERIFF'S DEPT. FOR JAIL AND COURT COVERAGE AND BRING BACK TO THE BOARD ON AUG. 22 A REPORT FOR CONSIDERATION ON WHETHER ANY FUNDING WILL BE LOST BY HAVING A POLICE DEPT. ASKED THAT THIS INFORMATION BE BROUGHT BACK IN TIME FOR POSSIBLE REFERENDUM IN NOVEMBER. BOARD CONCURRENCE BY VOICE VOTE. K. CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. R-8889-5 BLJ/HCN TO ADOPT RESO URC 1. Approval of Minutes - November 22, 1988 3 L. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS NONE M. REPORTS BLJ/HCN TO RECEIVE AND FILE URC 1. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund RECESS AT 3:25 P.M. N. WORK SESSION 1, Joint Work Session with Planning Commission a. Economic Development Activities, i.e., Proposed Industrial Land Rezonings PRESENTED BY TIM GUBALA b. Zoning Ordinance Revision Update PRESENTED BY JON gARTLEY AND DALE CASTELLOW c. Revision to the Rezoning Process and Forms PRESENTED BY JON HARTLEY 0, EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 NONE P. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION N/A Q, ADJOURNMENT AT 5:52 PM BLJ/RR - URC 4 t ^I ~< POANO,f-F ~ ' ~ 9 ~' Z ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~e v ~ a Z C~~~~~ 18 '~° 88 SFSVUiceNTENN~P~ ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS A Beauri~ulBeRinnin~; AGENDA AUGUST 8, 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 will be heard at 7:00 p.m on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Deviations from this schedule will be announced. A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.) 1. Roll Call. 2. Invocation: The Reverend Quentin White Bethel AME Church 3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag. B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA ITEMS. C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND AWARDS 1. Recognition of Treasurer Alfred Anderson for receiving designation as Certified Finance Official. D. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for authorization to resolve drainage problem at 5162 Cave Spring Lane 2. Approval of new position in the Office of the Sheriff E. REQUEST FOR WORK SESSIONS g'. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance authorizing conveyance of rights of way in Hollins Community Development Project for acceptance into the State Secondary System. 2~ ~edllnlots forhbenefig ofethedDepartment ofuHealth. H, SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance accepting an offer for and authorizing the conveyance of surplus real estate on Route 1832 (Barrens Road) to the Virginia Department of Transportation. I , APPOINTMENTS 1. Community Corrections Resources Board 2, Fifth Planning District Commission 3. Grievance Panel 4, Industrial Development Authority, 5. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 6. Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board J, REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS I{, CONSENT AGENDA 2 ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED BELOW•D FROMITHESCONSENT AGENDADAND WILLTBE CONSIDERED REMOVE SEPARATELY. 1, Approval of Minutes - November 22, 1988 I,, CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS N!, REPORTS 1, Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 2• General Fund Unappropriated Balance 3, Board Contingency Fund N, WORK SESSION 1, Joint Work Session with Planning Commission a, Economic Development Activities, i.e., Proposed Industrial Land Rezonings b, Zoning Ordinance Revision Update c, Revision to the Rezoning Process and Forms O, EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344 p. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION Q. ADJOURNMENT 3 ACTION N0. ITEM NUMBER AT A REGULAR MEETING THE ROANOKER COUNTY UADMINISOTRATOION RCENOTER COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT MEETING DATE: August 8, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Recognition of Alfred Anderson for completing requirements designating him a Certified Finance Officer COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Treasurer Alfred Anderson has recently completed the County Education Certificate Training Program National Continuing administered by the University of Tennessee. As a result o completing these professional development activities~hee N tional designated a Cert iTreasurers and F ~ ance Officers. Association of County / 5 Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ----- --------------- - ----------------------- VOTE Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To: ACTION Motion by: _ Yes No Abs Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers A-8889-1 ACTION # ITEM NUMBER ~../ AT A REGULARAMHELDNp,TOTHEHROANOKE COUNTYEADMINISTRATIONNOCENTER COUNTY, VIRGINI MEETING DATE: August 8, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: g~quest .for authd-rization to resolve drainage Creec problem at 5162 Cave Spring Lane COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENTS : yvL~~; , . !~v~c~~c r,/~'~v ci/l'~~~~v' ' ~ ic-~• .mac-~(,` BACKGROUND: During the 1985 Flood, significant damage was suffered by several properties on the upper reaches of Mudlick Creek in the area of Farmington Drive. This damage was directly related to the inability of a culvert installed in Mudlick Creek at Cave Spring Lane to satisfactorily handle the drainage. This portion of Cave Spring Lane was unimproved. During that period in 1985, the culvert and embankment did wash out which relieved the back water effects to those properties on Fonelof the property owners 1988, Roanoke County was notified by entrance on Farmington Drive that new culverts and a driveway were being installed in Mudlick Creek. Upon investigation, it was determined that the property owner, Mr. David Hauser, at 5162 Cave Spring Lane, had constructed his driveway at this new location. Mr. Hauser was informed of the provisions concerning the Flood Plain Regulations within the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance, and was requested to either remove the facilities or provide the necessary drainage study to verify troterte ownersy and culvert would not cause damage to upstream p p Y This process continued for several months and once it was determined that the engineering study and/ostafpragain met wi th not going to be completed satisfact ~roi 9 't resolution of the Mr. Hauser in early 1989, to try problem. By letter dated March 1, 1989, Mr. Hauser was given until August 1, 1989, to resolve the specific concerns. Based on an inspection of the site on July 25, 1989, Mr. Hauser has not addressed the problem. Again, staff has written to Mr. Hauser requesting the complets~n8of1989se improvements with a completion date no later than Augu `./ "" SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Staff would recommend thabetfundedtthroughrthelcurrenton, if it is required by the County, drainage budget. The cost of thescoffice1foraapp~oPr~ate legalbe forwarded to the County Attorney action to recover the expense. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS ALTERNATIVE N0. 1: Authorize the County Attorney to file wlletehthelworkt Court an injunction to require Mr. Hauser to comp ALTERNATIVE N0. 2: Have the property owner complete the necessary corrective action to resolve potential flooding problems on Farmington. ALTERNATIVE NO. 3: Authorize the Engineering Department through the Drainage Maintenance Program to have theionsrwithvMracHausercompleted and file the necessary legal proves STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff has worked with the property owner to obtain compliance and resolve the problem and would hope thriorhto the property owner will have implemented alternative 2- P ro erty August 8, 1989, Board Meeting. In the event that the p P owner does not implement alternative 2, staff would recommend, the County Attorney will seek an alternative 1, whereby injunction against the property owner for corrective action. SUBMITTED BY: p,PPROVED BY Phi lip T. Henry, P. . Director of Engineering ~.,L ~. x ~C.L~_c. /~ / ~~ Elmer C. Hodge.JJ '''' County Administrator 2 ~ -/ -------- ------------------------ACTION------- VOTE No Yes Abs Approved (x) Motion by: Richard W. Robers/ Garrett x Denied ( ) Steven A McGraw to approve_ Johnson x Received ( ) Alternative #1 McGraw x Referred Nickens x To Robers x cc: File Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering Paul Mahoney, County Attorney Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget 3 ..i. NORTX V Y ~ 2 .. 1, ~ • ws o s s yak ~ . ' / „„ 23 2 ~a ' . ~ I ! ~ toro• ~ 2S ja" 34 ~ 3 ~ O ~ 32 .otat0 , lI! s/N ~ ~ 19 ' • ~ ~ ~ I.OIAt ~ ~ 1AM ~* s ~ \ M • t+m 31 lost ,,,,,, ~ ;,~ 1 ~ ~ N M » -~ ~.. -r . : , ' g ~ 3s r 30 ,~~ ~ ; ~ ..o. i.« „~ ~ • .~ ~~ ~ ti ~ ~~ , ~ .• ~~ ~ ~ ffi . + + u~ ~ ~ ~ ti ~ ~ 11' ~ ' ~0 \ ! r1l ~ 'DRIVEWAY CULVERT '~ ~ '~ ~ » p'' ~ ~ .p ,~ , M r~ ,, , e 42 up/ ~~ Mors ~ " 41 ` ~ ~ Imo' • n ~ ~,s1 ac ' `, ~ ~~ ` s 43 i OOS 2 O 41 ~~i ~ ~ ~ l ~ r ~ ~A r • •• N~ ~~ ~~~ ~.r ~~ f • __ ~ f~ ~ ~ ~ r• ~u«~ ,~uos ~ e _ 39 tar ~ I ~ ua • ' ~' / R ~k ; 2 i ~+i s t r M I,t 9 ~ t+a 1,6Ac la 21 L9SAc 101 tats tt7l ~ 61 AcICl • tso/ 17yAc IOf ./ _ q a fo~~~ taat ~ 1~lAt + I ---- :DRIVEWAY AT ~.~$ CAi~E' SPRING LANE CROSSING l ~ ~ rnm L cx cREE COMMUNITY SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT ,~ '~ s i t ~ , 1, 4 = low 2.1 4 22 s 1 y tOa » , ~\~ ~~~ ,_ 1 `t• / e e ~' ~ - -- - ~ -- :-_ - ._. .~a35.4~ i00 N"m' ~~ pppRK ~' \ ~ X300 / /'~ ~.- V3t~H 21 ~ ltOS ~ n s , VICINITY MAP ,~1~I[Al][ ~* , $a~ ,, ~, 3 ~ ~ ,1 1 4 nQIVF'WL1Y tiVLV G11 ~ Gov "-- ,/ '7.'~r NORTH 7 l~ ~ r `~ \ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ \. 3.57`` a~~e p SC>R 7 r '' ~~ N Tf a)1s'I ` ~~ -~ ~ 241 St ,D ~ a" dot ~~ ~ ru~!• ~JS20t ! n ~p ~9~0 / !sn ~ h!t 4 '~ sra ~ / F ~ ~ 216 Ac 9 an q~ wat ~ ss 146 Ac ID1 a 1 26 !sn 161 ACtC1 l+s~ 1.98Ac to !~ ~ to J ~ 27 ~ lSOI 17S Ac 1C1 " a~ 179 Ac lsss ~ mrA~O _ ~ I - - __ _ c~ fos DRIVEWAY AT ~-CAVE SPRING LANE CROSSING COMMUNITY SERVICES MUDLICK CREEK S~ ` ~ ACTION NUMBER A- 8 8 8 9- 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: August 8, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: temporary law enforcement deputy position. Acceptance of an additional allocation of funds in FY 1989-90 from the State Compensation Board for a COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S C:OMMEN'1'S: ~.r~:- ~~~~`~~~~ ~ SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Virginia State Compensation Board has identified a critical need for additional law enforcement deputies for road patrol throughout the Commonwealth. To meet this critical need, the Governor has approved in his FY 1989-90 budget the funding of ten emergency law enforcement positions. Roanoke County was chosen as one of the ten localities to receive one of these temporary positions. Therefore the FY 1989-90 Compensation Board budget for Roanoke County includes an additional $17,277 for this purpose. Based on the current County pay plan, these funds would need to be supplemented $869 for a full twelve month position. The two additional deputy-sheriff approved in the 1989-90 County budget person for each of two platoons. The allow us to put an additional uniform patrol platoon. This would maintain they rotate through their schedules. ALTERNATIVE AND IMPACTS: uniform patrol positions already will give us one additional new emergency position would patrol officer on the third the balance between platoons as 1. Accept the additional State Compensation Board allocation of $17,277 and use the funds for an additional Deputy Sheriff-Uniform Patrol position and appropriate an additional $869 from the Board Contingency as the County supplement. The cost of the vehicle, uniform, and other equipment required for this new position will be funded within the existing Sheriff's Department budget. 2. Accept the additional State Compensation Board allocation and use the funds to pay for a Deputy Sheriff-Uniform Patrol position currently being funded 100 percent by the County of Roanoke. There would be a cost savings to the County of $17,277. STAFF RNDATIONS: ~ ~ `""~'~ Staff recommends Alternative 1 to honor the intent of the budget allocation by the State Compensation Board for the emergency law enforcement position. The County has identified a need for additional patrol officers and the State has found a way to help our situation, even if it is a temporary solution. Respectfully sulxnitted, Reta R. Busher Director of Management and Budget Approved (x) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred ( ) To Approved by, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator ACTION Notion by: Harry C. Nickens/ Steven A. McGraw to approve Alternative #1 VO`I`E No Yes Abs Garrett x _ Johnson x _ McGraw x _ Nickens x _ Robers x cc: File Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Michael Kavanaugh, Sheriff D. Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources ._. ~.~' AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY ,VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COU1989~MINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY,AUGUST 8, RESOLUTION 8889-3 REQUESTING ASSISTANCE TO RESOLVE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS ON TANSY DRIVE WHEREAS, the residents living on Taney Drive have experienced flooding in their homes recently, and WHEREAS, efforts to correct this problem by maintaining the drainage pipes have not successfully resolved this problem. BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia respectfully requests that the Virginia Department of Transportation investigate the drainage problems on Taney Drive and and that they make the necessary repairs under their maintenance program to alleviate the flooding problems. On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor McGraw, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None A COPY TESTS: `~)~.~ ,~ Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator Fred Altizer, Resident Engineer, VDOT ACTION N0. ITEM NUMBER~J AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 8, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Request to Va. Department of Transportation for maintenance to drainage pipes on Taney Drive COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION• Residents on Taney Drive in the Hollins Magisterial District have experienced flooding in their homes recently due to insufficient drainage. A crew has been sent to unclog the pipes, but this has not alleviated the problem. The attached resolution requests that the Virginia Department of Transportation inspect the drainage pipes along Taney Drive and that they make the necessary repairs under their maintenance program to alleviate the flooding problems. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the attached resolution be adopted requesting assistance from the Virginia Department of Transportation to resolve the flooding problems on Taney Drive. ~; 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,AUGUST 8, 1989 RESOLUTION REQUESTING ASSISTANCE TO RESOLVE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS ON TANSY DRIVE WHEREAS, the residents living on Taney Drive have experienced flooding in their homes recently, and WHEREAS, efforts to correct this problem by maintaining the drainage pipes have not successfully resolved this problem. BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia respectfully requests that the Virginia Department of Transportation investigate the drainage problems on Taney Drive and and that they make the necessary repairs under their maintenance program to alleviate the flooding problems. a C~ C ~~~/ ~ ~ ~ - ~~~ 7~ ~ _ /~ 9~ ~~ ~ ~5 ~-- ~ ~ aL-. ~-- ~ -.~ ~ ~~~ . ~ ~~ ~~. ~- ~~ ~~~ J~ . ~ ~~` ~e ,~, O i 4 ~ ' ~ J~ ` ~ . cr O~ ~~~~ ~~ G°ae JQ'GG ~e P`ea~GO ~yOJ v GP~~ P Pip p5~ ypJ y0 `~r . ~~ ~~O p5 ~~ ~ . ,. GPI ~5~ PG~J ~. ? ` k ~~~ r ~ ~~ ~o'~ O~ ROANp~~ ~~ •A L Z p _~ J a 18 . E~ 88 SFSQUICENTENN~P~ A Beautifu/Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE C~n~tnt~ nrf ~n~ttnnkr Mr. Larry K. Cecil 5509 Taney Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Dear Mr. Cecil: July 19, 1989 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Thank you for your letter of July 13, 1989, concerning the drainage problems you have been experiencing at your home on Taney Drive. A number of calls were received about this situation indicating that the pipes were clogged; however, when a crew went out to unclog the pipes, they were flowing freely. The county is repairing the erosion. The Virginia Department of Transportation has -responsibility for the pipes which were designed for a ten year storm and no~;,rans more like a twenty-five year storm. The State has not been`_willing in the past to replace the pipes but we believe there-`-is"sufficient evidence to get them to do so now. ,: I ,.will :takes ;thsW to the Board of Supervisors as an agenda item requesting tha~:the State replace the pipes. If the State refuses our request, this project will be put on our priority list. According to George Simpson, this project would be at least 29th on the list, and it may be twelve months to eighteen months before work could be started. In the meantime, we will continue to maintain the pipes and drainage area. When we have something definite from the State about the project, we will be back in touch with you. If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to call me or Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering. ECH/bjh cc: Martin Carle Clarence Wise Bob L. Johnson ,Phillip Henry, Sincerely, Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703; 772-2004 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: August 8, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Hollins Project - Conveyance to Botetourt County of Right-of-Ways for inclusion in State Secondary System COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: Jt.~~ ~~~.~~-~( SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: As part of the road improvements undertaken by the Hollins Community Development Project, eleven (11) parcels of land physically located in Botetourt County were conveyed by adjacent property owners to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. In order that the Roads "B" and "C" can be accepted into the State Secondary System, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) is requiring that the right-of-ways for these two roads be deeded to Botetourt County. Three of the parcels are physically located in Botetourt County but were carried on the Roanoke County tax roles. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the conveyance of these parcels to Botetourt County so that these roads can be accepted into the State Secondary System by VDOT. 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, TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1989 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN HOLLINS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR ACCEPTANCE INTO STATE SECONDARY SYSTEM WHEREAS, certain parcels of real estate located in Botetourt County, Virginia, were deeded to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, in order to permit the widening and improvements of two roads as a part of the "Hollins Community Development Project" financed in part by Roanoke County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, for the portions of these two roads lying in Botetourt County, Virginia, it is necessary that the right-of-ways and easements for said roads be deeded to the Board of Supervisors of Botetourt County, Virginia, as a condition for the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) accepting these roads into the Virginia Secondary Road System. THEREFORE, 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 Charter of the County of Roanoke, a first reading concerning the conveyance of the hereinafter described real estate was held on August 8, 1989. A second reading on this matter was held on August 22, 1989. The real estate involved consists of eleven (11) parcels of land located in Botetourt County, Virginia, and previously conveyed to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, by various land owners for the purpose of improving two roads. J.- 2 2. That Parcels 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, and 48 as shown on a set of plans entitled "Hollins Community Development Project" located in the office of the Roanoke County Department of Public Facilities are hereby authorized and approved to be conveyed to the Board of Supervisors of Botetourt County, Virginia, for the purpose of acceptance of Road "B" and "C" in this project unto the State Secondary System of the Virginia Department of Transportation. 3. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the conveyance of this property, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. 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: August 8, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Well Lot Dedications Department of Health COUNTY,/~ADMINISTRA/~TOR' S COMM/ENTS BACKGROUND' J Virginia Department of Health regulations require that parcels being used by a local government as a location of a well for a public water system be dedicated exclusively to that purpose. Such a dedication or restrictive covenant must be recorded with the deed records before the Department of Health will issue a permit for the localities use of any well. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Department of Utilities currently has the following four lots which it is prepared to put into service with the County's water system: 1. Fairway Forest Estates, Section 2, Deed Book 1287, pages 810-811. 2. Arlington Hills Well Lot #3, Lot 12, Block 5, Map of Arlington Hills, Deed Book 1044, Page 824. 3. Arlington Hills Well Lot #4, Lot 19, Block 1, Section 2, Map of Layman Lawn, Deed Book 1044, page 823. 4. Bonsack Well Lot, 0.43 acres abutting on Virginia Secondary Route 758, Deed Book 1285, page 1521-1522. Board action is needed to authorize the conveyance of this dedication for the benefit of the Department of Health so that these wells may be put into operation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board concur in the dedication of these well lots. Respectfully submitted, °'""" ~~~. Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Action Vote No Yes Abs Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Motion by 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, TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1989 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING DEDICATION OF COUNTY WELL LOTS FOR BENEFIT OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke owns certain well lots which its Department of Utilities is desirous of putting into service for the County's water system; and WHEREAS, prior to issuing a permit for the operation of any well by a locality the Department of Health requires that said lot be dedicated exclusively for use as a well lot and not for human habitation or other activity which might pose a danger of contamination to that source of water. THEREFORE, 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 Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading on the dedication of the hereinafter-described real estate was held on August 8, 1989. A second reading on this matter was held on August 22, 1989. 2. That the dedication of the following well lots exclusively for water supply use and to the exclusion of human habitation or other sources of contamination is hereby authorized and approved. (1) Fairway Forest Estates, Section 2, Deed Book 1287, pages 810-811. (2) Arlington Hills Well Lot #3, Lot 12, Block 5, Map of Arlington Hills, Deed Book 1044, page 824. (3) Arlington Hills Well Lot #4, Lot 19, Block 1, '_'. ,, Section 2, Map of Layman Lawn, Deed Book 1044, page 823. (4) Bonsack Well Lot, 0.43 acres abutting on Virginia Secondary Route 758, Deed Book 1285, pages 1521- 1522. 3. That the County Administrator is authorized to execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the dedications of these well lots, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1989 ORDINANCE 8889-4 ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR AND AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF SURPLUS REAL ESTATE ON ROUTE 1832 (BARRENS ROAD) 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 is being made available for other public uses by conveyance to the Virginia Department of Transportation. 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 July 25, 1989; and a second reading was held on August 8, 1989, concerning the conveyance of certain real estate located along Route 1832 (Barrens Road) identified on Sheets 3 and 4 of the plans for Route 1832, State Highway Project 1832-080-196, C501. The conveyance of this real estate consists of 566 square feet of land in fee, 305 square feet in permanent drainage easement, and 4,966 square feet in temporary construction easement. 3. That the offer of the Virginia Department of Transportation in the amount of $3,695.00 is hereby accepted and the conveyance of the real estate described above to the Virginia Department of Transportation 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. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor r L ~ ~ McGraw, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisor Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors cc: File Paul Mahoney, County Attorney John Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering 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: August 8, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR AND AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF SURPLUS REAL ESTATE ON ROUTE 1832 (BARRENS ROAD) TO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND• SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: The Virginia Department of Transportation is in the process of acquiring the right-of-way needed for the widening of Route 1832 (Barrens Road). This road passes in front of the Fire Station #5. The right-of-way needed includes 566 square feet of land, 305 square feet of land in permanent drainage easement, and 4,966 square feet of land in temporary construction easement. The offer to cover this transaction and all related damages is $3,695.00, which the County Assessor has agreed is the fair market value. Staff also feels that all improvements to this roadway will have a positive impact provided that, during the construction period an entrance and exit to Fire Station #5 be kept open at all times and, at the end of each day's work, gravel be placed in areas used for the entrance and exit. The first reading of this proposed ordinance was held on July 25, 1989; the second reading was held on August 8, 1989. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: The Virginia Department of Transportation has offered $3,695.00 for the acquisition of land and improvements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the second reading of this ordinance be held on August 8, 1989, and that the County Administrator be I"~/ "' authorized to execute the necessary documents to consummate this transaction. Respectfully submitted, C~ ~ r ~ 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, TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1989 ORDINANCE ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR AND AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF SURPLUS REAL ESTATE ON ROUTE 1832 (BARRENS ROAD ) 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 is being made available for other public uses by conveyance to the Virginia Department of Transportation. 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 July 25, 1989; and a second reading was held on August 8, 1989, concerning the conveyance of certain real estate located along Route 1832 (Barrens Road) identified on Sheets 3 and 4 of the plans for Route 1832, State Highway Project 1832-080-196, C501. The conveyance of this real estate consists of 566 square feet of land in fee, 305 square feet in permanent drainage easement, and 4,966 square feet in temporary construction easement. 3. That the offer of the Virginia Department of Transportation in the amount of $3,695.00 is hereby accepted and the conveyance of the real estate described above to the Virginia Department of Transportation 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 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: August 8, 1989 SUBJECT: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS' SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Communitv Corrections Resources Board One-year term of Edmund J. Kielty, Alternate. His term expired August 13, 1988. Fifth Planning District Commission Three-year term of John Hubbard, Citizen Representative and Executive Committee member expired June 30, 1989. Mr. Hubbard does not wish to serve another term. Grievance Panel Two-year term of Kim Owens will expire on September 27, 1989. Industrial Development Authority Four-year terms of Billy H. Branch, Cave Spring District, and W. Darnall Vinyard, Vinton District will expire on September 26, 1989. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Three-year term of Alice Gillespie, Hollins Magisterial District will expire June 30, 1989. .:~~ SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Mary H. Allen Elmer C. Hodge Deputy Clerk County Administrator ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: Yes No Abs Denied ( ) Garrett Received ( ) Johnson Referred McGraw To• Nickens Robers ACTION N0. ITEM NUMBER Z~ AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 8, 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 Supervisors voted to continue this Board and appoint new members. Michael Lazzuri, Director of Court Services has contacted the present members of the Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board to determine whether they wished to continue serving. The following terms expired in 1988 or will expire in 1989. Appointments to this committee are not made by magisterial district; however, the magisterial district is listed for each member. Two-year term of James L. Trout, Vinton Magisterial District, will expire March 22, 1989. Mr. Trout has not responded to Mr. Lazzuri's letter. Two-year term of Ted R. Powell, Cave Spring Magisterial District, will expire March 22, 1989. Mr. Powell would like to be reappointed. Two-year term of Hoyt C. Rath, Vinton Magisterial District, will expire March 22, 1989. Mr. Rath does not wish to serve another term. Two-year term of Dr. Andrew Archer, Vinton Magisterial District expired March 22, 1988. Dr. Archer does not wish to be reappointed. In addition to the appointments listed above, it is necessary to appoint four youth members, one each from Cave Spring High School, Northside High School, Glenvar High School, William Byrd High School. Mr. Lgzzuri recommends that these opntment emade rin from September throu h September. Therefore, app ~~ 1989 will expire September 1, 1989. Thereafter all terms will expire September 1, coinciding with the school year. SUBMITTED BY: ~- Mary H. lien Deputy Clerk APPROVED BY: ~'~ ~~n L Elmer C. Hodge 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, AUGUST 8, 1989 RESOLUTION N0.8889-5 APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM K - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That that certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for August 8, 1989, designated as Item K - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 inclusive, as follows: 1. Approval of Minutes - November 22, 1988 2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to this resolution. On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor Nickens, and upon the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None A COPY TESTE: ~• Mary H. Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors 8/9/89 cc: File K- ~ ~~ ~ ~ November 22 ~ 9B_ J "- Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Roanoke County Administration Center 3738 Brambleton Avenue, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24018 November 22, 1988 The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day at the Roanoke County Administration Center, this being the fourth Tuesday, and the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month of November, 1988. IN RE: CALL TO ORDER Chairman Garrett called the meeting to order at 3:07 p.m. The roll call was taken. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Lee Garrett, Vice Chairman Richard Robers, Supervisors Bob L. Johnson, Steven A. McGraw, Harry C. Nickens MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator; John M Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator for Human Services; John R. Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator of Community Services and Development; Don M. Myers, Assistant County Administrator for 272 November 22~_198~ Management Services; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney, Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk; IN RE: OPENING CEREMONIES The invocation was given by The Reverend G. Thomas Brown, Southview United Methodist Church. Allegiance was recited by all present. IN RE: AGENDA ITEM The Pledge of REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF County Administrator Elmer Hodge requested that the resolution of support for the Regional Work Farm be continued to December 13, 1988. IN RE: NEW BUSINESS 1. Appro pria tion of Roadway funds for acce ptance of Re_d Barn Lane into the State's Secondary Road System• Director of Development and Inspections Arnold Covey advised that the Developer Elmer Craft has filed for ..^_hapter 11 Bankruptc}~ and is unable to post the necessary bonds and fees required by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Staff is requesting that ~,. 273 the County fund the maintenance fee and bond using the FY 88-89 Road Activity monies so that the road may be taken into the Secondary System. Supervisor Nickens asked why the homeowners did not put up the bond money. Mr. Covey responded that this process would take longer and the road could deteriorate requiring more maintenance cost. Supervisor Johnson moved to appropriate the funds. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None RESOLUTION 112288-1 AUTHORIZING -APPROPRIATION OF ROADWAY FUNDS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF RED BARN LANE INTO THE STATE SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM WHEREAS, the developer of Little Tree Acres subdivision located in Roanoke County has completed the physical improvements necessary for Red Barn Lane to be accepted in the State's Secondary Road System; and WHEREAS, said developer has filed Chapter 11 Bankruptcy and therefore is presently unable to post the necessary bonds and fees required for street acceptance; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation 27 4 November 22, 1988 (VDOT) will accept Red Barn Lane into the State Secondary Road System once the road maintenance fee and one year warranty bond are submitted; and WHEREAS, the cost of the maintenance fee and bond are estimated to be Three Hundred Dollars ($300); and WHEREAS, the maximum bonding liability could be approxi- mately Three Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Dollars ($3,750) but only if the street fails and VDOT demands payment; and WHEREAS, any monies expended for the acceptance. of Red Barn Lane into the State Secondary System would have to be allo- Gated from the FY 88-89 road activity fund and the escrow road account. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Supervi- sors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that said Board supports the expenditure of County funds to facilitate acceptance of Red Barn Lane into the State Secondary Road System and that the expendi- ture of funds from the FY 88-89 road activity fund and the escrow road account to accomplish this purpose is hereby authorized. On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett NAYS: None 2. Request for Improvements at the Administration Center: Assistant County Administrator reported that several i _ 27 5 Nnvamha~~,-~~~~ requests for improvements are for safety purposes. The hallways are very slick causing accidents both to the citizens and employees, and there are no directional signs at the entrance to the Administration Center. Staff is also requesting proper signage at the front of the building and the upper parking lot needs paving. Staff recommends that all four improvements be funded. Supervisor Nickens moved to that funds be allocated for carpeting and si na e onl -- g y. The motion was--seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw Nickens _--Garrett---:_ ___:: --- - _. --- --- -_--- NAYS : None - - - -- - _ .. 3. ProctreGS Report by the Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley Dr. Henry Sullivan was present and reviewed the annual report of the organization, and how Roanoke County's contribution was spent. Supervisor Nickens moved to to receive the report. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following voice vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None IN RE: APPOINTMENTS -._-..__.---.--.---_-_---__ 27F November 22, 1988 1 Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Vallev Board of Directors: Supervisor Robers nominated Rita Gliniecki to serve a three-year term. IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS Su~,ervisor Johnson advised he had received complaints regarding leaf collection. Mr. Hodge responded that the staff will be working overtime to catch up. Supervisor Johnson also asked the staff to report back to the Board the feasibility of upstream retention below the new airport run. If staff deems this project feasible he will take the request to the_Regional Airport Commission. He also directed the staff to review the commissions, committees and boards to determine which ones should be compensated for travel or meals. Supervisor Robers announced that former Supervisor May Johnson has been ill and was just released from the hospital. Supervisor McGraw requested that all localities refrain from discussing what might happen concerning the consolidation issues, particularly as it pertains to employment of local government workers. He asked Chairman Garrett to contact Roanoke City Mayor Taylor to ascertain if Roanoke City has a predisposition in regard to the elimination in any reorganization plan. He reported that VACo had approved the VACO/VML Task Force f 27 7 report which will be presented to the Grayson Commission in December. Supervisor McGraw announced he had been elected Second Vice President of VACo for the upcoming year. supervisor Garrett advised that the Board of Supervisors is working behind the scenes on the potential merger and does not plan a "knee-jerk" reaction to the issue. IN RE: CONSENT AGENDA Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the Consent Agenda with Item 11 removed. The motion was seconde_d_ by `Supervisor - -- _ _ __ Garrett and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett - NAYS: None RESOLUTION N0.112288- APPROVING AND CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I - CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That that certain section of the agenda of the Board of Supervisors for November 22, 1988, designated as Item I - Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1 through 11, inclusive, as follows: 27 8 November 22, 1986 1. Confirmation of appointments to the Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals, Grievance Panel, Library Board, Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley, Board of Directors, and Planning Commission. 2. Acknowledgment from the Virginia Department of Transportation that the following roads have been taken into the Secondary System: a. 0.06 miles of White Eagle Lane b. 0.15 miles of Buffalo Circle c. 0.04 miles of Blackhawk Circle d. 0.07 miles of Tee Pee Lane e. 0.20 miles of Warrior Drive f. 0.08 miles of Buckskin Lane g. 0.10 miles of Warbonnet Road h 0.07 miles of Canoe Circle i. 0.09 miles of Tomahawk Circle j. 0.09 miles of Scout Circle 3. Approval of Resolution to add 0.076 miles, North Roanoke/Franklin County Line, Route 660,--to VDOT Secondary System due to relocation and construction changes. 4. Request for acceptance of Past Times Lane into VDOT Secondary System. 5. Request for acceptance of Ranchcrest Drive, Snow Owl Drive and Golden Eagle Lane into VDOT Secondary System. 6. Request for acceptance of Fort Lewis Circle into VDOT Secondary System. 7. Request for acceptance of Green Ridge Court into VDOT Secondary System. 8. Request for acceptance of water and sewer facilities serving Junipine Subdivision. 9. Acceptance of water and sewer facilities serving Penn Forest Hills. 10. Approval of Resolution of support for Roanoke Valley Chamber of Commerce's Application to the i 27 9 November 22, 1986 Department of Economic Development for Small Business Center. 11. Al9pregrrettett- - e€- BEA- €ttnels- fie- ~l~e- Sl~err€€rs Bepertment- 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 Garrett with Item 11 removed. The motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None RESOLUTION 11228.8-3.c REQUESTING CHANGES IN THE SECONDARY SYSTEM DUE TO RELOCATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF BROOKRIDGE ROAD (ROUTE 660) BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the proceedings herein, and upon the application of Brookridge Road (Route 660), that this Secondary Route from 1.462 miles north of the Roanoke/Franklin County line to 1.538 miles north of the Roanoke/Franklin County line, a distance of 0.076 miles, has been altered and a new road has been constructed and approved by the 28 0 November 22, 1988 State Transportation Commissioner, which new road serves the same citizens as the road so altered;' 2. That certain sections of this new road follow new locations, these being shown on the attached sketched titled "Changes in Secondary System Due to Relocation and Construction on Route 660, Project 0660-080-173,M502, dated at Richmond, Virginia July 6, 1988." 3. That the portions of Secondary Route 660 (Section #2) shown in red on the aforementioned sketch for a total distance of 0.076 miles be, and hereby is, added to Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to Section 33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia, as amended 1988;" 4. And further, that the sections of old location, (Section #1) shown in blue on the aforementioned sketch, for a total distance of 0.08 miles, be, and the same hereby is, abandoned as a public road, pursuant to Section 33.1-155 of the Code of Virginia, as amended 1988. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett NAYS: None RESOLUTION 112288-3.d REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF PAST TIMES LANE INTO VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM November 22, 1988 ~ 8 ,; BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke '' County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the proceedings herein, and upon the application of Past Times Lane from its intersection with Labaqn Road (Route 849) to the terminus at the cul-de-sac for a distance of 0.09 miles, to be accepted and made a part of of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code. 2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have been dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as Junipine Subdivision which map recorded in Plat Book 10, Book 37, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke . County, Virginia, on December 23, 1986 and that by reason of the recordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers, nor Consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said right-of-way for drainage. 3. That said road known as Past Times Lane and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as public road to become a part of the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation. ~; .,~~ -c 2~ 2 November 22, 1 On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett NAYS: None ' RESOLUTION 112288-3.e REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF RANCHCREST DRIVE, SNOW OWL DRIVE AND GOLDEN EAGLE LANE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the proceedings herein, and upon the application of Ranchcrest Drive from its intersection with Merriman Road (Route 613) to the intersection of Snow Owl Drive for a distance of 0.11 miles, Snow Owl Drive from its intersection with Golden Eagle Lane to the end of cul-de-sac and intersecting with Merriman Road for a distance of 0.21 miles, and Golden Eagle Lane from cul-de-sac to cul-de-sac and intersecting with Golden Eagle Lane for a distance of 0.14 miles, to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code. 2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have been dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as Penn Forest Hills November 22, 1988 28 3 Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 63, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circ~iit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on May 21, 1987, and that by reason of the recordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers, nor consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said right-of-way for drainage. 3. That said road known as Ranchcrest Drive, Snow Owl Drive and Golden Eagle Lane and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as public road to become a part of the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett NAYS: None RESOLUTION 112288-3.f REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF FORT LEWIS CIRCLE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: ~ J 28 4 November 22, 1988 1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the proceedings herein, and upon the application of Fort Lewis Circle from its intersection with Locust Grove Lane (Route 1110) to the terminus at the cul-de-sac for a distance of 0.11 miles, to be accepted and made a part of of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code. 2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have been dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as Fort Lewis Village which map was recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 125, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on January 1, 1973 and that by reason of the recordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers, nor consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said right-of-way for drainage. 3. That said road known as Fort Lewis Circle and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as public road to become a part of the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote: r ~~~~5 November 22, 198 AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett NAYS: None RESOLUTION 112288-3.q REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF GREEN RIDGE COURT INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That this matter came .this day to be heard upon the proceedings herein, and upon the application of Green Ridge Court from its intersection with Wood Haven Road (Route 628) to the terminus at the cul-de-sac for a distance of 0.16 miles, to be accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code. 2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way for said road have been dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as Green Ridge Village Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 110, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on October 29, 1987 and that by reason of the recordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers, nor consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said right-of-way for drainage. 28 fi November 22, 1988 3. That said road known as Green Ridge Court and which is shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same is hereby established as public road to become a part of the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only from and after notification of official acceptance of said street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett NAYS: None RESOLUTION 112288-3.~ SUPPORTING THE ROANOKE VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE APPLICATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR A SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE CENTER WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley Chamber of Commerce will submit a 1988 application for Department of Economic Development Funds; and, WHEREAS, the Department of Economic Development has allo- cated $200,000 for the establishment of Small Business Assistance Centers from which the Roanoke Valley Chamber of Commerce will request $75,000; and, WHEREAS, the Roanoke Valley Chamber of Commerce will use the requested funds to assist in the development of small businessF in the Roanoke Metropolitan Statistical Area; and, 28 7 November 22, 1988 WHEREAS, small business start-ups and expansions generated over 61 percent of all new jobs from 1976 to 1984; and, WHEREAS, small firms are important to the develoment and introduction of new goods and services to the public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, said Board supports the Roanoke Valley Chamber of Commerce application to the Department of Economic Development for funding of a Small Business Assistance Center in its efforts to assist in the development of small businesses. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett NAYS: None IN RE; APPROPRIATION OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FUNDS FOR THE ROANOKE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT Supervisor Nickens asked if the $61,147 could be specifically directed toward the three-person team now involved in drug enforcement in Roanoke County. County Attorney Paul Mahoney advised that regulations place specific limits on where the money can be spent and the chief law enforcement officer must designate on the fund application how the money will be spent. za8 November 22, 1985 Supervisor Nickens pointed out that more than $6200 in donated funds for a dog may be needed to cover the training for the handler of the dog. Supervisor Nickens moved to continue the item to the December meeting so that the Sheriff could be present. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw. Mr. Hodge advised that the Sheriff felt a sense of urgency in approving appropriation of the funds and requested a vote at this meeting. Supervisor Johnson felt that the regulations were established by the various agencies concerning the $61,000 allocation, but questions still_ remain on the $6200 request for a drug enforcement dog. Supervisor Nickens responded he still felt that the board needed to know exactly how the $61,000 would be spent for drug enforcement activities. Supervisor Johnson made a substitute motion to separate the two issues. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None Supervisor Johnson moved to appropriate $61,147.81 to the Sheriff's budget with the stipulation that the financial staff meet with the Sheriff's Department and County Attorney to set up a procedure for tracking the funds and for what purpose 28 9 November 22, 1988 ~-~ ,. the funds will be spent. The motion was seconded by Superviso: Robers and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Garrett NAYS: Supervisor Nickens Supervisor Johnson moved that the Sheriff attend thF next board meeting to discuss the appropriation of the $6200 donated funds and that the money remain in the bank until the Sheriff meetings with the Board. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None IN RE: CITIZENS COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 1. S7errv Grubb advised he purchased a lot in the Stonewood subdivision knowing it would require a well. He later found out his property was within 100 feet of a public water line. He requested that the County waive the water ordinance allowing him to hook up through private easements. At the November 9 board meeting, the board denied his request for a waiver. He requested reconsideration of his request for connection to a public water line through private easements. Utility Director Clifford Craig reported that this ordinance was adopted to keep the system consistent for all areas 29 u November 22, 1986 provided by public water, including full fire service and pressure. In response to a question from Supervisor Nickens, the County Attorney advised that the Board may move to reconsider the previous action and take another vote or take no action leaving the decision on November 9 in effect. No action was taken and the denial of November 9, 1988 remained in effect. 2. Frances Robbins, 620 Hiah Street, Salem spoke on behalf of her mother Marie Mitchell, 3043 Franklin Street, Salem. She requested that a water line be run through a lot adjacent to her property and has applied for a water connection on November 1. Her spring system was clogged in July 1988. The clog was cleared and the spring treated. The water was tested and shows the water to be contaminated, making it necessary for her to live with Ms. Robbins. Utility Director Clifford Craig advised that she could be authorized to hook up to Salem's water service but would not approve a water connection to the water main on Franklin Street. She is requesting connection to the Franklin Street water main primarily because of the expense of connecting to the Salem water service. -_ Chairman Garrett directed the staff to investigate and bring back a recommendation to the board for approval. IN RE: REPORTS November 22, 1988 291 Following discussion on item 2, Supervisor Nickens moved to receive and file the following reports. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following voice vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None 1. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4. Financial Statements for October 1988 5. Accounts Paid for October 1988 IN RE: WORK SESSION 1 Proposed Amendments to the Employee Handbook: Mr. Hodge reported that the proposed employee handbook had been reviewed by staff, the constitutional officers and the Employee Advisory Committee who had made suggestions.: Director of Human yi Resources Keith Cook advised this was the first major rewrite Z` since 1984. He outlined the major changes in each chapter. ;;. ,~r ~~, Supervisor Johnson directed that every department hea ~,~ ~~' keep an up-to-date copy of the handbook at all time. Mr. Hodge ! asked that the 1500 maximum--per employee per year regarding 29 2 November 22, 198 temporary and part-time employees be deleted from the handbook. Supervisor Johnson asked that recalls after a layoff be extended to 24 months; that employees have the right to written rebuttal of any disciplinary action; that the solicitation policy be loosened. Supervisor Nickens asked that break times be designated for specific times; that the section dealing with promotions not specify a salary increase; that staff study the suspension and dismissal policy concerning use or possession of alcoholic beverages; that holidays hours be defined as eight hours. Mr. Hodge advised staff will bring back the handbook for approval incorporating the changes requested by the Board of Supervisors. IN RE: EXECUTIVE SESSION At 5:10 p.m., Supervisor Garrett moved to go into Executive Session pursuant to the Code of Virginia, Section 2-1- 344 (a) (3) to consider acquisition or use of real estate for Cave Spring Rescue Squad (1) to consider a personnel appointment; (7) legal matter, Dixie Caverns Landfill and CL&0 Investors v. Board of Supervisors. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Nickens and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, Nickens, Garrett November 22, 1988 ~9 3 NAYS: None ABSENT: Supervisor McGraw IN RE; OPEN SESSION At 5:35 p.m. Supervisor Robers moved to return to open session and recess for dinner. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None IN RE: EVENING SESSION At 7: 05 p.m., Chairman Garrett reconvened the meeting and introduced a Weeblo Boy Scout Troop that was attending the meeting. IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS 1188-1 Petition of Lucv M. Clark to rezone a 0.62 acre tract from B-1 Business to B-2 Business, to bring the existing convenience store into conformance with the zoning ordinance, located at 4145 West Main Street, Route 460, Catawba Magisterial District. No one spoke in opposition to the petition. Supervisor McGraw moved to grant the rezoning petition. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Nickens and carried by the following recorded vote: 29 4 November 22, 1988 AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None FINAL ORDER NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED that the aforementioned parcel of land which is contained in the Roanoke County Tax Maps as Parcel 54.05-1-14 and recorded in Deed Book 1218 and legally described below, be rezoned from B-1 Business District to B-2 Business with conditions District BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be transmitted to the Secretary of the Planning Commission and that he be directed to reflect that change on the official zoning map of Roanoke County. BEGINNING at a point on the northerly site at the Lee Highway (U S Route 11) at the southwesterly corner of the J. P. Sutphin line, and along the easterly side of a 9.8 foot roadway right of way, N. 220 56'W, 173.6 feet to the property of D. E. Phlegar;thence with his line S 220 04' E. 162.1 feet to the northerly side of said Lee Highway; thence with same N. 620 56' E. 174.2 feet to the place of BEGINNING, and containing 0.62 acre; BEING the same property conveyed to the grantors herein by deed dated April 9, 1985, and recorded in the clerk's office of the Circuit Court of the County of Roanoke, Virginia in Deed Book 1218, page 1866 November 22, 1988 29 5 PROFFERED CONDITIONS 1, The property will not be used for car dealerships, public billiard parlors, poolrooms or commercial kennels. 2. Total signage not to exceed 300 sq. ft. No billboard signs to be erected on the property. 3. Dumpster will be appropriately screened. 1188-2 Petition of Fralin & Waldron, Inc. for Planning Commission review of compatibility of Comprehensive Development Plan and a proposed waste water treatment plant to serve Forest Edge, Section 3, located north side of Route 221 (Bent Mountain Road), 40 feet east of Route 696 (Martins Creek Road), Windsor Hills Magisterial District. Planner Jon Hartley advised that this petitions requires Planning Commission review. The Board of Supervisors is not required to hear the petition unless they desire to '~; overrule the vote of the Planning Commission. '' Supervisor Nickens moved to table this petition until Fralin and Waldron request a hearing. The motion was seconded by ~; _ Supervisor Robers and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None 1188-3 Public Hearing for citizens to comment upon County's request that the General Assembly amend Section 2.02, Taxing Powers; Section 8.03 Additional Powers, Commissioner of Revenue; Section 9.03, Board of zoning Appeals, of the existing Charter. 29 6 November 22, 1988 County Attorney Paul Mahoney outlined the changes to the charter that will be requested of the General Assembly. The amendment to Section 2.02 will bring the meals tax into compliance; amendment to Section 8.03 will allow the Commissioner of Revenue to issue summons for automobile decal violations; and Section 9.03 will authorize the appointment of Board of Zoning Appeals by the Board of Supervisors rather than the Circuit Court. Ed Maxey, chairman of the Board of Zoning Appeals spoke in opposition to changing the method of appointment to the BZA. He also requested that the Board consider reimbursing members of the Board for their expenses. Carlton Wight, 6939 Woodhaven Road, also a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals, also spoke opposition to the charter amendment. Supervisor Nickens advised he was opposed to this change also. Supervisor Nickens moved to to separate each charter amendment for a separate vote. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the request to amend Section 2.02 concerning the meals tax. The motion was r November 22, 1989 297 seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None Supervisor Nickens moved to amend Section 8.03, enforcement of auto decal violations by the Commissioner of the Revenue. The motion was seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None Supervisor Nickens moved that Section 9.03 not be amended to change appointment of the Board of Zoning Appeals. The motion died for lack of second. Supervisor Johnson moved to amend Section 9.03. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Garrett NAYS: Supervisor Nickens RESOLUTION 112288-5 REQUESTING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA TO AMEND THE CHARTER FOR ROANOKE COUNTY WHEREAS, Article VII, Section 2 of the Constitution of Virginia, and Chapter 17 of Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia 29 8 November 22, 1988 authorizes the General Assembly to grant a governmental charter to a county or to amend an existing charter; and WHEREAS, the 1986 General Assembly granted Roanoke County a charter, as found in the 1986 Acts of Assembly, Chapter 617; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors finds that certain amendments thereto are necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare of the County, and for more efficient and effective local government; and WHEREAS, Roanoke County has complied with the provi- sions of Section 15.1-835 of the Code of Virginia, and has held a public hearing on these proposed charter amendments on November 22, 1988, after due legal notice, at which the citizens had the opportunity to be heard concerning these proposed charter amend- ments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervi- sors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that the General Assembly for the Commonwealth of Virginia is hereby requested to amend the charter for Roanoke County, Virginia. These charter amendments to Section 2.02 Taxing Powers; Section 8.03 Additional Powers, Commissioner of the Revenue; and Section 9.03 Board of Zoning Appeals are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference for submission as a bill for consideration by the General Assembly. 29 g November 22, 1988 On motion of Supervisor Nickens to separate issues, seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett NAYS: None On motion of Supervisor Nickens to approve Section 2.02, Meals Tax, Section 8.03, Enforcement of Auto Decal by Commissioner of Revenue, seconded by Supervisor McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett NAYS: None On motion of Supervisor Johnson to approve Section 9.03 Appointment of BZA by Board of Supervisors seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Robers, Garrett NAYS: Supervisor Nickens IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1188-4 Public Hearing and Second Readincr for citizens to comment upon Ordinance amending and reenacting Chapter 10 of the Roanoke County Code, Licenses, and providing for a permit fee for solicitor's permits. Mr. Mahoney presented the staff report. He outlined several changes to the proposed ordinance. Mr. Leo Trenor, 543 Petty Avenue N. E. spoke concerning Section 10-13 concerning decal display. He requested that that 300 November the language in the original ordinance be kept. He also requested changes to other sections of the ordinance. Assistant County Attorney Joseph Obenshain responded to Mr. Trenor's requests. Mr. Mahoney advised that the ordinance is based on state guidelines and he was not sure what authority the County had to incorporate Mr. Trenor's suggestions. Supervisor Nickens moved to adopt the ordinance and that the County Attorney study Mr. Trenor's suggestions for future inclusion in the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None ORDII 1 21 288-6 ~Vp~ p,Np ,1,~ CT~APTER 10, L-~--~~, AMID PROVIDING FOR A PERMIT FEE FOR SOLICITOR'S PERMITS WI-~REAS, Virginia Code Section 58.1 confers on local governments the authority to levy, assess, and collect license taxes on businesses, trades, professions, occupations, and callings and upon the persons, firms, and corporations engaged therein; and Wf~REAS, the Charter of the County of Roanoke, Acts of Assembly, Chapter 616 (1986), Section 2.02, provides that Roanoke County shall have the power to require licenses; to prohibit the conduct of any business, profession, vocation, or calling without such license; and to requires taxes to be paid on C November 22, 1988 301 such licenses for all businesses, professions, violations, and callings not exempted by prohibition of general law; and . WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke wishes to exercise the above-describer powers in order to distribute the tax burden of the County and to collect revenue in support of the operation of government; and WHERE'.AS, after an opportunity for the citizens of this County to be heart upon this matter at a public hearing held on November 22, 1988; and WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 9, 1988; and the second reading on this ordinance was held on November 22, 1988. BE IT ORDAII~D by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That Chapter 10, Licenses, of the Code of Roanoke County be, an< hereby is, amended and reenacted by the addition of the following business license ordinance to read and provide as follows: AI2TICI~ I. Ill C~E2AL Sec. 10-1. Definitions. __ As used in this chapter and as applied to the business, trade, or occupa tion subject to the license taxes hereinafter set forth and not specificall otherwise taxed: (a) dro ss exc~enditures shall mean all expenditures incurred in connec tion with the acquisition or lease of real property, including cash, credits fees, commissions, brokerage charges and rentals; all expenditures incurred i 302 November 22, 1989 connection with the improvement or development of such property by force account, including costs of all labor involved in such improvement or develop- ment, cost of materials and supplies, equipment rental or an equivalent charge therefor if equipment is owned by the builder or developer; and any other ex- penditure of whatever description incurred in connection with the improvements or development by force account of suchproperty. The term "gross expendi- tares" shall not include amounts expended for interest on or payment of princi- pal of debt incurred in connection with such improvement or development work. (b) Gross receipts shall mean the gross receipts from any business, pro- fession, trade, occupation, vocation, calling or activity, including cash, credits, fees, commissions, brokerage charges and rentals; property of any kind, nature or description from either sales made or services rendered with- out any deduction therefrom on account of cost of the property sold, the cost of materials, labor or service or other costs, interest, or discounts paid, or any expense whatsoever; and shall include in the case of merchants the amount of the sale price of supplies and goods furnished to or used by the licensee or his family or other person for which no charge is made; provided, however, that the term "gross receipts" with respect to manufacturers and wholesale merchants manufacturing or dealing in articles upon which there is levied a direct excise tax by the United States shall exclude such excise tax payments to the United States government; provided further, that wholesale and retail dealers in petroleum products on which the state levies a motor vehicle fuel tax shall exclude such tax payments to the state to the same extent that the tax has f first been included in the "gross receipts"; provided further, that 30 3 November 22, 1988 retail motor vehicle dealers shall deduct trade-in allowances credited on sales of both new and used motor vehicles; provided further, in computing the gross receipts of licensees under section 10-34 of this Cods, the licensees shall be permitted to claim as a deduction the amount of salary paid to any person employed by them who is duly licensed in the same profession, under such section. The term "gross receipts" when used in connection with, or in respect to financial transactions involving the sale of notes, stocks, bonds or other securities; the loan, collection or advance of money; or the discounting of notes, bills, or other evidence of debt; shall be deemed to mean the gross interest, gross discount, gross commission, or other gross receipts earned by means of, or resulting from such financial transactions, but the term "gross receipts" shall not include amounts received as payment of debts. The term "gross receipts" shall include the gross receipts from all sales made or services rendered or activities conducted from a place of business within the county, both to persons within the county and to persons outside the county. In this connection the word "person" shall be construed to include govern- mental agencies. The calculation of gross receipts for license tax purposes shall be on either a cash or actual basis; provided, however, that the basis used must coincide with the system of accounts used by the taxpayer and the method em- ployed by the taxpayer for federal and state income tax purposes. ;+ 3p 4 November 22, 1988 (c) License tax year. The license tax year shall be from January 1 to December 31. (d) Person shall include individuals, firms, copartnerships, corpora- tions, companies, associations, or joint stock corporations; and it shall in- clude any trustee, receiver, assignee, or personal representative thereof carrying on or continuing a business, profession, trade, or occupation. This definition shall not include a trustee, receiver, or other representative duly appointed by a court to liquidate assets for immediate distribution; or a ser- geant, sheriff, or deputy selling under authority of process or writ of a court of justice. Sec. 10-2. Business, trade, etc., subject to tax; gross receipts earned out- side the County. (a) Each and all of the taxes hereinafter imposed are in all cases im- posed upon the privilege of doing business or exercising a profession, trade, or occupation in the county, including all phases of the business, profession, trade or occupation conducted in the county. (b) As to businesses, professions, trades, or occupations for which a gross receipts license is levied on persons having a definitely established place of business or maintaining an office in the county, it is the policy of the county to require that all gross receipts derived from the business, pro- fession, trade, or occupation shall be included in their licensing basis in conformance with Section 10-1(b); provided, that in cases where their busi- E 3 0 5 ~. '~' November 22, 1988 ness, profession, trade, or occupation requires the performance of certain activities without the county, and they become subject to and pay a licensing tax to a foreign taxing jurisdiction based on gross receipts derived from activities conducted within a foreign taxing jurisdiction, they shall be per- mitted to deduct such gross receipts taxed by the foreign taxing jurisdiction in arriving at their licensing basis. In all cases such deduction must first be included in their total gross receipts. ;: (c) A.s to businesses, professions, trades, or occupations on which a ..1. ~~: gross receipts license tax is levied, and which are carried on or conducted onl in y part within the county limits by persons having no definitely estab- lished place of business or maintaining no office within Roanoke County, it is the policy of the county to subject such persons to the same provisions, condi- tions, and rates that persons having a definitely established place of busi- ness or maintaining an office within the county are subjected to; and, in such cases where only part of the business, profession, trade, or occupation is so conducted or carried on within the county, the tax liability shall be measured by only that portion of the business, profession, trade, or occupation con- ducted or carried on within the county limits. (d) In this connection the term "foreign taxing jurisdiction" shall be construed as limited to other counties, cities, and towns of the Commonwealth of Virginia. State law reference - Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3708, 3709. 30 6 Sec. 10-3. Levying of license taxes. For each and every year beginning with January 1 of each year and ending December 31 following, until otherwise changed, there are hereby levied and there shall be collected the annual license taxes hereinafter set forth in this chapter, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, on persons conducting or engaging in any business, trade, or occupation in the county hereinafter set forth in this chapter, which license taxes shall be for the support of the county government, the payment of the county debt, and for other county purposes. State law reference -Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3703. Sec. 10-4. Application for license; duties of cc~missioner. (a) All persons embraced by this chapter, unless otherwise specifically provided, shall make application for licenses to the commissioner of the reve- nue by January 31 of each year. The commissioner of the revenue shall furnish the necessary forms, which shall be properly filled in with such information as the commissioner may require. Every applicant fora license to conduct any business, profession, trade, or occupation under the provisions of this chap- ter shall furnish the commissioner of the revenue in writing with his correct name and trade name; his correct residence address; the nature of the busi- ness, profession, trade, or occupation to be pursued; the place where it is to be pursued; and a record of gross receipts verified by oath for the preceding twelve (12) months; as well as such other information as may be required by November 22, 1988 307 the commissioner of the revenue. The commissioner shall compute the amount of license tax and after payment shall issue the license, subject to zoning certi- fication as provided in Section 10-7. _ (b) It shall be unlawful and a violation of this chapter for any person to make false statements with intent to defraud in any application, return or affidavit required by this chapter. Such violation shall constitute (i) a Class 3 misdemeanor if the amount of the tax lawfully assessed in connection with the return is $1, 000.00 or less, or (ii) a Class 1 misdemeanor if the amount of the tax lawfully assessed in connection with the return is more than $1,000.00. Upon conviction under this section, the Commissioner of the Reve- nue shall revoke all licenses of the business for the balance of the tax year. (c) No license issued pursuant to this chapter shall be valid or effec- tive unless and until the tax required shall be paid to the county treasurer and such payment shall be shown on the license. (d) The commissioner of the revenue shall report monthly to the trea- surer the aggregate amount of license taxes assessed during the month and placed in the hands of the treasurer for collection. State law reference - Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3916.1. Sec. 10-5. Payment of tax. All license taxes imposed by this chapter, except as herein provided, shall become due and payable on or before January thirty-first of each license tax year. In all cases where the person shall begin the business, profession, 30 8 trade, or occupation upon which a license tax is imposed after January first of the license tax year, such license tax shall become due and payable within thirty (30) days of the commencement of the business, profession, trade or occupation. State law reference - Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3916. Sec. 10-6. Penalty and interest for failure to pay license tax when due. There shall be a penalty of ten (10) percent, with a minimum of ten dol- lars ($10.00), added to all license taxes imposed under the provisions of this chapter that are unpaid on January thirty-first of the current license year or in the case of any person first engaging in a business, profession, trade, or occupation, within thirty (30) days of the day he first engages in such busi- ness, profession, trade, or occupation. In addition to such penalty, interest at the rate of ten (10) percent per annum shall accrue and be added to all due and unpaid taxes and penalties be- ginning with the first day following the imposition of the penalty; provided, however, that for the second and subsequent years of delinquency, such inter- est shall be at the rate established pursuant to Section 6621 of the U. S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 26 U.S.C. ~ 6621, as amended, but not less than ten (10) percent. Taxes and penalties herein provided shall be assessed and collected in the maruier provided by law for the enforcement of the collection of other taxes. State law reference - Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3916. November 22, 1988 3p 9 Sec. 10-7. Duty of applicant to ascertain zonirx3. ' It shall be the duty of every person applying for a business license to ascertain whether the location for the conducting of such- business, profes- sion, trade, or occupation is properly zoned and has any necessary use permit before making application for such business license. The commissioner of the revenue, in any case where he suspects the location is not properly zoned for the type of business, profession, trade, or occupation proposed by the appli- cant, shall refuse to issue such business license until a certificate is issued by the zoning administrator stating that the location is properly zoned and the necessary use permit, if any, has been granted. The issuance of a business license by the commissioner of the revenue shall not be deemed to be approval by the county of zoning compliance. Sec. 10-8. Each place of business to have separate license; multiple busi- nesses at same location. (a) No license shall be issued under the terms of this chapter to cover more than one place of business, and applicants shall be required to take out separate licenses for each place iri which the business, profession, trade, or occupation to be licensed is pursued. Any pers on operating a business in more than one definite place and keeping one set of records for the accumulated transactions may take out a minimu m license on each location in the county 3 ~ O November 22, 1988 other than the main place of business and may deduct such sums paid for the minimum license from the total tax due when all gross receipts are attributed to such main place of business. (b) If any applicant is engaged in two (2) or more businesses, profes- sions, trades, or occupations all subject to the same rate, all measured by the same base, and all carried on at the same place of business, he may obtain one license for all such businesses, professions, trades, or occupations, but all information for each, as herein otherwise required, shall be given and shall appear on the forms. State law reference - Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3708(E). Sec. 10-9 Persons liable for license tax to keep record of gross receipts. (a) Every person liable for a license tax under this chapter, which tax is based on gross receipts or gross expenditures, shall keep all records and accounts necessary to compute and to verify such gross receipts or gross expen- ditures, and the report of such gross receipts or gross expenditures shall be taken from such records. All such records and general books of account shall be open to inspection and examination by any authorized representative of the county, and shall be maintained for a period of five (5) years. (b) Each licensee whose license is measured by gross receipts or gross expenditures shall submit to the commissioner of the revenue, not later than January 31 of each year, a report of his gross receipts or gross expenditures for the preceding year. November 22, 1988 ~ ~ 1 (c) In those cases in which the conduct of the business, profession, trade, or occupation involves operations subject to more than one (1) rate or computed on more than one (1) base, as hereinafter set forth, the licensee is hereby required to maintain separate accounts for each such operation; pro- vided, however, that the licensee may elect to maintain a single account for all operations tax in which case the entire business license shall be computed at the highest rate applicable to any part of the business taxed on gross receipts. (d) If any licensee shall fail to maintain the records required in this section, regularly supported by customary vouchers, the commissioner of the revenue is hereby authorized and directed to estimate the taxpayer's gross receipts or gross expenditures on the basis of the best evidence he can ob- tain, and the commissioner of the revenue shall make an assessment on the ba- sis of such determination. State law reference - Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3109(b). Sec. 10-10. Licenses for persons begiruiing business, profession, etc. (a) E~rery person beginning a business, profession, trade, or occupation which is subject to a license tax under the provisions of this chapter and is based in whole or in part on gross receipts or gross expenditures, shall esti- mate the amount of the gross receipts he will receive or the gross expendi- tures he will incur between the date of beginning business and the end of the 312 November 22, 1988 then-current Year, and his license tax for the then-current year shall be com- puted on such estimate. fib) Whenever a license tax is so computed upon the estimated gross re- ceipts or gross expenditures, any erroneous estimate shall be subject to cor- rection and the commissioner of the revenue shall assess such person with any additional license tax found to be due after the end of that license year, and shall at the same time correct the estimate for the then current license year, until a full year of operation shall have been completed, and in case of an over-estimate the taxpayer shall be entitled to a credit upon his license tax payable the following year t of license tax by corporations, partnerships. etc. Sec. 10-11. Paymen `!j' When the business, trade, or occupation licensed is conducted by a corpor- ~jt: ~f z'~ ation or partnership, or by an employer of persons who would otherwise be lia- ble for a license tax, and the license tax is imposed upon the gross receipts or gross expendi-tares thereof, then the license tax shall be paid by the corpo- ration or partnership, or employer; and when so paid it shall be deemed to discharge the license tax liability of the officers and er~loyees of such cor- poration, and of the partners and employees of such partnership and of such persons employed by an employer who would otherwise be liable to such license tax, insofar as the business of such licensed corporation, partnership or em- ployer is concerned. This section shall not apply to "professional services," as defined in Section 10-34. 3~3 November 22, 1988 Sec. 10-12. Transfer of licenses. (a) Licenses issued under the provisions of Article II of this chapter, except as otherwise provided, may be transferred from one person to another or from one location to another; provided that no such transfer shall be valid unless and until notice in writing is given to the commissioner of the revenue of the proposed transfer, which notice shall contain the name, trade name, if any, and the address of the proposed transferee; the proposed new location, if any; and the effective date of the proposed transfer; and the commissioner of the revenue may approve such transfer upon being satisfied of the good faith thereof. Failure to notify the commissioner of the revenue of the transfer of a license within thirty (30) days of such transfer shall invalidate such li- cense and such invalidated license shall not be subject to refund as provided by Section 10-15 of this Code. (b) It is specifically provided, however, that if the transferor's li- tense for the current license year has been based on an estimate of gross re- ceipts or gross expenditures, as provided in Section 10-1 (a) and (b) of this chapter, the transferor shall reveal his gross receipts or gross expenditures for the period he was in business during the current license year and if the accumulation of gross receipts or gross expenditures by transfer date shall exceed the original estimate, the transferee shall be required to amend the license by an estimate of the gross receipts or gross expenditures he will 314 November 22, 1988 incur between the day of beginning business and the end of the current license year. -~ (c) Licenses issued under the provisions of Article III shall not be transferred from one person to another but may be transferred from one location to another within the County of Roanoke. Sec. 10-13. Display of form, decal or sign issued in evidence of license. Every person required to obtain a license under the provisions of this chapter shall keep the forth, decal, or sign issued in evidence thereof as pres- cribed by the commissioner of the revenue in a convenient and conspicuous place, and whenever required to do so shall exhibit the same to any authorized enforcement officer of the county. Sec. 10-14. AssessmQnt of license taxes found for years past. If the commissioner of the revenue ascertains that any person has not been assessed with a license tax levied under the terms of this chapter for any license tax year of the three (3) license tax years last past, and the absence of such assessment was not due to the fraudulent intent to evade taxes on the part of such person, it shall be the duty of the commissioner of the revenue to assess such person with the proper license tax for the year or years omitted. Penalty and interest at the rate provided under Section 10-6 shall accrue thereon from the date of such assessment until payment; provided, 315 November 22, 1988 if such assessment was necessitated through no fault of the taxpayer, such penalty and interest shall accrue after thirty (30) days from such date of assessment until payment. State law reference - Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3903. Sec. 10-15. Certification of erroneous assessment; refunds when licensee ceases to do business. (a) The commissioner of the revenue is empowered to certify to the trea- surer any instances of erroneous assessments. Upon receipt of such certifi- cate the treasurer is directed to make a refund based upon the certificate of the commissioner of the revenue. (b) Licenses issued under the provisions of Article II of this chapter, except those measured by other than gross receipts or gross expenditures, shall be subject to refund where the licensee goes out- of business before the end of the current license year subject to all of the following qualifica- tions: (1) License for the current license year must be based on gross receipts or gross expenditures obtained throughout the preced- ing calendar year. (2) The reason for going out of business is not connected in any manner with the violation of any state law or local ordinance or violation of any rules or regulations made pursuant there- to. 316 November 22, 1988 (3) The amount of refund shall be determined in the following man- ner: If the licensee goes out of business after January 1 and before April 1, the refund shall be seventy-five (75~) percent of the tax paid; if the licensee goes out of business on or after April 1 and before July 1, the refund shall be fifty (50~) percent of the tax paid; and if the licensee goes out of business on or after July 1 and before October 1, the refund shall be twenty-five (25~) percent of the tax paid; but in no case shall the refund reduce the tax below the minimum as pro- vided by this Code. (4) No refund shall be made of any minimum flat tax or of any other flat license fee not based on gross receipts. (c) Refunds based on licensee going out of business shall be made in the same manner as herein provided for erroneous assessments. (d) If any person seeking a refund is indebted to the county or any de- partment or office thereof, or is indebted to any state constitutional office of the county for a local levy, the refund, or so much thereof as is neces- sary, shall first be applied to such indebtedness. (e) Any person who has been properly issued a license may apply for a refund prior to the date upon which the license was to become effective by providing satisfactory evidence to the Commissioner of the Revenue that the business was never commenced or the sale, show, performance or exhibition will not take place. Upon being satisfied that such license was never in effect, 317 November 22, 1988 the Commissioner of the Revenue may authorize a refund of the license fee less a thirty dollars ($30.00) processing fee. State law reference - Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3980, 3981. Sec. 10-16. Insufficient assessment; payment of additional tax found to be due. If the commissioner of the revenue ascertains that any assessment of a license tax levied under the provisions of this chapter for any of the three (3) license tax years last past or for the then-current license tax year was for less than the correct amount, and the assessment of the license tax at the lesser amount was not due to the licensee's fraudulent intent to evade taxes, then the commissioner of the revenue shall assess the licensee with the addi- tional license tax found to be due." Penalty and interest at the rate provided under Section 10-6 shall accrue thereon from the date of the assessment until payment; provided, if such assessment was necessitated through no fault of the taxpayer, such penalty and interest shall accrue after thirty (30) days from such date of assessment until payment. State law reference - Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3903. Sec. 10-17. License as personal privilege. Every license issued under the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed to confer a personal privilege to transact, carry on, or conduct the business, 3~a November 22, 1988 profession, trade, or occupation which may be the subject of the license, and shall not be exercised except by the persons licensed. Sec. 10-18. ~forcement of chapter. (a) In the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter the commission- er of the revenue of the county, in addition to the powers herein specifically granted, shall have all and the same enforcement authority with respect to county licenses that state law confers upon commissioners of the revenue gen- erally with respect to state licenses. As one of the means of ascertaining the amount of any license tax due under the provisions of this chapter, or of ascertaining any other pertinent information, the commissioner of the revenue may require taxpayers or their agents or any person, firm, or officer of a company or corporation to furnish information relating to tangible or intangi- ble personal property, income, or license taxes of any and all taxpayers; and require such persons to furnish access to books of account or other papers and records for the purpose of verifying the tax returns of such taxpayers and procuring the information necessary to make a complete assessment of any tax- payer's tangible and intangible personal property, income, and license taxes for the current year. (b) The commissioner may, for the purpose of assessing all taxes assess- able by his office, summon the taxpayer or any other person to appear before him at his office, to answer under oath, questions touching the tax liability of any and all specifically identified taxpayers. The commissioner shall not, 319 November 22, 1988 however, summon a taxpayer or other person for the tax liability of the tax- payer which is the subject of litigation. (c) Any person who refuses to (i) furnish to the commissioner of the revenue access to books of account or other papers and records, (ii) furnish information to the commissioner of the revenue relating to the assessment of taxes, (iii) answer under oath questions touching any person's tax liability, or (iv) exhibit to the con¢nissioner of the revenue any subject of taxation liable to assessment by the commissioner of the revenue, shall be deemed guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. Each day's refusal to furnish such access or information shall constitute a separate offense. State law reference - Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3110, 3111. 32 0 November 22, 1986 ARTICZE II. CLASSIFIID BUSINESS ArID OCCUPATI~I, LICENSE PRC7VISIONS Sec. 10-30. Contractors and contracting; persons constructing on their own account for sale. (a) Every person engaged in the business of contracting and persons con- strutting on their own account for sale shall pay for the privilege an annual license tax of sixteen cents ($0.16) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) of gross receipts from the business during the preceding calendar year or thirty dollars ($30.00), whichever is higher. (b) "Contractor" means any person, firm or corporation: (1) Accepting or offering to accept orders or contracts for doing any work on or in any building or structure requiring the use of paint, stone, brick, mortar, wood, cement, structural iron or steel, sheet iron, galvanized iron, metallic piping tin, lead, or other metal or any other building material; (2) Accepting or offering to accept contracts to do any paving, curbing, or other work on sidewalks, streets, alleys, or high- ways, on public or private property, using asphalt, brick, stone, cement, concrete, wood, on any composition; (3) Accepting or offering to accept an order for or contract to excavate earth, rock, or other material for foundation or any other purpose or for cutting, trimming or maintaining rights-of- way; 321 November 22, 1988 (4) Accepting or offering to accept an order or contract to con- struct any sewer of stone, brick, terra cotta, or other mater- ial; (5) Accepting or offering to accept orders or contracts for doing any work on or in any building or premises involving the erect- ing, installing, altering, repairing, servicing, or maintaining electric wiring, devices, or appliances permanently connected to such wiring; or the erecting, repairing or maintaining of lines for the transmission or distribution of electric light and power; or (6) Accepting or offering to accept an order or contract to remod- el, repair, wreck, or demolish a building; or (7) Accepting or offering to accept an order or contract to bore or dig a well; or (8) Accepting or offering to accept an order or contract to in- stall, maintain, or repair air-conditioning apparatus or equip- ment; or (9) Engaging in the business of plumbing and steam fitting. State Law reference - Code of Virginia Sections 58.1-3706(A)(1) and 58.1-3714. Sec. 10-31. Retail sales. (a) Every person engaged in the business of retail sales shall pay for the privilege an annual license tax of twenty cents ($0.20) per one hundred 322 November 22, 1988 dollars ($100.00) of gross receipts from the preceding license tax year or thirty dollars ($30.00), whichever is higher. (b) A retail sale is the sale of goods, wares, and merchandise for any purpose other than resale. (c) Any person who is both a wholesale merchant and a retail merchant is subject to the retail license tax for the retail portion of the business and the wholesale license tax for the wholesale portion of the business. Such person may, however, obtain a retail license for both the retail and wholesale portions of the business. State Law reference - Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3706(A)(2). Sec. 10-32. Financial services. (a) Every person engaged in the business of providing a financial ser- vice shall pay for the privilege an annual license tax in the amount of fifty cents ($0.50) per one hundred ($100.00) of gross receipts from the occupation during the preceding calendar year or thirty dollars ($30.00), whichever is higher. (b) Any person rendering a service for compensation in the form of a credit agency, an investment company, a broker or dealer in securities and commodities or a security or commodity exchange is providing a financial ser- vice, unless such service is specifically provided for under another section. (c) Those engaged in rendering financial services include, but are not limited to, the following: 32 3 November 22, 1988 Buying installment receivables Chattel mortgage financing Consumer financing Credit card services Credit unions Factors Financing accounts receivable Industrial loan companies Installment financing Inventory financing Loan or mortgage brokers Loan or mortgage companies Safety deposit box companies Security and commodity brokers and services Stockbroker Working capital financing Other money lenders (d) Any person other than a national bank or a bank or trust company organized under the laws of this state, or a duly licensed and practicing attorney at law, who engages in the business of buying or selling for others on commission or for other compensation, shares in any corporation, bonds, notes or other evidences of debt is a stockbroker. The fact that orders are taken subject to approval by a main office does not relieve the broker from 324 November 22, 1988 local license taxation. Also, an insurance company engaged in selling mutual funds is a broker as to that portion of its business. State Law reference - Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3706(A)(3). Sec. 10-33. Real estate services. (a) Every person engaged in the business of providing a real estate ser- vice shall pay for the privilege an annual license tax in the amount of fifty cents ($0.50) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) of gross receipts from the business during the preceding calendar year or thirty dollars ($30.00), which- ever is higher. (b) Any person rendering a service for compensation as lessor, buyer, seller, developer, agent or broker is providing a real estate service, unless the service is specifically provided for under another section. (c) Those rendering real estate services include, but are not limited to, the following: Appraisers of real estate Escrow agent, real estate __ Fiduciaries, real estate Real estate agents, brokers, and managers Real estate selling agents Rental agents for real estate State Law reference - Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3706(A)(3). 32 5 November 22, 1988 Sec. 10-34. Professional services. (a) Every person conducting or engaging in the business of providing a professional service shall pay for the privilege an annual license tax of f fifty cents ($0.50) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) of gross receipts from the occupation during the preceding calendar year or thirty dollars ($30.00), whichever is higher. (b) A person is engaged in providing a professional service if engaged in rendering any service specifically enumerated below or engaged in any occu- pation or vocation in which a professed knowledge of some department of science or learning, gained by a prolonged course of specified instruction and study is used by its practical application to the affairs of others, either advising, guiding, or teaching them, and in serving their interests or welfare in the practice of an art or science founded on it. The word "profession" implies attainments in professional knowledge as distinguished from mere skill, and the application of knowledge to uses for others as a vocation. Those engaged in rendering a professional service include, but are not limited to, the following: Architects Attorneys-at-law Certified public accountants Dentists __ Engineers Land surveyors 32 6 November 22, 1986 Practitioners of the healing arts (as defined in Virginia Code Section 54-273(2) Professional counselors (including certified alocholism or drug counselors) ` Psychologists Social Workers Surgeons Veterinarians (c) The performing of services dealing with the conduct of business it- self, including the promotion of sales or services of such business and con- sulting services, do not constitute the practice of a profession, even though the services involve the application of a specialized knowledge. (d) Certification as a professional by itself is not sufficient to estab- lish liability for local license taxation. Also, the fact that a professional is compensated by means of a salary is not sufficient by itself to relieve that professional from local license tax liability. (e) Gross receipts for purposes of local license taxation as a profes- sional include only those gross receipts obtained from the practice of that profession as a business, whether it be on a full or part-time basis, in corpo- rate, partnership, sole proprietorship, or association form. It is the intent of this section to tax individually those persons practicing a profession. The measurement of each license in subsection (b) shall be as follows: s z ~ ~, November 22, 1988 (1) Practice of a profession as an individual. Basis of each indi- vidual license shall be "gross receipts" as defined iri section 10-1. (2) Practice of a profession as a member of a professional associa- tion or as a member of a partnership. Basis of each individual license shall be "gross receipts" as defined in section 10-1; provided, however, that each individual license shall be mea- sured by salary and such part of the gross receipts of the pro- fessional association or partnership remaining after the pay- ment of salaries to all members of the professional association or partnership iri the proportion of the interest or ownership of the licensee in the association or partnership. (3) Practice of a profession as an employee of another person prac- ticing the same or related-profession. Basis of each individ- ual license shall be the amount of the salary paid. In such case the salary may be claimed as a deduction from the license basis of the employing professional person. State Law reference - Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3706(A)(3). Sec. 10-35. Repair service occupations. (a) Every person conducting or engaging in any repair service occupa- tion, business, or trade shall pay for the privilege an annual license tax of thirty-four cents ($0.34) for each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of gross re- 328 November 22, 1988 ceipts from the occupation during the preceding calendar year or thirty dol- lars ($30.00), whichever is higher. (b) Repair service occupations include, but are not limited to: Airplane repair Auto repair, engine repair of any type Bicycle repair Business and office machines repair Clothes, hats, carpets or rugs, repair of Dressmaking, slip covers, drapery and/or curtain making (service only) E~rniture, upholstering, repair of Gunsmith, gun repairing Locksmith Machine shop, boiler shop Mattresses, repair of Nickel and chrome plating Paint shop, other than contractor Radio, refrigerators, electrical appliance, home appliances, repair of Reweaving Road machines, farm machinery, repair of Saw, tools, repair of Shades, repair of Shoe repair Tire repair Toys, repair of 32 9 November 22, 1989 Umbrellas, harness, leather goods, repair of Washing, automatic-cleaning of automobiles Watches, clocks, repair of Welding shop Other repair services. State Law reference - Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3706(A)(4). Sec. 10-36. Personal and business service occupations. (a) Every person engaged in the business of providing a personal or busi- ness service shall pay for the privilege an annual license tax of thirty-four cents ($0.34) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) of gross receipts from the occupation during the preceding calendar year or thirty dollars (530.00), whichever is higher. (b) Those rendering a personal or business service include, but are not limited to, the following: Addressing letters or envelopes Advertising agencies Airports Ambulance services Amusements and recreation services (all types) Animal hospitals, grooming services, kennels or stables Artists Auctioneers and common criers 3J 0 November 22, 1988 Automobile driving schools Barber shops, beauty parlors, and hairdressing establishments, schools and services Bid or building reporting service Billiard or pool establishments or parlors Blacksmith or wheelwright Boat landings Bondsman Booking agents or concert managers Bottle exchanges Bowling alleys Brokers and commission merchants other than real estate or financial brokers Business research and consulting services Cemeteries Chartered clubs Child care attendants or schools Child or adult home care registry Cleaning chimneys and/or furnaces Clinical laboratory __ Coin machine operator Collection agents or agencies Commercial photography, art and graphics Commercial sports Computerized information retrieval service 331 November 22, 1988 Dance band Dance halls, studios and schools Data processing, computer and systems development services Developing or enlarging photographs Detective agency and protective services Domestic service registry Drafting services - Electrolysis or scalp treatment Engraving Erecting, installing, removing or storing awnings Escort service Extermination services Freight traffic bureaus Fumigating or disinfecting Funeral services and crematories Golf courses, driving ranges and miniature golf courses Hauling of sand, gravel or dirt Hospitals, profit and nonprofit Hotels, motels, tourist courts, boarding and rooming houses and trailer parks and campsites House cleaning services Information bureaus Instructors, tutors, schools and studios of music, ceramics, art, sewing, sports and the like -_ Interior decorating 332 November 22, 1988 Janitorial services Labor service Laundry cleaning and garment services including laundries, dry cleaners, linen supply, diaper service, coin-operated laundries and carpet and upholstery cleaning Limousine service Mailing, messenger and correspondent services Movie theaters and drive-in theaters Nickel plating, chromizing and electroplating Nurses and physician registries Nursing and personal care facilities including nursing homes, convales- cent homes, homes for the retarded, old-age homes and resthomes Packing, crating, shipping, hauling or moving goods or chattels for others Parcel delivery services Parking lots, public garages and valet parking Pawnbrokers Personal services, labor agents and employment bureaus Photographers and photographic services Photocopying Physical fitness establishment Physicians registry Piano tuning Picture framing and gilding Porter services Press clipping services 333 November 22, 1988 Private investigation Promotional agents or agencies Public relations services Realty multiple listing services Renting or leasing any items of tangible personal property Reproduction services Secretarial services Septic tank cleaning Shoe repair, shoe shine and hat repair shops Sign painting Statistical service Storage-all types Swimming pool, other than nonprofit or cooperative Swimming pool maintenance and management Tabulation services Tanning salons Tax preparers (other than professionals listed in Sec. 10-34.) Taxicab companies Taxidermist Telephone answering services Theaters Theatrical performers, bands and orchestras Towing services Transportation services including buses and taxis 334 November 22, 1988 Travel bureaus Tree surgeons, trimmers and removal services Trucking companies, intrastate and interstate (unless holding a certifi- cate of public convenience from State Corporation Con~nission) Turkish, Roman or other like baths or parlors Undertaker, embalmer Vehicle title service Wake-up services Washing, cleaning or polishing automobiles Writers Other personal or business service occupations. State Law reference - Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3706(A)(4). 335 November 22, 1983 ARTICLE III. SPECIAL LICENSE PROVISIONS Sec. 10-40. Bondsmen. (a) Every person who, for compensation, enters into any bond or bonds for others, whether as principal or surety, shall pay for the privilege an annual license tax of five hundred dollars ($500.00), not transferable or sub- ject to proration. (b) No such license shall be issued unless and until the applicant shall have first obtained a certificate from the judge of the circuit court as pro- vided in Article 4, Chapter 9, Title 19.2 of the Code of Virginia. (c) A license granted to a professional bondsman in Roanoke County shall authorize such person to enter into such bonds in any other county or city. (d) Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall have his license revoked and shall pay a penalty of one thousand dollars ($1, 000.00) . State Law reference - Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3724. Sec. 10-41. Fortune-tellers, Astrologists, Etc. (a) Every person engaged in business as a fortune-teller, clairvoyant, phrenologist, spirit medium, astrologist, hypnotist, palmist, or handwriting analyst, for which compensation is received, shall pay for the privilege an X36 November 22, 1988 annual license tax of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), which license shall not be transferred or prorated. (b) Any person who engages in the activities of subsection (a) without obtaining a license shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. State Law reference -Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3726. Sec. 10-42. Photographers with no regularly established place of business. (a) Every photographer having no regularly established place of business in Roanoke County shall pay an annual license tax of thirty dollars ($30.00) per year. Such tax shall not be transferable or subject to proration. (b) The term "photographer" shall mean any person, partnership, or cor- poration having no regularly established place of business in Roanoke County who provides services consisting of the taking of pictures or the making of pictorial reproductions in the County. The term shall also include every employee, agent, or canvasser for such photographer. State Law reference -Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3727. Sec. 10-43. Catnnission merchants. -_ (a) Every person engaging in business as a commission merchant shall pay for the privilege an annual license tax of thirty-six cents ($0.36) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) of commission income or thirty dollars ($30.00), 3 3 7 ~, November 22, 1988 whichever is higher. Such person engaged in such business shall not be sub- ject to tax on total gross receipts from such sales. (b) A commission merchant is any person engaged in the business of sell- ing merchandise on commission by sample, circular, or catalogue for a regular- ly established retailer, and who has no stock or inventory under his control other than floor samples held for demonstration or sale and owned by the prin- cipal retailer. State Law reference - Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3733. Sec. 10-44. ~olesale Merchants. (a) Every person engaged in the business of a wholesale merchant shall pay for the privilege an annual license tax of five cents ($0.05) per one hun- dred dollars ($100.00) of gross expenditures in the preceding license tax year. (b) A wholesale merchant is one who sells goods, wares, and merchandise to other persons for resale and who has a definite place of business or store within the county. State Law reference - Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3716. Sec. 10-45. Peddler and itinerant merchants. (a) Any person who shall carry from place to place any goods, wares, or merchandise and offer to sell or barter the same, or actually sell or barter 33 8 November 22, 1988 the same, shall be deemed to be a peddler. Peddlers of family supplies of a perishable nature and peddlers of ice, wood, or coal shall pay for the privi- lege of engaging in such business a license tax of fifty dollars ($50.00) per month, or fraction thereof, for each vehicle with a yearly maximum tax of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) for the first vehicle and seventy-five dollars ($75.00) for each additional vehicle not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00) total. Peddlers of general merchandise shall pay for the privilege of engaging in such business a license tax of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.04) per month, or fraction thereof, per vehicle and not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00) in any one year. (b) An itinerant merchant is any person who engages in, does or trans- acts any temporary or transient business in the county and who, for the pur- pose of carrying on such business, occupies any location for a period of less than one year. Any itinerant merchant of family supplies of a perishable na- ture and of ice, wood, or coal shall pay for the privilege of engaging in such business a license tax of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) per month, or fraction hereof, and not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00) in any one year. Itinerant merchants of general merchandise shall pay for the privilege of engaging in such business an annual license tax in the amount of five hun- dred dollars ($500.00). c. For purposes of this section, "family supplies of a perishable na- ture" shall include meats, milk, butter, eggs, poultry, game, vegetables, fruits, flowers, plants, seafood, sandwiches, or other farm products. All 33 9 - November 22, 1986 other products--except ice, wood, or charcoal--shall be considered "general merchandise." d. This section shall not apply to those who sell or offer for sale in person or by their employees ice, wood, charcoal, or family supplies of a per- ishable nature grown or produced by them and not purchased by them for sale. Anyone exempt under this paragraph must provide proof of such exemption upon request. State Law reference - Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3717 Sec. 10-46. Peddler at 4~olesale. (a) Every person engaging in business as a peddler at wholesale shall pay for the privilege an annual license tax in the amount of five cents ($0.05) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) of gross purchases for the preceding license tax year. (b) A peddler at wholesale is any person, firm, or corporation who or which sells or offers to sell goods, wares, or merchandise to licensed dealers, other than at a definite place of business operated by the seller, and the time of such sale or exposure for sale delivers, or offers to deliver, the goods, wares, or merchandise to the buyer shall be deemed a peddler at wholesale. For purposes of this section, any delivery made on the day of sale shall be construed as a delivery at the time of sale. State Law reference - Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3718. 34 A November 22, 1988 Sec. 10-47. Limitations on license taxes imposed on peddlers, itinerant merchants, and peddlers at wholesale. Any license tax imposed on peddlers or itinerant merchants or on peddlers at wholesale shall not apply to: 1. A licensed wholesale dealer who sells and, at the time of such sale, delivers merchandise to retail merchants; 2. A distributor or vendor of motor fuels and petroleum products; 3. A distributor or vendor of seafood who catches seafood and sells only the seafood caught by him; 4. A farmer or producer of agricultural products who sells only the farm or agricultural products produced or grown by him; 5. A farmers' cooperative association; 6. A manufacturer who is subject to Virginia tax on intangible personal property who peddles at wholesale, only the goods, wares, or merchandise manu- factured by him at a plant, and whose intangible personal property is taxed by this Commonwealth. State law reference - Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3719. Sec. 10-48. Direct sellers. (a) Any person engaging in business as a direct seller shall pay for the privilege an annual business license tax at the rate of twenty cents ($0.20) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) of retail sales gross receipts, and five 341 November 22, 1988 cents ($0.05) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) of wholesale gross receipts; except that no annual business license tax shall be levied if the direct sel- ler has annual gross receipts of four thousand dollars (54,000.00) or less. (b) A direct seller must apply annually for a business license and pro- vide copies of the signed, written contract covering the direct sales activi- ties of the taxpayer for the current year. The commissioner of the revenue shall determine whether the taxpayer is eligible for licensing under this sec- tion, and whether the taxpayer is eligible for the exemption of this section. (c) As used in this section the term "direct seller" means any person who: (1) Engages in the trade or business of selling or soliciting the sale of consumer products primarily in private residences and maintains no public location for the conduct of such business; and (2) Receives remuneration for such activities, with substantially all of such remuneration being directly related to sales or other sales-oriented___services, rather than to the number of hours worked; and (3) Performs such activities pursuant to a written contract between such person and the person for whom the activities are per- formed and such contract provides that such person will not be treated as an employee with respect to such activities for fed- eral or state tax purposes. State Law reference - Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3719.1. 342 November 22, 1988 Sec. 10-49. Alcoholic beverages. (a) The license tax for alcoholic beverage sales and distribution shall be as follows: (1) For each wholesale beer license the tax shall be seventy-five dollars ($75.00) per annum. (2) For each wholesale wine distributor's license, the tax shall be fifty dollars ($50.00) per annum. (3) For each retail on-premises wine and beer license for a hotel, restaurant, or club, the tax shall be thirty-seven dollars and fifty cents ($37.50) per annum. (9) For each retail off-premises wine and beer license, the tax shall be thirty seven dollars and fifty cents ($37.50) per annum. (5) For each retail on-premises beer license for a hotel, restaur- ant, or club, the tax shall be twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per annum. (6) For each retail off-premises beer license the tax shall be twenty-five dollars ($25.00) per annum. (7) For each person holding mixed beverage restaurant and caterer's licenses, the tax shall be: 343 November 22, 1988 (aa) Two hundred dollars ($200.00) per annum for each restau- rant with a seating capacity at table for 50 to 100 per- sons. (bb) Three hundred fifty dollars ($350.00) per annum for each restaurant with a seating capacity at tables for more than 100 but not more than 150 persons. (cc) Five hundred dollars ($500.00) per annum for each restau- rant with a seating capacity at tables for more than 150 persons. (dd) Five hundred dollars per annum for each caterer. (ee) Mixed beverage special events license, ten dollars ($10.00) for each day of each event. (8) For each private, non-profit club operating a restaurant lo- cated on the premises of such club, the mixed beverage license tax shall be three hundred fifty ($350.00) per annum. (b) Any license tax imposed by this section shall be in addition to the gross receipts license tax imposed by section 10-31 of this chapter. . (c) Whenever the word "beer" is used in this section it shall be con- strued to include porter, ale, stout and other malt beverages, but not vinous beverages. (d) No license shall be issued to any person under the provisions of this section unless the applicant therefor holds at the same time, or simul- taneously procures, a state license from the alcoholic beverage control board. 344 November 22, 1988 (e) All dining rooms, restaurants, lunch rooms and club rooms, wherein the beverages defined in this section are sold for consumption on the pre- mises, shall at all times be open to inspection by the state police and the police authorities of the county. Any store room or other building from which deliveries are made either at wholesale or retail by bottlers, wholesalers or retailers shall at all times be open to the inspection of the state police and the police authorities of the county. Any violation of the terms of this pro- vision shall be sufficient grounds for the revocation of the license issued in accordance with this section. (f) The terms used in this section shall have the same meanings set forth in sections 4-38 and 4-98.19 of the Code of Virginia, unless a different meaning shall be clearly intended. (g) The license taxes imposed by this section shall not be prorated. No license issued under the provisions of this section shall be transferable from one person to another, but may be amended to show a change in the place of business. State Law reference - Code of Virginia Sections 4-38, 4-98.19 Sec. 10-50. Massage parlors. (a) Every person operating a massage parlor shall pay an annual license tax of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) not transferable to another person or subject to proration for a part of a license year. 345 November 22, 1988 (b) A massage parlor is defined as any place where manipulation of body tissues for remedial or hygienic purposes, or any other purpose, is conducted and the owners and er~loyees individually do not hold valid massage therapist permits or physiotherapy licenses. State Law reference -Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3706. Sec. 10-51. Collection agencies. (a) For purposes of the license tax authorized in Section 10-36, any person, firm, or corporation whose business it is to collect claims, including notes, drafts, and other negotiable instruments, on behalf of others, and to render an account of the same shall be deemed a collection agency. This sec- tion shall not apply, however, to a regularly licensed attorney-at-law. (b) No local license hereunder shall be issued to any person desiring to act as a collection agent or agency in the Commonwealth unless such person exhibits a current license or other evidence showing that the applicant has been duly licensed to act as a collection agent or agency by the Virginia Col- lection Agency Board. State Law reference -Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3725. Sec. 10-52. Shows and sales. Any person or organization may sponsor a show and sale on the taking out of a license under this section. A tax of thirty dollars ($30.00) is hereby 346 November 22, 1988 imposed on any such show and sale. Payment of the tax imposed by this section shall permit the licensee to conduct shows and sales in the county for a per- iod not exceeding three (3) days from the date of such license. A license issued under this section shall be in lieu of an itinerant vendor's or ped- dler's license which would otherwise be required under section 10-45 for any seller who participates in such shows and sales under the sponsorship of such person or organization. The tax imposed by this section shall not apply to any auction or sale if the only sales thereunder are made directly by a nonpro- fit organization. Nonprofit organizations which sponsor shows and sales are exempt from the charge for this license requirement. Notwithstanding any pro- vision of the County Code to the contrary, the license issued hereunder shall not be prorated. Sec. 10-53. Coin-operated ann~sement machines: amusement machine operators. (a) Every person selling, leasing, renting or otherwise furnishing or providing a coin-operated amusement machine or device as defined by Virginia Code Section 58.1-3720 (1984), shall be deemed to be an amusement machine oper- ator, except that a person owning fewer than three (3) machines and operating such machines on property owned or leased by such person is not an amusement machine operator. (b) Every amusement machine operator as herein defined shall pay for the privilege an annual license tax according to the following table: 347 November 22, 1988 3 machines or less ...........................................$ 25.00 4 machines ................................................... 50.00 5 machines ................................................... 75.00 6 machines ................................................... 100.00 7 machines ...................................................$125.00 8 machines ................................................... 150.00 9 machines ................................................... 175.00 10 or more machines .......................................... 200.00 (c) The license tax imposed by this section is not in lieu of, but is in addition to, other license taxes i~osed by this code, including the gross receipts tax imposed by section 10-36. (d) Every amusement machine operator shall furnish to the commissioner of the revenue a complete list of all machines on location and the names and addresses of each location on or before the thirty-first day of January of each year. (e) Each machine shall have conspicuously located thereon a decal, stick- er or other adhesive label, no less than 1x2 inches in size, clearly denoting the operator's name and address. --_ (f) Any person, firm, or corporation providing any such amusements ma- chines or other devices and failing to procure a county license shall be sub- ject to a fine of five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each offense and the ma- chine or other device shall become forfeited to the county. (g) Exemptions. The amusement machine operator's license tax shall not be applicable to operators of weighing machines, automatic baggage or parcel 34.8 November 22, 1988 checking machines or receptacles, nor to operators of vending machines which are so constructed as to do nothing but vend goods, wares, and merchandise or postage stamps or provide service only, nor to operators of viewing machines or photomat machines, nor operators of devices or machines affording rides to children or for the delivery of newspapers. State Law reference - Code of Virginia Sections 58.1-3720, 3721, 3722, 3723. Sec. 10-54. Savings and loan associations. Every savings and loan association whose main office is located within Roanoke County shall pay an annual license fee of fifty dollars ($50.00). State Law reference - Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3730. Sec. 10-55. Permanent coliseums, arenas, or auditoriums. (a) There is hereby imposed an annual license tax of one thousand dol- lars ($1,000.00) on every permanent coliseum, arena, or auditorium within the county having a maximum seating capacity of more than ten thousand persons and open to the general public. (b) Any person may present, conduct, operate, or provide amusements, exhibitions, sporting events, theatrical performances, or any other lawful performances, exhibitions, or entertainment under a single license authorized by this section. 34 9 November 22, 1988 (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any license imposed by this section shall be in lieu of any or all licenses required for exhibitions, performances, or events occurring within such coliseum, arena, or auditorium. (d) If such coliseum, arena, or auditorium is owned and operated by a political subdivision of the Commonwealth, there shall be no tax. State Law reference - Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3729. Sec. 10-56. Public service corporations. (a) Every public service corporation engaged in the business of provid- ing telephone, telegraph, water, heat, light, or power service shall pay for the privilege an annual license tax of one-half of one percent (0.5~) of the gross receipts accruing to such corporation from business in the county, ex- cluding gross receipts earned within the Town of Vinton, Virginia. (b) In the case of telephone companies, charges for long distance tele- phone calls shall not be included in gross receipts for purposes of license taxation. (c) For the purposes of this section, gross receipts shall be ascer- tained as of the thirty-first day of December of each year and the tax for the current calendar year shall be based on receipts for the preceding calendar year. (d) The tax imposed by this section shall be assessed on the first day of January of each calendar year and shall be due and payable to the treasurer 35 0 November 22, 1988 of the county on or before the thirty-first day of January following the date on which the tax is assessed. (e) Excluded from the provisions of this section are gross receipts attributable to service supplied to the governments of the United States and Virginia, their political subdivisions and agencies, and charges paid by the insertion of coins into coin boxes of pay telephones. State Law reference - Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3731. Sec. 10-57. Carnivals, circuses, speedways. (a) Every person who operates a carnival, circus, or speedway shall pay for the privilege a license tax of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) per performance. (b) Until such tax has been paid, the county shall have a lien upon the property of such carnival, circus, or speedway to the extent of the unpaid tax. (c) Every person, firm, cormany, or corporation which exhibits or gives a performance or exhibition of any of the shows, carnivals, or circuses, above- described in this section, without the license required, shall be fined not less than $50.00, nor more than $500.00 for each offense. (d) A "carnival" shall mean an aggregation of shows, amusements, conces- sions, eating places, and riding devices or any of them, operated together on one lot or street or on contiguous lots or streets, moving from place to 351 November 22, 1988 place, whether or not the same are owned and actually operated by separate persons, finds, or corporations. State law reference - Code of Virginia Section 58.1-3728. 2. That the permit fee for solicitor's permits required by Section 19-3 of the Roanoke County Code shall be thirty dollars ($30.00) per year per per- son. 3. That this ordinance .shall be in full force and effect on and after January 1, 1989. On motion of Supervisor Nickens to approve the ordinance and that the County Attorney study suggestions made during the public hearing, seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett NAYS: None 1188-5 Public Hearina and Second Readina for citizens to comment upon Ordinance establishing certain procedures for financing of local public works improvements, authorizing the imposition of assessments upon abutting property owners, providing for notice thereof, objections and appeals, pursuant to the statutes for such cases made and provided. Mr. Mahoney presented the staff report. He had incorporated the changes from the first reading, changing the percentage on petitions by affected landowners from 60~ to 75~ He explained the processes involved in financing these public works improvements. 35 2 November 22, 1988 Supervisor McGraw spoke in support of the change to 60~. Supervisor Johnson suggested a compromise of 70~. The following citizens spoke concerning the proposed ordinance: 1. Edward Spangler, 8238 Old Tavern Road in support of 66~ of affected landowners. 2. Gerald Steele, 8220 Old Tavern Road spoke in support of 60~ for water and 75$ percent for road improvements. 3. Don Terp, 5140 Apple Tree Drive, requested that the issue be postponed for further study. 4. Charles Hilton, 8237 Hunters Trail, spoke in support of 60~ for public works improvements and 75~ for road improvements. 5. Diane Fair, 5502 Highfields Road, spoke in support of 60~. -- 6. David Courey, 3419 Ashemead Drive spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance. 7. Roger Smith, 3706 Hyde Park Drive spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance. 8. Ruth Mosely, 3435 Greencliff Road spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance. 9. Donna Wood, 3876 Pitzer Road, spoke expressing concern to the proposed ordinance. 353 November 22, 1988 10. Richard Parker, 8243 Hunters Trail, supported the use of 60~ in the proposed ordinance. 11. Don Stern, 3409 South Park Circle, requested that no action be taken until more is known about the affect of the ordinance. 12. Alfred Powell, 3440 Franklin Street, expressed concern about the fact that landowners with larger tracts would be considered equal to those of smaller tracts in petitions requesting improvements. 13. Clifford Derey, 8233 Olde Travern Road, spoke in support of 60~. Following discussion of the ordinance, Supervisor Johnson moved to amend the percentage of landowners to 67~. There was no second and the motion died. Supervisor McGraw moved to adopt the ordinance with 75~. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Garrett. Supervisor Robers moved a substitute motion to adopt the ordinance amended to 60~ now, and 75~ in the future. The County Attorney recommendedthat the motion state 60~ for any subdivision plated after a certain date. The substitute motion was seconded by Supervisor Johnson and was defeated by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers NAYS: Supervisors McGraw, Nickens, Garrett 354 November 22, 1988 Supervisor McGraw's original motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None ORDINANCE 112288-7 ESTABLISHING CERTAIN PROCEDURES FOR FINANCING OF LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENTS, AUTHORIZING THE IMPOSITION OF ASSESSMENTS UPON ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS, PROVIDING FOR NOTICE THEREOF, OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS, PURSUANT TO THE STATUTES FOR SUCH CASES MADE AND PROVIDED WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County Charter the first reading of this ordinance was held on November 9, 1988; and the second reading of the ordinance was held on November 22, 1988; and a public hearing thereon as held on Novem- ber 22, 1988; and, WHEREAS, this ordinance is adopted pursuant to the authority found in Article 2, Chapter 7, Title 15.1 (Section 15.1-239, et seq.) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virgin- ia, determines that it is in the best interests of the citizens of Roanoke County to adopt certain policies and procedures for the financing of public infrastructure improvements. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows: 1. Purpose. November 22, 1988 355 The purpose of this ordinance is to provide a procedure for citizens of the County to obtain the construction of public works or public infrastructure improvements in order to satisfy a demand or need for public services. 2. Count ~ may impose. The County may impose taxes or assessments upon the abutting property owner or abutting property owners for making, improving, replacing or enlarging the walkways upon then existing streets, for improving and paving then existing alleys, and for either the construction or the use of sanitary or storm water sewers includ- ing retaining walls, curbs and gutters; however, such taxes or assessments shall not be in excess of the peculiar benefits re- sulting from the improvements to such abutting owner or owners, and no assessment for retaining walls shall be imposed upon any property owner who does not agree to such assessment. In addition to the foregoing, the County may impose taxes or assessments upon abutting property owners for the construction, replacement or enlargement of sidewalks, waterlines, sanitary sewers or storm water sewers; for the installation of street lights; for the construction or installation of canopies or other weather protective devices; for the installation of lighting in connection with the foregoing; and for permanent amenities, in- cluding, but not limited to, benches or waste receptacles, pro- vided that such taxes or assessments shall not be in excess of 35fi November 22, 198a the peculiar benefits resulting from the improvements to such abutting property owners. 3. Assessments for stre_t-s Certain streets may be accepted by the Commonwealth of Vir- ginia into the secondary system of state highways if the county agrees to contribute from county revenue or the special assess- menu of landowners on the street in question one-half of the cost to bring the streets up to the. necessary minimum standards for acceptance. No such special assessment shall be made unless the county receives a petition or written declarations from the owners of at least seventy-five (75~) percent of the platted parcels of land abutting upon such street agreeing to such assessment. This assessment shall be subject to the limitations and restrictions contained in Section 33.1-72.1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, in particular, the basis for such special assessments and the restrictions upon speculative interest by developers. 4. How imposed Such improvements may be ordered by the Board upon the adop- tion of an appropriate ordinance, and the cost thereof appor- tioned in pursuance of an agreement between the County and the abutting property owners. 357 November 22, 1986 If all of the abutting property owners agree to share in the equitable distribution of the costs of such improvements, then as authorized by an appropriate ordinance the County may enter into an agreement to administer the improvements project in accordance with County standards and regulations. In administering such a project the County may identify the costs of the improvements and assess or apportion these costs among the abutting property owners. At the County's option the abutting property owners shall deposit with the County the estimated amount of the costs of such improvements upon the execution of an agreement, or they shall reimburse the County for the, costs of such improvements. The reimbursement of these costs shall be accomplished upon such terms and conditions and at a rate of interest to be determined by ordinance. A lien shall be recorded securing the reimburse- ment of these costs. If the proposed improvements are for a util- ity project, then the reimbursement of these costs and interest may be accomplished through the regular utility billing proce- dures, and revenue collected would be deposited in the utility enterprise fund. In the absence of such an agreement, improvements, the cost of which is to be defrayed in whole or in part by such local tax assessment, may be ordered on a petition from not less than seventy-five (75~) of the landowners to be affected thereby, or 358 November 22, 1988 by a vote of two-thirds of all of the members elected to the Board. But notice shall first be given as hereinafter provided to the abutting landowners, notifying them when and where they may appear before the Board to be heard in favor of or against such improvements. 5. Adoption of ordinance. A special assessment ordinance may be adopted either upon an agreement among all of the abutting property owners, upon a peti- tion of seventy-five (75$) percent of the affected abutting property owners, or upon an affirmative vote of two-thirds of all of the members elected to the board. A local public works improvements project may be deemed ne- cessary to address a situation concerning the public health, safe- ty or welfare. Board action should alleviate a threat or danger to life, limb, or property. -- 6. How costs assessed or apportioned. The cost of such improvements, when the same shall have been ascertained, shall be assessed or apportioned by a committee con- sisting of the Assistant County Administrator for Community Ser- vices and Development and the County Assessor. The County may agree to accept a portion of those costs, or to provide in-kind design, engineering or administrative services. If the County agrees to accept a portion of these costs, then the cost of such 35 9 November_ 22, , 1988 improvements shall be assessed or apportioned between the County and the abutting property owner or owners when less than the whole is assessed. 7. Assessments to be reported to treasurer. The amount assessed against each landowner, or for which he is liable by agreement, shall be reported as soon as practicable to the Treasurer, who shall enter the same as provided for other taxes. By ordinance the Board may provide for the postponement of the payment of such assessment by certain elderly or permanently and totally-disabled property owners meeting the eligibility con- ditions of Article III, Chapter 21 of this Code, until the sale of the property or the death of the last eligible owner. The eligible property owner shall have the option of payment or post- ponement. If the assessment is apportioned by agreement and payment is authorized through the utility billing procedure, then the amount assessed--including terms, conditions, and interest rate--shall be reported to that department for billing and collection. 8. Notice to landowner of amount of assessment recBzired When the assessment or apportionment is not fixed by agree- ment, notice thereof, and of the amount so assessed or appor- tioned, shall be given each of the then abutting owners and they shall be cited thereby to appear before the committee designated 3~0 November 22, 1989 in Section 6 not less than ten (10) days thereafter, at a time and place to be designated therein, to show cause, if any they can, against such assessment or apportionment. 9. How notice criven; objections The notice required by the preceding section may be given by personal service on all persons entitled to such notice, except that notice to an infant or insane person may be served on his guardian or committee and notice t~o a nonresident may be mailed to him at his place of residence or served on any agent of his having the property in charge, or on the tenant of the freehold, or in any case when the owner is a nonresident, or when the owner's residence is not known, such notice may be given by publi- cation in some newspaper published or having general circulation in the County once a week for four (4) successive weeks. Or, in any case, in lieu of such personal service on the parties or their agents and of such publication, the notice to all parties may be given by publishing the same in some newspaper published or having general circulation in the County once a week for two (2) successive weeks, the last publication to be made at least seven (7) days before the parties are cited to appear. Any land- owner wishing to make objections to an assessment or apportion- ment may appear in person or by counsel and state his objections. This notice and opportunity to make objections may be com- bined with the notice and public hearing for the adoption of an 36 7 November 22, 1988 appropriate ordinance approving specific local public works improvements. 10. Aepeal to court authorized. If his objections are overruled, he shall, within thirty (30) days thereafter, but not afterwards, have an appeal as of right to the Circuit Court of the County. When an appeal is taken, the committee designated in Section 6 shall immediately deliver to the clerk of the court which has cognizance of the appeal the original notice relating to the assessment, with its judgment endorsed thereon and the clerk shall docket the same. 11. How appeal tried; lien of iudctment; when to take effect; how enforced. Such appeal shall be tried by the court or the judge there- of, in a summary way, without pleadings in writing and without a jury, in term time or in vacation, after ten (10) days' notice to the adverse party, and the hearing shall be de novo. The amount finally assessed against or apportioned to each landowner, or fixed by agreement with him, as herein before provided, shall be a lien enforceable in equity on his abutting land, from the time when the work of improvement shall have been completed; subject, however, to his right of appeal and objections as aforesaid. Such lien shall be enforceable against any person deemed to have had notice of the proposed assessment under section 11, but if no abstract of the resolution or ordinance authorizing the improve- 36~ November 22, 1988 ment is docketed as provided in section 11, such lien shall be void as to all purchasers for valuable consideration without notice and lien creditors until and except from the time it is duly admitted to record in the clerk's office of the Circuit Court of the county. The Board, in its discretion, may cause the payment of the amount finally assessed or apportioned against each landowner, or fixed by agreement with him to be divided into two (2) or more, but not exceeding twenty (20), semiannual installments. 12. Docketing of abstracts of resolutions or ordinances When any improvement is authorized for which assessments may be made against the abutting landowners, the board may, before the amount to be finally assessed against or apportioned to each landowner or fixed by agreement is determined, cause to be recorded in the judgment docket of the clerk's office in which deeds conveying real estate are required by law to be recorded, an abstract of the resolution or ordinance authorizing such improvement, showing the ownership and location of the property to be affected by the proposed improvement and the estimated amount that will be assessed against or apportioned to each land- owner or fixed by agreement with him, and the same shall be indexed in the name of the owner of the property. After the completion of the improvement, the estimated amount shall be amended to show the amount finally assessed 3fi3 November 22, 1988 against or apportioned to each landowner or fixed by agreement with him, which final amount shall in no event exceed the esti- mated amount for the improvements as initially authorized. The amount finally assessed against or apportioned to each landowner may be greater than the initially assessed amount when the increased amount is for additional work being performed when said work was requested by the landowner and the additional work and its estimated amount is written into a separate agreement between the County and the affected landowner. From the time of the doc- keting of such abstract, any purchase of, or creditor acquiring a j lien on, any of the property described therein shall be deemed to have had notice of the proposed assessment. 13. Installment gavment of assessments. The persons against who the assessments have been finally made may pay such assessments in equal installments over a period of not exceeding ten (10) years, together with interest at the rate not to exceed the judgment rate of interest on the unpaid balances. Such installments shall become due at the same time that real estate taxes become due and payable and the amount of each installment, including principal and interest, shall be shown on the tax ticket or bill mailed not later than fourteen (14) days prior to the installment due date to each such person by the treasurer. 14. Special districts. 364 November 22, 1988 The county may create special districts or areas within the county, if those areas desire additional or more complete govern- mental services than are desired in the county as a whole. The board shall have the power to levy a higher tax in such areas, and the proceeds therefrom shall be segregated for expenditure in the areas from which said proceeds are raised. The higher tax rate shall not be levied for education, law enforcement, or general governmental services. The board shall create a special district or area only by ordinance. This ordinance shall not be effective until approved by an affirmative vote of the qualified voters residing within the proposed special district or area at a referendum on such question. Upon receipt of a petition from the citizens indicat- ing support for the creation of a special district or area and describing the boundaries of the district or area, the board shall request the circuit court to place this referendum question on the ballot, either at the--next scheduled general election or at a special election. 15. Severability. The sections, paragraphs, sentences, and clauses of this chapter are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, para- graph, or section of this chapter shall be declared unconstitu- tional or invalid by the valid judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining phrases, clauses, sen- November 22, 1983 3fi5 tences, paragraphs, and sections of this chapter shall remain valid. 16. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after December 1, 1988. On motion of Supervisor McGraw, seconded by Supervisor Garrett and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett NAYS: None Mr. Hodge and Mr. Mahoney described the process that will take place when a petition for public improvements is received by the County. IN RE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance ac cep ting an offer for and authorizincx the sale of .55 acre more or less in the Southwest Industrial Park. Mr. Mahoney presented the staff report. No one was present to speak to the ordinance. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None ORDINANCE 112288-8 ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF .55 ACRE, MORE OR LESS, IN THE SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIAL PARK 366 November 22, 1988 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 is being made available for other pub- lic uses, i.e. economic development; and 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading was held on Novem- ber 9, 1988, and a second reading was held on November 22, 1988, concerning the sale and disposition of .55 acre, more or less, in the Southwest Industrial Park; and 3. That an offer having been received for said proper- ty, the offer of Nelson Brumfield to purchase .55 acre, more or less, for $18,000 is hereby accepted and all other offers are rejected; and 4. That all proceeds from the sale of this real estate are to be allocated to the capital reserves of the County; and 5. That the County Administrator is authorized to exe- cute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the conveyance of said pro- pert y, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor Johnson and carried by the following recorded vote: 361 November 22, 1988 AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett NAYS: None 2. Ordinance accep incx an offer for and authorizing the sale of two (2) acres, more or less in the Southwest Industrial Park. Mr. Mahoney presented the staff report. No one was present to speak to the ordinance. Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None ORDINANCE 112288-9 ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF TWO (2) ACRES, MORE OR LESS, IN THE SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIAL PARK 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 is being made available for other pub- lic uses, i.e. economic development; and 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading was held on Novem- 36 ~ November 22, 1988 ber 9, 1988, and a second reading was held on November 22, 1988, concerning the sale and disposition of two (2) acres, more or less, in the Southwest Industrial Park; and 3. That an offer having been received for said proper- ty, the offer of Insulation Systems Inc. to purchase two (2) acres, more or less, for 550,000 is hereby accepted and all other offers are rejected; and 4. That all proceeds from the sale of this real estate are to be allocated to the capital reserves of the County; and 5. That the County Administrator is authorized to exe- cute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke County as are necessary to accomplish the conveyance of said pro- perty, all of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett NAYS: None ~. Ordinance a epting an offer for and au horizinq the sale and convevance of surplus real estate well lot Glen Forest. Mr. Mahoney presented the staff report. No one was present to speak on the ordinance. November 22, 1988 J 6 g Supervisor Nickens moved to approve the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Garrett and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None ORDINANCE 112288-10 ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE AND CONVEYANCE OF SURPLUS REAL ESTATE--WELL LOT, GLEN FOREST BE IT RESOLVED 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 de- clared to be surplus and is being made available for sale to the public; and 2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading concerning the sale and disposition of the hereinafter-described real estate was held on November 9, 1988. A second reading on this matter was held on November 22, 1988. This real estate consists of a well lot located in Glen Forest and more particularly described as Tax Map No. 64.02-2-18; and 3. That offers having been received for the well lot located in Glen Forest, the offer of James E. Cooke in the amount 37Q November 22, 1988 of $850.00 is hereby accepted and all other offers are rejected; and 4. That all proceeds from the sale of this real estate are to be allocated to the capital reserves of the County; and 5. That the County Administrator is authorized 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 Attorney. On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor Garrett and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett NAYS: None 4. Ordinance establishing certain procedures for the financing of local public works improvements, authorizingthe assessments upon abutting property owners, providing for notice thereof, objections and appeals pursuant to the statutes for such cases made and provided This ordinance was adopted under public hearings. 5. Ordinance amending and reenacting Chapter 10 Licenses and Providing for a permit fee for Solicitor's Permits This ordinance was adopted under public hearings. November 22, 1988 IN RE: CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 37 ~ 1. Homeowners in the Boxley Hills section to speak concerning "cruising" in their neighborhood. Supervisor Johnson advised he had received a petition from over 140 residents in the Boxley Hills neighborhood requesting assistance from Sheriff Kavanaugh with the cruising problems in their community. He described the problems that the residents face entering and leaving Boxley Hills, and the I { cruisers who have come into the subdivision creating problems with noise and littering, vandalism and general disruption of the neighborhood. He has asked Sheriff Kavanaugh for stronger law enforcement in the neighborhood. The following citizens spoke describing the problems and asking for assistance to address the problem. 1. Ronkeith Adkins, member of V.A.D.D., 3057 Timberlane Avenue, S. W. 2. Janice Shrader, 5603 Darby Road N. W. 3. Virginia R. Jones, 5614 Darby Road N. W. 4. Charles E. Parker, 8435 Belle Haven Road N. W. 5. Coleman Easterly, 5726 Malvern Road N. W. 6. Carlton Wright, 631 Abney Road N. W. November 22, 1988 372 Supervisor Johnson moved that the request an opinion from County Attorney the Attorne implementation of y General the an anti- on cruise ordinance that the Count for Roanoke Count Y Administration meet Y and find with the Sheriff to begin to solutions to the cruising problems. by Supervisor The motion was Garrett and carried b seconded y the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett NAYS: None IN RE: NEW BUSINESS Mr. Hodge explained that the uyc staff is in need of additional space and is recommending the lease of 37 feet of office space in the Brambleton Corporate Ce 50 square to be moved include Human Resources, Pa roll rater. Offices Assessments and risk Management. y ' Real Estate Supervisor Robers suggested that a hiring freeze be implemented with the leasing of additional space. Johnson advsaeet wish Supervisor n9~~ v~,~d ~n~t nb a~#~b~,a ~~ ~nis a.fa,~~ra ~~~y for one year. Supervisor McGraw moved to authorize the Cou Administrator to lease additional office space t my o take affect November 22, 1988 3 7 3 January 1, 1989. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Garrett and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Garrett NAYS: Supervisors Robers, Nickens IN RE: ADJOURNMENT At 9:36 p.m., Supervisor Johnson moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Supervisor Robers and carried by a unanimous voice vote. Lee Garrett, Chairman ~! COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE - CAPITAL FUND Beginning Balance at July 1, 1989 $56,194 Balance as of August 8, 1989 Sunni tted by ~~~-Q`-~~'7.~J ~• t~-=mot V Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance 56 194 / ' / '- , COUI~Ti'Y OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA UNAPPROPRIATED BAL~ANC',E - GENERAL FUND Balance at July 1, 1989 (Unaudited) $2,012,318 Balance as of August 8, 1989 $2,012.318 Submitted by Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance -. COUI~PY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA RFSII2VE FOR BOARD OONTINGII~iCY Beginning Balance at July 1, 1989 $11,394 .Additional Amount from 1989-90 Budget 50,000 June 14, 1989 Contribution to Va. Amateur Sports (25,000) July 11, 1989 Purchase of drainage easement (5,000) July 11, 1989 Option on 200 acres real estate (3,750) July 25, 1989 Donation to Julian Wise Foundation (5,000) Balance as of August 8, 1989 22 644 Submitted by ,~. Diane D. Hyatt Director of Finance I ~ ROANp~, O F ti •~ ~ A a C~~~~~ ~~ ~~~rtu~~.~ ~s O $$ sFSQf1fCEN7ENK~P~ Af3cauti/uf8eg(""'"g JOINT WORK SESSION ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1989 AGENDA A. ROLL CALL 1. Board of Supervisors 2. Planning Commission B. OPENING REMARKS 1. Board Chairman Lee Garrett 2. Commission Chairman Don Witt 3. County Administrator Elmer Hodge C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT UPDATE (Tim Gubala - 20 minutes) D. ZONING ORDINANCE REVISION UPDATE 1. Sign Ordinance (Don Witt - 15 minutes) 2. Rural Preserve - Catawba Valley (Jon Hartley - 10 minutes) 3. Commercial Zoning (Dale Castellow - 10 minutes) E. REVISION TO THE REZONING PROCESS (Planning Staff - 10 minutes) F. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 1. 1990 Census 2. Redistricting 3. Land Use Plan Update 4. Roanoke River Corridor Study G. QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD H. ADJOURNMENT ACTION N0. ITEM NUMBER '° AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER MEETING DATE: August 8, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: Joint Work Session with the Planning Commission COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: A joint work session with the Planning Commission and staff has been set to discuss issues and projects that involve both entities. The following issues will be discussed at the work session. 1. Economic Development Activities, i.e. Proposed Industrial Land Rezonings 2. Zoning Ordinance Revision Update a. Sign Ordinance 3. Revision to the Rezoning Process and Forms (See attached) '/~ Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACTION VOTE Approved ( ) Motion by: Yes No Abs Denied ( ) Garrett Received ( ) Johnson Referred McGraw To• Nickens Robers N-i~ ZONING ORDINANCE REVISIONS Preliminary Recommendations Rural Districts Subcommittee I. General Approach - by geographic area starting with Catawba Planning Area as a pilot area and model to work from in other areas. * Recognizes differences around the County and greater sensitivity of rural residents for land use controls. * By Board Action (9/27/88), Catawba was given high priority. * Permitted uses, standards for uses and basic provisions will be standardized as much as possible for County wide application, with lot sizes (density) open for discussion. ~ Facilitates community participation, consensus building and ownership for proposals submitted to the Board. II. A greater variety of uses are generally provided for with the addition of development standards and mechanisms for public review for potentially conflicting uses. * Comprehensive standards for less problematic uses with administrative (staff) review. ~ Creation of Conditional Use Permits reviewed by Planning Commission only, based on specific development standards which must be met. Proposals meeting these standards must be approved. * Greater use of Special Use Permits with addition of Planning Commission review and recommendation to the Board. III. Major emphasis has been on acceptable methods for reducing permitted densities, particularly in the Agricultural Preserve areas. Methods discussed have included: large lot zoning; clustering; performance zoning; and transfer of development rights. Recommendations are: * AG-5 = 5 acre minimum lot size, with parcels over 40 acres required to cluster on smaller lots. * AR-1 = 1 acre minimum lot sizes. * AV-1 = 1/2 acre lot sizes. IV. Restructuring of Permitted uses to coincide with Comprehensive Plan and appropriateness of uses in given areas, with an emphasis on: * Orienting uses towards more customary rural uses, and eliminating urban uses. * Establishing commercial and higher density centers to accommodate rural needs. VI. Adding consideration for physical constraints and potential liabilities in land development, including: * Steep slopes. * Groundwater recharge areas, generally. * Historic sites. * Land productivity for agricultural and forestry uses. ZONING ORDINANCE REVISION Preliminary Recommendations Commercial Development Subcommittee I. Editorial Revisions A. Revise the format of the ordinance to include a "statement of purpose" for each zoning district. * Committee has suggested that a statement of purpose be added to the ordinance to establish the intent of the provisions and provide linkage between the plan and ordinance. B. Revise the format of the existing ordinance to include major categories of permitted uses rather than an all encompassing list of specific uses. * For example, rather than try to list all of the various types of permitted offices or retail uses, include general categories such as "General Office" and "General Retail" which group land use types by their respective characteristics. C. Revise and expand definitions pertaining to commercial provisions. * Specifically, the committee has recommended numerous revisions and additions to the definition section. D. Utilize graphics, where feasible, to illustrate revised development standards and guidelines. * Committee has suggested that the ordinance include graphics to illustrate development standards such as screening and buffering for parking lots, outdoor storage requirements and locations for loading areas. II. Substantive Revisions A. Eliminate the B-3, Special Commercial District. * Committee recommends elimination of the B-3 district and combining these uses with those permitted in the B-2, General Commercial District. Those land uses which pose specific problems in terms of land use impacts would be subject to a conditional use permit. B. Create a "Conditional Use" format which provides specific development standards or "conditions" which exceed those standards otherwise permitted in the district. * Unlike the existing special use or special exception procedure where review by the Board of Supervisors is required, the committee has recommended the permit would require administrative review by the Planning Commission only. * As an administrative review, proposals complying with the adopted conditions must be approved. * Conditions would focus specifically on the physical development aspects of the site. C. Create a "Neighborhood Commercial District." * Committee recommends adoption of an additional commercial zoning district which provides for small scale commercial land uses in areas that are predominantly residential. The intent is to provide 1lmited commercial and/or service uses in locations convenient to local residents. Such uses would be subject to stringent development standards in terms of gross square feet, screening and buffering, hours of operation, and outdoor storage. D. Create a "Planned Commercial District" to accommodate mixed use proposals. * The existing ordinance, with the exception of the B-1, office district, does not include provisions for mixed use development. The committee has recommended the ordinance provide for varying combinations of residential, office and commercial land uses within one unified development. E. Create an "Interchange Commercial District" to accommodate development around the I-81 interchanges in Roanoke County. * Committee proposes to recommend provisions for commercial, industrial and possibly residential development around the I-81 interchanges in the County. The intent is to provide for those uses which require high visibility and access, but do not impede with the functional aspects of the interchange. V0~ tL • c~ 4 -s• m ~ o• ~ o~ om z' I ~~ Vm ~• I 4~ N• PT Q~ ~T ?O ti• r r r 0 0 0 c ~5 c i~ c ~- r•- r ~ •- ~ •- ~ drvt drr~ drrt Oral OraO Or0~0 .+•-co +~•-c4 ++•-ca •-Ec.tA •-E~(A --E~(1? 0 u 0 0 0 Ou a t i0 a ~cu'0 ~cu~ -+~cu~ 7•-•- ~ 7--•- ~ (A 7•-•- r. to c~0 z c~0 ~ c~0 z?4~0 u~+d7O O?~d705 o~~a -•~•-a a~--a a o cn a o a a o cn c c.+ r+ c c++ c c.+ -+0~0 3G?0 J0~0 ~--~•-- o•-~--- ¢-- O,+ r d Qv r 4 ~••~++ r~ Q03r~ ad3rL Ud3rL a•-O--O ~L•-d Q~d•-O a-- Ew J a•- E~* W a•- ~• zE~E~ QE~E~ EE~~'~ C70dOd OCOdOd OdVVd ~t31LU1~ J{.~tYV1Y ~I.IIYU~ tin. ~ ~ ~. ~ ~: ~ ~ Z O w N .. } W Q W U z Q Z .~ O Q O c~ z M Z O N Q O W W J D w U u7 I Proposed Changes to Rezoning' Application Forms EXISTING PROPOSED Rezoning Application Rezoning Application Rezoning Petition Planning Commission Delete; Use Commission Recommendation Form Transmittal Form Final Order Delete; Substitute Proffer of Conditions Ordinance Date Rec.: Received By: Case No.:_ Ord. No.: ROANORS COUNTY REZONING APPLICATION 1. Owner's Name: Address: Phone: 2. Applicant's Name: Address: Phone• 3. Location of Property: Tax Map Number(s): 4. Magisterial District: 5. Size of Property: 6. Existing Zoning: Existing Land Use: 7. Proposed Zoning: Proposed Land Use: 8. Comprehensive Plan Designation: 9. Are Conditions Proffered With This Request? Yes No (If you are voluntarily offering proffers as a part of your applica- tion, these proffers must be in writing. A member of the Planning Staff can assist you in the preparation of these proffers.) 10. Value of Land and (Proposed) Buildings: 11. The Following Items Must Be Submitted With This Application. Please Check If Enclosed. Application Will Not Be Accepted If Any Of These Items Are Missing Or Incomplete: Letter of Application Concept Plan Metes and Bounds Description List of Adjacent Owners of Property (Attach Exhibit A) Vicinity Map Application Fee Written Proffers Water and Sewer Application (If Applicable) 12. Signature Of Property Owner, Contract Purchaser, Or Owner's Agent: Signature Date In the space below, please type in the metes and bounds legal description of the property requested for rezoning. If an accurate metes and bounds description of the property does not exist, you are responsible for obtaining an accurate description prior to submittal of a rezoning request. Your application will not be accepted without this description. The metes and bounds description must coincide with the area depicted on the concept plan. As an alternative to completing this form, you may provide us this information on a 5 1/4 inch floppy disk composed in Wordperfect 5.0 format. Owner's Name: Date: DESCRIPTION: • µ AN ~, ~ ~.~ 18 x,50 88 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ~~sQU1CENTENN~p~ A BeautifuJBtginning M E M O R A N D U M TO: Chairman and members of the Board of Supervisors Planning Commission and Director of Planning FROM: Timothy W. Gubala, Director of Economic Development ~M DATE: August 8, 1989 ll~~ SUBJECT: Economic Development 75/25 Policy Update The Economic Development staff made a presentation to the Board of Supervisors on June 14, 1989 that outlined the status of the 75/25 policy adopted by the Board in early 1987. Information about the status of development and the available industrial sites were highlights of the presentation. Specific short range recommendations were made to the Board about reviewing Principle Industrial areas shown in the Comprehensive Plan and reviewing the zoning classifications of property zoned agricultural or residential that might have economic development potential. The intent is to increase the supply of industrial land and "ready to go"sites in order to achieve the 75/25 goal by 2003. The Board of Supervisors directed the staff to complete a review of industrial sites in the County and make recommendations for further Board action to participate in the development of another industrial site during the fiscal year. Recommendations for Comprehensive Plan amendments and property rezonings will be coordinated and reviewed with the Planning staff prior to presentation to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. A copy of the June 14, 1989 Board report and update is enclosed for use by the Planning Commission. Please review the material as presented as reference material for future staff recommendations concerning the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Please let me know if you have questions about economic development. sbo Enclosure c Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE , VIRGINIA 24019-0798 1703) 772-2069 FAX. NO.: (703) 772-2030 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTAACTIVITIES - AUGUST 1989 Site plans filed Office buildings in square feet 4 @ 152,588 Industrial buildings in square feet 4 @ 120,500 Other commercial uses 3 @ 34,322 TOTAL 11 @ 307,410 Building permits issued and under construction 10 @ 237,635 7 @ 83,395 8 @ 10_ 0,113 25 @ 421,143 PROSPECT UPDATE - AUGUST 1989 TYPE LOCAL STATE OUT OF STATE Manufacturing/distribution 17 2 6 Commercial 1 Office 2 2 Unknown 1 Total 20 2 9 Type of product requested LAND BUILDING UNKNOWN 21 7 3 Source: Local contact/realtor 20 Regional Partnership 2 Out of State ~ Northern Virginia 2 31 PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS TO ACHIEVE 75/25 1, County participation in the development of another industrial site during FY 89-90. otential industrial sites in the county and select 2 Identify p those to be "ready to go" and: a, Amend the Comprehensive Plan to change certain area designations to Principal Industrial. b, Rezone potential sites now zoned residential or agricultural to industrial. c• Implement detailed planning to provide water and sewer and road improvements to these sites over a f ive ( 5 ) year period. 3, Participation in the construction of a "shell building." 4, Form an economic development advisory council. 5, Increase marketing efforts to sell Roanoke County within and outside the Commonwealth of Virginia. 6, Enrollment in the Virginia Community Certification program. 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 14, 1989 AGENDA ITEM: WORR SESSION 75/25 Economic Development Policy COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACRGROUND The staff made a presentation at the March 28, 1989 Board of Supervisors meeting regarding the status of the 75/25 policy adopted by the Board of Supervisors in early 1987. The Board of Supervisors requested that a specific action plan be developed within sixty (60) days to~address the economic development efforts to achieve a 75$ residential/25$ commercial/industrial tax base ratio before the year 2003. The attached report makes specific short range recommendations about site development, marketing efforts and industrial land use to implement the 75/25 policy. FISCAL IMPACT The Board has identified S100,000 in the FY 89-90 budget for an economic development project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors consider the 75/25 policy as its policy guidelines for economic development to reaffirm their commitment to this long range policy. Staff will implement the specific recommendations outlined within the policy. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: 1M1~ Ca Timothy W. Gubala, Director Elmer C. Hod e Economic Development County Administrator Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred To Motion by: ACTION VOTE No Yes Abs Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers Attachment o-~ ROANOKE COUNTY 75/25 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY UPDATE INVENTORY OF ASSETS RECOMMENDATIONS ON-GOING ACTIVITIES June 14, 1989 o-~ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The staff made a presentation at the March 28, 1989 Board of Supervisors meeting regarding the status of the 75/25 policy adopted by the Board of Supervisors in early 1987. The Board of Supervisors requested that a specific action plan be developed within sixty (60) days to address the economic development efforts to achieve a 758 residential/25$ commercial/industrial tax base ratio before the year 2003. The attached report makes specific short range recommendations about site development, marketing efforts and industrial land use to implement the 75/25 policy. A. Update of current economic development activity ~ - I Economic Development activity has picked up in Roanoke County this spring. Site plans, building permits and new business announcements are enumerated by square footage on Table 1. Some of the more significant activities are: Dominion Bankshares Corporation has filed a preliminary plan for a 141,500 square foot, four story addition at their operations center on Plantation Road. They plan to make a capital expenditure between $5 and $10 million over the next year. This will serve present and future needs for the Operations Center. ITT (Electro-Optical Division) has received a building permit and started construction of a 5,000 square foot maufacturing building at their complex in Jamison Industrial Park. Srog er has obtained a building permit and started construction on a 42,500 square foot addition to the frozen storage facility at their complex in the Glenvar area. Three companies have purchased land in Roanoke County's Southwest Industrial Park. -Insulation Systems will construct a 20,000 square foot building and employ ten (10) to store and distribute ~ commercial insulation material. 1 V'' I -Nelson Brumfield will construct a 10,000 square foot building and employ six t6) to manufacture kitchen counters and cabinets. A land sale is near completion-for the purchase of 1.46 acres for the construction of a 10,000 square foot industrial incubator in Southwest Industrial Park. The vacant Moore's building on Brambleton Avenue has been sold to Roanoke Memorial for a clinic. Rennovations are anticipated during the summer of 1989. The 4 19 corridor has the following projects under construction: -A 60,000 square foot office building in Colonnade Corporate Center -A 26,294 square foot office building by Hong Ri Min -Virginia First Savings and Loan Branch at 419 and Chaparral. -Sleep Inn, a 104 room motel near Tanglewood Mall -Fralin and Waldron's Building "F" (47,700 square feet), five stories 2 Two companies have located in tl -American Profiles located to manufacture veneer for -Boxley Construction has 6,000 square foot complex he Vinton Industrial Park Q a 26,600 square foot facility (wood) moldings; employs 50. relocated 70 employees into its from the City of Roanoke. TABLE 1 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES - MAY 1989 Site plans Building permits filed issued and under construction Office buildings in square feet 9 @ 256,643 3 @ 127,294 Industrial buildings in square feet 2 @ 20,800 5 @ 70,435 Other commercial uses 4 @ 51,581 6 @ 57,679 Total 15 @ 329,024 14 @ 255,408 Since January 1, 1989, the County staff has obtained eighteen (18) prospects from the following sources: Regional Partnership 2 Local realtors 7 ~' Local business expansion contacts 7 ' Northern Virginia Marketing ~ 2 Direct call - ~ 18 ~ 1. 3 6-1 711 prospects are looking for "ready to qo" industrial sites. Specific needs of each prospect are on file (confidential) with the pepartment of Economic Development. g. Inventory of assets In o rder for Roanoke County to have continued economic growth, the following County level assets are required: o Available, "ready to go" industrial sites using proper zoning, water, sewer and road access. o Marketing Strategy with up to date marketing material i.e., brochure, profile, marketing book. o A positive attitude and problem-solving methods to handling the concerns of local business and industry as they expand operations within the community. o Full-time, professional economic development staff at the local and regional level. Th e s e four assets are further described in their current condition below: 1. Need for "ready to go" industrial sites ~ During the preparation of Roanoke County's Comprehensive 4 o_~ Plan, a 1984 land use survey determined that there were 997 acres of land used as industrial. During the five year interval, another 122 acres was rezoned to industrial M1 or M2 (according to Planning Commission Annual Reports) giving Roanoke County a theoretical inventory of 1119 acres of industrial used land. This inventory is not realistic because of the following reasons: a. Land use - the land included as being zoned, encompasses all industrial land used for its intended purposes. Therefore, large acreage tracts owned by such companies _ as Ingersoll-Rand (98 ac) and Koppers (89 ac) are industrially zoned and under single ownership even though a large portion of the property may be vacant. According to Roanoke County's real estate tax records, there are actually 457 parcels of 2201.34 acres zoned industrial in the county and 146.07 acres in Vinton. This is more than double the estimated figure of land used for industrial and implies that over 1100 acres of industrial land is vacant. b. Floodplain - A majority of the industrially zoned land in western Roanoke County is adjacent to the Roanoke River. Floods in both 1968 and 1972 were recorded and have been indicated on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers floodplain maps. This flooding threat has eliminated several large west county parcels from consideration as unrestricted industrial sites. 5 o- i c. Access - Access to a primary highway is an important ~ f consideration for property to be used for industrial purposes due to terrain, highway locations in the County and past land use patterns, land zoned industrial has serious access limitations in Roanoke County. For instance; 1) A potential 287 acre site in Eastern Roanoke County has only one access point along a narrow secondary road that crosses Norfolk/Southern railroad tracks at an unguarded crossing. 2) A 163 acre site in northern Roanoke County with interstate frontage has no direct access to a secondary road. 3) A 15 rail site in western Roanoke County has a narrow easement as an access means across other property. d. Availability - Owners of industrial zoned land are not always willing to sell the land for its intended use at a favorable price. For example, 285 acres of industrial land are classified in a land use category, according to County real estate records, thus guaranteeing them a lower assessed value and tax rate. However, they are subject to "roll back" taxes for five preceeding years upon sale of the property. e. Industrial zoning - Roanoke County's Zoning Ordinance includes a variety of uses under the categories of M-1, M-2 and M-3. Basically, M-1 permitted uses are "light" 6 ~_i industrial uses generally carried on within a structure. Permitted uses in M-2 are "heavy" and are carried on both within a structure and outside on the property. Quarries, mining and asphalt plans are the only uses allowed in the M-3 District. The permitted uses include not only manufacturing, assembly and processing descriptions, but wholesale business and public utilities. Certain "unwanted" land uses are included in the industrial category, i.e. flea markets, automobile graveyards, veterinary hospitals, commercial kennels, used fire storage. The rezoning records indicate that property is being rezoned to industrial for specific uses. Including rezonings for APCo (36 acres) and Valleypointe (52 acres) in the fall of 1987, only 122 acres have been rezoned to M-1 or M-2 since 1984. Other rezonings to M-1 have been for small business such as: Mini-warehouses Electronic components assembly for South Star Corporation Ceramics shops Automobile repair business American Drum's musical instrument assembly Lumber drying business Contractor's equipment storage yard 7 o-e f. Future Industrial Sites A study completed by the Salem-Roanoke County Chamber of Commerce in 1980 and updated in 1985 by the County staff indicates that land is zoned for other uses, particularly residential, that could be rezoned and eventually marketed as industrial sites. These sites have excellent potential for residential development. A report will be prepared in July 1989 to analyze and rank selected residential sites and recommend to the Board of Supervisors that they be rezoned to Industrial District M-1. This action could add 1,420 acres to the available industrial site inventory and protect them from residential development. This acreage combined with improvements in access and extensions of water and sewer could provide the County with sufficient inventory for future economic growth. g. "Ready to go" sites "Ready to qo" industrial sites are those sites that have the following characteristics: 1. appropriate industrial zoning 2. Access to adequate roads 3. Water service at site 4. Sewer service at site 5. Available for sale with established price. 8 o-~ Of all the 2,201 acres currently zoned industrial in Vinton and Roanoke County, only 195.5 acres meet th e requirements of being a "ready to go" site. These sites have been recorded with the Virginia Department of Economic Development, Regional Partnership and industrial realtors. Table 2 indicates specifics of these sites. TAHI.E 2 "Ready to Go" Industrial Sites Site na¢ae Acreage Location Zoning Notes Shimchocks 7.8 Hollins Road M1 Zb be subdivided D i h 7 Peters Creek B1/trQ For lease Leonard Hill 11.4 W. Main Street M1 Sewer to be extended Rt. 11/460 during 1989 Fbrt Lewis Industrial 11.0 W. Main Street M2 Two 5.5 acre parcels Park Krueger Metal 27 Off Rt. 11/460 M1 Jamison Industrial Park 4.5 Plantation Road M1 tioanoiaP,/$otetourt Industrial Park 43 Route 11/460 East Ml Valleypointe 55 Peters Creek Road M1 I-581 Austin Tract 4.5 Vinton Industrial Park 19.5 South+~est Industrial Park metal 4.8 195.5 Hollins Road M2 Third Street Ml Vinton Southraest County Ml Krueger wants to retain 17 acres and sell 10 Asking price may be too high Tweeds site (25 ac) is adjacent 12 acres being developed at present park at Valleypointe Vacant Two tracts of 14.5 and 5.0 Two parcels available 9 d-1 h. Sites havin4 deficiencies Land currently zoned industrial is remaining vacant, indicating that there are other factors affecting its development for the use intended. There are a number of industrial sites in Roanoke County that are less than "ready to go" because of one or more deficiencies. These include 382 acres of industrial zoned land. Table 3 indicates these tracts and the deficiencies that they have. Water and sewer service is not available to some sites and access is a problem for others. However, planning for water and sewer service has progressed for several of these properties. Access improvements for a number of other properties were addressed as the 1988 update of the Six Year Secondary Road plan but received lower ratings as being new projects. Future emphasis on improving both secondary road access and primary roads to serve industrial sites will contribute towards improvement of the inventory of industrial land. Table 3 Sites having Deficiences Site name Acreage Location Zoning Notes Adass Construction 175 I-81 M2/M3 Lacks water, Valleypointe, sewer (Ph arse I I ) Hollins College 163 I-81 M1 Lacks water, access Starkey 10.5 Starkey Rd. M2 - Lacks water, Roanoke Ready sewer, access 1"!ix 34 Benois Road M1 Lacks water, Total acreage 382.5 sewer, access 10 ~/ 2. Marketing Strategy The fiscal year 1989-90 budget contains $23,500 in funds for the economic development staff to initiate a marketing effort, both in s tate for name recognition and out of state industrial access prospects. This activity includes: a. Preparation of Marketing Materials - In order to effectively market the County, up to date published marketing material is required. This includes a new brochure, community profile and updated material for the marketing book. Three thousand dollars ($3,000) has been identified in the FY 89-90 budget to complete these tasks. b. Advertising - Prior to, and in conjunction with marketing trips out of state, selected advertisements will be made in regional and trade publications to support the prospective efforts. Widespread reference to the All-American City program will highlight the effort. c. Prospect trips - Four out of state marketing trips are scheduled to market Roanoke County and the Valley. The midwest and northeast are preliminary target areas. Trips may be made in conjunction with the Regional Partnership. d. Trade Show Partici ation - Technology trade shows bring together a variety of companies in one location. The strategy will be to_identify expanding industries and seek to have them locate in Roanoke County. 11 ' l a~ e. Bconomic bridges with Northern Virginia - Three ,- marketing trips are planned for building "economic bridges" between Northern. Virginia and the Roanoke Valley. These will follow up on the Roanoke Valley's visit in September 1988 and two subsequent marketing trips. A return visit from Northern Virginia business leaders is being planned for September 1989. 3. Positive attitude and methods The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and top administrative officials have a pro-business image that encourages new business locations and local companies to expand. However, this attitude needs to be instilled within the "rank and file" of County staff. Due to many changes in the development process; including fees, County standards and state mandated inspection items, local businesses get frustrated when they seek to obtain permits to expand and enlarge their operations. The availability of information at the onset is needed so that realistic schedules can be developed to complete the project. The following actions are recommended to either be continued, or to be initiated to alleviate "frustration" with the development process. a, informational brochures outlining County requirements aad regulations for site plans, building permits b. Scheduling of preliminary meetings to respond to preliminary plans. 12 c. Use of economic dev ~ ' elopment staff as "mediators" where conflict and misunderstanding occurs. d. Training of development review team in public relations and understanding of the private developers timing and financing constraints. "Expediting" critica 1 economic development projects to guarantee a five day review period on plans submitted. 4. Full-time staff Success in economic development requires that full-time staff be assigned to the Department of Economic Development in order to carry out the work program approved in the budget. Currently, two professional economic developers and one professional secretary are assigned. This is an increase from 1982 when economic development had one-half time staff emphasis. Starting ~_ in 1984, the first full-time staff member was assigned and finally in April 1988, the Economic Development Department was organized with three (3) people assigned full-time duties. Implementation of the approved work program will occupy all three staff members through the next fiscal year in marketing and out of state trips. Support of Roanoke County's efforts at the regional level is provided by County participation in the Regional Partnership and a F financial contribution of $68,182. These funds are used for representing and marketing the Roanoke Valley to prospects outside the area. Financial support of $25,000 is provided to the Roanoke Valley 13 Convention and Visitors Bureau fo O~/ r tourism and convention bookings. The Bureau promotes the Valley in travel publications, solicits meeting planners to hold conventions and conferences here and operates a visitor center in the downtown market area. C. Program Recommendations to achieve 75/25 Specific recommendations to change the composition of Roanoke County's tax base to 75$ residential and 25$ commercial/industrial to achieve a balance between the residential and commercial/indus- trial sectors by the year 1995 as follows: 1. Increase the supply of "ready to qo" industrial sites by pursuing one of the following alternatives with the $100,000 approved by the Board of Supervisors. a. County participation in the development of a 45 acre site in Eastern Roanoke County. b. County participation in the purchase and development of a 50 acre rail site in Roanoke County. c. County participation in the development of either of two I-S1 sites of 50 and 35 acres. d. County participation in the development of a 27 acre industrial site in Western Roanoke County. 14 .. o-i 2. Participation in the Virginia Shell building program to obtain funds to construct a shell building on a site in Roanoke County. 3. Recognize the need for future economic growth by reserving through rezoning to industrial/commercial, prime sites that may be currently zoned as residential or agricultural. A study will be completed during July 1969 and a report made to the Board analyzing and ranking the sites to be rezoned. 4. Formation of an advisory economic development council. S. Increase in marketing efforts to "sell" Roanoke County ! both within and outside the Commonwealth of Virginia. D. Ongoing activities in the area of economic development to meet goal of 758 residential and 258 commercial/industrial include: -Completion of Valleypointe, Phase I (SS acres) -County participation in the development of Valleypointe, Phase II, (175 acres). -County marketing of existing, vacant industrial sites in the Vinton Industrial Park, Roanoke-Botetourt Industrial Park and Fort Lewis Industrial Park (100 acres). -Promoting the Explore Project as the tourism destination point of the Roanoke Valley. -Encouraging the development of a travel and tourism "infrastructure" (hotels, motels, and restaurants) in Roanoke County. ,~ 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' AGENDA ITEM' August 8, 1989 Work Session - Revision of Rezoning Forms and Procedures COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: BACKGROUND' The County Attorney and the Director of Planning recommend changing the County's rezoning forms and procedures to accomplish the following objectives: - reduce the number of documents that applicants must complete and Board, Planning Commission and staff must review; -allow the Commission and the Board additional time to review new requests without increasing the total review time for the applicant; - satisfy legal requirements and improve administrative record-keeping by adopting the ordinance format for rezoning actions. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION: Please note the attached memorandum from the County Attorney concerning this topic. ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS: (1) Concur in the recommended changes and commence administra- tive changes immediately. (2) Do not concur in the recommended changes, continue existing procedures. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board concur in the recommended revisions to the rezoning forms and procedures. Respectfully submitted, 0 Paul M. Mahoney County Attorney Approved ( ) Denied ( ) Received ( ) Referred to Action Motion by Garrett Johnson McGraw Nickens Robers Vote No Yes Abs --~-~ c M E M O R A N D U M TO: Chairman and Members Board of Supervisors { ~~ FROM: Paul M. Mahoney ~; ~~~; f County Attorney (~ SUBJECT: Revision of Rezoning Forms and Procedures DATE: 17 July 1989 Over the past several years the County Attorney and the Director of Planning have discussed from time to time the necessity of revising rezoning application forms and procedures. Unfor- tunately this revision has repeatedly been relegated to low priority status. Upon the a ppointment of Mr. Harrington as Director of Planning, he and I had the opportunity to review these forms and procedures. Based upon our discussions, Mr. Harrington has recommended several changes that will: 0 reduce the number of forms that applicants will need to complete and that the staff, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors must review; ~ allow the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors additional time to review new requests without increasing the total amount of review time to the applicant; improve the administrative record keeping by adopting an ordinance format for all rezoning actions. The ordinance would contain all information relevant to the rezoning of the property, including conditional zoning proffers. The County Attorney, Director of Planning, and Clerk to the Board of Supervisors recommend these changes to the Board in the belief that these changes will result in administrative and procedural improvements to the rezoning process and satisfy legal requirements. The Director of Planning then will implement these changes for the Planning Commission commencing the end of July N~~~ 2 1989; and the County Attorney and Clerk will implement these changes for the Board commencing August 1989. The Director of Planning will modify the existing rezoning application form, eliminate the rezoning petition form and Planning Commission recommendation form. A rezoning ordinance will be substituted for the Board of Supervisor's final order. The statement of proffers will be eliminated and will be replaced by a letter from the applicant, and the proffers will be included in the rezoning ordinance. The rezoning petition and rezoning application forms are duplicates. One form is sufficient to begin the rezoning process, and the current rezoning petition form does not contain any information that is not already provided on the rezoning application form. The revised rezoning application form includes information regarding the method of offering proffers for conditional rezon- ings, as well as the signature lines. The information concerning number of employees and value of improvements has been eliminated to avoid the allegation that the Board is practicing "fiscal zoning." It is hoped that rezoning decisions are based upon a careful evaluation of conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and impact upon surrounding areas and public facilities, and not upon its "profit" to the County. Finally the application form will include an exhibit for the metes and bounds description of the property. The Board of Supervisors final order form and statement of proffers can be eliminated by utilizing a rezoning ordinance. The applicant can offer proffers for conditional zoning by submitting them in writing as part of an application letter or subsequent to filing of the application by submitting a letter listing the proffers. The rezoning ordinance shall contain all relevant information to the rezoning including a listing of the proffers accepted by the Board. To eliminate or at least reduce the practice of applicants submitting proffers to the Board immediately prior to the commencement of the public hearing, and thereby f r r / '~ ~. 3 preventing appropriate staff review and Planning Commission recommendation, I would further recommend that the Board consider delaying the adoption of a rezoning ordinance with amended proffers until a subsequent meeting, so that the amending proffers can be included in the amended rezoning ordinance. The Planning Commission recommendation form is also unneces- sary. The Planning Commission transmittal report provides the Board of Supervisors all of the relevant information regarding the Planning Commission's actions and recommendations. This trans- mittal report will continue to be used in the future. Section 15.1-491 (g) of the State Code provides that "the governing body may by ordinance amend, supplement, or change the regulations, district boundaries, or classifications of property." (Emphasis added.) The Roanoke County Charter provides that no ordinance may be passed until it has been read by title at two regular meetings. Every ordinance shall require for final passage the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Board. The revised procedure for rezoning ordinances shall provide for a first reading of a rezoning ordinance to occur at the second meeting of the month (when rezoning public hearings are normally scheduled). The second reading of this rezoning ordinance shall be held at the second meeting of the Board in the following month. For example, upon Mahoney's application to rezone three acres of land located on Route 419 from R1 to B2, the first reading on this rezoning ordinance would be held on August 22, 1989. The Planning Commission would hold its public hearing on this request on September 5, 1989. The Board would hold its public hearing and second reading on this rezoning ordinance on September 26, 1989. This revised rezoning procedure would not result in any delay to the applicant for Board consideration of this matter. It would provide the Board with at least one month advance notice of any rezoning application. At the first reading of a rezoning or- dinance, the Board would have the following information: title of the ordinance, rezoning application, and letter from applicant ,~-1 ~,,. -,,,, 4 listing proffers if conditional rezoning is requested. The first reading of rezoning ordinances could be accomplished by using a "consent agenda" format. This "first reading rezoning ordinance consent agenda" can also schedule the public hearing and second reading on this rezoning application. It is anticipated that the Board would routinely approve the first reading and schedule the public hearing and second reading of the rezoning ordinance. The Board would be alerted approximate- ly one month in advance of upcoming rezonings, and would have an opportunity to make inquires of staff concerning these matters. The typical rezoning cycle will take less than sixty days to complete. During transition, the new procedure might be confusing, however, after the initial cycle commencing in August 1989 confusion should be eliminated. Both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors will receive knowledge of new rezoning requests as part of their consent agendas approximately one month prior to their public hearings and action. If the Board has any questions or concerns regarding the revised forms or procedures, please do not hesitate to contact either the County Attorney or the Director of Planning. PMM/sg AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY , VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER, ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 8, 1989 R E S O L U T I O N C E R T I F Y I N G E X E C U T I V E MEETING WAS HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia Law. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia hereby certifies that, to the best of each members knowledge: 1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting which this certification resolution applies, and 2. Only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia. PQAN ~ ,< F ~~ ~ z J a ~a E50 as SFSQUICENTENN`P~ A Beauti~ul Beginning ~/ /^ . reference. (~DU1lt1J Of 'RROttriDIiP COMMUNITY SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT July 26- 1989 jf PHILLIP T. HENRY, P.E. DIRECTOR Mr. David Hauser Lane 5162 Cave Spring Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Re: Driveway Entrance Crossing Mudlick Creek Dear Mr. Hauser: By letter dated March 21- 1989, you were notified that your embankment was impeding the flow of Mudlick culvert and driveway Creek and was in violatlen to tou toocorrectnthisumatter with an Several options were giv 1989, to complete the corrections. A effective date of Augus1989- letter is attached for your copy of that March 21- Based determined situation, the August correction reimbursed and direction to a on inspection of your site this week, it was that no efforts hre nest theeBoard ofeSupervisors at therefore I will Q 8, 1989, meeting to authorize funds to have theenses to authorize legal action to have exp s made and to Roanoke County. I would recommend that you revi~io htoeAugustd8,n1989ation and proceed with corrective action p I would Assuming that corrective actions have not been tsufficient funds anticipate the Boardeotf-heuworklcompleted rizing h Yours truly, '~«~'~~ Phillip T. Henry, p•E• Director of EngineEring dj Windsor Hills District Supervisor pc; Lee Garrett, County Administrator Elmer Hodge, County Attorney Paul Mahoney, Administrator of John R. Hubbard, Assistant County Community Services & Development ment & Inspections Arnold O. Covey, Director of Develop P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 • (703) 772-2080 ~n 18 ~ 88 aEB~UICENTENN~'~ ~ a~„~~r~,ls~~;~~;~ ~p1IYIf1J Of f~. UFlltp~if COMMUNITY SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT March 21, 1989 PHILLIP T. HENRY, P.E. arr~croR Mr. David Hauser 5162 Cave Spring Lane Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Re: Driveway entrance crossing Mudlick Creek Dear Mr. Hauser: This letter is a follow-up to our meeting of last week, at which time we discussed your driveway entrance crossing Mudlick Creek and the related embankment and culvert. Roanoke County has previously discussed concerns about this installation during 1988. The following is a summary of discussions and requirements that you must address. Roanoke County has to verify that your installation will not cause additional flooding to adjoining properties. Based on the relative elevations taken during our meeting, it appears that the invert of the culvert under Farmington Drive is approximately 2 feet higher than the top of the 4 foot diameter culvert under your driveway. In order for your driveway to have no influence on the capacity of culverts under Farmington Drive, you would need to 1 owe r your driveway so that the driveway i s 1 foot be 1 ow the invert of the culverts on Farmington Drive. This will allow for normal slope of the stream and cause no backwater to influence the capacity of the culverts under Farmington Drive. This alternativ® would not require a detail flood study but only verification by an engineer or land surveyor that the elevation differential between the various structures exist. Assuming that you wish to proceed with this alternative, you have until August 1, 1989 to complete the excavation of your driveway to develop this elevation differential and have a professional engineer or land surveyor to certify this elevation differential to the County. In the event that you wish to pursue other options concerning culverts and/or embankment levels of your driveway, you will need to complete a floodplain study in accordance to County and FEMA regulations. If you proceed on this basis, you need to complete the study by May 1, 1989 and incorporate this design into your driveway by August 1, 1989. P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANOiCE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2080 ..• a' . 1` Mr. David Hauser March 21, 1989 Page 2 discussed with Your in the event thatwiiireemove As further August 1, 1989, Roanoke County action is not taken by our embankment and take whatever necessary the excess portions of Y ment for this work. I trust a d ifywe near future, legal action to secure pay a please let us know. will proceed with th assist nclthin the very could be of further Yours truly, .~ /~~~~ ~ f Phillip T. Henry, P.E. Director of Engineering PTH/lh . Lee Garrett, Windsor H1Administratorsupervisor Pc: Mr Hodge, County Mr. Elmer C• County Attorney Mr. Paul Mahoney, Assistant County Administrator of Mr. John R. Hubbard, Service and Development Community old Covey, Director of Development and Inspection ~~, Arn ~w BLJ/LG TO RECEIVE AND FILE URC 1. Accounts Paid - June 1989 2. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 3, General Fund Unappropriated Balance 4. Board Contingency Fund I,. WORK SESSION 1, Affirmative Action Plan A-72589-12 LG/HCN TO ADOPT PLAN URC 2. Review of rezoning forms and procedures CONTINUED TO AIIGUST 8, 1989 ,. ~~ M. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia rti~~ :~ Section 2.1-344 A. (7) (a) TO DISCUSS ACTUAL ~' PROBABLE LITIGATION - DIXIE CAVERNS, (b) LEGAL MATTER - ' .; ,, CONSOLIDATION, (C) ACTUAL OR PROBABLE LITIGATION - r_ "'9 Hp,GGERTY ET AL V . KAVANAUGH f~ ~: ;s LG/BLJ AT 4 :10 ;~.;~, URC N, CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION R-72589-9 BLJ/SAM - URC AT 5:40 P.M. EVENING SESSION (7:00 P.M.) O, PUBLIC HEARINGS Petition of Spradlin Petroleum requesting rezoning 789-1 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 5 ~/ ~' ~. ~_ ~~ ": T0: Elmer Hodge County Administrat,(or Terry Harrington '1~ FROM: Director of Planning DATE: July 28, 1989 SUBJECT• Board of Supervisors/Commission Work Session M understanding is that the jointustrg~s1989oatf 3rptme Bwillabe Y the Planning Commission set fotheufollowing items: for the purpose of discussing ment Activities, i.e., Proposed 1. Economic Develop Industrial Land Rezonings 2, Zoning Ordinance Revision Update 3• Consolidation Update 4. Revision to the Rezoning Process and Forms If you have other items you would like to discuss, please let me August 1. Dale and Jon will represent the know by Monday, planning staff at the work session as I will be on vacation tha week. ajb cc: Dale Castellow Jon Hartley Tim Gubala ' O~ R014Np~.~ ~ ,N Z ,? Z v .a 1$ 150$8 SF~CENTENN A Beautiful Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE T0: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Members of the Board of Supervisc Mary H. Allen Clerk to the Board July 5, 1989 ~r.1.. I SORS 41RMAN r ~ ~~ ~ 715TRICT ~ .J Q AIRMAN f ~ DISTRICT HNSON DISTRICT CGRAW DISTRICT ICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIA L DISTRICT Resolution concerning the Kim-StanNLandfill The Alleghany Board of Supervisors has sent us a resolution concerning the Kim-Stan landfill, and have asked for Roanoke County support for their opposition to the continued use by outside localities of this private landfill. The problem is presently State WateredControleBoardDepPleasetlet Waste Management and the Mr. Hodge know if you feel Roanoke County should adopt a resolution of support for their position. ..~.. ~,. - ,. ~..~.~ .~ l l i L~ ~~~~ D--~'~~ -_ ~y-~~ 1V~ ~ ~~~- _. _ ~ . : ~~ 7- a 5 . t C ~-~ ,.~~._ (~D1t1T~1~ U~ ~A~t1TD~tF M E M O RAN D U M P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703> 772-2004 P~GHPNV fOV^,t ~mm 05 boy ~~r ? F~F THE N1GH~P Mr. Elmer C. Hodge County Administrator Roanoke County P. 0. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virgir_ia 2 Dear Mr . H::dge i have enclc Landf il.l located ~ letters and otY.e have received abo inserted an opir legal situatiorL. 4Ie would ve the Kir.1-Star. La wi].1 agree t~.h~_L- soiid waste frol tt?e Kim-Stan si risks entailed MCSjr\kjd Enclosures CC : )vIr . Jo: ~ ~~ r~~ ~/ c/ ~ 7', ~ / ' ' ~~ C~~`~ ~~ ~~~ ~ cn Natkin, Heslep t~ ~~a~,-••~- works itreet County Attorney 24422 P.O. Box 4205 Covingcu~„ 88 Lexington, VA 24450 703/962-4918 703/463-3721 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Frank E. Persinger Clarence W. Farms, Clikon District Janet D. Nelson Joseph H. Carpenter, III Harry A. Walton, Jr• Fallin s rin District ackson River District Boiling Springs District g P g Covington District 1 F~~ f r ~ County of Alleghany COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 110 ROSEDALE AVENUE June 22, 1989 .~.. . i R-89-75 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALLEGHANY Covington, Virginia At an Adjourned Meeting of the ,Board of Supervisors, Alleghany County, Virginia, held on Tuesday, June 1.?, 1989, at 7:00 P.M., in the County Administration Building thereof, -the following action was taken: -------------------- VOTE: PRESENT: Clarence W. Farmer, Chairman Yes Janet D. Nelson Yes Joseph H. Carpenter, III Yes Yes Frank E. Persinglr Yes Harry A. Walton, Jr. ________________________________ On motion of Mr. Carpenter seconded by Mr. Persinger that the following resolution be adopted: WHEREAS•1972, was sold innd1988~andlcconvertedrbyeditsdnewaowners Permit since into a major interstate Landfill; and WHEREAS, the Alleghany County Board of Supervisors and County Staff members have received numerous and varied complaints concerning odor, insects, ~ilowing trash, truck traffic, hours of operation, concerns about Health hazards,` leachate, water pollution, drainage, the total volume of waste being disposed of, and other problems at the site; and WHEREAS, both the County Attorney and State Officials have both advised the County that under Virginia Law the responsibility for regulation of Iandfills is vested in the State Government; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors is very concerned about importation of 'Large volumes of solid waste into AIleghany County from otber states and areas; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors feels that the location of the Kim-Stan Landfill between the communities of Selma and Low Moor is not a suitable place"for a major Iandfilling operation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Alleghany County Board of Supervisors hereby request the Virginia Departmentother State Management, the State Water Control Board, and any agencies having orderdtotpermanently wandeproperly closepooutbtheuKimr existing Law in Stan Landfill; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board respectfully request other governing bodies in the area including the City Councils of Clifton Forge and Covington, the Town Council of Iron Gate and the Board of Supervisors of Botetourt County to take action opposing and condemning the importation of solid waste into our area from other states and regions. ~ County of Alleg any ~~~ COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 110 ROSEDALE AVENUE .~ COVINCTON, VIRGINIA 24426 f •v- w r,r w.fT"~ Mr. John Ely, Director Enforcement Division Department of Waste Management 11th Floorr Monroe Building 101 N. 14th Street Richmondr Virginia 23219 Dear John: June 8, 1989 Thank you for giving us advance the closure of the Kim-Stan landfill 1 o a reciate receiving notice of the order issued directing until the leachate discharges is a FAX copy of the order. stopped. We a s pp This is to reiterate our on~site soathehStateacan provideiaeresponseeto to flag the survey boundaries local citizens who are presently calling on us claiming that Kim-Stawhich is has or is proposing to expand onto an adjacent eight acre apparently held by the same ownerse permit Noep82twasyissuedninu19d2in the original 48 acre site for which Stat Please advise as soon as possible regarding your findings regarding the boundaries. Sincerelyr 1 ~ C~ Macon C. Sasmlons , Jr . County Administrator MCS,jr/sd Natkin, Heslep & Natkin, P.C. County Attorney P.O. Box 4205 Lexington, V/1 24450 703/463-3721 Janet D. Nelson Joseph H. Carpenter, III Covington District Jackson River District Macon C. Sammons, Jr. County Administrator P.O. Bos 917 Covington. VA 24426 703/962-4918 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Harry A. Walton, Jr. gosling Springs District rypet r. vca~•• psrKtW of Public Works 800 Alleghany Street Clihon forge. VA 24422 703/862-4188 Clarence W. Farmer Falling SPring Oistrid Frank E. Persinger Clihon District ~,w... r,i,,,, /~ ~.~~ "'.'r'. ~ •..~•~~ ~ gyp` M ~ 4 Ina ~~. County of Allegheny COUNTY ^DMINISTRATION BUILDING 110 ROSEDALE AVENUE COVINGTON, VIRGINIA 24426 June 8, 1989 VIA FACSIMILE Mr. John Ely Enforcement Director Department of Waste Management 11th Floor, Monroe Building 101 N. 14th street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Dear Mr. Ely: Mr. John Irvine, an apparent former Chairman of the Mountain Soil and Water Conservation District, called me today (June 7, 1989) to express extreme concern that the di~S °a results bof1sthenstState bClosurelmOrder landfill operators today, Requirements, puts the Oakland Church and Cemetery in serious jeopar y whenever major rainfall occurs and Weahavet notlyetlhad anoopportunityrto drainageway to the Jackson River. our assistance in assessing the inspect the situation on site. I ask for y situation using the proper State personnel. I also have a mountingrrecterroblemsdongsiteoror toatclosesthe landfill have adequate bonding to co P when permanent closure is necessary. Are the reportKimfStandeisacollecting accurate? By unconfirmed reports given to us, roblems for the local enormous sums of money and is providing nothing but p area. At the very least. the State has responsibility to see the locality (including both its people and its environment) is protected. I would like for EPA Superfund personnel or other qualified specialists to advise the State as to the size of theebbondtimmediatelybasragcondition ofranyeaction to compel Kim-Stan to post th to allow the landfill to reopen or to remain open. Sincerel /~ Macon C. Sammons, Jr. County Administrator MCSjr/sd cc: Mr. Bob Burnley, Regional Director, State Water Control Board Mr. Noel Beach, Director of Public Works Noel r. oee~~~ Macon C. Sammons, Jf. pirector of Public Works Natkin, Heslep & Natkin, P.C. County Administrator S00 /~Ileghany Street County Attorney P O Box 917 P.O. Box 4205 Covington. VA 24426 Clihon Forge. VA 24422 Lexington, VA 24450 703/962-1918 703/862-4188 703/463-3721 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Frank E. Persinger Janet D. Nelson Joseph H. Carpenter, III Harry A. Walton, Jr• CFalen C5 nn Districtef Clihon District Boilin Springs District B P ~ B Covington District Jackson River District B i~ATKIIr, HESLEP, SZEGEL 8c NATKI2`, p C• ATTORi~EY3 AT t.J\W 6ERNARD J. NATKIN W. WAY~IC MESIEr• pANIEI M. 81[GEl M. DAVIO NATKIri oonooti r. ~~vt+oen5 NEAT $. JOMN501+ pRIAN J. KQARN[Y J, gTEV£N GRIST •• MART jANOll.l NATKIN I,g2(i;JOTON OFFICE 13 5. MAIN STREET p O- BOX 4205 j,EXINGTON, VIROII~IA 244'10 (70J) 403.3721 TELECOPIER(703)a03-692D RICIiMO~D OFFICE ONE JAMES CENTER, SUITE 1402 901 E, CARP STREET P. O. BO>< 508 (23204) RICSMO?TD, VtitOlNtw 23219 (COa) 643- 6910 TELECOPIER (E041 ga3-491g PAUL G. GANAS .~ QQ• 1074 May 25, 1989 Lex~nflton . wrMwcw W vtwotw~w c rc:.s cAw KS~SC wcrtir ~o ~_- -•--- •. MW~tR W TE=A! ~~ Or,Lt ~/ \J(^• ~/ VIA FACSIMSI~B ~ 1~~ ~~ ~~1, Clarence W. Farmer Mr. 500 Alleghany Street Clifton Forge, Virginia 24422 Mr. Joseph H. Carpenter, III 500 Alleghany SVirginia 24422 Clifton Forge, Dear Clarence and Joe: I wanted to give you an update on our continuing investigation and ongoing efforts to address the concerns our Board haslbeen concerning the Kim-Stan Landfill. As you know, y concerned about this matter for a number of os ible z'emedies ficl has spent many hours in investigating all p have had numerous conversatio th the St to of1Virginia with the Department of Waste Management w Attorney General's office, with officials of Segenrico County ntand including Wise County, Chesterfield County, Fairfax County, to determine their experience with similar situations. Cynthia Bailey and several of her associates have visited the area and met with mes'bons I know alsodthat members of the public on more than one occa the Board, members of the Sheriff Warl trier have~vi itediKim--Stan Sammons and Noel Beach and ro erty• a number of times Warl tnerehadgoccasionl to conduct tan extensive Recently, Sheriff out-of-state authorities investigation at the site while assisting in the search for the bod~hoo a visitssto KimhStan there was no understanding that on all of evidence found of any hazardous wastes, medical wastes or other improper substance. Naturally, the entire site has not been searched and it is ---MAY-25-89- TH~----------------------- _. :fir. Farmer & Carpenter May 25, 1989 Page Two impossible to say if there However, there is no evidence substances are present. are illegal substances on site. to support a conclusion that such The Department of Waste Management, at the request of your Board, has been actively involved in monitoroffice on your behalf Kim-Stan. After a number of contacts from my and contacts by Macon Sammo1989the At a that tt mer a p number iof Kim-Stan on February 28, requirements were set forth concerning financial assurance regulations. Those several a ears ago.on Thercompany wastgivenna than were in effect Y period of time to respond to all of the State's regulations. I have monitored the situation with the Department siin With the 28th and have bees oke wi htMs t Bailey again today t ldetermine the requirements. I p status and was told thent had renuest d inlthathFebruaryl28 lettere items that the Departm q com lied with all financial They have, according to Ms. Bailey, p responsibility forms, bo?ans to correct thenleach to problemtwhich have submitted detailed p exists. Ms. Bailey advised that the leakage that is occandlwould Prom garbage put in the landfill a number of years ago, be a problem whether or not any additional garbage was added to the site. Sha advises that the Department is satisfied with the plans and documentations submitted by Kim-Stan and that they are all in complete compliance at this time. As you know, one of the concerns of the citizens has been the fact that out-of-stated the Board that thiss issue is hverytclear have previously advise under Federal and Constituviostat a of New Jerseoll t c 1 e decC a o Philadelphia. et. a in 1978. That case ore li uido wasteh originating uout of hstate~ importation of solid q It further violates the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. defines waste as an element of interstate commerce and absolutely prohibits any ban on the importation of such waste. Therefore, there is no local or State regulation which could prevent Kim-Stan from accepting out-of-state garbage and solid waste. State law reserve rdous wa tes f any type. rAny violationaof the importation of haza Farmer & Carpenter May 25, 1989 Page Two and can be reported by citizens or local this statute is a felony artment of Waste Management or the officials to the DeP Those agencies and ai at tthe Environmental Protection Agency. Police have the exclin iva complaint and ref of the v th t iany violators after receiv g citizen As you are aware, to date there has been no evidence If any hazardous wastes evidence th t should bemreported immediately to should find such ement. I have the State Police and the Departmenhone numberMofathe appropriate previously given the address and p of course, be authorities to a num for anfone who is interestedly happy to supply that Y to 1989, State Law will give authority After July 1, landfills. localities to regulate the creation of new to close an existing However, there is no authority for a County landfill. That can only be doviolatedeStateeregulationsa after a finding that the landfill has future Your Board has taken a major step in preventing anY enactment of the recent zoning unwanted landfills in Alleghany by owerful tool the County ordinance. That is the most effective and p and preventing the has in regulating use of land within the County location in the County of undesirablo~enterprises. Since Alleg any to November, 1988, there was did not have a zoning ordinance pri zoning ordinance no restriction on the locatio al Lawimrohibits any a Kim-Stan watan pre-existing use, Constitution p ro ert Because Kim S from retroactively prohibiting use of P p Zandfathered use and re-existing use, it is protected as a g is a p eration subject to State regulation. I have may continue in op has taken with officials in reviewed the actions that Alleghany both of whom have large Chesterfield County and Fairfax County, rofessional staffs and have had Ve tc ncurredpcomplet'ely tin alleof Officials from both counties ha the actions we have taken and havha d autho ity to take with regard of any other actions the County to this situation. The Department of Waste Managemolicies and Attorney General's office alconcurredriniwhat we have done and actions and have also fully agree on the limitations on what we can do. resently In Summary, it is apparent that Kim-Stan is p that the licable state regulations, operating in compliance with app pe artment of Waste Management is out of state Wastes isth the r compliance, that the acceptance of 1 7gZdL Z--~~'^ a c. a ML1~l-~~:-i]4 T{.I11 1 c, 1 G+ :•~' ,~.. Farmer & Carpenter May 25, 1989 Page Two hany County is prohibited rotected, and that All'eg action to constitutionally P Federal and State Law from oa eration. If any by constitutional, close down the Kim-Stan p roof of a interfere with or the Comp y, that citizen has reason to belieV ul t o sbY ble to an er p citizen a licable reg to the State Police and violation of any pp. nthia Bailey is quite should report that violation to the County, at the artment of Waste Management. ~ be reached to the pep and can loi North familiar with Kim-Stan's situation number 804-224-2667. nt on the eleventh floor of~o a Monroe Building r Departure ~ Richmond, VA 23219' P 14th Street, estions you or any citizen may I hope this answers all t elseuyou Would like me to f courses have, but if there is anything and I will, lease fources of our officekat Your disposal. matter, P put the full res With best personal regards, I an-, Very tr~.Y Yours, W~~ne,Heslep Wy~i/vle F ~i-61489-17 g, Authorization to execute indemnity agreement - Henry Acres Subdivision A-61489-15.e M, CITIZENS' COD~Il~iENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 1, Bruce Hobart and Lou Jamison to speak concerning the proposed development known as Grouse Pointe Apartments. HEARD UNDER OLD BUSINESS N, REPORTS BLJ/LG TO RECEIVE AND FILE UW 1. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance 2. General Fund Unappropriated Balance 3. Board Contingency Fund 4, Status Report on Street Light Replacement Program O, WORK SESSION 1. 75/25 Economic Development Strategy WORK SESSION ESTABLIS ON STRATEGY/89 TO INCLUDE MATRIX RATING OF SITES, MORE SPECIFICS ECH TO SET UP WSRT UPSJOINTOWORK SESSION WITHEPLANNIN~pMMISSION COMMISSION AND ~p BOARD MEMBERS. p, EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant tACQUISITdI0No0FVREALnESTATE, Section 2.1-344 (3) AND (7) LEGAL CONTRACTS - SPRING HOLLOW RESERVOIR AND CONSOLIDATION. LG/BLJ AT 5:35 P.M. - URC LG/BLJ TO GO INTO OPEN SESSION AT 5:55 P.M. - URC Q. ADJOURNMENT AT 5:56 p.m- 8 ~~'` District. (CONTINUED FROM MAY 23, 1989 AND JIINE 27, 1989) z` '_-{ WITHDRAWN BY PETITIONER ~~m„~, R Carter III for a Special Use 789-2 Petition of .: 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 FROM JUNE 27, 1989) HCN/SAM TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS IN LETTER AND STAFF REPORT URC p. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 789-3 Petition of Georae M and Marv H Vanderarift requesting vacation of a portion of Jones Street shown on a previously platted subdivision referred to as Section 1, Dwight Hills, recorded on May 22, 1947. ___ 0-72589-10 HCN/BLJ TO APPROVE ORD URC Q. F~gBT___i~EADING OF ORDINANCES 1. Ordinance accepting an offer for and authorizing the conveyance of surplus real estate on Route 1832 (Barrens Road) to the Virginia Department of Transportation. BLJ/SAM TO APPROVE 1ST READING 2ND - 8/8/89 URC R_ SECOND READING OF ORDIN~-1NCES 1. Ordinance providing for the estabrovement Program General District Court Driver Imp and providing for the supervision and control of such progra:,,. _ 0-72589-11 LG/RR TO ADOPT ORD _ URC 6 O~ QOANp,S.~` ~ N p ~~ Z o Z v ~~ ,~ 8 X50 88 SESQUICENTENN~P A Beauti~ul Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE C~oixn~~ of ~n~tnvk~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS p 1988 LEEGARRETT.CHAIRMAN August 8 ~ WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD WEROBN RMP,GISTER ALI DISTR CIT BOB L. JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Mr. Clarence E. Wise 5510 Taney Drive, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Dear Mr. Wise: and resolve your drainage effort to try ervisors are requesting In our continuing investigate on Taney Drive, the Board of Suportation Virginia Department of Transp ro ram. necessary repairs under their maintenance p g esolution problems that the and make a r which was I am forwarding Fred Altizer, Resident By copy of this letter, today to Mr. I am also approved at the Board M artment of Transportation. Engineer, Virginia Dep enclosing a copy for your information. obabl aware, county work crews after VDOTntakesathe As you are Pr out the ditch. Hopefully, recently cleaning we will finally see some redress to your action we have requested, long-standing problem. S ~ere,~y~/~ ./1 Bob L. Jo~son, Supervisor Hollins Magisterial District BLJ/bjh Enclosure cc: Fred Altizer, Phillip Henry, John Hubbard, Resident Engineer, VDOT Director, Engineering Assistant County Administrator P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772 2004 O~ POANO,~-~` ~.~ Z o Z 'a 1 g E50 $$ ; SFSQUICENTENN~P A Beauti~ul Beginning C~nixnt~ o~ ~o~tnnke August 8, 1989 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE Mr. Martin L. Carle 5515 Taney Drive, N.W- Roanoke, Virginia 24019 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN CAVE SPRING Mg06 L I JOHNSON HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT STEVEN A. MCGRAW CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT HARRY C. NICKENS VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT Dear Mr. Carle: and resolve your drainage In our continuing effort to try esting the Board of Supervisors are requ on Taney Drive, ortation investigate Virginia Department of Transp ro ram. necessary repairs under their maintenance p g I am forwarding a resolution By copy of this letter, today to Mr. Fred Altize i approved at the Board M artment of Transportation. Engineer, Virginia Dep copy for your information. problems that the and make which was Resident am also enclosing a robably aware, county work crews have been in the As you are p Hopefully, after VDOT take recently cleaning out the ditch. see some redress to action we have requested, we will finally long-standing problem. i l-~ S~erel Bob L. Jo son, Supervisor Hollins M gisterial District BLJ/bjh Enclosure Resident Engineer, VDOT cc: Fred Altizer, Director, Engineering Phillip Henry, John Hubbard, Assistant County Administra or P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703> 772-2004 area s the your O~ POANp~~ > N y ~ ~ 2 _ O J , 'a ~ 8 E50 $8 v sFSQUICENTENN~P A Beauti~ulBcginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE Mr. Larry K. Cecil 5509 Taney Drive, N.W• Roanoke, Virginia 24019 C~oixn~~ o~ ~v~nvk~ August 8, 1989 Dear Mr. Cecil: our drainage problems effort to try and resolve y esting that the In our continuing ervisors are requ ate and make on Taney Drive, the Board of Suportation investig ro ram. Virginia Department of Transp necessary repairs under their maintenance p g I am forwarding a resolution which was By copy of this letter, Coda to Mr. Fred Altize I approved at the Board M artment of Transportation. Engineer, Virginia Dep o for your information. Resident am also enclosing a c py the As you are probably aware, recently cleaning out the action we have requested, long-standing problem. BLJ/bjh Enclosure cc: Fred Altizer, Phillip Henry, John Hubbard, county work crews have been in ditch. Hopefully, after VDOT takes we will finally see some redress to Bob L. Hollins BOARD OGARREETTRCHIAOMAN 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 ;on, Supervisor isterial District Resident Engineer, VDOT Director, Engineering Assistant County Administrator P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-07 9 8 (7O3> 772-2004 area the your TING OF THE BOARD OF SU ~UNTYSADMINISTRATOON AT A REGULAR 1"~E COUNTY ,VIRGINIA- R ON TUESDAY~,AUGUST 8, 1989 CENTS RESOLUTION 888 -3 ~QLEMSION Tp,NEYTDRIVETO RESOLVE DRAINAGE PROB on Taney Drive have WHEREAS, the residents living and ex erienced flooding in their homes recently, maintaining P roblem by WHEREAS, efforts to correct this P roblem. e ipes have not successfully resolved this p the drainag P Supervisors of Roanoke BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of the Virginia County, Virginia respectfully requests that ortation investigate the drainage Problems on Department of Transp make the necessary repairs under Taney Drive and and that they roblems. intenance program to alleviate the flooding P Su ervisor their ma seconded by P On motion of Supervisor Johnson, w and carried by the following recorded vote: McGra , McGraw, Nickens, Garrett Supervisors Johnson, Robers, AYES: NAYS: None A COPY TESTS: `~~ ~ . Mary H. Allen, Clerk Board of Supervisors Roanoke County cc: File Director, Engineering Phillip Henry, Administrator John Hubbard, Assistant County VDOT Fred Altizer, Resident Engineer, O~ EtOANp,`.~ ti '~ p Z Z v a 18 '~~ 88 ~FSQUICEN7ENN~P~ A Bcauti~ul Beginning COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ELMER C. HODGE C~nixn~~ of ~nttnnke BOARD OF SUPERVISORS August 9, 1989 Rev. Quentin J. White Bethel A.M.E. Church 5056 Pleasant Hill Drive, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Reverend White: 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 On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, I would like to take this opportunity to let you know of our appreciation for your attending the meeting on Tuesday, August 8, 1989, to offer the invocation. We feel it is most important to ask God's blessing on these meetings so that all is done according to His will and for the good of all citizens. Thank you for sharing your time with us. Since ely, Le Garrett, Chairman Roanoke County Board of Supervisors bjh P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004 of P AN ,~.~ z p ~~ ~~ ~.~~ ~~ a ~~~n~ 10 re~ 8v DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING SFSOUICENTENN~P~ PLANNING COMMISSION Q B¢glllifll~BCgitl/fl lig BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS T0: All Interested Parties FROM: Terry Harrington Secretary, Roanoke County Planning Commission DATE: August 1, 1989 SUBJECT: Board of Supervisors/Planning Commission Joint Work Session Please be advised that the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission will hold a joint work session, Tuesday, August 8, 1989 at 3 p.m., in the Community Room at the Roanoke County Administration Center. The following items will be discussed: 1. Economic Development Activities, i.e., Proposed Industrial Land Rezonings 2. Zoning Ordinance Revision Update 3. Consolidation Update 4. Revision to the Rezoning Process and Forms For further information, please call 772-2068. ajb P. O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 <703) 772-2068 COMMITTEE VACANCIES IN 1989 JANUARY Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board Two year term of Hoyt C. Rath, Vinton District, will expire 1/26/89. F1~.RRTT DR V Electoral Board - Appointed by the Courts Three year term of Mrs. May Johnson will expire 2/28/89. MARCH Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board Two year terms of James L. Trout, Cave Spring District, Red R. Powell, Cave Spring District, and James K. Sanders, Windsor Hills District, will expire 3/22/89. League of Older Americans One year term of Webb Johnson, County Representative, will expire 3/31/89. JUNE Board of Zoning A eals - Appointed by Judge of Circuit Court Five Year term of Neil W. Owen will expire 6/30/89. Fifth Planning District Commission Three year terms of Richard W. Robers, Fred Anderson and John Hubbard, Citizen Representative and Executive Committee will expire 6/30/89. Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Three year terms of Vince Joyce, Cave Spring District, Alice Gillespie, Hollins District, and Thomas Robertson, Vinton District, will expire 6/30/89. CTi DT1: MRT~'D Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board Youth Members From Cave Spring, William Byrd, Glenvar High and Northside High Schools to be appointed. Industrial Development Authority Four year terms of Billy H. Branch, Cave Spring District, and W. Darnall Vinyard, Vinton District will expire 9/26/89. Grievance Panel Two year term of Kim Owens will expire 9/27/89. ~1nc~~Mn ~n Health Department Board of Directors Two year term of Susan Adcock will expires 11/26/89. T1 Ta`!` Ti'MR L'D Library Board Four year term of Richard Kirkwood, Hollins District, will expire 12/21/89. Mr. Kirkwood resigned 12/88. Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley, Community Services Board Three year term of Sue Ivey, County appointee, will expire 12/31/89. Roanoke County Planning Commission Four year term of Wayland Winstead, Catawba District, will expire 12/31/89. Regional Partnership Site Advisory Committee Three year term of Charles Saul will expire 12/21/89. 2