HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/28/1989 - RegularCERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING ON NOVEMBER 28, 1989
I, Supervisor Steven A. McGraw, was present for the
Executive Session held at 8:00 p.m. but was absent for the vote
certifying that said Executive Session was held in conformity
with the Code of Virginia.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from open
meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the
executive meeting which this certification 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. ,
en A. McGraw, Supervisor
A Copy Teste:
m.~~~~- ~
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
ROANOKE TIMES f: WORLD-NEWS
AD NUMBER - 111314482
PUdLISHER•S FEE - ~172.8D
ROANOKE COUNTY
COARD OF SUPERVI50RS
3738 iRAMBLETON Sin
P 0 BOX 29800
ROANCiKE VA Z4U18
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF RUANGKE
AFFIDAVIT Or PUi3LICATION
I, iTHE UNDERSIGNED) AN Ai1TFi0RIZE0
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TIMES-WORLD COR-
PORATION, WHICH CORPORATION IS Plii~LISHER
OF THE ROANOKE TIMES E WORLD-NEWSr A
DAILY NE~iSPAPER PUBLISHED iN ROANOKE, IN
THE STATE OF VIRGINIA• DO CEitTiFY THAT
7tiE ANNEXED r~OTiCE WAS PUBLISHED iN SAIO
NEWSPAPEttS ON THt FOLLOWING DATES
11/14!89 EVENING
11/21/89 EVENING
wITNESS,`~~#`~I`~-,22ND DAY OF NOVEMHEFt 1949
AUTHORIZtD SIGNATURE
I LEGAL NOTICE
ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS
The Roanoke County Board of
Supervlsors wlll hold a public
4 hearinfl at 7 D•m. on Tueadey,
November 28, 1989 in the Com-
i munity Room of the Roanoke
County Administration Cen-
ter, 3736 Brambleton Avenue,
Roanoke, VA, to hear the tol- I
lowing requests: ~
~1. Petition of Roanoke County j
t Board of Supervisors to ?
emend the Future Land Use
! Plan map desiflnatlon of sD- ,
y proxlmately54acresfromDe• i
I velopment to Principal Indus- t
~ trial and To rezone said
• property from R•1 to M-1 for i
Industrial development, loca~-
~ ed weal of Hollins Road and i
south of Lols Lane, Hollins 1
Msgisterlal District. iiii.
~4. Petitlon of Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors to re- 7
zone approximately 15 scres r
i from R-1 to M-1 for industrial ~
t development, located et the
end of Bertols Road, Cave
Sprinfl Maflisterial Dlstrict.
~3. Petitlon of Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors to re-
zone approximately 35 acres ;
i from R-1 to M-l for mixed use'
development, flenarally locat-
`i ed south of I-81 and west o}
'' Plantation Road, Hollins Mafl•
Isteriai DlstricT. ~
14. Petitlon of Roanoke County j
i Board of Supervisors to re- ~
zone approximately 6 acres }
Ii from B-Y to M-1 for industrial
development, located at the ;
southeast corner of the inter-
section of SR 643 end I.61, Ca-
tawbe Maflisteriel Dlstrict ~
¢5. Petitlon of Roanoke County
Board of supervisors to ~
s amend the Future Land Use
Plan map designation of ap-
r proximately 45 acres from De-
velopment to Principal Indus- ~
trial, located east of Carvins
Cove Dam Roed, Immediately
north of I-81, Catawba Mapis-
pp lariat District.
16. Petition of Roanoke County
'. Board of Supervisors to re-?
zone approximately 125 acres
from A-iMH to M-1 for Indus-
9 trial development, located '
r south of Routes 11/460, south ~;
and west of Barley Drive and
the N&W Railway, Catawba
spI Maflisterlal Dlstrict.
f A copy of this epDlication is 1
" available for Inspection in the ;
i Department of Planninfl and
Zoninfl, 3738 Brambleton Ave- f
nue, Roanoke, VA.
Mary H. Allen, Clerk j
Dated: November 6, 1969
(14482)
ROANOKE TIMES % WORLD-NEWS
AD NUMt3tR - 1113L2767
PUBLISHER'S FEE -
b73.80
ROANOKE COUNTY
tsOARD OF SUPERVISORS
3738 dRAMSLETON SW
P 0 BOX 29800
ROANOKt VA 2401$
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF ROANuKE
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
I, i7HE UNDERSIGNED) AN AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TIMES-WORLD COR-
PORATION, WHICH CORPORATION IS PUr~LISHER
OF THE ROANOKE TIMES ~ WORLD-NEWS, A
DAILY NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED IN ROANUKE, iN
THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, DO CERTIFY THAT
THE ANNEXED NOTICE WAS PUBLISHED IN SAID
NEWSPAPERS ON THE FOLLOWING DATES
11/14!89 MORNING
11/21/89 MORNING
WITNESS, 'S:-~2N~.DAY OF NOVEMr3ER !989
- -!
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
PUBLIC NOTICE
Please ba advised that the
Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Vlrplnls, et
Its meeting on November Z8,
1989, st the Roanoke County
Administration Center, 3738
Brambleton Avenue,
Roanoke, Virginia, at the
evening seulon beginning et
7:00 p.m. will hold a public'
hearing on the following:
ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER B, "EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL" OF
THE ROANOKE COUNTY
CODE BY AMENDING SEC-
TION 8-11(a), "CONTROL
MEASURES GENERALLY"
TO PROVIDE FOR THEE
ADOPTION OF STORMWA-
TER MANAGEMENT CRITE-
RIA
All members of the public Inter-
eafed In The matter aet forth
above may appear and be
heard at the time and place
aforesaid.
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
Roanoke County,Vlrplnle
(Y1767)
~ A N ,~,~
.i p
18 'x.50. 88
+~sCU1CENTEMN~'~
A Bra~~i~ulBrginning
~O1IYlf1J Af '~pEI1lU~2F
ROANORE COUNTY BOARD OF SIIPERVISORS
ACTION AGENDA
NOVEMBER 28, 1989
u~-~ac~ cm
1 1
~~9'8'9
Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting.
Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth
Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 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: HCN ARRIVED AT 3:15 P.M.
2. Invocation: The Reverend Alan Rowbotham
Unity of Roanoke Valley
3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag.
B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
DON MYERS ADDED ITEM D-5 AMENDMENT TO THE HOLIDAY SCHEDULE
C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS
1. Presentation of Annual Report
PRESENTED BY ANNE MARIE FEDDER
D. NEW BUSINESS
1. Authorization to add Hidden Valley Court to
the Drainage Maintenance Priority List and
authorize necessary funding.
A-112889-1
BLJ/LG TO APPROVE ALT. ~ AUTHORIZING FUNDING OF DRAINAGE PROJECT
BUT NOT THE ADDITION OF AN ENGINEER UNLESS OR UNTIL IT IS
NECESSARY
AYES-BLJ,SAM,LG
NAYS-RR,HCN
2. Approval of Resolution supporting a regional
approach to watershed planning and stormwater
management
R-112889-2
HCN/SAM TO ADOPT RESO AND FUNDING FOR SHARE OF STUDY TO BE
ALLOCATED FROM BOARD CONTINGENCY FUND
URC
3. Authorization for credit of water off-site
facility fee for Tweeds.
A-112889-3
BLJ/SAM TO APPROVE ALTERNATE ~1
URC
4. Write-off of Utility bad debts for 1983 and 1984.
A-112889-4
RR/HCN TO APPROVE
URC
5. 1990 Legislative Program - General Assembly
LG/RR TO CONTINUE TO 12/19/89 TO ALLOW COUNTY ATTORNEY TO MAKE
REVISIONS REQUESTED BY BOARD MEMBERS
URC
6. Amendment to the County Holiday Schedule
A-112889-5
LG/SAM TO AMEND HOLIDAY SCHEDULE TO ADD DECEMBER 26, 1989
URC
E. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS
NONE
F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
BLJ REQUESTED PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED CHARTER FOR ROANOKE
METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT
G. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING FOR
REZONING ORDINANCE - CONSENT AGENDA
LG/BLJ TO APPROVE FIRST READING
2ND READING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS-12/19/89
URC
1. An ordinance to rezone approximately 3.13 acres
from R-1 to R-E with conditions, located at 6044
Cove Road, in the Catawba Magisterial District,
upon the request of James and Charlotte Moore.
2. An ordinance to rezone approximately 4.47 acres
from R-3 to B-1 to construct an office park,
located at the southwest corner of Cresthill Drive
and Garst Mill Road, in the Windsor Hills
Magisterial District, upon the request of Nolan
Jackson.
3. An ordinance to amend the Future Land Use Map
designation of a 24.09 acre tract generally
located south of Buck Mountain Road and east of
the Blue Ridge Parkway, in the Cave Spring
Magisterial District, from Rural Village to
Principal Industrial, and to rezone said property
from M-2 to M-3, with conditions upon the request
of the Virginia Asphalt Paving Company
4. An ordinance to rezone approximately 19 acres
from A-1 to M-1 said acreage comprised of a 6.6
acre tract located south of the terminus of
Friendship Lane, and an 11.3 acre tract adjacent
to the northeast boundary of ITT and approximately
75 feet northeast from the end of Lila Drive
located in the Hollins Magisterial District, upon
the request of the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors
H. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
SUPERVISOR JOHNSON UPDATED BOARD MEMBERS ON CONSOLIDATION
NEGOTIATIONS. REQUESTED THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS NOT EXPRESS
SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION OR MAKE COMMENTS ON THE PLAN UNTIL
COMPLETION OF THE CITIZEN WORKSHOPS.
SUPERVISOR ROBERS REPORTED ON MEETING IN BLACKSBURG ON "SMART"
HIGHWAY ATTENDED BY PRESIDENT MCCOMAS, VPI&SU, CONG. OLIN, RAY
PENTHAL (VDOT) AND LOCAL LEGISLATORS. THERE IS STRONG SUPPORT TO
ADD THE TECHNOLOGY TO THE HIGHWAY. WILL HAVE A MEETING IN
JANUARY WITH MAJOR INDUSTRIES WHO MIGHT HAVE VESTED INTEREST IN
SMART HIGHWAY.
SUPERVISOR MCGRAW REPORTED. ON THE GRAYSON COMMISSION MEETING ON
NOV. 20. FINAL MEETING WILL BE ON DEC. 9. ADVISED THAT THE
VML/VACO TASK FORCE HAS HAD MUCH IMPACT ON THE GRAYSON
COMMISSION.
SUPERVISOR NICKENS REQUESTED THAT MR. SUMPTER, VDOT AND MR. HOPE,
BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY BE INVITED TO THE 1/9/90 MEETING TO UPDATE THE
BOARD MEMBERS ON THE EAST CIRCUMFERENTIAL HIGHWAY.
I. APPOINTMENTS
NONE
1. Community Corrections Resources Board
2. Health Department Board of Directors
3. Industrial Development Authority
4. Library Board
5. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
6. Regional Partnership Site Advisory Committee
7. Roanoke County Resource Authority
8. Court Service IInit Advisory Council/Youth and
Family Services Advisory Board
J. 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-112889-6
BLJ/LG TO APPROVE - URC
1. Confirmation of Committee Appointment - Mental
Health Services of the Roanoke Valley
A-112889-6.a
2. Acceptance of water and sanitary sewer facilities
serving Merriman Hills.
A-112889-6.b
3. Acceptance of water facilities serving Castle Rock
Homes.
A-112889-6.c
4. Acceptance of sewer facilities serving McDonalds
Restaurant on Plantation Road.
A-112889-6.d
5. Acceptance of grant from the Department of
Criminal Justice Services through the
Communication Grant Program.
A-112889-6.e
K. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
ALFRED POWELL, 3440 FRANKLIN STREET, REQUESTED THE FOLLOWING
INFORMATION AND THAT THE INFORMATION BE MADE PUBLIC EITHER
THROUGH THE MEDIA OR AT A BOARD MEETING:
1. ASKED FOR COSTS TO PUBLISH THE ANNUAL REPORT, INCLUDING
COSTS OF INHOUSE TIME, MATERIALS, AND EXTERNAL COSTS TO DETERMINE
THE COST PER TAXPAYER.
2. ASKED FOR TOTAL COST TO RELOCATE TWEEDS TO ROANOKE CO.
L. REPORTS
HCN/SAM TO RECEIVE AND FILE
URC
1. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
3. Board Contingency Fund
M. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia
Section 2.1-344 A: (7) as requested by Roanoke County
staff to consult with legal counsel pertaining to legal
matters requiring the provision of legal advice by
counsel: consolidation; (3) TO DISCUSS DISPOSITION OF
PUBLICLY-HELD REAL ESTATE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PURPOSES.
LG/HCN AT 4:45 P.M.
URC
N. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION
R-112889-7
LG/HCN AT 6:45 P.M.
URC
EVENING SESSION (7:00 P.M.)
FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE
1. Ordinance Rescinding Ordinance dated October 24, 1989
for sale of ten acres in Glenvar (Shamrock Field)
SAM/HCN TO APPROVE FIRST READING WITH ITEM 6 OF ORDINANCE REMOVED
FOR SEPARATE VOTE.
AYES-BLJ,RR,HCN,LG
ABSTAIN-SAM
SAM/HCN TO APPROVE ITEM 6 OF ORDINANCE
URC
2ND READING - 12/19/89
O. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1189-1 An ordinance to amend the Future Land Use Plan map
designation of approximately 54 acres located west
of Hollins Road and south of Lois Lane in the
Hollins Magisterial District from Development to
Principal Industrial and to change the zoning
classification from R-1 to M-1 for industrial
development purposes with conditions upon the
application of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia
CONTINUED TO 12/19/89
1189-2 An ordinance to change the zoning classification
of approximately 15 acres of real estate located
at .the end of Benois Road in the Cave Spring
Magisterial District from R-1 to M-1 for
industrial development with conditions upon the
application of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia.
HCN/RR TO CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING
TO 12/19/89 TO ALLOW PMM TO REDRAFT
ORDINANCE AND COUNTY STAFF TO MEET WITH
RESIDENTS CONCERNING BUFFER
URC
1189-3 An ordinance to change the zoning classification
of approximately 35 acres of real estate generally
located south of I-81 and west of Plantation Road
in the Hollins Magisterial District from R-1 to M-
1 for mixed-use development with conditions upon
the application of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia. (THIS REQUEST WAS
CONTINUED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS WILL HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING ON
DECEMBER 19, 1989)
CONTINUED TO 12/19/89
1189-4 An ordinance to change the zoning classification
of approximately 8 acres of real estate located at
the southeast corner of the intersection of State
Route 643 and I-81 in the Catawba Magisterial
District from B-2 to M-1 for industrial
development with conditions upon the application
of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia.
0-112889-8
LG/RR TO APPROVE REZONING ORD.
AYES-BIJ,RR,HCN,LG
ABSTAIN-SAM
1189-5 An ordinance to amend the Future Land Use Plan map
designation of approximately 25 acres located east
of Carvins Cove Dam Road and immediately north of
I-81 in the Catawba Magisterial District from
Development to Principal Industrial.
0-112889-9
BLJ/SAM TO APPROVE REZONING ORD
URC
1189-6 An ordinance to change the zoning classification
of approximately 125 acres of real estate located
south of Routes 11 and 460, south and west of
Barley Drive and the N&W railway in the Catawba
Magisterial District from A-1MH to M-1 for
industrial development with conditions upon the
application of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia.
CONTINUED TO 12/19/89
1189-7 Ordinance amending Chapter 8, "Erosion and
Sediment Control", of the Roanoke County Code by
amending Section 8-11 (a), "Control Measures
Generally" to provide for the adoption of
stormwater management criteria; and Resolution
adopting a new section of the Design and
Construction Standards Manual entitled "Stormwater
Management Criteria."(CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 24,
1989)(WILL BE CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 19, 1989.)
CONTINUED TO 12/19/89
P. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance repealing Ordinance 83-174 and adopting
a new ordinance requiring the filing of a
disclosure statement of economic interests and
other specified information pursuant to Section
2.1-639.14 of the Code of Virginia.
BLJ/SAM TO APPROVE 1ST READING
2ND - 12/19/89
Q. CITIZENS COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
1. ALFRED POWELL 3440 FRANKLIN STREET SPORE
CONCERNING ADDING PROFFER OF CONDITIONS TO REZONING
PETITIONS. ADVISED THAT PETITIONERS FELT THAT THIS WAS
"BLACKMAil° IN ORDER TO ENSURE APPROVAL OF THE REZONING
REQUEST.
EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO CODE OF VIRGINIA 2.1-344 A (7) TO
CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PERTAINING TO LETTER MATTERS REQUIRING
THE PROVISION OF LEGAL ADVICE BY COUNSEL: CONSOLIDATION
HCN/BLJ AT 8:00 P.M.
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION
R-112889-10
LG/HCN AT 9:05 P.M.
AYES-BL7,RR,HCN,LG
ABSENT-SAM
MHA DIRECTED TO GET WRITTEN CERITIFICATION FROM SAM.
R. ADJOURNMENT
BLJ/HCN AT 9:07 P.M.
UW
~~ AOANp~.~
~ 'A A
Z
v a~
,~u~ 8$
sFSQUICEN7ENN~P~
4 Bcau~i~ulBcginning
~L~IYITfI,~ L1~ ~i1tt1T11~F
ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
NOVEMBER 28, 1989
All-AMERICA CRY
1 .' '~ 1
~~9.g~9
Welcome to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors meeting.
Regular meetings are held on the second Tuesday and the fourth
Tuesday at 3:00 p.m. Public hearings are held at 7:00 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 Alan Rowbotham
Unity of Roanoke Valley
3. Pledge of Allegiance to the United States Flag.
B. REQUESTS TO POSTPONE, ADD TO, OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF
AGENDA ITEMS
C. PROCLAMATIONS, RESOLUTIONS, RECOGNITIONS, AND AWARDS
1. Presentation of Annual Report
D. NEW BUSINESS
1. Authorization to add Hidden Valley Court to
the Drainage Maintenance Priority List and
authorize necessary funding.
2. Approval of Resolution supporting a regional
approach to watershed planning and stormwater
management
3. Authorization for credit of water off-site
facility fee for Tweeds.
4. Write-off of Utility bad debts for 1983 and 1984.
5. 1990 Legislative Program - General Assembly
E. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS
F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
G. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING FOR
REZONING ORDINANCE - CONSENT AGENDA
1. An ordinance to rezone approximately 3.13 acres
from R-1 to R-E with conditions, located at 6044
Cove Road, in the Catawba Magisterial District,
upon the request of James and Charlotte Moore.
2. An ordinance to rezone approximately 4.47 acres
from R-3 to B-1 to construct an office park,
located at the southwest corner of Cresthill Drive
and Garst Mill Road, in the Windsor Hills
Magisterial District, upon the request of Nolan
Jackson.
3. An ordinance to amend the Future Land Use Map
designation of a 24.09 acre tract generally
located south of Buck Mountain Road and east of
the Blue Ridge Parkway, in the Cave Spring
Magisterial District, from Rural Village to
Principal Industrial, and to rezone said property
from M-2 to M-3, with conditions upon the request
of the Virginia Asphalt Paving Company
4. An ordinance to rezone approximately 19 acres
from A-1 to M-1 said acreage comprised of a 6.6
acre tract located south of the terminous of
Friendship Lane, and an 11.3 acre tract adjacent
to the northeast boundary of ITT and approximately
75 feet northeast from the end of Lila Drive
located in the Hollins Magisterial District, upon
the request of the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors
H. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
I. APPOINTMENTS
1. Community Corrections Resources Board
2. Health Department Board of Directors
3. Industrial Development Authority
4. Library Board
5. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
6. Regional Partnership Site Advisory Committee
7. Roanoke County Resource Authority
8. Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and
Family Services Advisory Board
J. CONSENT AGENDA
ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE
CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND WILL BE
ENACTED BY ONE RESOLUTION IN THE FORM OR FORMS LISTED
BELOW. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE
REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED
SEPARATELY.
1. Confirmation of Committee Appointment - Mental
Health Services of the Roanoke Valley
2. Acceptance of water and sanitary sewer facilities
serving Merriman Hills.
3. Acceptance of water facilities serving Castle Rock
Homes.
4. Acceptance of sewer facilities serving McDonalds
Restaurant on Plantation Road.
5. Acceptance of grant from the Department of
Criminal Justice Services through the
Communication Grant Program.
K. CITIZENS' COMr~NTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
L. REPORTS
1. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
3. Board Contingency Fund
M. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia
Section 2.1-344 A (7) as requested by Roanoke County
staff to consult with legal counsel pertaining to legal
matters requiring the provision of legal advice by
counsel: consolidation
N. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION
EVENING SESSION (7:00 P.M.)
O. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1189-1 An ordinance to amend the Future Land Use Plan map
designation of approximately 54 acres located west
of Hollins Road and south of Lois Lane in the
Hollins Magisterial District from Development to
Principal Industrial and to change the zoning
classification from R-1 to M-1 for industrial
development purposes with conditions upon the
application of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia
1189-2 An ordinance to change the zoning classification
of approximately 15 acres of real estate located
at the end of Benois Road in the Cave Spring
Magisterial District from R-1 to M-1 for
industrial development with conditions upon the
application of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia.
1189-3 An ordinance to change the zoning classification
of approximately 35 acres of real estate generally
located south of I-81 and west of Plantation Road
in the Hollins Magisterial District from R-1 to M-
1 for mixed-use development with conditions upon
the application of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia. (THIS REQUEST WAS
CONTINUED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS WILL HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING ON
DECEMBER 19, 1989)
1189-4 An ordinance to change the zoning classification
of approximately 8 acres of real estate located at
the southeast corner of the intersection of State
Route 643 and I-81 in the Catawba Magisterial
District from B-2 to M-1 for industrial
development with conditions upon the application
of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia.
1189-5 An ordinance to amend the Future Land Use Plan map
designation of approximately 25 acres located east
of Carvins Cove Dam Road and immediately north of
I-81 in the Catawba Magisterial District from
Development to Principal Industrial.
1189-6 An ordinance to change the zoning classification
of approximately 125 acres of real estate located
south of Routes 11 and 460, south and west of
Barley Drive and the N&W railway in the Catawba
Magisterial District from A-1MH to M-1 for
industrial development with conditions upon the
application of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia.
1189-7 Ordinance amending Chapter 8, "Erosion and
Sediment Control", of the Roanoke County Code by
amending Section 8-11 (a), "Control Measures
Generally" to provide for the adoption of
stormwater management criteria; and Resolution
adopting a new section of the Design and
Construction Standards Manual entitled "Stormwater
Management Criteria."(CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 24,
1989) (WILL BE CONTINUED TO DECEMBER 19, 1989.)
P. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance repealing Ordinance 83-174 and adopting
a new ordinance requiring the filing of a
disclosure statement of economic interests and
other specified information pursuant to Section
2.1-639.14 of the Code of Virginia.
Q. CITIZENS' COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
R. ADJOURNMENT
:~.- ~~
ACTION # 112889-1
ITEM NUMBER ~ _
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: November 28, 1989
AGENDA ITEM: Addition of Hidden Valley Court to the Drainage
Maintenance Priority List
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR' S COMMENT ~ . /~w' '`~h~2'"`~` "' ~"`~'~
>C ,~~dtc.~i r?i~ •r~~.; %wrr" ~ ;~ , ~ , V c; ~ w,,,/I,~'/ r'l~~-c ~~~~ d
BACKGROUND/ ~,-n,-,,,, .~„ .~~,,,,,w-rt,~ _~~,~,,,.`I ~-~-„ (~~,.~ 2 .
Projects P-29 through P-54 were presented to the Board of
Supervisors for approval and inclusion to the drainage
maintenance priority list on October 10, 1989. Staff is now
submitting project P-55 (estimated cost of $50,000) for approval
and addition to the priority list. Per the attached letter Mr.
Bostian has discussed this drainage concern previously with
Roanoke County.
With the addition of this project, the estimated cost to
complete the unfunded drainage maintenance priority projects, is
$180,000. At current funding levels the majority of next fiscal
year's funds will be required.
The Board of Supervisors have previously discussed
additional funding for drainage maintenance projects.
The current drainage maintenance priority list is attached.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Drainage from Warwood Drive, Sugarloaf Mountain Road and
Grandin Road Extension discharge to the drainage ditch at the
rear of Mr. Bostian's property. From that point the drainage
follows the ditch line for approximately 300 feet to an existing
~- ~-/
30-inch corrugated metal pipe. Then, the drainage is collected
by the pipe which follows an alignment toward Grandin Road
Extension and then parallel with Grandin Road Extension for a
distance of approximately 570 feet. Mr. Bostian's concerns
deal with the inability of the drainage ditch, to adequately
carry the drainage away from his property (causes backup onto his
and adjoining backyard areas). Based on field survey the ditch
is virtually level with an overall grade of less than .30 (.3'
per 100' of length). At the inlet to the existing pipe if the
water depth exceeds 1.1' the storm water will bypass the pipe,
and flow across adjoining backyards. Therefore, the existing
pipe restricts lowering the ditch to provide greater capacity,
and the flat slope restricts the ability of the ditch to carry
storm water from the upper section to the entrance of the
culvert.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS
Alternative Number 1 - Approve the addition of the Hidden
Valley Court drainage problem as drainage maintenance priority
project P-55 at an estimated cost of $50,000. Assuming that the
funding for drainage maintenance continues at a yearly allocation
of $200,000 per year the start of construction on this project
would be after July 1, 1990.
Alternative Number 2 - Approve the addition of Hidden Valley
Court as a drainage maintenance priority project P-55 at an
estimated cost of $50,000. Authorize additional funds for
drainage maintenance during the current fiscal year in the amount
of $215,000 ($180,000 of construction funds for the additional
drainage projects, P-31 thru 55, plus an additional Engineering
Position to administer the additional work at $35,000 per year).
Funds should come from the General Fund unappropriated balance.
Alternative Number 3 -
maintenance priority list with
fiscal year.
Maintain the current drainage
no additional projects until next
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends Alternative Number 1, whereby, the Board of
Supervisors would approve project P-55 to be added to the
drainage maintenance priority list.
2
~-/
SUBMITTED BY:
~+ 1
Phillip Henry P.E.
Director of Engineering
APPROVED BY:
~, f r
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
--------- -------- -----------------------
ACTION -----------------------
VOTE
Approved ( ~ Motion by: Bob L. Johnson/ No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Lee Garrett to approve Garrett x
Received ( ) Alt #1 authorizing funding Johnson x
Referred of drainage project but McGraw x
To not the addition of an Nickens ~
eng ineer unless or until Robers ~
it is necessary
cc: File
Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering
Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget
Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance
John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator
Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources
3
~- /
-~-
NORTH
~~
~a r~ a \. ~ H ~
` ~ RD ~.
~~ / -
- y
„ 6TER
~ flClO ~ 0~
~1 NORVI°OD ~ ,
r
~ ~
Cl ~ wt Si Ry,
~~t, a
EK
R
~~~ ~
` ~
=„. ~ '~\ ~ r _,~. TAT 5. ~,,RwM
'FJ
,vo
a ~~=~ w i ~
AL
4/f s~•r.a• T. ~ G a ~
.
HI V .iu
aN.E CO, r +
, s L
,, ~v~ • ~~b
_
~ * s'•oyR 4
t
*~ o Vi=a
• coast Nn ~ DR
K
~ ~ -pt.- L r
~
1 I i ~ P
~1R &.
~
° FCIANO
:~R,~4•~ p
s.or
~b41 -- _..... !~'
VICINTIYMAP ,y,~ N
~ ~, ....t URN
-
__
:
` 9 :~ 350' ditch @
• ~ ..~,~ ` 0.2 5
* '~ ~
~ ...o. .. o• I ~~ ~ 1
VIA ~~ Na7 '• 4
/ _ 4 ~. f.JOs`
saos ~ y siss* 3 ~ .
. sus " ~ 4
11 ~ ' Y ~ :~ 24•
• • • O? /L~
t _~ ~ /W7 J11~ ~'' ~ ~ (tf ~"
t » •z 'L
a` g9g ~ •• 4 per' •26 9 f~o- '~sc
t57 ' - 30" ~~
,. 29 I ~ ~ '' sioi 20 1
.. ..: a ~ ~ sisa
Y ~ r^ 22 O ' 20 ~~ ~ E
1 ` -
,o ~., jftl • QI i I tl0~c ~ ••
,,., r.. w+~-' a 24 ~ ~ K i 1I01 . ~.~ ~~
... :. ~ ~a~ ~ /
~' ~ 1 srs•
.. t
1.1' H:{ allowabYe .,•. ~3:• ~ s,~3e Iv
a '23 ~ 4 sfLi ' , ~ ,~:'~.
. ,c ~ ,l 1 Q~ '..,\
~.# nt~ »~.• s~i~' 36 '~' 35
' s"w ,26 6 ~ / isoz
^.r l~ ~ .~ gat i~o
8- - '' r, Ins ~' ~ '~.. ~ ~
~ i~ ~
iIOI ~ ~ 14 ••
'' " ~ rs~r
' 11 .. r 2
~ 3 rII1
s ,r S 6
`~ 9 ~xae :,~ / u~~ ~ -_- : ~~ sus
,,., ,,. ----,.~ 1 l~ _,.Y__~_--1 4
v• 21 ,.
.~ ~, ~ i X77• ~ ils ~ .._ f 23 i' 22 I'
.~. 1. 24 =i 23 _. . ,.1 r so ;iss ~', 7ifst '.~ ~,i i t iL~
COMMUNITY SERVICES Robert M. Bostian ~,
AND DEVELOPMENT . 5029 Sugar Loaf Mountain Road
Hidden Valley Court p-55
~ -I
DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE
(PRIORITIZED)
P-1. B. W. Kessler Complete
6911 Goff Road Cost: $2,500
Loman Road
P-2. Penn Forest Christian Church Complete
Penn Forest Cost: $3,500
P-3. Russell E. Taylor Complete
2824 Emissary Drive Cost: $40,000
Montclair
P-4. Bob Hansel Ready for construction
4514 Hammond Lane Cost: $25,000
Eton Hills
P-5. Dot Eller Negotiating for easement
3611 McDaniel Drive Cost: $50,000
Andrew Lewis Place
P-6. George Warner Under construction
3934 Sandpiper Drive Cost: $60,000
Penn Forest
P-7. Harry Goin Complete
8167 Hunter's Trail Cost: $20,000
Belleview Estates
P-8. N. J. Holbrook Complete
314 Woodmere Drive Cost: $3,000
Lindenwood
P-9. J. D. Thompson Complete
618 Landfair Drive Cost: $3,000
Lindenwood
P-10.Richard Smoot Complete
1325 Vivian Avenue Cost: $2,000
Dwight Hills
P-11.Stan Barnhill Complete
3333 Kingswood Drive Cost: $5,000
Algoma Park
P-12.George Coughenhour Ready for construction
3319 Overhill Trail Cost: $37,000
Penn Forest
P-13.Lawrence E. Horton Ready for construction
3510 Penn Forest Boulevard Cost: $1,500
Penn Forest
7
-~ - /
P-14.Gene Tuttle
5551 Ambassador Drive
Montclair
P-15.Richard Looney
7340 Barrens Road
Barrens Road
P-16.Norman Caldwell
2233 Ruritan Road
La Bellevue
P-17.David Crosswhite
5216 Burnt Quarter Drive
Falling Creek Estates
P-18.Bridle Lane
Sugar Loaf Estates
P-19.Watkins
Sugar Loaf Mountain Road
P-20.Jack Browning
2844 Embassy Drive
P-21.W. P. Meador
5516 Lamplighter Drive
P-22.Hugh Wells
3663 Chaparral Drive
P-23.Cheryl Beach
5444 Lakedale Road
P-24.Pauline Roberson
4314 Cresthill Drive
P-25.George Billups
3558 Verona Trail
P-26.Mrs. Charles H. Clum, Jr.
5041 Craun Lane
P-27.Mrs. Vola Cockram
3549 Colony Lane
P-28.Dennis Duff
5137 Waxmyrtle
Complete
Cost: $5,000
Complete
Cost: $1,500
Ready for construction
Cost: $5,000
Complete
Cost: $2,000
Complete
Cost: $2,000
Complete
Cost: $1,500
Complete
Cost: $5,000
Complete
Cost: $1,000
Engineering and surveying
underway
Cost: $25,000
Complete
Cost: $1,000
Ready for construction
Cost: $2,500
Complete
Cost: $1,500
Under construction
Cost: $3,500
Complete
Cost: $2,000
Ready for construction
Cost: $3,500
8
~-/
P-29.Nelms Lane
St. Route #840
North County
P-30.John D. Kelly
942 Starmount Avenue
Starmount
P-31.Lynn Kirk
4704 Whipplewood Drive
Branderwood
P-32.Bobby Joe Hogan
2814 Embassy Circle
Montclair Estates
P-33.Raymond Hodges
509 Palisades Drive
Lindenwood
P-34.Palm Valley/Sun Valley
P-35.Dick Simpson
5332 Cave Spring Lane
Nottingham Hills
P-36.J. D. Porter
2745 Tanglewood Drive
Meadowlark
P-37.John Glovier
4620 Vest Drive
Eton Hills
P-38.Ron Callahan
5138 Springlawn Avenue
Springlawn
P-39.Kim Hagood
2938 Merino Drive
Castle Rock Farms
P-40.Thomas L. Wright
2737 Tully Drive
Glen Cove
P-41.William T. Andrews
5702 Pine Acres Lane
Pine Acres
P-42.Samuel Irvin
4124 Eagle Circle
Penn Forest
9
Engineering and Surveying
underway
Estimated Cost: $61,000
Under construction
Estimated Cost: $12,500
Estimated Cost: $500
Estimated Cost: $20,000
Estimated Cost: $10,000
Estimated Cost: $25,000
Estimated Cost: $4,000
Estimated Cost: $1,500
Estimated Cost: $1,500
Estimated Cost: $6,000
Estimated Cost: $2,500
Estimated Cost: $5,000
Estimated Cost: $1,000
Estimated Cost: $1,500
~-/
P-43.David Smith
1446 Freeborn Circle
Hamden Hills
P-44.Donald Obenchain
3743 Colonial Avenue
Colonial Heights
P-45.Glen Unroe
4101 Arlington Hills Drive
Arlington Hills
P-46.Howard Boblett
5443 Chatsworth Drive
Mount Vernon Forest
P-47.Lawrence Morgan
4956 Wing Commander Drive
Nichols Estates
P-48.Walter E. Stokley
7887 Enon Drive
North Burlington
P-49.Ralph Horne
1112 East Drive
Dillard Court
P-50.John W. Vaughn
4443 Wyndale Avenue
Wyndale
P-51.Gary Smith
1160 Vivian Avenue
Dwight Hills
P-52.Steven Bratcher
5402 Green Meadow Road
Farmington Lake
P-53.John Eades
4306 Fontaine Drive
Cresthill
P-54.Richard Ferguson
5053 Balsam Drive
Belle Meade
Estimated Cost: $1,000
Estimated Cost: $500
Estimated Cost: $500
Estimated Cost: $1,500
Estimated Cost: $2,000
Estimated Cost: $3,000
Estimated Cost: $1,500
Estimated Cost: $1,500
Estimated Cost: $5,000
Estimated Cost: $500
Estimated Cost: $6,000
Estimated Cost: $10,000
10
/~ ....~. ~^!~i
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1989
RESOLUTION 112889-2 SUPPORTING A REGIONAL APPROACH
TO WATERSHED PLANNING AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
FOR THE ROANORE VALLEY
WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Commission, at the
request of Roanoke Valley governments, prepared a Feasibility Study
for a Roanoke Valley Comprehensive stormwater Management Program
in 1985 which presented a detailed analysis of: (1) the benefits
of a regional stormwater management program, (2) drainage problems
and future stormwater management concerns, (3) existing local
stormwater management programs, (4) databases for stormwater
management planning, (5) a proposed approach to regional stormwater
management planning, and (6) institutional and regulatory issues
affecting stormwater management; and
WHEREAS, this study determined that twenty-two of the
thirty-nine watersheds in the Roanoke Valley are
interjurisdictional and development activities in the upper reaches
of these tributaries will adversely affect areas downstream; and
WHEREAS, the high cost of facilities encourages local
governments to have a plan and methods of examining possible
alternatives to find the most cost-effective solution; and
WHEREAS, a cooperative regional approach to watershed
planning and management of stormwater runoff appears beneficial to
all communities in the Valley.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors recognizes the need to cooperate with other
Roanoke Valley governments in managing stormwater runoff and
supports a regional approach to developing watershed master plans
and a stormwater management program; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors will provide its pro rata share of the cost (based on
current population estimates) to update the 1985 feasibility study
for a Roanoke Valley Comprehensive Stormwater Management Program
for the purpose of providing direction for developing watershed
master plans of tributaries of the Roanoke River. The total cost
for the update of the 1985 study will not exceed $10, 000, to be
shared by the participating localities on a pro rata basis.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens, to adopt resolution and
funding for Roanoke County's share to be allocated from Board
Contingency Fund, seconded by Supervisor 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
Wayne Strickland, Executive Director, Fifth Planning District
Commission
W. Robert Herbert, Roanoke City Manager
Randolph M. Smith, Salem City Manager
George W. Nester, Vinton Town Manager
John Williamson, Botetourt County Administrator
Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering
Cliff Craig, Director, Utilities
John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator
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: November 28, 1989
AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Resolution supporting a regional
approach to watershed planning and stormwater
management
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND
On September 12, 1989, the Board of Supervisors directed that the
Town of Vinton and Cities of Salem and Roanoke be contacted
requesting the development of a regional approach to address the
Roanoke Valley stormwater management problems.
At the October 23 meeting of the Fifth Planning District
Commission stormwater Management Committee, a Technical
Subcommittee was formed to look at the Planning District
Commission's 1985 Feasibility Study for a Roanoke Valley
Comprehensive stormwater Management Program
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
The technical subcommittee reviewed the 1985 study and
recommended the changes outlined in the attached letter from
Wayne Strickland, Executive Director of the Fifth Planning
District Commission. It was also recommended that a resolution
be adopted by the Roanoke Valley governing bodies endorsing the
concept of a regional approach to stormwater management and that
each participating locality provide a share of the cost based on
current population to update the 1985 Feasibility Study for a
Roanoke Valley Comprehensive stormwater Management Program
Resolutions have been adopted by the City of Salem and the Town
of Vinton.
-~
TAFF RECOMMENDATION
Roanoke County was the leader in advocating a regional approach
to stormwater management and it is recommended that the attached
resolution authorizing the County's participation be adopted.
It is further recommended that the Board of Supervisors authorize
the funding of the County's share of the cost to update the 1985
feasibility study for a Roanoke Valley Comprehensive stormwater
Management Program. The total cost of the project will not
exceed $10,000 and will be shared by the participating localities
based on current population. Funding should be appropriated
from the General Fund unappropriated balance.
_______________________________________c:ounty 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 ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1989
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A REGIONAL APPROACH
TO WATERSHED PLANNING AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
FOR THE ROANOKE VALLEY
WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Commission, at the
request of Roanoke Valley governments, prepared a Feasibility Study
for a Roanoke Valley Comprehensive Stormwater Management Program
in 1985 which presented a detailed analysis of: (1) the benefits
of a regional stormwater management program, (2) drainage problems
and future Stormwater management concerns, (3) existing local
Stormwater management programs, (4) databases for stormwater
management planning, (5) a proposed approach to regional stormwater
management planning, and (6) institutional and regulatory issues
affecting stormwater management; and
WHEREAS, this study determined that twenty-two of the
thirty-nine watersheds in the Roanoke Valley are
interjurisdictional and development activities in the upper reaches
of these tributaries will adversely affect areas downstream; and
WHEREAS, the high cost of facilities encourages local
governments to have a plan and methods of examining possible
alternatives to find the most cost-effective solution; and
WHEREAS, a cooperative regional approach to watershed
planning and management of stormwater runoff appears beneficial to
all communities in the Valley.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors recognizes the need to cooperate with other
~-2
Roanoke Valley governments in managing stormwater runoff and
supports a regional approach to developing watershed master plans
and a stormwater management program; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors will provide its pro rata share of the cost (based on
current population estimates) to update the 1985 feasibility study
for a Roanoke Valley Comprehensive stormwater Management Program
for the purpose of providing direction for developing watershed
master plans of tributaries of the Roanoke River. The total cost
for the update of the 1985 study will not exceed $10, 000, to be
shared by the participating localities on a pro rata basis.
Fifth Planning District Commission ~
313 Luck Avenue, S. W. P.O. Box 2569 Roanoke, Virginia 24010 (703) 343-4417
November 7, 1989
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stormwater Management Committee
W. Robert Herbert, Roanoke City Manager
Randy Smith, Salem City Manager
Elmer C. Hodge, Jr., Roanoke County Administrator
George Nester, Vinton Town Manager
John B. Williamson, III, Botetourt County Administrator
FROM: Wayn~~ G" Strickland, Executive Director
SUBJ: Resolution Supporting a Regional Approach to Stormwater
Management and a Brief Report on Stormwater Utility (An
Innovative Financing Mechanism for Local Stormwater
Management Programs) Prepared by John Hartigan of Camp
Dresser and McKee
At the October 23 meeting of the Stormwater Management Committee,
the Committee requested that a Technical Subcommittee be formed
and that this Technical Subcommittee look at the following items
as related to the PDC's 1985 Feasibility Study for a Roanoke
Valley Comprehensive Stormwater Management Program: (1)
delineating a scope of work for watershed master plans; (2)
updating the cost figures presented in the study as related to
the development of watershed plans; (3) investigating how the
cost of such plans should be allocated among participating
governments; (4) reviewing existing local government Stormwater
management regulations to determine similarities and differences;
and (5) developing a resolution for local governments to adopt
endorsing the concept of a regional approach to Stormwater
management. The Management Committee also requested that I
contact Botetourt County to invite them to participate in our
efforts. John Williamson, Botetourt County Administrator, was
contacted on October 24 and has expressed an interest in
participating.
On October 30, the Technical Subcommittee met at the PDC office
to review the issues proposed by the Management Committee (a list
of the Technical Subcommittee members is attached). In regard to
delineating the scope of work for the watershed master plans,
the Subcommittee generally agreed that the scope of work, as
outlined by Camp Dresser and McKee in the PDC's 1985 feasibility
study, was appropriate with the following changes: (1)
individual watersheds should be evaluated on their own merit in
terms of the design storm,. i.e., the 25- and 10-year storms as
the upper and lower limits may not be appropriate design storms
for each watershed; (2) there is a need to update the hydrology
Alleghany County •Botetourt County • Craig County • Roanoke County
City of Clifton Forge • City of Covington • City of Roanoke • City of Salem • Town of Vinton
~-~
2
data to be used in the stormwater modeling process; (3) the cost
of doing stormwater management and flood control should be
examined; (4) assess the potential for using the Corps of
Engineers new flood studies as a part of this research; (5)
remedial actions for existing problems should be addressed
because the program may be difficult to sell without some attempt
at addressing existing problems; (6) water quality issued as
related to new State and/or Environmental Protection Agency
requirements should be addressed; and (7) the study should update
new institutional or regulatory issues.
The Technical Subcommittee felt that the cost figures presented
in the study, as related to the development of watershed plans,
appear to be on-line. However, the engineering consulting firm
should look at these figures to see if there are any major
changes in costs. The Technical Subcommittee felt that the cost
of the plan update and the development of the watershed plans
should be allocated among participating governments based on
population. In regard to reviewing existing local government
stormwater management regulations, the Technical Subcommittee
noted that they would send the PDC any new regulations or changes
to existing ordinances adopted since the completion of the 1985
feasibility study.
Finally, as requested by the Management Committee, the Technical
Subcommittee has prepared a resolution which endorses a regional
approach to watershed planning and stormwater management for the
Roanoke Valley. A draft of this resolution was mailed to all
Technical Subcommittee members and the resulting resolution
represents the comments generated from the draft. The resolution
calls for each Roanoke Valley government to support a regional
approach to developing watershed master plans and a stormwater
management program, and it further states that each local
government will provide its pro rata share (based on current
population estimates) of updating the 1985 feasibility study.
The total cost for the update of the 1985 study will not exceed
$10,000. Enclosed you will find a copy of the resolution as
developed by the Technical Subcommittee. We hope that the
resolution meets with your approval.
The last matter discussed at the October 23 meeting was a request
to have John Hartigan of Camp Dresser and Mcl~ee prspare a
background paper concerning the stormwater utility approach for
financing local stormwater management programs. It was noted
during our discussion that this background paper might be
appropriate to use as a starting point for upcoming discussions
of legislative proposals by VML and NACO. The cost of preparing
the stormwater utility paper by Camp Dresser and McKee was $450.
The stormwater Management Committee agreed that the four
participating governments would reimburse the Planning District
Commission for the background paper. Therefore, we will be
sending you an invoice for your pro rata share (based on current
-- .+~..
3
population estimates) for this background study. Botetourt
County will not be invoiced since they were not participating
members of this group on October 23.
The Fifth Planning District Commission has authorized the staff
to work with the Roanoke Valley governments in their regional
stormwater management effort and is pleased that we are moving
ahead with our discussions. The staff looks forward to working
with the participating local governments in updating the 1985
feasibility study and in pursuing a regional approach to
watershed master plans and stormwater management. If you have
any questions concerning this correspondence, or the enclosed
material, please do not hesitate to contact me.
WGS:jlp
Enclosures
cc: Technical Subcommittee Members
~- 2
CDM
environmental engineers, saenhsts,
planners, 8 management consuuants
November 2, 1989
Mr. Wayne G. Strickland
Executi ve Director
Fifth Planning District Commission
313 Luck Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24010
RE: Background Paper on Stormwater Utilities
Dear Wayne:
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE
7535 Little River Turnpike, Surte 200
Annandale, Virginia 22003
703 642-5500
---~_~;~ ~~ ,~ 1
Enclosed is the background paper which you authorized last week.
The paper is intended to provide local policy makers with an introduction
to the stormwater utility approach. It would also be appropriate to use
this paper as a starting point for upcoming discussions of legislative
proposals by VML and VACO.
As agreed, please transmit a payment of X450 made payable to "Camp Dresser
b McKee" for this work. Please note in the transmittal letter or on the
check itself that the payment covers the "Background Paper on Stormwater
Utilities."
Please advise if you need additional assistance with presentations, work
program/budget estimates, background material, or other activities related
to the Roanoke Yalley comprehensive stormwater management program.
Si ncerely yours,
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE
John P. Hartigan, P.E.
Senior Associate
JPH/jw
~-z
STORMWATER UTILITY:
INNO!/ATIVE FINANCING MECHANISM
FOR LOCAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
IN THE ROANOKE VALLEY
By John P. Hartigan, P.E.
Camp Dresser & McKee
Introduction
The establishment of local stormwater utilities throughout the Southeastern
United States is one of the most exciting recent developments in urban
stormwater management. A stormwater utility can be used to implement
comprehensive local drainage programs for flooding and erosion control.
Also, a stormwater utility can be used to meet EPA's upcoming water quality
control requirements for stormwater discharges.
This paper describes what a utility is, typical user-charges, enabling
legislation requirements, and procedures for setting up a stormwater
utility.
What is a Stormwater Utility?
The stormwater utility is designed to improve County, City, and Town
drainage programs while relieving pressure on the local general fund. It
involves creating a continuing funding source by designating stormwater
management as a utility, muc i e water, sewers, gas, and electricity are
considered as public utilities. Under the stormwater utility approach, all
property owners are assessed a monthly or quarterly fee to cover annual
operation costs and a portion of capital costs for local stormwater
management programs.
With this revenue base, it is possible to hase out eneral fund
contributions to local stormwater managemen programs and alto rely upon
revenue ~ for capital expenditures. The end result is that the
respons~b a ounty, City, or Town department will have an adequate revenue
source to construct stormwater management facilities and to carry out
maintenance activ ties. A utility program is .more equitable than reliance
on general fund revenue, since costs for each parcel of land are based upon
usage of the drainage system.
The establishment of stormwater utilities is a corms ept which has achieved
growing popularity in the Western and Midwestern United States over the
past 15 years and is now starting to catch on in the Southeast. In October
1986,-the City of Tallahassee, Florida, imple~ented the first stormwater
utility in the Eastern United States. Since the startup of the Tallahassee
program, 17 other Florida municipalities have taken steps to implement the
~-z
stormwater utility concept. For example, utilities have been started up
this year in the cities of Miami and Daytona Beach, and Hillsborough County
and Sarasota County are in the process of setting up billing systems for a
1990 startup.
The increasing popularity of stormwater utilities in Florida is already
being felt in North Carolina and Virginia, where several municipalities are
currently undertaking studies which should lead to stormwater utilities in
the near future. Further, enabling legislation for local stormwater
utilities was enacted during the 1989 session of the North Carolina General
Assembly.
Small User-Charges Significantly. Increase Local Stormwater Mana~ ement
- u gets
To ensure a manageable billing system, all single family residential
parcels are usually billed at a flat rate. Based on recent experiences in
the Southeastern United States, typical monthly user-charges for a
stormwater utility are about $1.00 to $3.00 per single family dwelling
unit, or about $12 to $36 per year (see Table 1). As illustrated in Figure
1, charges for other land uses are based on the ratio of the impervious
cover for the land use category to the assumed average imperviousness for a
single family parcel. Thus, each property owner is assessed monthly or
quarterly charges which reflect the amount of runoff generated from his
parcel of land (i.e., usage of the City drainage system).
Significant annual revenues can be generated by relatively small
user-chargers. For example, based upon our studies of other municipalities
of similar size, a monthly flat rate of $2.00 per single family unit could
generate annual revenue for stormwater management on the order of
$2 to $3 million per year for the City of Roanoke, a similar amount for
Roanoke County, on the order of $400,000 to $600,000 per year for the City
of Salem and on the order of $100,000 to $150,000 per year for the Town of
Vinton.
The flat rate determines how long it will take for the stormwater utility
to phase out general fund contributions, with higher flat rates requiring a
shorter period to achieve an enterprise fund and vice versa. Stormwater
utilities recently designed for several municipalities in Florida are
typically designed to reach enterprise fund status within a 2- to 5-year
period (see Table 1). Recent Florida experience has also shown that a
monthly flat rate of $1.00 per single family unit (SFU) can typically only
maintain the existing level of service, meaning that flat rates on the
order of $2.00 per SFU are typically required to significantly increase the
local service level.
As indicated in Table 1, the stormwater utility billing system is typically
"piggybacked" on an existing utility billing system (e.g., water/sewer,
electric, solid waste) to reduce administrative costs and facilitate
implementation.
2
"7.. -2
TABLE 1
SAMPLE STORMWATER UTILITIES
IN SOUTHEASTERN U.S.
No. of
Years to
Starting Flat Rafe Enterprise Billing
Jurisdiction ($ /monfh/ERU) F= S. Y=
Tallahassee, FL 1986 Yr 1: $1.00 5 Electric
Yr 2: $1.60
Daytona Beach, FL 1988 $1.00 1 Water/Sewer
Miami, FL 1988 $2.50 4 WaterlSewer
Port St. Lucie, FL 1988 $3.00 0 Private
Ocala, FL 1988 $2.00 2 Electric
Oakland Park, FL 1988 $1.00 2 Water/Sewer
Sarasota County, FL (1990) $2.00 3 Property Tax
Hillsborough County, FL (1990) $3.00 3 Property Tax
Manatee County, FL (1990) $1.00•$2.00 5 Water/Sewer
Tampa, FL (1984 Study) - $2.60 5 -
( ) `Utility approved and scheduled for start-up
3
~-2
FIGURE 1
STORMWATER UTILITY
RATE STRUCTURE
• BASE UNIT : FLAT RATE ~ i/MONTH ~ FOR EACH
"EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT" ~ ERU 1
ERU • AVERAGE IMPERVIOUS AREA ~ SD. F'T. I
OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS
OTHER LAND USES
NO. OF ERU = ~ IMPERVIOUS AREAS / ~ ERU
EXAMPLE
ERU s 4,600 SD. R?'.
FLAT RATE = iZ.00 /MONTH /ERU
i1NG~E
FAMILY
UNIT
1.0 ERU
2,500 SO. FT.
INDUSTRIAL i1TE
IMPERVIOUi AREA
1.0 E~ E u TOTAL s t.• ERU
RATE s (1.• ERU) x (=2.00) s =3.d0 i MONTH
COMMERCIAL iiTE
IMPERVIOUS AREA
1.0 ERU 1.0 ERU
•5
1.0 ERU 1.0 ERU E
TOTAL s E.0 ERU
RATEs(5.0ERU)x(t2.00)s:10.00iMONTN
CDM
4
.1J -
User-Charges Based on Runoff Potential
Because the user-charge is based on runoff generating potential, highly
impervious land uses tend to contribute the majority of the total revenue,
while single family land uses usually contribute much less than their
proportional share of the total area. For example, in the Tallahassee
stormwater utility, single family land uses contribute only 18~ of the
total annual revenue even though they represent almost 35~ of the total
area in the City; by comparison, commercial and industrial land uses
contribute almost 30~ of the total annual revenue even though they
represent less than 15% of the total area.
The two principles which serve as the basis for the stormwater utility
concept are as follows:
1. All property within each watershed will benefit from the
installation of an adequate stormwater management system.
2. Since all property owners will benefit, the costs of an adequate
stormwater management system should be assessed against all real
property.
Arguments that are often presented to support the first principle address
the ability of an adequate stormwater management program to enhance and
maintain a high quality of life for all property owners, regardless of
whether they reside in the upstream or downstream end of a watershed. For
example, areawide contributions of an adequate stormwater management plan
include the following:
o Keeping streets open to emergency vehicle traffic;
o Maintaining stormwater management facilities so that they do not
become a health hazard; and
Promoting the use of stormwater management facilities for
recreational purposes.
Further, if the stormwater utility is also used to meet EPA's new water
quality requirements for stormwater discharges, both the upstream and
downstream residents will benefit from an effective program. Fundamental
to any utility user-charge system is the test of equity and fairness. The
user-charge system must accurately represent each property owner's runoff
contribution. The correlation between the amount of a parcel's impervious
area and the amount of runoff attributable to the parcel is the basis for
determining the user charge.
Another attractive feature of a stormwater utility is that all parcels with
impervious cover, including government buildings, churches, and schools,
~~2
are typically included in the user-charge program. This is because the
requirement„that the rate structure must be fair and equitable means that
all land uses which generate runoff should be included. For example, one
of the driving forces behind the Tallahassee utility was the desire to
collect user-charges from the State government facilities that are
significant drainage contributors.
Enabling Legislation
Regarding legal authority fora local government to set up a stormwater
utility in Virginia, there appears to be no straightforward authorization
in any one place in the Code of Virginia. The following sections of the
Code of Virginia delegate authority for some but not all of the elements of
a stormwater utility:
o Section 15.1-283: Provision of Adequate Drainage
o Section 15.1-170: Public Finance Act
Section 15.1-283 grants a local government the power to provide for
adequate drainage and to effect thi s drainage by doing ar~ythi ng necessary
by way of installing drainage systems and appropriating money for them.
This section also provides that it is to be liberally construed by courts
to effectuate its purposes. The Public Finance Act grants a local
government the power to construct drainage prof acts and it provides that
its powers are supplemental and additional to any other powers granted in
the Code. The effect of the provisions in 15.1-283 and the Public Finance
Act is to give a local government full power to do what is necessary to
solve its drainage problems and to use the financing powers of the Public
Finance Act to achieve that result.
However, because this authority has to be pieced together from different
sections of the Code of Virginia, bond lawyers are likely to be
uncomfortable about the issuance of revenue bonds without some
clarification of the laws. Therefore, while existing enabling legislation
may be construed to authorize the establishment of drainage system user
charges, the issuance of revenue bonds will definitely require additional
enabling legislation.
The potential enabling legislation modifications are relatively minor,
although at least two different sections of the State Code would have to be
amended. The first would be a modification of Section 15.1-283 to provide
that any citywide or countywide drainage system undertaken pursuant to
advanced comprehensive planning and drainage planning would be deemed to be
for the general benefit of all property in the City or County and not for
any particular property benefitted at one time. A second change would be
to amend the language in the Public Finance Act relating to user fees to
require that they be established on a fair and equitable basis and that
6
~ -z
they may be used to pay for operation and maintenanc e, bond retirement, and
capita) cost. A third change would be to permit connection fees to the
drainage system i n express terms i n ei ther Section 15.1-283 or in the
Public Fi Hance Act.
Steps Involved in Setting Up a Stormwater Utility
Figures 2 and 3 illustrate two different approaches used to implement
stormwater utilities. The Option A approach outlined in Figure 2 involves
incorporating the utility into a stormwater management master plan so that
the facilities to be supported by the utility are identified before the
financing program is implemented. The Option B approach outlined in Figure
3 involves setting up the utility before the stormwater management master
plan is implemented. Under this approach, revenue generated by the utility
is used to fund the stormwater management master plan, as well as other
stormwater management activities.
The utility is typically designed and implemented through a two-step
process, with each step requiring 4 to 6 months to complete. The first
step is a feasibility study which evaluates alternate rate structures,
identifies legal constraints, and includes a public involvement program.
The second step involves the implementation plan including design of the
billing system, development of required ordinances, and determination of
organization/staffing needs to implement the program.
7
FIGURE 2 ~ Z
STEPS INVOLVED IN
SETTING UP STORMWATER UTILITY:
OPTION A
I STORMWATER MGT.
MASTER PLAN
SWM
FACILITIES PLAN
SWM UTILITY
FEASIBILITY STUDY
• Budget needs for alternate
levels of service
• Compare UTILITY with other
financing mechanisms
• Revenue projections
• Legai constraints
• Pubiic involvement
• City/County approval of
concept
SWM UTILITY
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
• Final rate structure
• Ordinances
• ®ilttng system
• Organt:ation/Staffing
• City/County adoption
IMPLEMENT
BILLING SYSTEM
PHASE OUT
GENERAL FUND
CONTRIBUTIONS
8
r
FIGURE 3
STEPS INVOLVED IN
SETTING UP STORMWATER UTILITY:
OPTION B
SWM UTILITY
FEASIBILITY STUDY
SWM UTILITY
IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN
IMPLEMENT
BILLING SYSTEM
STORMWATER MGT.
MASTER PLAN
PHASE OUT
GENERAL FUND
CONTRIBUTIONS
9
ACTION #
112889-3
ITEM NUMBER .~ -3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: November 28, 1989
AGENDA ITEM: Credit of water off-site facility fee for Tweeds,
Inc.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND'
Tweeds, Inc. is constructing its telemarketing and distribu-
tion center for a catalog business in the industrial site off Route
460 next to The Roanoke/Botetourt County line. The development of
the site is proceeding under the provisions of an agreement between
Roanoke County, Botetourt County and Tweeds, Inc. This agreement
states Roanoke County will provide water to the Tweeds site
boundary at a static pressure of 70 psi and a fireflow of 3, 000
gallons/minute with 20 psi residual at the site. Specific fees and
charges for service will be in accordance with the fee schedule
established by Roanoke County."
The water system constructed to serve this site will provide
3,870 gallons per minute fireflow at 20 psi and 2,700 gallons per
minute at 60 psi residual and static pressure of 80 psi. These
flows meet all Tweeds requirements and have permitted them to
remove the fire pump system from their building design.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Community Development Block Grant funds in the amount of
$66,790 have been made available to fund the off-site water
facilities approved on September 26, 1989. These funds were made
available for the purpose of meeting the fireflow requirements to
the Tweeds site.
Tweeds, Inc. has requested that Roanoke County consider the
$66,790 CDBG funds to be Tweeds contribution to off-site water
facility construction and to credit this $66,790 against their
water off-site facility fees under the provisions of the County
Water Ordinance.
~-3
Tweeds has requested an 8" fire service and a 4" domestic
service. Their total water connection fee is $88,183. Of this
total connection fee, $76,383 is the off-site facility fee eligible
for credit. Tweeds request is for the County to credit the $66,790
toward the $76,383, leaving them a total water connection fee of
$21,393.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS:
1. The Board of Supervisors would consider the CDBG funds
to be furnished on behalf of Tweeds, Inc. and credit the $66,790
against the Tweeds off-site water facility fee. Their total water
connection fee would be $21,393.
The total cost to Roanoke County would be the same as if the
grant funds had not been made available. That cost will be
recovered when future connections are made to this water line.
2. The Board of Supervisors would not authorize the credit
of the full $66,790 against the Tweeds off-site water facility fee.
One-half of the off-site fee or $38,192 would be credited by staff
as required under provisions of the Water Ordinance. Tweeds total
water connection fee would then be $49,991.
The total cost to Roanoke County would be $28,598 less than
alternative one.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative one be approved and that the
Utility Director be authorized to credit the full amount of the
CDBG funds used for off-site water facilities against the Tweeds
connection fee.
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED:
Cliffor ig, P.E. Elmer C. o
Utility Director County Admi istrator
ACTION
Approved (x)
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
to
Motion by: Bob L Johnson/
Steven A McGraw to approve Garrett
Alt #1 Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
cc: File
Cliff Craig, Director, Utilities
Reta Busher, Director, Management & Budget
Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance
Tim Gubala, Director, Economic Development
VOTE
No
Yes Abs
x
x
x
x
x
ylururUUrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrUrrrrUrrrUrUrrrUUrrrUrrrrrUrrr,~
-
- ~
_ ~_
- ~.
APPEARANCE RE VEST
- Q -
_ _
- -
_ _
= AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ ~ _-
= SUBJECT 1 w~~~ ~~tiv-9-L Q~~oQ ,
_ _
I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to
recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter
so that I may comment.WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM,
- I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE _-
RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES
LISTED BELOW. _
• Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment =
whether speaking as an individual or representative. The chairman will -
.
-' decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue,
and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to c
- do otherwise. -
- -
- -
• Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their oint of view onl -
bons of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman. y. ues-
_ • All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between arecognized
-
speaker and audience members is not allowed. ...
• Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times.
-
_- • Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments .=
-- with the clerk. _,
= i
• INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED -
GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION
c FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT
= THEM. -
- -
__
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO DEPUTY CLERK
-
.-- NAME ~ L F Q ~ ~ ~d t,J ~ [, L -'
- -
_ -
- -
- -_
- -
ADDRESS ~ ~ ~ Q ~Z~~ N j~ ~~,,~
S`-T., -
- -
- -
- _
- -
- -
"" PHONE ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ C~ d -
- -
_ -
- -
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiilllllllllllllll l l IIIIIIIIilllllllllilllllll Illlilllllllllllllllllllllllllllliilllilillllllllllllllllllm
ACTION #
112889-4
ITEM NUMBER ~ -"
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: November 28, 1989
AGENDA ITEM: Write-Off of Utility Bad Debts
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~ ~
/~%~i/
/L3~ ~~i~G ,c,.~
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Listed below is a breakdown by year of the delinquent utility
accounts, which should be written off at this time.
Year Amount Number of Accounts
1983 $22,932.87 90
1984 19.130.81 143
TOTAL $42,063.68 233
Delinquent accounts for 1983 and 1984 are high because of the
refuse accounts included in these years. We had a large number of
refuse only accounts, for which customers had moved and could no
longer be located. These accounts have been placed with a
collection agency for over one year.
Some of these accounts may have judgements or liens against
them to hopefully insure collection at some later date. If and
when these collections are made, the revenues will be recorded at
that time.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends writing off the 1983 and 1984 delinquent
utility accounts.
Diane D. Hyatt
Director of Finance
>~
~' rY1-tw ~ L
Elmer C. Hodge `
County Administrator
~_
Board Report - Utility Bad Debt
Page Two
November 28, 1989
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( x) Motion by: Richard W. Robers/ No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Harry C. Nickens to approve Garrett ~~,
Received ( ) Johnson ~~
Referred ( ) McGraw ~-
To Nickens ,~
Robers x
cc: File
Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance
~- I
ATTACHMENT A
UTILITY BILLING BAD DEBT HISTORY
BILLING BAD DEBT # ACCOUNTS PERCENT
1983 $4,634,183 $22,933 90 .49~
1984 $5,157,539 19,131 143 .37~
1985 $5,044,170 5,528 50 .llo
1986 $5,689,292 4,616 49 .080
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO.
?~ - S
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: November 28, 1989
AGENDA ITEM: 1990 Legislative Program, Virginia General Assembly
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
~.~t-v-wr~-~ ~r.~a~C~~---
BACKGROUND'
On June 27, 1989 The Board of Supervisors recommended that the
Virginia Association of Counties consider several issues for
priority action by the Virginia General Assembly in its 1990
legislative session. Roanoke County called for the development
of a comprehensive statewide initiative to address the problems of
solid waste management (including a ban on non-biodegradable
plastic and styrofoam containers and packaging, deposits for
disposable beverage containers, repeal of Section 10.1-1425 which
preempts any local ordinance regulating containers or packaging or
requiring a deposit, authorizing a preference for recycled goods
under the procurement act, funding for regional cooperative
agreements and recycling programs, and more stringent statewide
enforcement of illegal dumping) and one-half cent local option
sales tax.
On November 14, 1989 VACO approved a series of legislative
proposals which included the issues recommended by the County.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Since June 27, 1989 several other issues have come to the
attention of the Board or staff which merit consideration for
legislative action. These issues include:
• legislation to address the funding and timing issues
arising from the referendum approving the creation of a
police department;
• the funding of the construction of the Regional Forensic
Science Laboratory;
• proposals by the Roanoke County School Board;
• endorsement of the VACo/VML Intergovernmental Relations
Task Force;
~-
• opposition to restrictions on real estate taxes or
assessments, and to limitations on "downzoning"; and
• support for equal taxing and borrowing authority.
Legislative recommendations to implement any consolidation
between Roanoke County and Roanoke City will be submitted to the
Board at the conclusion of the negotiations and the citizen
workshops.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board endorse and adopt the attached
1990 Legislative Program for Roanoke County.
Respectfully submitted,
_..,.
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney ~
Action
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
to
Motion by
Garrett
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
Vote
No Yes Abs
:~
1990 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM 11/20/89
Police Department: legislation to address funding and timing issues arising from referendum approval.
Support for State funding of the construction of a Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (Virginia
Department of General Services, Division of Consolidated Laboratories)
Support for the agreement of the VACO/VML Intergovernmental Relations Task Force and the
recommendations of the Commission on Local Government Structures and Relationships
Comprehensive Statewide Initiative to address the problem of Solid Waste Management
.Statutory prohibition of certain non-biodegradable plastic and styrofoam containers and packaging
.Authorization of deposits for disposable beverage containers
.Repeal of Section 10.1-1425 (This section supersedes and preempts any local ordinance which
attempts to regulate the size or type of any container or package containing a food or beverage
or which requires a deposit on a disposal container or package.)
.Amending the Virginia Public Procurement Act to authorize a preference for the procurement of
recycled goods and materials by the Commonwealth and by local governments
.State funding initiatives for regional cooperative agreements for recycling programs
.More stringent stateside enforcement regarding illegal dumping and providing sufficient and
efficient remedies for cleaning up illegal dump sites and prosecuting offenders
Authorization for aone-half cent local option sales tax; equal taxing and borrowing authority.
School Board Legislative Requests
.Funding
.Include enrollment loss funding in Virginia Board of Education's 1990-92 budget
.Fund needed local capital improvements from statewide lottery proceeds.
.Include drop-out prevention funding in State budget and provide for an equitable method
of distribution of these funds to benefit all local school divisions.
.One-half cent local option sales tax for education.
.Oppose compulsory binding arbitration for public school employees (HJR 178)
.Local option to determine the opening date of schools
.Legislation to clarify the religious exemption statute
.Amend Section 46.2-873 to authorize localities to determine timing needs for school zone
signalization
Opposition to statewide ceiling on real estate tax increases or assessments, and to restrictions on a
localit~s ability to "downzone" land
~ -5
LEGISLATIVE ITE.~~1S PROPOSED BY THE ROANOKE
COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE
1990 GENER.iL ASSEMBLY.
Following are certain legislative items approved by the Rcanoke
County Schcol Board on November 9, 1989 for consideration by the
1990 Virginia General Assembly:
I. State funding for public education:
A. Funding for enrollment loss. The Virginia Board
of Education's budget for 1990-92 does not include
enrollment loss or minimum gain funding.
B. Dropout prevention funding. State funding for
alternative and other programs should be available
to all schcol divisions. Only 66 of the 13~
school systems received such funds this year.
Rcanoke County did not receive any of these funds.
C. Capital improvement/debt service. The state
should be encouraged to assist local school
divisions :pith cost of capital improvements and/or
debt service for new school buildings,
renovations, and additions to existing buildings,
asbestos abatement and/or debt service payments
for suc'n improvements already made. Lottery funds
are considered a viable source for such funding.
D. Seek aut'norization for a one-half cent local
option sales tax for education.
J5
-2-
II. Binding arbitration (HJR 178)
A. The Virginia School Boards Association, the
Virginia Association of Parents and Teachers, and
the Virginia Association of School Suaerintendents
have ta'.{en positions to oppose the passage of
binding arbitration. The Virginia Education
Association supports passage. Attached is a
resolution adopted by the Roanoke County School
Board in opposition to binding arbitration.
III. Local notion to determine the opening date of school
each year.
IV. Arend Section X0.2-073 of the Code of Virginia to
authorize localities to determine timing needs for
school zone traffic lights.
V. Legislation to clarify the religious exemption statute.
Attachment
RESOLUTION IN OPPOSI'T'ION TO IIINUING ARIIITf2A'PION
WFIEREAS, tl~e 19x9 General Assembly .passed the first
resolution proposing a constitutional,aurendment to allow
personnel grievances for school employees to be resolved by a
body other than the school board; and
WHEREAS, the County School Board of Roanoke County
considers that proposal to require bindi.ny arbitration for school
employees; and
•WIIEREAS, the County School IIoard of Roanoke County
opposes binding arbitration because it removes from school boards
the authority to discipline and discharge unsatisfactory
employees; and
WHEREAS, due to their special status of contractual and
• tenured employees, te~clrers already have a grievance procedure;
and
Wf1EI2EAS, school boards will have great difficulty being
accountable for public education in the school divisions i.f they
do not have the authority to di.sci.pline or discharge
unsatisfactory employees;
NOW, THEREFORE, IIE IT RESULVEU that the County School
IIoard of Roanoke County does oppose the proposal to change the
':~ current method of• resolving school personnel disputes; and, be i.t
FURTIiER RESOLVED that the County School IIoard of
Roanoke County urges its delegation to the Virginia General
•, ;~ Assembly to vote against any such proposal.
Adopted on the 9th day of November, 1989 on :ootian of
Charlsie S. Pafford and duly seconded, and on the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Paul G. IIlack, Maurice L. Mitchell, Charlsie
S. Pafford, Barbara II. Chewni.ng, Frank E.
' Thomas
NAYS: None
f TESTS:
~-~,
'~fr~ri"rr1~'r~"Irll~~l"~~~"~t~"Iiy~il~llliryillrrlf'irrrftirlrtlt(ti`it~lrrrtrrrrllil'irt~~~l~r'r111~lrryrilrill'i1r~r1r111u~1~rrlrulrUli~rjjj~
APPEARANCE REQUEST
_ _
_ -
_ ~ -
= AGENDA ITEM NO. ~
_ _
_ -
- SUBJECT / 9 ~o o`~-~,c-a.,2a1~~ 1~,w~cc.,zc.. - ~
- -
_ _
- -
= I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to =
recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter
_.
so that I may comment.WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM,
I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE
RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES
_
_ LISTED BELOW. _
- _
_ • Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment
whether speaking as an individual or representative. The chairman will
decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue,
and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to
c do otherwise. _
• Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Ques-
bons of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman.
= o
• All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized
speaker and audience members is not allowed. _
• Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times.
• Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments
with the clerk.
• INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED
GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION
FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT
c THEM. _
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO DEPUTY CLERK
m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m
~ti~~~-i~r~~~i~tr~rrr~~i~~~rr~rr~r~rr~~~~~ii~Yr~~~~~r~~~ri~~r~tii~~~~r~it~~utlrri~i~~~~r~i~~i'r~~~~~~~~~~r~~rr~ir~rrnrr~ir~r~~ri~r~iri~i~~~r~~°rrr~r~rr~~illj
_
APPEARANCE REQUEST
_ -
_ -
_ -
_ -
_ -
= AGENDA ITEM NO. J~-
_ -
_ -
_ -
_ SUBJECT l~~ a a ~, .~,~~~ - C'~e~w ~,~~~~~~_ ~~~~ ~ ~% =_
~_
I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to
recognize me during the public hearing on the above matter
_} so that I may comment.WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM,
I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE
RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES
=- LISTED BELOW.
• Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment _
whether speaking as an individual or representative. The chairman will
decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue,
and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to
do otherwise.
_ °
• Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Ques-
Lions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman.
• All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized
speaker and audience members is not allowed.
c
• Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times.
• Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments =
with the clerk. _
_
=_ • INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED =
GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION
FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT
_
THEM.
c
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO DEPUTY CLERK
_ -
_ ,
_ -
-' NAME ,,gv'~i~ j , J~, ~77c ~Z
c
_ -
ADDRESS 2~ `~ ~" ~S'~~A - ~~ / ~ ~-~~~aic~~
_ -
_
__
PHONE 3 ~} Z - `j ~ 7/
c
mlliilllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllilllllllllllllllilllillllllllllllillllllllillllilllliillllllllllilliillllllillllllilll
ACTION NUMBER # 112889-5
ITEM NUMBER ~....' - „
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: November 28, 1989
AGENDA ITEM: Amendment of 1989 Holiday Schedule
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Roanoke County Employee Handbook incorporates a holiday
schedule for County employees. In addition to those holidays
listed in the Employee Handbook, County offices are authorized to
be closed on any day appointed by the Board of Supervisors or the
Governor of Virginia for State or County offices to close.
Governor Gerald L. Baliles has authorized one additional holiday
for State employees in the Executive Branch.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors authorize one
additional holiday to honor in Roanoke County any closings or
legal holidays designated by the State, and that County offices
be closed on Tuesday, December 26.
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED:
D. K. ook Elmer C. Hodge
Director of Human Resources County Administrator
ACTION
Approved (x ) Motion By: Lee Garr t/~tP~,Pn
Denied ( ) A. McGraw
Received ( )
Referred
To
VOTE
No Yes Abs
Garrett ~
Johnson ~
McGraw x
Nickens ~
Robers x
cc: File
Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources
Assistant County Administrators
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: November 28, 1989
AGENDA ITEM: Requests for Public Hearing and
First Reading for
Rezoning Ordinances
Consent Agenda
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
The first reading on these ordinances is accomplished by
adoption of these ordinances in the manner of consent agenda items.
The adoption of these items does not imply approval of the
substantive content of the requested zoning actions, rather
approval satisfies the procedural requirements of the County
Charter and schedules the required public hearing and second
reading of these ordinances. The second readings and public
hearings for items 1 - 4 listed below are scheduled for December
19, 1989. -
The titles of these ordinances are as follows:
1. An ordinance to rezone approximately 3.13 acres
from R-1 to R-E, with conditions, located at
6044 Cove Rd, in the Catawba Magisterial
District, upon the request of James and
Charlotte Moore.
2. An ordinance to rezone approximately 4.47 acres
from R-3 to B-1 to construct an office park,
located at the southwest corner of Cresthill
Drive and Garst Mill Rd, in the Windsor Hills
Magisterial District, upon the request of Nolan
Jackson.
3. An ordinance to amend the Future Land Use Map
designation of a 24.09 acre tract generally
located south of Buck Mountain Road and east
of the Blue Ridge Parkway, in the Cave Spring
Magisterial District, from Rural Village to
Date Rec.: -~
Received By:
Case No.:
Ord. No.:
ROANOKS COUNTY REZONING APPLICATION
1. Owner's Name: J„ry.~2~s A „~ ~~i4,,/ ffe ~Yle~.o C Phone: S"~ ~ ~S/~ ~/
Address: _ 1~~~ ~oU~ /pct /l/ /~`(~ ~/~-
_ 2 .,; Applicant's .Name : Phone
Address:
3. Location of Property: 6D5~~Co~C ~~ ~/j'~
Tax Map Number (s) : 3 , /~ _ ~ _ 3~"
4. Magisterial District: ~,q.r-,~~Q~
5. Size of Property: ~~, / 3
6. Existing Zoning: ~~%~~` l - ~
Existing Land Use: ~ /
7. Proposed Zoning: /~
Proposed Land Use: /PE
8. Comprehensive Plan Designation: ~"~s~~~-
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:
il. 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 1~ 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
~ ~ ~,~ f~~
RUANOKE COUNTY REZONING APPLICATION
~ -~..
Date Rec.:
Received By:
Case No.:
Ord. No.:
l.. owner's Name : Nolan Jackson Phone : 772-2333
Address : 4995 Fox Ridge Road S.W. Roanke, VA 24014
~. Applicant's Name: ~ ~ ~ h •
Same ~ ;, ,.. . ,-~~,w. .w ,p,; one e~.... S3i~z . ..L , , n ti •.. . *.
w f ......"ti"c'. .. ,. , ti.... ~ ....
. , ''' 7~c~dress: -.Same .
3. Locatior~ of Property: Corner of Garst Mill Road and Cresthill Dr.
Tax Map Number(s) : 177.09-5-3
4. Magisterial District: Windsor Hills
5. Size of Property: 4.47 acres
5. Existing Zoning: R=3
Existing Land Use: Vacant
7. Proposed Zoning: B-1
Proposed Land Use : _ Office park
e. comprehensive Plan Designation: CORE
9. Are Conditions Proffered With This Request? Yes No X
(If you are voluntarily offering proffers as a part of your applica-
tion, these proffers must be in writing. A member of tl~e Planning
Staff can assist you in the preparation of these proffers.)
to. Value of Ind and (Proposed) Buildings: $5,000,00(3
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(Included ~/ cor.ceF
_~ Application Fee N A Wr±ttG~; Prorf'er:~ maF
_~. Wa+;er ~_~-, ~ ,~..,,.~.' 6~p;~ ~ is«iic~ri (I f Applicable)
12.. Signature Of Property Owner, Contract Purchaser, ~.'A ~ ~nJ~
Or Owner's Agent: ~ ~'~~ ~, ~~ N9 ~~„~~
Signature p Date r(j-/8'~9
;~ ~ a _ .
~l
~o~~
e Rec..
~C J~~;vtf ~' 1~:f ~0 ~ Received By:
O~~ Case No.:
~ ~ No.
~D ~~~ M~ '
ROANORE COUNTY REZONING APPLICATION - ~.
1. Owner's Name• ~ e^~^~1r Pavinv ('mm~^n~~ T,,,,,Phone: 774-4475
• Virg ~ ~-----r
Address: P 0 Box 8395 Ro__a~tiQ.ke, Virgi is 24014_-
Same as above Phone:
2. Applicant's Name: ,.. .. ..
Address
3. Location of Property: 24 090 ACrP~ of a Va S ~ RrP 679 (R„~k Mrn. Rd.)
Tax Map Number(s): 8 01 2 ?5 98 ~~ 2 26-, 98 ~1~, QR ~1-~-~R
4. Magisterial District: Cave Spring Magisterial District
24.090 Acres
5. Size of Property:
6. Existing Zoning: M-2 General Industrial District
Existing Land Use: Rural
7. Proposed Zoning: M-3 Special Industrial District
Proposed Land Use: Rural ""- ~~ -
8. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Vi11aQe Sector _
9. Are Conditions Proffered With This Request? Yes No X
(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.)
Tax Map No. 98.01-2-25 - land -
10. Value of Land and (Proposed) Buildings:
11. The Following Items Must Be Submitted With This Application. Please
Check If Enclosed. Application Wi11 Not Be Accepted If Any Of These
Items Are lriissing Or Incomplete:
~_ Letter of Application X Concept Plan
~_ Metes and Bounds Description X List of Adjacent Owners
of Property (Attach Exhibit A) X Vicinity Map
X Appl~.ca*~or. F'ee - ___" Written Proffers
X ~ Water and Sewer Application (If Applicable)
12. Signature Of P erty Owner, Contract Purchaser,
Or Owner's A
Signature Date Oc~rn},c~r 20 ~ 19R9
. Mi 1 Pace, Jr.
Gentry Locke Rakes ~ e
* $54,300; building - $115,000; 98.01-2-26 - land - $24,500; 98.01-2-27 -
land - $600; 98.01-2-28 - land - $1,800
. , ~,
ACTION NUMBER
ITEM NUMBER '-L 1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: November 29, 1989
SUBJECT: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Community Corrections Resources Board
One-year term of Edmund J. Kielty, Alternate. His term expired
August 13, 1988.
Health Department Board of Directors
Two-year term of Susan Adcock expired November 26, 1989
Industrial Development Authority
Four-year term of W. Darnall Vinyard, Vinton District expired on
September 26, 1989.
Library Board
Four-year term of Dr. Norma Jean Peters, Hollins Magisterial
District, will expire December 31, 1989. Dr. Peters is filling
the unexpired term of Richard Kirkwood.
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
Three-year term of Alice Gillespie, Hollins Magisterial District
expired June 30, 1989.
Reaional Partnership Site Advisory Committee
Three-year term of Charles Saul will expire December 21, 1989.
Roanoke County Resource Authori~
Initial terms of Lee Garrett, Bob L. Johnson and Harry C. Nickens
will expire December 31, 1989. New terms will be four-year terms
and will expire December 31, 1993.
~.~-~
SUBMITTED BY:
~.
Mary H. Allen
Clerk to the Board
Approved
Denied
Received
Referred
To:
ACTION
Motion by:
APPROVED BY:
AA
C:
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
VOTE
Yes No
Garrett
Johnson
McGraw _
Nickens _
Robers
Abs
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: November 28, 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. Lazzuri recommends that these appointments run
from September through September. Therefore, appointment made in
AT A REGULAR MEETINGI,DFATHTHE ROANOKESCOUNTYSADMINISTRATOION
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HE
CENTER ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1989
RESOLUTION NO. 1126 APPROVING AND
CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH
ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA
FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM J -
CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That that certain section of the agenda of the
Board of Supervisors for November 38, 1989, designated as Item J
- Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as
to each item separately set forth in said section designated
Items 1 through 5, inclusive, as follows:
1, Confirmation of Committee Appointment - Mental
Health Services of the Roanoke Valley
2. Acceptance of water and sanitary sewer facilities
serving Merriman Hills.
3. Acceptance of water facilities serving Castle Rock
Homes.
4, Acceptance of sewer facilities serving McDonalds
Restaurant on Plantation Road.
5. Acceptance of grant from the Department of
Criminal Justice Services through the
Communication Grant Program.
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
Garrett, and upon the following recorded vote:
ACTION # 112889-6.a
ITEM NUMBER ~'"
AT A REGULAR ~ LDIAT THE ROANOKERCOUNTY UADMINISTRATION OCENTER
COUNTY, VIRGIN
MEETING DATE November 28, 1989
SUBJECT: Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the
Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley
Community Services Board
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The follow ow be conf rmed sbyadthea Board pofv SuperbvisorsmeetThe
and must n
nominee has agreed to serve.
Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley Community Services
Board.
Supervisor Robers nominated Sue Ivey to serve another three-year
term. Her term will expire December 31 1992.
SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY:
~, .~ n.
yrr_~~. ~ ~.~~
Mary H. Allen Elmer C. Hodge
Clerk to the Board County Administrator
VOTE
ACTION yes No Abs
Approved ( ~ Motion by: Bob L Johnson/Tee--- Garrett x
Denied ( )Garrett Johnson x
Received ( ) McGraw x
Referred
Nickens x
TO' Robers x
cc: File
Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley Community Services
Board File
ACTION # 1128Rg-ti-h
ITEM NUMBER `~ _ "~'
AT A REGULARA HELDNAT THEHROANOKE COUNTYEADMINI5TRP,TIONCENTER
COUNTY, VIRGI
MEETING DATE: November 28, 1989
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Water and Sanitary Sewer Facilities Serving
Merriman Hills
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Developers of Merriman Hills, Woody-Gusler Associates,
have requested that Roanoke County accept the Deed conveying the
water and sanitary sewer facilities serving the subdivision along
with all necessary easements.
The water and sewer facilities are installed, as sho dated
plans prepared by Buford T. Lumsden entitled Merriman Hills,
July 19, 1988, which are on file in the County Engineering
Department. The water and sanitary sewer facility construction
meets the specifications and the plans approved by the County.
FISCAL IMPACT'
The value of the water and sanitary sewer construction is
$18,600.00 and $24,100.00 respectively.
RECOMMENDATION'
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the
water and sanitary sewer facilities serving the subdivision along
with all re tos executeSeaenDeed for the h transferh of Cthese
Administrato
facilties.
ACTION # 112889-6.c
ITEM NUMBER ~_~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: November 28, 1989
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Water Facilities Serving Castle Rock Homes
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS•
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Developers of Castle Rock Homes, Springwood Associates,
have requested that Roanoke County accept the Deed conveying the
water facilities serving the subdivision along with all necessary
easements.
The water facilities are installed, as shown on plans prepared
by Land Engineering entitled Castle Rock Homes, dated December 12,
1988, which are on file in the County Engineering Department. The
water facility construction meets the specifications and the plans
approved by the County.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The value of the water construction is $23,155.00.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the
water facilities serving the subdivision along with all necessary
easements, and authorize the County Administrator to execute a Deed
for the transfer of these facilities.
SUBMITTED BY:
Cliffor r 'g, .E.
Utility Di ector
APPROVED:
Elmer C. Ho e
County Adm' istrator
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson/ No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Lee Garrett Garrett x
Received ( ) Johnson x
Referred McGraw x
to Nickens x
Robers x
cc: File
Cliff Craig, Director, Utilities
Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering
Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
_ __ E~RR_ M
1
a w ,,,~~ ~ Ly a .rq N UIINf
-. iaa:OAF ~ S M ,.v! NIL
r / ~ '~}
Q ~ NORMANOt'
KNOLL+
• ~;yef IPrS
•,
Cnsrze
SN'M C: •, 41 R
.Irtxt I •'b~ i
Rlar'SY° ~h ~*.
~7N r I pa a,EA ~ ~~ trro~ c C
I o ~
~ ~ 'gaaNr
~1 ~~,J~{1 ,
"(VORT~jW U EaMt
~ ~ ''~, / r~r ~ VICINITY MAP r CAv ,G~ r~'~\\~ 4
k -T.~..[_-------- --
V ' ,~
~ .. ^
NORTB
~~
~~~
lr~ p ~ ~ •
O ~ ~• p~
'~s
_ ~
l
'~ ~
\ 's~+i
r`pa r
3'
2 70Ac
dl~1
C
~•- ,
$ '
_~~~~
N
~..M~ -~
_ c~
w
r asii .7v/: ~ 13 S 12 s ~
' ~~ ~~.
G-e~n asoi
,~, uir
fir ui1
2 _
II
n n R b 9 `ti
•
v/o /' fO IMeodpyf ~~ ~ ! n ,~ uia uo~ s
sa.s
a~oi ~~ QQ =ro
.uss a.~ r
7 ~
u Rood asa y~
6 io
u/r ~
auot 1,L ,p, ~ ~
„ S - 4
3
~
use
u~r ~
,p, -
eeoooo
H • ~ ~ 2 - 1 E IS ur, llzl "~•tr c s. n »n
~ 19
19 ,s Izr r
' ~ ~ _ 21
r
0 .
D~ un g u// „o, 3 29 29 ~ 23
~
_ ~
~1 ~
_ s~ stu
~„ ~ 2S ~ 24
Q ~ 4~
~~d ~~
~ _ ~
'
Dr. ~~,
..~ .
COMMUNITY SERVICES ACCEPTANCE OF iJATER FACILITIES SERVICING
AND DEVBLOPMENT , CASTLE Roca ao~s
~~~ J
• ` A
t' ~
I
•
1
ACTION # 112889-6.d
ITEM NUMBER ~-
AT A VIRGINIA HELDNAT THEHROANOKE COUNTYEADMINISTRATION CENTER
COUNTY,
MEETING DATE: November 28, 1989
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Sewer Facilities Serving McDonald's
Restaurant, on Plantation Road.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Developers of the McDonald's Restaurant, McDonald's
Corporation, have requested that Roanoke County accept the Deed
conveying the sanitary sewer facility serving the site.
The sanitary sewer facility is installed, as shown on plans
dated
prepared by Fred O. Shanks, P.C. entitled McDonald's,
December 28, 1$e8sanitar asewer fac lity construction me is rthe
Department. T Y
specifications and the plans approved by the County.
FISCAL IMPACT'
The value of the sanitary sewer construction is $14,033.00.
RECOMMENDATION'
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors accept the
sanitary sewer facility serving the site, and authorize the County
Administrator to execute a Deed for the transfer of this facility.
~"_!
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED:
,~ ~ <
Clif o d Craig, P.E. Elmer C. Hodge
Utility Director County Administrator
Approved (X)
~ Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
to
ACTION VOTE
Motion by: Bob L Johnson/ No
Lee Garrett Garrett
Johnson _
McGraw _
Nickens _
Robers
Yes Abs
~_
~_
~_
_~
cc: File
Cliff Craig, Director, Utilities
Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering
Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
1
F/L TER
PLANr
~ ` \
°~
/ ~
~. 1591
j,• NO11M1
am u OL OF/EL DS
`
/,I °i~~bas°D M K
of
... .. -. ,
--
y C. _ _ ___ ___...__ .
._
__ _.. M~a
E '^
..
~ '
. ~ ira ~ ~-: e
~ni ~EGE t~
},~
soi,
~ V~
'k ~ ppr
G`oc r,r0, .. n.5wMi5 IIGp COL
ru,o,u.r-., ~~INS cocxe
N~
>
f~ ~
~y ~~
` C1 Ol
~\
°
., .rar
CFM.Q
~ ~'
NITY MAP
vJ
.
°".
u.r+csn w
yICI
/ r~
-Q
NORTS
~ ~r
~'~ ~'_'-----------~~1----------------
a ~ ~
IK~ ~ I~ a
3 ~, ~ ~s~o ~
. ~ 1 2 ~;-
8~ ~ ~ •iis 1 ~ ~
1.22 Ae .
4 CDONALDS
ac o 1 •
3.1
- ` \ 1.1a ~c
¢ , ~ 1 ~~ y :
a ~~ aio'
e
10 9 "y i \
3.31 At ~
j
~~ I010 ~~
~ ~ \ `
11
1.97 Ac
~ s \ S
10
ltb \
9
1 aAao1
.~ 094AcK)
/ ,. , `1~
0
2
O '
~' I
3.34 Ac
2. IS Ac 73JI
IO/t ~ ~
13 {~j- /
- --
lOpAc
a
~%
8
t ^ _.
~ 7iOf ~~
~`V/
7 ~~
,.
ACCEPTANCE OF SEWR FACILITIES SERVING
COMMUNITY SERVICES MCDONALDS RESTAURAN'P ON PLANTATION ROAD
AND DEVELOPMENT
-~.
.~
ACTION # 112889-6.e
ITEM NUMBER ~-
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: November 28, 1989
AGENDA ITEM: Request to accept a $136,704 grant from the
Department of Criminal Justice Services through the
Communications Grant Program of 1989.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
. ,
BACKGROUND:
..-"
It was announced in July, 1989, that the General Assembly had
appropriated $5.6 million for grants to localities to assist them
in purchasing essential law enforcement communications equipment.
The funds were awarded by the Criminal Justice Services Board in
accordance with a plan developed by the Secretary of Transporta-
tion. Roanoke County applied for the $200,000 maximum grant award
available.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Funds made available under this program were granted to police
departments and sheriff's offices with law enforcement respon-
sibility. Members of the County Staff worked with Sheriff
Kavanaugh in preparing an application and determining specific use
of the funds. It was agreed that funds received would be divided
equally between 800 MHz radios for our communications upgrade and
low-band equipment to support our use of the Statewide Inter-
departmental Radio System (SIRS). SIRS is the system that allows
local police department and sheriff's office personnel to communi-
cate with members of the State Police as well as the A.B.C. Board,
Department of Corrections and other agencies.
Requests for funds by applicants were nearly twice the amount
available so substantial cuts were required in most applications.
Roanoke County was fortunate to receive a grant of 68% of the
amount requested.
,._ ...
~,
FISCAL IMPACT•
Funds appropriated for Phase II of our communications system
upgrade are being used as our local cash match so no additional
funds are required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends acceptance of the grant.
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED:
Don C. Myers Elmer C. odge
Assistant County Administrator County Administrator
Management Services
-----------------------------
Approved ACTION VOTE
(x ) Motion by: Rn r. Tnhncr~„ ~ No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) __Lee Garrett Garrett
Received ( ) Johnson __.x.
Referred McGraw -x
to Nickens -~
Robers -~
-~
cc: File
Don Myers,Assistant County Administrator
Sheriff Michael Kavanaugh
L-/
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE -CAPITAL FUND
Beginning Balance at July 1, 1989 (Unaudited) $ 56,194
September 12, 1989 Contribution towards Hollins Fire Truck 25 000
Balance as of November 28, 1989 31 194
Submitted by
~~ ~. ~.~
Diane D. Hyatt
Director of Finance
~~
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE -GENERAL FUND
Balance at July 1, 1989 (Unaudited)
November 15, 1989 Dental Insurance
Balance as of November 28, 1989
Submitted by
~~.~
$4,038,318
106 980
3 931338
Diane D. Hyatt
Director of Finance
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY
Beginning Balance at July 1, 1989 (Unaudited) $11395
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)
August 8, 1989 County supplement for new position
in Sheriffs Department (869)
August 22, 1989 Part time volunteer coordinator
(5,800)
August 22, 1989 Public Information for Police Department
referendum 9 000
Balance as of November 28, 1989 6 976
Submitted by
Diane D. Hyatt
Director of Finance
•1
November 28, 1989
County staff requests the Board to adopt a motion to enter
into executive session within the provisions of the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act as follows:
(a) to consult with legal counsel pertaining to legal matters
requiring the provision of legal advice by counsel:
consolidation in accordance with Section 2.1-344 A (7).
(b) to discuss the disposition of publicly-held real estate
for economic development purposes in accordance with
Section 2.1-344.A.3. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended.
r' <~ L
Item No.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
IN ROANOKE, VA ON TUESDAY,
MEETING DATE: November 28, 1989
SUBJECT: Rescinding Ordinance dated October 24, 1989 for sale
of ten acres in Glenvar (Shamrock field)
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Following the Board of Supervisors approval of the sale of the
Shamrock field, the staff resumed negotiations with all parties
interested in locating on this site. Negotiations broke down
between the lead purchaser and a potential subsequent purchaser of
five acres. Therefore, the lead purchaser has withdrawn its offer
to purchase the entire site. However, one manufacturer has
requested its agent to purchase five acres of this site for their
facility. Additionally, negotiations are proceeding with several
other companies to purchase the remaining acreage.
BACKGROUND•
After the negotiations broke down between the lead purchaser and
the potential subsequent user of a portion of this site, the
subsequent user instructed his agent to purchase five acres at
Shamrock. This prospect will build a 27,000 square foot facility
this is expandable to 60,000 square feet. Initial employement will
be 20 with an annual payroll of $400,000. During the fifth year
of business, the prospect projects that 30 additional employees
will be added and that payroll should reach over $1,000,000
annually.
FISCAL IMPACT•
While the original sale was for ten acres and $230,000, this sale
of five acres for $115,000 has the potential to bring additional
revenues after the improvements to the site are made. The
following data is for the development of only five acres:
real estate $1,265,000
machinery, tools $1,091,000
approximate annual tax revenue $22,730
RECOMMENDATION'
1. Rescind ordinance dated October 24, 1989 for sale of ten acres
to Atlantic and Pacific, Incorporated.
2. Approve first rpeading for saleer°acre or $115 OOO,to a
manufacturing com an for $23,000 p
3. Authorize County Administrator to execute all necessary
documents upon review by County Attorney.
4. Rescind appropriation resolution dated November 15, 1989 for
the appropriation of $230,000 for improvements at Green Hill
Park.
5. Appropriate $115,000 for the improvement of Green Hill Park.
SUBMITTED BY:
~~ ~~~
~~~ til-
Tim thy W. G ala, Director
Economic Development
Approved ( ) Motion by:
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
to
APPROVED:
~~ ~~
Elmer C. Hod e, J
County Administrator
ACTION No Yes Abs
Garrett
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER,
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1989
ORDINANCE ACCEPTING AN OFFER FOR AND AUTHORIZ-
ING THE SALE OF 10 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, IN THE
GLENVAR WEST PORTION OF ROANOKE COUNTY (SHAM-
ROCK FIELD)
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 public uses,
i.e. economic development; and
2. That Ordinance No. 102489-5 accepting an offer for and
authorizing the sale of ten (10) acres, more or less, in the
Glenvar West portion of Roanoke County (Shamrock Field) and Item
5 of Item K - Consent Agenda - of the November 15, 1989, Board
meeting authorizing an appropriation of capital funds for the Green
Hill Park improvements are hereby rescinded.
3. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the
Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading was held on November 28,
1989; and a second reading was held on December 5, 1989, concern-
ing the sale and disposition of five (5) acres, more or less, in
the Glenvar West portion of Roanoke County (Shamrock field); and
4. That offers having been received for said property, the
offer of for Twenty-three
Thousand Dollars ($23,000) per acre to purchase five (5) acres,
more or less, for One Hundred Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($115,000)
is hereby accepted and all other offers are rejected; and
5. That all proceeds from the sale of this real estate are
to be placed in the capital facility account; and
6. That the sum not to exceed One Hundred Fifteen Thousand
Dollars ($115,000) from the net proceeds of the sale of this real
estate is appropriated from the capital facility account for the
purpose of Green Hill Park improvements in the priority as estab-
lished by the attachment to Item 5 of the Board's Consent Agenda
for November 15, 1989, styled "Roanoke County Parks and Recreation
Department Green Hill Park Development - Phase II."
7. 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 said property, all
of which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney.
i8 9 -~
MEMO RAND U M
TO: Mary Allen, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
FROM: Tim Gubala, Director, Economic Development ~
DATE: November 20, 1989 I(~
SU&7ECT: Board of Supervisors rezoning request for Friendshi
Manor property P
Steve Rice, Administrative Assistant for Friendship Manor ha
requested that the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors delay action
on rezoning the 54.15 acre tract on Hollins Road. The Friendshi
Manor Board of Directors will not be able to meet until earlp
December to further evaluate the rezoning request. Therefore I
am requesting that the Board of Supervisors continue the ubliy
g
hearin from November 28 to their December 19 P c
1989 meeting.
Thank you.
c Elmer C. Hodge
Paul M. Mahoney
Terry Harrington
/~~9-,~
PETITIO[~3t: Rf~ANORE O0(JNTI'Y BQARD OF SUPER'~TISORS/ATf~NrIC COTICRETE
CASE NCirIDEtt: 38-11/89
Planning Commission Hearing Date: November 9, 1989
Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: November 28, 1989
A. R~(JEST
Petition of Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to rezone approacimately 15 acres
from R-1 to M-1 for industrial development, located at the end of Benois Road, Cave
Spring Magisterial District.
B. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
There was no opposition to the request.
C. SI(~TIFICANT II~ACT FACTORS
1. Surrounding Land: Immediately adjoining this site to the north and south are
light industrial uses, including the Southwest Industrial Park. To the east is
the N&W Railroad, open space, and single family residences. The entire western
border adjoins sane 20 single-family residences.
2. Screening and Landscaping: The area proposed for rezoning was retained in the
R-1 zoning district to serve as a buffer for adjoining vacant property that has
since been developed with single-family residences. As previously discussed,
Policy I-9 suggests that exceptional design measures are necessary to mitigate
land use impacts when residential and industrial uses are located adjacent to
each other. One aspect of exceptional design is sufficient screening and
buffering. Adequate screening and buffering can minimize impacts associated
with noise and visibility resulting from industrial land uses. Specifically,
staff is recommending the property owner proffer as a minimum 100 foot buffer
yard along the western property boundaries. In addition, the existing
vegetation should be retained, and supplemented where necessary, in order to
maintain the existing screening of this site from adjoining residences.
D. PR(JFFQ2ED OOl~1DITI0NS
No proffered conditions had been offered at the time of the Commission public
hearing. Mr. G~bala presented to, and discussed with, the Planning Commission
potential proffers and indicated a willingness to approach the property owner to
request the proffers suggested by the Planning Commission. The following are
proffers suggested by the Planning Commission:
1. The following uses shall be prohibited from this site: autanobile painting,
upholstering, repairing, rebuilding, reconditioning, body and fender work,
truck repairing or overhauling; manufacture of pottery and figurines or other
similar ceramic products; veterinary hospital and commercial kennels with
exterior runs and yards; flea markets unless a special exception has been
granted by the Board of Supervisors; seed and feed stores.
2. A minimum 100 foot buffer yard along the western property boundaries to be
administered in conformance with § 21-92 of the zoning ordinance.
3. Existing vegetation shall be retained within the 100 foot buffer yard and
supplemented where necessary in order to maintain the existing screening of
this site fran adjoining residences.
4. Sound levels not to exceed 60 dbA when measured at the adjoining residences.
~ ,
HDUSEHOID> F/UrH
i
~,
Household of Faith
P.O. Box 14142
Roanoke, Virginia 24038-4142
County of Roanoke
Department of Planning and Zoning
Board of Zoning Appeals
PO Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018-0798
To Whom It May Concern:
Pastor Tom & Sandy Poland
703/345-3504
/~~
.~ ~
NOV 27 1989
November 22, 1989
I am writing this letter to you in reference to the attempted
re-zoning of our property which is located along I-81 and
Plantation Road.
This particular piece of property was brought. before the
Planning Commission on November 9, 1989 by the Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors for the purpose of re-zoning it from R-1
to M-1. After some discussion, it was tabled and recommended
by the Planning Board that a meeting be held to attempt to
reach a compromise.
On November 21, 1989 the Board of Trustees of the Household of
Faith and Mr. Timothy Gubala (Director Economic Development)
met to discuss these options. After this mee`s`_ ___ ..L_
Household of Faith Church, would like to info:
position has not changed. We do not desire f.
be re-zoned at this time.
Sincerely,
Pastor Thomas E. Poland,
Household of Faith Church
P.S. Please remove the name of Donald Lopez
for our church. He is no longer with
TEP:yw
~~~y
X89 -.3
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Terry Harrington
DATE: November 20, 1989
SUBJECT: Rezoning Request/Household of Faith, Plantation Road
1989, the Planning Commission
At their meeting on November 9, scheduled for
tabled action on thi Th esue temu wasltabled to flow Mr. Gubala and
December 5, 1989• of the
the owners of the property to discuss the possibility
owners' consenting to the rezoning.
The Planning Commission will ma rd ats recommeadationototyou
rezoning on December 5 and will forwa
for your December 19, 1989 meeting.
ajb
i ~~~ _~
PETITI~: R~ ~~ ~~ OF SUPF,RVISORS/SHAN4~JCR
CASE ~~; 40-11/89
Planning CcrnY-ission Hearing Dates November 9. 1989
Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: ~vgnber 28, 1989
A• ~~~ ervisors to conditionally rezone
Petition of Roanoke County Board of Sup located at the
apprcacimately 8 acres from B-2 R 6431ar drI181u CatawbadMaglsterial District.
corner of the intersection of S
B. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
There was no opposition to the request.
C. SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FACTORS laced this area
1. Comprehensive Plan: 1985eCoo~PrehW ~ homing ~a industri al parCoreearease
within a Core land use cat g Y
discouraged and light manufact~ori~gatetfortindust ipal ussand a land~~~
The Core designation is not app P where
amendment will be required. The Principal Industrial designatlon de
confined areas distributed throughout urbanizing sectors of the County
be clustered. The Petitioner intends to submit a request
industrial sites may ~ Proposed should
to amend the Future Land Use Plan frousinr uses which may 1 Industria to
accommodate all manufacturing and wareho g titioner's proposed
this rezoning request be approved. Staff anal Will bedconducted upon receipt of
amendment to the Future Land Use Plan map
this amendment request.
ndent upon concept Plan- as yet unsubmitted.
2. Site Layout: Depe n concept
rking facilities dependent upo
3, Amenities: Characteristics of pa re red.
plan--anavailable at the time this report wasp Pa raveled
4. Circulation: Vehicular access is currently limited to a one-way g
entrance/exit at the site's southwest corner. Post-development patterns
unkncxan due to lack of proffered concept Plan.
Air: Site design measures should mini facilities,oinclud nguroads~.d Dust
5. ration of all site
construction and ope to ~ to protect adjacent properties.
mitigation techniques should be emp Y
6, Water: Potential pollution impacts unknown'
oise: Site design measures should minimlziliti s princlu ing oads~ Noise
~' N ration of all site fac
construction and ope to ~ to protect adjacent properties. Staff
mitigation techniques should be anp Y
suggests a maxinann of 60 dba.
D. pRp~g~p CONDITIONS intin
1. The following uses shall be prohibited fran this site: automobile pa g.
rebuilding, reconditioning, body and fender work,
upholstering, repairing, ttery and figurines or other
truck repairing or overhauling; manufacturing of po
similar ceramic products, using clay and kilns; seed and feed sto flea
veterinary hospital and commercial kennhas been~g a ted bby ath Board of
markets, unless a special exception
Supervisors.
~ ~~ ~- ~'
M E M O R A N D U M
' ton, Director of Planning & Zoning
TO: Terr Har
e County Administrator
FROM: Elmer C. Ho g ,
November 17, 1989
DATE:
SpgJECT: Proffers related to the rezoning application for the
Shamrock site
I would like to offer the following proffers for this site:
1, Noise levels shall not exceed 60 decibels measured at adjacent
property lines.
2, No billboards shall be permitted on site.
3. Dust minimization measure will be employed during construction
and operation of all on-site facilities.
4, The developer of the site shall comply with building height,
and lot coverage regulations for M-1, light
yard, setback,
industrial district.
In addition to the aforementioned proffers, the following uses
shall be prohibited from this site:
u holstering, repairing, rebuilding,
a. Automobile painting, P truck repairing or
reconditioning, body and fender work,
overhauling;
b. Manufacturing of pottery and figurines or other similar
ceramic products, using clay, and kilns;
c. Seed and feed stores;
d. Veterinary hospital and commercial kennels with exterior
runs and yards; and,
e. Flea markets.
sbo
~' °
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER,
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1989
ORDINANCE 112889-8 TO CHANGE THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 8 ACRES OF
REAL ESTATE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
THE INTERSECTION OF STATE ROUTE 643 AND I-81
IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE
ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF B-2 TO THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF M-1 WITH CONDITIONS FOR
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT UPON THE APPLICATION OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, by Resolution 91289-4 the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, initiated amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan and to the classifications of certain real estate located in
Roanoke County to serve the public purposes of the County as
required by public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and
good zoning practice to implement the recommendations of the
Economic Development Action Plan for FY 1989-90; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on
October 24, 1989, and the second reading and public hearing was
held on November 28, 1989; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on this matter on November 9, 1989; and,
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as
required by law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real
estate containing approximately 8 acres of real estate located at
the southeast corner of the intersection of State Route 643 and I-
81 in the Catawba Magisterial District from the zoning classifica-
tion of B-2, General Commercial District, to the zoning classifica-
tion of M-1, Light Industrial District, for industrial development.
2. That the Board initiated the application to change the
zoning classification of this real estate located in Roanoke County
to serve the public purposes of the County as required by public
necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice
to implement the recommendations of the Economic Development Action
Plan for FY 1989-90.
3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
Beginning at a concrete highway monument marking the
corner of the rights-of-way of Route 643 and Interstate
Highway Route 81; thence N. 55° 29' E. 450 feet, more or
less, to a point in the center of a drainage ditch;
thence following the meanders of the drainage ditch in
a southerly direction 875 feet, more or less, to a point;
thence S. 53° 52' W. 426 feet, more or less, to a point
on the eastern right-of-way of Route 643; thence follow-
ing the said right-of-way N. 15° 12' 30" W. 128.21 feet
to a concrete highway monument; thence N. 12° 21' W. 194
feet to a concrete highway monument; thence N. 15° 17'
10" W. 417.14 feet to the place of beginning and contain-
ing 7.96 acres, more or less; and as shown on a plat of
survey, entitled "Property Exchange, Tract A," prepared
by the Roanoke County Department of Public Facilities,
dated September 16, 1986, attached hereto.
4. That Roanoke County as owner of this real estate has
voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the
Board of Supervisors hereby accepts:
(1) The property will not include permitted uses for:
(a) Automobile painting, upholstering, repairing,
rebuilding, reconditioning, body and fender
work, truck repairing or overhauling;
(b) Manufacturing of pottery and figurines or other
similar ceramic products, using clay, and
kilns;
(c) Seed and feed stores;
(d) Veterinary hospital and commercial kennels with
exterior runs and yards; and
(e) Flea markets.
(2) The noise levels shall not exceed 60 decibels
measured at adjacent property lines.
(3) Dust minimization measure will be employed during
construction and operation of all on-site facilities.
(4) The developer of the site shall comply with building
height, yard, setback, and lot coverage regulations for M-l, Light
Industrial District.
5. That the effective date of this ordinance shall be Novem-
ber 28, 1989.
On motion of Supervisor Garrett, seconded by Supervisor
Robers, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisor Johnson, Robers, Nickens, Garrett
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Supervisor McGraw
A COPY TESTE:
.~. C2~~
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections
Terry Harrington, Director, Planning
John Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment
Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
//89'-~
STAFF REPORT
- 9 PETITIONER: ROANORE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
CASE NUMBERs 40 11/8 SHp,MROCR
DATE: NOVEMBER 9r 1989
REVIEWED BY: TIM BEARD ervisors to rezone
Board of Sup ment,
Petition of Roanoke County
roximately 8 acres from B-2 tO of the intersection of VA 643 and
app
located at the slsterialtDistrict.
I-81, Catawba Mag'
1. NATURE OF REQUEST hone companies and
onditional request to constr~Vicesetortelep buildings to ouse
a' C and installation se otential users
engineering
switching equipment manufacturers. Ot er p
unknown at this time.
tacked survey and vicinity map describe proposal more fully.
b, At
2. APPLICABLE REGULATeONS is a wide variety of light industrial uses.
a. M-l zoning p uses shall be
Petitioner has proffered tha t the foll ainting, upholstering,
prohibited from this slreconditioninge body and fender work,
repairing, rebuilding, manufacturing or assembling of
truck repairing or overhauling, leather and straw;
products from the following material. cloth,
facturing of pottery and figurines or other similar ceramic
manu clay and kilns; seed and feed stores; veter a dsy
products, using ranted by the
hospital and commercial kial eexceptionehas been guns an y ed a
flea markets , unless a spec e t h a t
ervisors. Petitioner has also indlca
Board of Sup nificantly reduce amount of signag
willingness to sig
normally is permitted in an M-1 district.
b. VDOT commercial entrance permit required.
'te lan review required to ensure compliance with County
c. S1 P
regulations.
3, SITE CHARACTERISTICS entle slope southward.
a. Topography: Predominantly flat, very g
Ground Cover: Grassed: gravel center; scattered deciduous
b. ine rows) on northwest and
growth on all borders; evergreen (p
northern borders.
4, AREA CHARAC GrowthC priority: Situated within the Glenvar Community
a. Future h rowth area; currently
planning Area. Designated as a hig g
receiving urban services.
ral area is developed with-offiie residentialtusesl~ retail,
b. Gene le faml y
industrial and scattered sing
5. LAND USE R~eCeach factor according to the impact of the proposed
Rating•
action. Use a scale of 1 through 5• act, 3 = manageable impact,
l = positive impact, 2 = negligible imp not applicable.
= severe impact, and N/A =
4 = disruptive impact, 5
COMMENTS
RATING FACTOR
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY
1985 Comprehensive Development Plan as
4 a. Comprehensive Plan:
- placed this area within a Core land use category.
ii8~-~
and industrial park uses are discouraged and light
The ore
Warehousing
manufacturing activities are prohibited in Core areas.
deli nation is not appropriate for indue~itionereinte dsato
g -,; ~ t hP _QUiLSd• The p
use amendme
submit a request to amend the Future Land Use Plan from Cor and
Principal Industrial to acc bemodopos d shouldithis rrezoninq
warehousing uses which may P
request be approved.' The Principal Industrihouteurbanizing
delineates confined areas distributed throng be clustered.
sectors of the County where industrial sites may
etitioner's proposed amendment to the
Staff analysis of the pwill be conducted upon receipt of this
Future Land Use Plan map
amendment request.
Surrounding Land: North of I-81 and rural residences; east of
3 b• facilities; south of M-1 zoned ballfield;
adult home/nursing ro erty.
west of VA 643 and vacant M-1 p p
i hboring Area: Scattered reside Countwo library dand hf ire
3 c. Ne g facilities; state police, Y
nursing
station. lan, as yet unsubmitted.
5 d. Site Layout: Dependent upon concept p
See suggested proffers.
Architecture: Building design unknown.
N/A e. See suggested proffers.
Screening and Landscape: Per ordinance.
3 f' arking facilities dependent upon
5 g, Amenities: Characteristics of p ared.
concept plan--unavailable at the time th ntlresouthwardpreBig Bear
Natural Features: Tract slopes very ge Y
3 h.
Rock Branch forms the site's eastern boun ary.
TRAFFIC ment of VA 643 from US 11 to VA
3 i. Street Capacities: 0.34 mile seg Light industrial uses
_ 828: 1986 ADT 2,237; one a3ctrip ends~per employee. VDOT has
generate approximately enerated necessitating
indicated that if sufficient traffic is 9
im rovements to 643; industrial access dollars could be
P
appropriated for County.
Circulation: Vehicular access is currently limited to a one-way
4 ~' roffered concept
graveled entrance/exit at twn dueeto lackhofsp corner. Pos -
development patterns unkno
plan.
UTILITIES artntent advises that an off-site extension of
2 k. Water: Utility Dep rovide water to this site.
600 feet will be required to p
2 1. Sewer: Currently available on-site.
DRAINAGE roblems noted.
2 m. Basin: Big Bear Rock Branch, no p
n. Floodplain: Tract is not located within a flood hazard aree t s
3 FEMA. Development Review division suserving
designated by le stormwater management facility
construction of a sing
entire site.
PUBLIC SERVICES
2 0. Fire Protection: Within established seraard.standar .
2 p, Rescue: Within established service stan
q. Parks and Recreation:
r• School:
TAX BASE roximately $184,000
1 s, - Land and Improvement Value:Unknown
Taxable Gross Sales/Year: Inc.)
- Total Employees: 50 (Atlantic and Paroximately $16,928
Total revenue to the County/Year. APP
(unimproved real estate only)
ENVIRONMENT
4 t. Air: Site design measu~uctionuandmoperationuof allbsite
_ encountered during const
facilities, including roads. Dust mitigation terofferss should
be employed to protect adjacent properties. See p
4 u, Water: Potential pollution impacts unknown.
2 v. Soils:
w, Noise: Site design measures should mi eration ofeallbsite
4 construction and op
encountered during roads. Noise mitigation techniques should
facilities, including ro erties. Staff suggests a
be employed to protect adjacent p P
maxims of 60 dba. See proffers.
x. Signage: Petitioner advises thsu nestedrproffersne freestanding
2
sign shall be constructed. See g
6. PLAN CONSISTENCY ,~ - ~iatent with
This area is designated as Cstrial District are s~~ n-_o~as t~ose per-
mitted in tihe M-1, Light Indu to Core designated areas.
land use policies and guidelines relating
a, Strengths: (1) Proposed site offers andepresentaoperationse
Counts industry an opportunity to exp
(2) Proposal presents a positive impact on the tax bermitted
Petitioner has profferea tlicable r egulations) ormally p
M-1 district uses (see pp
b, Weaknesses: (1) ProposaeSis inconsistent with Core lan use
(2) Increased truck and passenger
area policies and guldelin im rovements to VA 643 (proved
car taaff is may not be offset by pro riated) considering the
ed industrial access funds are ailment. (3) No concept plan has
already high ADT on this road seg
been ~tbmitted.
Proffers suggested: (1) Limit entire 8 acres to one access to/
c• er 1
from ~ 643. (2) Signage shall be limited to 1.5 sq.ftftP per
ft. ®$ street frontage up to a maximum of 300 sq. •
(3) Ensure
business. No billboards shall be peromitnorthern,t eastern, and
Type ~ screening and buffering alon VA 643
ro erty borders. Screening and buffering g
southern P P 1 with Section 21-92D(c)7, referring to
f ron'tage shall comp y
s along public streets. ( 4 ) Noise levels shall no
planting ro erty lines. (5) Dust
excel 60 dba measured at adjaionedpduring construction and
mini~ation measures will be emp Y including access road(s).
operation of all on-site facilities, shall be constructed to
( 6) (jae stormwater manageaent f ac i 1 i ty
serve entire site.
- N ~.
18 ~ ~
s~aowce~EN~`~~
,+ Beaui~u/8egin~isg
~ ~~' ~' /
t~~.
.~• . .
~~
~~~t~~~ ~~~~
(~, ~~~ ~~
V' ~ .. _
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT r ~ ~b J989
MEMOgAND~][
P~~ROA~30ME~PC(~i~Y Wi'S
Terry Harrington, Director of Planning and Zoning
TO:
Timothy Gubala, Director, Economic Development
FROM:
DATE: September 25, 1989
SIIB.TECT: Rezoning application - Shamrock
On behalf of the Board of Superv~sooimately a8.134b acres gfrom
application for the rezoning of app
General Commercial Distrconsidered by two ncompanies thatirequire
This property is being
the M-1 zoning designation.
Please note that the Concept Plan is not>n ither is able oaththis
prospects are looking at this properthis de artment will require
time to offer such a plan. However, P
a Concept Plan at or nearstattached to sale~ofAthetproperty.thYou
will be several ofnthisoif you wish.
may have a copy
At this time, we did notfitheudossible esale of thi landiandihas
Clifford Craig is aware o P
verbally informed us that water and sewer should c des to purchase
soon as we know which industry (if not both)
the site, this application will be sent to Clifford Craig.
Finally, although a metes and bounds dof Balzer & Associ tese
acompanying plat prepared by Robert S. Lang
a prepared written descriptia~eids ~ o MretLangila This document will
a description is being prep Y
follow shortly.
Please advise me with your comments and questions. Thank you.
sbo
Attachment
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE ,VIRGINIA 24018-0798 • <703> 772-2069
FAX. NO.: (703) 772-2030
1\
,~
Z
18 ~ ~
BFaou~cE~rtEN``~~..
A Bc,,,~,;'„ rlBcg;Nnieg
TO:
FROM:
~ ~~~~~~
~ ,~
~~~~~ ~
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mg>e[ORAi~DUM
Terry Harrington, Director, Planning and Zoning
Timothy W. Gubala, Director, Economic Development
e ~ ~,~,~'
i
~ ~~
DATE: September 25, 1989
ested proffers related to the rezoning application
80B.7ECT: Sugg
for the Shamrock site
Suggested proffers:
The following uses shall be prohibited from this site:
a, Automobile painting, upholstering, repairing, rebuilding,
reconditioning, body and fender work, truck repairing or
overhauling;
or assembling of products from the
b, Manufacturing
following material: cloth, leather and straw;
c, Manufacturing of pottery and figurines or other similar
ceramic products, using clay, and kilns;
d. Seed and feed stores;
e. Veterinary hospital and commercial kennels with exterior
runs and yards; and,
unless a. special exception has ~~en granted
f. Flea markets,
by the Board of Supervisors.
P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANOKE .VIRGINIA 24018-0798 • (703) 772-2069
FAX. NO.: (703) 772-2030
~~~~ y
VICINITY 2!AP
SH.AZiROCK FIELD
bete Rea.s
Received Bys
Caae No.s
•• Ord. No.s
/ ~ ~'~''
RO~O~ COUNTY ggZONING APpLI~TION
~Y ef`~ Phone: 77t'Lo°/
co~~ ~ ~ ,
1. Owner's Name: _ __
. s z 9 '~
Address: phone:7n'Z~ ~
1 icant' s Name : ~ ~' ~ ~~
2 . App . ,, , . ~ . , . > ,~, ,,-i a Q
Address:
g. Location of Property:
Tax Map Number (s) : SS^^0 9 -~ '" ~
4. Nagiaterial District: C~-~f
5. Size of Property: ~•~?N ~ s
1 J_ ._ ~
6. Existing Zoning: ~'Z
Existing Land Use:
7, proposed Zoning: /h'
Proffered With This Requ
f o~ applica-
Proposed Land Use: L~ ~~" "'"""
nation: r~
g. Comprehensive Plan Desig j No
est? Yes
9. Are Conditions
voluntarily offer3.ng proffers ~ ~~ of the Planning
~ are ~,rrjting.
tjony these proffers ~sth ~paratioa of these proffers.
Staff can assist you ~
e
~.L
10. Value of Land and (proposed)
11.
Buildings: ~IJT - a "~"
The Following It~A uiicaetio will NotiBe
Check If 8nclosed OrpIncomplete:
Items Are Nissing
Letter of Application tion
Metes and ~~tt3Ch Exhibit A)
of Property (A
~,~q Application Fee lication
-~- Water and Sewer App
This Application. Please
Accepted I! Any Of These
Concept Plan
List of Adjacent
~_ Vicinity Ma-P
~_ Written Proffers
(If Applicable)
Contract Purchaser,
Owners
nature Of Property Owner,
12. Sig
Or Owner's A9en 9~Z.S
/', / Date ,
Signature Vl/ .
,~~~ ~i°
i ~-y'
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF E HRE ANOKE OUNTY ADMINISTRATIONOENTER,NTY
VIRGINIA, HELD AT TH
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1989
ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION
OF APPROXIMATELY 8 ACRES OF REAL ESTATE LO-
CATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTER-
SECTION OF STATE ROUTE 643 AND I-81 IN THE
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF B-2 TO THE ZONING CLASSI-
FICATION OF M-1 WITH CONDITIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL
DEVSUPERVISORSOOFTROANOKEICOUNTY,OVIRGINIOA D
OF
WHEREAS, by Resolution 91289-4 the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, initiated amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan and to the classifications of certain real estate located in
Roanoke County to serve the public purposes of the County as
required by public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and
good zoning practice to implement the recommendations of the
Economic Development Action Plan for FY 1989-90; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on
October 24, 1989, and the second reading and public hearing was
held on November 28, 1989; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on this matter on November 9, 1989; and,
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as
required by law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That the zoning classification of a certain tract of real
estate containing approximately 8 acres of real estate located at
the southeast corner of the intersection of State Route 643 and I-
81 in the Catawba Magisterial District from the zoning classifica-
~ ~~
tion of B-2, General Commercial District, to the zoning classifica-
tion of M-1, Light Industrial District, for industrial development.
2, That the Board initiated the application to change the
zoning classification of this real estate located in Roanoke County
to serve the public purposes of the County as required by public
necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice
to implement the recommendations of the Economic Development Action
Plan for FY 1989-90.
3. That said real estate is more fully described as follows:
Beginning at a concrete hi of Routen643nand Inte state
corner of the rights-of-way
Highway Route 81; thence N. 55° 29' E. 450 feet, more or
less, to a point in the center of a drainage ditch;
thence following the meanders of the drainage ditch in
more or less, to a point;
a southerly direction 875 feet, more or less, to a point
thence S. 53° 52' W. 426 feet,
on the eastern right-of-way of Route 643; thence follow-
ing the said right-of-way N. 15° 12' 30" W. 128.21 feet
to a concrete highway monument; thence N. 12° 21' W. 194
feet to a concrete highway monument; thence N. 15° 17'
10" W. 417.14 feet to the place of beginning and contain-
more or less; and as shown on a plat of
ing 7.96 acres, ~~ Tract A," prepared
survey, entitled Property Exchange,
by the Roano er 16 nt1986ep att hed heretoic Facilities,
dated Septemb ,
4. That Roanoke County as owner of this real estate has
voluntarily proffered in writing the following conditions which the
Board of Supervisors hereby accepts:
(1) The property will not include permitted uses for:
(a) Automobile painting, upholstering, repairing,
rebuilding, reconditioning, body and fender
work, truck repairing or overhauling;
(b) Manufacturing of pottery and figurines or other
similar ceramic products, using clay, and
kilns;
(c) Seed and feed stores;
(d) Veterinary hospital and commercial kennels with
i~ ~
exterior runs and yards; and
(e) Flea markets.
(2) The noise levels shall not exceed 60 decibels
measured at adjacent property lines.
(3) Dust minimization measure will be employed during
construction and operation of all on-site facilities.
(4) The developer of the site shall comply with building
height, yard, setback, and lot coverage regulations for M-1, Light
Industrial District.
5. That the effective date of this ordinance shall be Novem-
ber 28, 1989.
~ ~'~ .d
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER,
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1989
ORDINANCE 112889-9 TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND
USE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 25
ACRES LOCATED EAST OF CARVINS COVE DAM ROAD
AND IMMEDIATELY NORTH I-81 IN THE CATAWBA
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT FROM DEVELOPMENT TO
PRINCIPAL INDUSTRIAL.
WHEREAS, by Resolution 91289-4 the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, initiated amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan and to the classifications of certain real estate located in
Roanoke County to serve the public purposes of the County as
required by public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and
good zoning practice to implement the recommendations of the
Economic Development Action Plan for FY 1989-90; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on
October 24, 1989, and the second reading and public hearing was
held on November 28, 1989; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on this matter on November 9, 1989; and,
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as
required by law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Future Land Use Plan map designation of a certain
tract of real estate owned by Hollins College containing approxi-
mately 25 acres (Tax Map No. 18.00-1-3.1) located east of Carvins
Cove Dam Road and immediately north I-81 in the Catawba Magisterial
District is hereby changed from Development to Principal
Industrial.
. ,
3. That the effective date of this ordinance shall be
November 28, 1989.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor
McGraw, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisor Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
. Cyr--C-~-~--1~~
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections
Terry Harrington, Director, Planning
John Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment
Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
PETITI0~1E[t: RO~ANORE QOpDTi'Y BOARD OF SUPERVISORS/HO
CASE ~~= 41-11/89
Planning Ccmnission Hearing Date: November 9, 1989
Board of Supervisors Hearing Date: November 28, 1989
A. RDQUEST _
Petition of Roanoke County Board ofres fran Develop~ntdto Principal Industrial,
map designation of approximately 25 ac
located east of Carvins Cove Dam Road, immediately north of I-81, Catawba
Magisterial District.
B. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
David Holladay and Cecil Ferguson vtiald roundwaterlcontamination;reffectaon
drainage if development occurs; poten g
water treatment plant; development would disrupt wildlife habitat; noise and visual
llution• access to the property is unsafe.
C.
po
eTr~w1T~T('AAT'T' TMPACT FACTORS
1.
2.
3.
Potential
as having
potential
identified
Industrial Sites: On several occasions this site
potential for a future industrial development
industrial sites conducted by Roanoke County i
'te as a viable industrial location.
has been identified
. Inventories of
n 1981 and 1985 both
this si
Water Supply: At this time sufficient flow is not available to artmont
commercial or industrial develo~cnent. Staff of the Roanoke County Dep
of Utilities advises thatfurther advisesa thatyplans Dare being made to
service this area. Staff
construct such a system to serve this area, as well as existing ~nn?rcial and
industrial uses south of I-81.
Access: Proffered conditions Currentlyt Carvins Dam Road doesg not offer
Carvins Dam Road (Route 815).
sufficient street capacity to support industrial develoFxnent. In addition,
access is hampered by the fact the turning radii at the intersection of I-81
off-ramp and Plantation Road are insufficient when attempting to turn north
onto Carvins Dam Road. VDOT advises thi re add t onal r ght-of-waY in the
complicated by the fact that I-81 may requ
near future. Future developrent of ohmic Developmentr staff proposeslt include
upgrading Carvins Dam Road. Eco Road Improvement Plan.
such improvements in the VDOT Secondary
D. pgO~D CONDITIONS
Not applicable.
E. ~1ISSIONER'S MOTION, VOTE AND REASON
Mr. Robinson moved to approve the land
Principal Industrial. The motion carried
py~; Massey, Gordon, Robinson, Witt
NAYS: None
~~T; Winstead
F. DISSENTrING PERSPECTIVE
None.
G. ATTAC;EIl~S
Concept Plan (8~" X 11")
Vicinity Map (8~" x 11")
Staff Report
Other
use map designation fran Develo~xnent to
with the following roll call vote:
Terrance Harrington, Secr rY
Roanoke County Planning 'ssion
~ ~~9 ~
MEMO RAN D U M
^~^, Roanoke County Planning Commission
FROM Dale Castellow, Planner'~i
DATE: November 9, 1989
SUBJECTS Case # 41-11/89 Petition of the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors to amend the Future Land Use Plan map designation
of approximately 25 acres from Development to Principal
Industrial, located east of Carvins Cove Dam Road, immediately
north of I-81, in the Catawba Magisterial District.
In 1983, the Hollins College Corporation (HCC) petitioned the counties
of Botetourt and Roanoke to rezone approximately 165 acres, located in
both counties, to M-iC, Light Industry. The rezoning was approved by
both jurisdictions. Subsequent to the rezoning, both localities adopted
new Comprehensive Plan designations for their respective portions of the
HCC property. That portion of the property located in Roanoke County
was designated as "Development." The remaining 140 acres located in
Botetourt .County was designated as Industrial.
The Development land use category encourdaevelo m nt etclustersandnzero
uses including conventional residential p
lot line development, as well as planned residential or community
development. Limited commercial uses are is encouraged when included
As part of a planned community development. Industrial uses, such as
ose permitted in the M-1, Light Industry zoning district, are not
~;ompatible with the Development land use category.
At this time the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, on behalf of the
property owner, are requesting that the HCC property be designated as
Principal Industrial. The proposed land use amendment is to allow the
HCC property to be classified as industrial for the purpose of marketing
and long-range capital facilities planning. As part of this long-range
planning process, the economic development staff proposes to include the
necessary water system improvements on the Department of Utilities
Capital Improvement Program for fiscal year 1991/92.
In considering this amendment, the plan ~ i ltaar ass $ t l fort tin lthe
use determinants for Principal Indus
Comprehensive Development Plan. An evaluation of each determinant is
included below.
1. Existing Land Use Pattern: No pattern of industry has been
established in this area. The general area is unimproved with
scattered residential and agricultural land uses. The City of
Roanoke water treatment plant is located west of the. site at the
northern terminus of Plantation Road. The parcel in question is
predominantly vacant with a small stable located adjacent to
Carvins Cove Dam Road. The site is conveniently located to exit
43 on I-81.
2. Existing Zoningo As specified in the plan, the property already
has .been zoned M-iC for light industry. That portion of the
property located in Botetourt County is zoned for industry as
/ ~ X9=5
well. Several proffered conditions are attached to the parcel.
The conditions apecify~
a. No building or parking facility will be erected within fifty
of the Carvins Dan Road right-of-ways
b. Prior to development of th will be plant d along thenwestern
than four feet in height,
property boundary]
c. There will be one publicoutenisoalso to serve that portion
Carvins Dam Road. This r
of the property located in Botetourt County. Petitioner
i ti veans of access via
3.
4.
5.
6.
7
reserves the right to use its ex s ng
an underpass under I-81s
d. Covenants, conditions a dedrwithic and madetacpart of,tthe
rezoning are to be recor
plats of the Hollins Industrial Park.
Potential Industrial Sites: 0D ential lforc a ifuturei industrial
been identified as having pot
development. Inventories of pote851bot ident fi d thisositetas
by Roanoke County in 1981 and 19
a viable industrial location.
Employment Centers: Alth vicinityrof this siteabit isnlocated
industries in the immediate
near an existing employment ce nlocat d v south Hots 1181 ~ long dthe
ITT and Dominion Hank, ar
Plantation Road corridor.
Topography Site is gently ii11iessttha a 10~ t toward Carvins Cove
Dam Road. Slope is genera Y
Flood Hazard Prevention Site ortion of the site alongn Carvins-
drainage basin. Only a small p
Dam Road, appears to be within the flood hazard area.
. Resource Protections A sithe countyas Resource ProtectionaGuiden
identified on this site in
The guide references a prehistexisting plimestone sprinq.asFuture
of Carvins Creek just above an
development of the site nay necessitate further exploration of the
campsite area.
8. Water Supply At this time sufficient flow is notgtafflaof a the
support commercial or industrial development.
Roanoke County Department ouiredlitieservicee thistareaeW cStaff
water system would be req
further advises that plans ase welln as aexi tingo com ercialc and
system to serve this area,
industrial uses south of I-81.
9. Sewer Service: Staff of the Deaa inch t service)it are alocated hin
adequate sewer facilities
proximity to this site.
f ./` ~ .
10. Access Proffered conditions ensure that C irrently cCarvinslDam
gained from Carvins Dam Road (Route 815). to support
Road does not offer sufficient street capacity
industrial development. In addition, access is hampered by the
fact the turning radii at the intersection of the I-81 off-ramp
and Plantation Road are insVDOTc ad ises nthisemsituationt could rbe
onto Carvins Dam Road.
further complicated by the fact that I-81 may require additional
right-of-way in the near future. Future development of this as
industrial center witaffe r posespto include asuchsimprovements
Economic development s p
in the VDOT Secondary Road Improvement Plan
11. Transportation Centers: Site is conveniently located near I-81
exit number 43. nal Airport$o R it serviceiis not availableyon~
the Roanoke Regio
site.
12. Urban Sector: Site is located within the urban service area.
Your review and recommendation regarding this land use amendment is
appreciated.
i ~~y
AN
8 n~
aE80U1CENTEMN~*~
TO:
FROx:
,~~ ...~ ~
~t~ ~~ .., -3.~
C~~~t 1~ 1 :~.a
• y4'
(~
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SEP $s ~'9
x$xoRA~DOx
.~~,
~~~~~t~u~ ~¢~t+~~u 8'c
Terry Harrington, Director, Department of Planning and
Zoning
Timothy W. Gubala, Director, Economic Development ~~
DATE: September 21, 1989
SII&TECTs Land Use Plan Amendment for Hollins College Corporation
3ackctround
Hollins College Corporation is the owner of a 163 acre tr During
land that lies within both etitioned t B be trezonedu to elndustrial
1983, the property was p was approved and the
District M-1 led tohM-1 withsprofferedzconditions.
property rezon
During the mid 1980'x, Botetourt County amended 1 in C within nthat
Plan to classify the portion of the property Y g within
The approximate 25 acre portion lying
county as industrial. the 1986
Roanoke County was ca~esified as Development during
Comprehensive Plan upd
Roanoke County Economic Devel spten and recommendede thatl thel Board
being a potential industrial can be
of Supervisors amend the Comprehensive Plan so the property
used for future industrial development.
Rectuested Land Use Plan Amendm n
Board of Supervisors request on behalf of the
The Roanoke County roximate 25 acre tract (identified as
property owners, that the app
being a part of Tax Map 18.00) be changed to Principal Industria
on the Roanoke County Land Use Plan.
The Economic Development staff is of the opinion that the proposed
Land Use Plan Amendment will ,haediatelyf toct honalos the st lis
properties. Property located imm
classified as Industrial in the Bdt Interst to nIy81 ois ownedlby
Plan. Property to the south beyon
Hollins College. Property to the west is classified as Principal
Industrial by the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan.
P.O. BOX 29600 • ROANOKE .VIRGINIA 24018-0798 • (703) 772-2069
_~ FAX. NO.: (703) 772-2030
X89' -~..~'
Reasons for the Amendment
The Plan Amendment will allow o bedclassified Casl i austr al tfor
property in both counties t g u oses. It is the
marketing and long range facility plannin p Y'p
intent of the Economic Dead oogethe uti ity Capital Improve to
improvements included as p
Plan for Fiscal Year 1991-92.
Road access improvements es ~Carvins Coved Dam Roade needs todbe
anticipated traffic volum
widened as well as an engineeroaa reiite is f antic pat d that EVDOT
43 off ramp at Plantation R
Secondary Road funds would not be available until 1995-96.
Justification for the amendment from Land Use determinants:
~~;sting zoning - The property is zoned Industrial District
M-1.
"xist=na Land Use Pattern - No pattern established for this
property, but area zoning and land use south of Exit 43 on
Plantation Road is industrial. The property is north of the North
County industrial area indicated in the Future Land Use Plan.
Potential industrial sites - The property could be used
large industrial or corporate users.
for several
Emnlo;~^°~t Centers - The property is near the North
Industrial area that has approximately 2,000 employees.
County
TopoQravhv - The sit,rhas generally less than 20$ slopes.
Mood hazard - The site is outside the Federal floodplain
designation.
$gsource Protection - No conflicts with resource protection
guidelines noted.
Wat-pr SLiDD1Y - Water improvements tan fors1991-92 1 be included
within Utility Capital Improvement P1
Sewer service_ - At site with 8" service.
cess - Road improvements are needed to Carvins Cove Dam Roa oses
I-81 at the Exit 43 off ramp. Economic Development staff prop
to include improvement cress it tt a site should be accomplished by
Secondary Road Plan. A
owners at time of development.
Transportation - Access to I-81 at Exit 43.
urban Sector - Property is within Urban Service Area.
/~39'.~
Zoning:
Comprehensiation:
Plan Design
l~ccess s
Wat4r:
Sewer:.
l~vailability:
Sifie name: Hollins College
Sire: 163 acres
K1
Development
Carving Cove Dais Road '
Ofi site
on site
Hollins College Corporation contra ding e a dPes to
Site development costs for to go status of the
preparation have 1 invited ready
land.
Recommendation: 1-mend Comprehe u tvCou lan s Comprehensive Plan
zoning. goteto ~Y
shows the property to be industria Bement iwith
Botetourt County. Prepare an aqr
Botetourt County and Hollins College to alloy
Water storage and
for future development.
transmission ~ ~ aced i e the VDOT s ix Ye r
Road should P
Secondary Road Plan.
Piscal Impact: 1991 for waterf 1995-96 for road improvements.
~~~'9 _~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF T ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER,NTY
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1989
ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN
Mp,P DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 25 ACRES
LOCATED EAST OF CARVINS COVE DAM ROAD AND
IMMEDI ISTRICT RFROM DEVELO MENTT TOB PRINCIPAL
RIAL D
INDUSTRIAL.
WHEREAS, by Resolution 91289-4 the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, initiated amendments to the Comprehensive
Plan and to the classifications of certain real estate located in
Roanoke County to serve the public purposes of the County as
required by public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and
good zoning practice to implement the recommendations of the
Economic Development Action Plan for FY 1989-90; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on
October 24, 1989, and the second reading and public hearing was
held on November 28, 1989; and,
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on this matter on November 9, 1989; and,
WHEREAS, legal notice and advertisement has been provided as
required by law.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Future Land Use Plan map designation of a certain
tract of real estate owned by Hollins College containing approxi-
mately 25 acres (Tax Map No. 18.00-1-3.1) located east of Carvins
Cove Dam Road and immediately north I-81 in the Catawba Magisterial
District is hereby changed from Development to Principal
Industrial.
3. That the
November 28, 1989.
effective date of this ordinance shall be
/1~~_~
M E M O RAN D U M
TO: Mary Allen, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
G~~
FROM: Timothy W. Gubala, irector of Economic Development
DATE: November 27, 1989
SUBJECT: Board of Supervisors rezoning petition - Salem West
Corporation
Elmer Rodes, Secretary of the Salem-West Corporation has requested
that the Board of Supervisors continue the rezoning public hearing
for this request to the December 19, 1989 Board meeting. This will
allow him to review and circulate suggested proffers made by the
County Planning Commission to the other six owners. Since some of
the owners live out of town, a delay is necessary to allow them to
be contacted.
Thank you.
sbo
c Terry Harrington, Director of Planning
P~Trrlo[v~: / / 89 - ~
CASE Nf~,FR= 42 QOOATI'Y BQARp OF SUpH~I~/~~ W~
Planning Crnmission Hearing paw;
Board of Supervisors Hearing Date; ~ ~r 28,1198
A• QUEST 9
Petition of Roanoke Count
from A-1[~i to M-1 for ind y Board of Supervisors to rezone a
and west of Barle ustrial development, located PProxunately 125 acres
y Drive, C,ataWba ~ 1 south of Routes 11/460
B~ CITIZEN PARTICIPATION g~sterial District. ~ south
There was no 0
PPosition to the request.
C• SIGNIFICAI~fP FACT FAC,~S
1• Comprehensive Plan:
within a Develo 1985 Comprehensive
Pint land use ~ ~~lopment Plan has la
wholesale uses are prohibited a d~industrialanufacturin p ced this area
Development areas. 9. warehousing and
industrial uses and ahe Develo Park uses are discouraged in
Industrial designation lde lineat Pment designation is
amendment will ~ r not appropriate for
urbanizing sectors of the Count es confined areas distributed hthroughout
petitioner intends to submit a Y where industrial sites
Development to Princi r~uest to amend the FutureY be clustered. The
which Pal Industrial to acccmmdate Land Use Plan from
analysis of proposed should this rezonin ~Y light industrial uses
will be conduces boner's proposed amendmentrtouest be approved.
upon recei t of this the Future Land Stoff
P amendment r Use Plan map
2. Site Layout, ~Iuest.
Pendent upon concept plan, as
3• Amenities: yet ~s~xnitted.
Plan- Characteristics of parking facilities de
unavailable at this time,
pendent upon concept
4• Street Capacities:
777 to VA 927 1986 ~T (US 460):
(1.16 mile). Light industrial5~ 1987 accident:
trip-ends per acre. Petitioner uses ma Five from VA
industrial ac should investigate likelihood of ° 50
cess appropriations for this site.
5• Circulation: VDOT
Serving Glen Forestlneering staff r~~nds Yale Drive
access. Subdivision west of subje~ site) not( ~~ lo~l street
Major improvements will }Je n
at US 11/460 and Fronta e ~ industrial
access currentl g 620• A 50 fosta lW deodeededc asp ~ intersectin
improvements at itsaintersecti n with nt is the only
Jett site. Widening of this a
post-development patterns unknown. US 11/460 im erative~s ~d ~J°r
P Interior
6• Air: Site desi n
construction and o measures should minimize
mitigation techni Aeration of all site facil ties roblens encountered during
9~s ~O~d be eriployed to including roads. Dust
7' Waterz Potential Protect adjacent Properties.
pollution impacts unknown.
8• Noise: Site desi n
construction and o g ~asureS should minimize noise
miti tion t Peration of all site facilities problems encountered during
suggegs~s a ~~~l~o s6~h~d ~ employed to protect ~dlacluding roads. Noise
J cent Properties. Staff
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER ~ ~ B
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: November 21, 1989
AGENDA ITEM: Request to continue Second Reading and Public
Hearing of Ordinance amending Chapter 8, "Erosion
and Sediment Control," of the Roanoke County Code
by amending Section 8-11 (a), "Control Measures
Generally" and Resolution adopting a new section of
the Design and Construction Standards Manual
entitled "Stormwater Management Criteria"
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ` ~ y
~~ ~~J
~.~~.~ ~y ~~py.
BACKGROUND'
This item was brought before the Board of Supervisors on
October 10, 1989, at which time the Board recommended a continuance
of 30 days in order that the staff may work out areas of
differences with the Roanoke Valley Home Builders Association.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Since that date, the County staff has met with representatives
of the Roanoke Valley Home Builders Association and have resolved
all but one item. The County staff is requesting a continuance of
this agenda item until December 19, 1989, at which time the staff
hopes to bring forward an ordinance which will have the endorsement
of the Roanoke Valley Home Builders Association.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends a continuance of the Second Reading and
Public Hearing until December 19, 1989.
~%~'- ~
S BMITTED BY: APPROVED:
'~
`~ . ( ;
~,
~`~ ~~ ~ `~'"'- r~ Elmer C . Hodge
Arnold Covey, Directo Count Administrator
Development and Inspe tions y
ACTION VOTE
No Yes Abs
Motion by:
Approved ( ) Garrett
Denied ( ) Johnson
Received ( ) McGraw
Referred Nickens
to Robers
_
~uuu.u~ruu.u~~.~uuuu~u~u..~~~~..uuuuu.u~uururu.uau~.usu.uu.u.u...u~..~~..~~..~..i.uuuuuu~ _
_
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
RAN CE REQUES'T'
_ APPEA
_ _
- -
~ ~f
AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ 1 ~~
- -
_ _
~'6 ~, (~ 'a ~ ~ ~~o ~1 ~ of Cr
-_ SUBJECT
I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to
reco nine me during the public hearing on the above matter
__ g
I ma comment.WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM,
_ so that
_^ _
_ I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE _
r
_ RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINE _
- _
_ _
_ _
LISTED BELOW. _
• Each speaker will be given between three to five minutes to comment
'~ whether s Baking as an individual or representative. The chairman will
_ p
decide the time limit based on the number of citize asosnea o f he Board toes
and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the m~ ty -_
c
__ do otherwise.
• S eakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Ques-
__ lions of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman.
Debate between arecognized
• All comments must be directed to the Board. _
__ speaker and audience members is not allowed.
_ •
s eakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times.
_ ..e.
-' Both p -"
~_ i~
• Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments =
._
_
with the clerk. '~'
_ • INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED
P SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION
GROU
FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT
_
_ "'
THEM.
_
SE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO DEPUTY CLERK
PLEA
NAME -
_
_ ~-- -_
ADDRESS ~ ~ ~ 0
'" PHONE ~ ~ 7 - ~ ~ 0 ~ '
_
IIIII 11111111 II I I I I I IIIlilllllllllllilllllillllllilllllllllllllilllllllllllililllllllllllllllllllll
mlllllllllllllllllillllllll
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO .
AT A REGULAR MEE LD AT THE ROANOKE OCOUNTY RADMINISTRAT oON OCENTER
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HE
MEETING DATE: November 28, 1989
AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANC I ANCEAREQUIRING THE FILING OF AN DISDCLOSURE
A NEW ORD
STATEMENTON PURSUANT TOTSECTION 2D OT639.14EOFFTHE
INFORMATI
CODE OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND'
On September 27, 1983 the Board .sclosur a ofspersonalpand
Ordinance No. 83-174 which required the di officials and
financial interests of certain C licablefComprehensive Conflict
employees pursuant to the then app
of Interests Act.
This ordinance required the filing of a disclosure form by the
following individuals: County Administrator, SuperieTe nt endent
Fiscal Management, Superintendent of Development, Sup Count
Y
of Public Facilities, Personnel Officer, County Attorney,
Assessor, Members of the Roanoke County Industrial DMemberseof
Authority, Members of the Roanoke County Library Board,
the Roanoke County Planning Commission.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Virginia General Assembly in its 1987 sesState eandleLocal
old comprehensive Act and adopted the new,
Government Conflict of Interests Act. Section 2.1-639.14.A
provides in part, as follows:
• that members of every governing body,
• that persons occupying positions of trust appointed by such
governing bodies as may be designated by ordinance,
that certain employees as may be designated by ordinance,
shall file as a condition of assuming office or employment, a
disclosure statement of their personal interests and other
information specified under Section 2.1-639.15 (the "long form")•
Section 2.1-639.14.B provides that nonsalaried citizen members
of local board, commissions and councils as may be designated by
the governing body shall file the disclosure form specified under
Section 2.1-639.15:1 (the "short form").
Section 2.1-639.14.F provides in part that in addition to the
disclosure required under subsections A and B members of planning
commissions, boards of zoning appeals, real estate assessors and
all county, city and town managers or executive officers shall make
an annual disclosure of all their real estate interests.
Section 2.1-639.14:1 requires that constitutional officers
file the "long form" with the Clerk of the governing body.
This recommended ordinance amendment repeals the existing
County ordinance and adopts a new ordinance in compliance with the
new State Code, and references the statutory disclosure forms.
The new Act, like the old Act, granted discretionary authority to
a local governing body to designate by ordinance those additional
persons required to file a financial disclosure form. This new
ordinance continues to require certain persons (Administrator,
Attorney, and Director of Economic Development) to file disclosure
forms; however, new categories of reporting are su
upon the "long" and "short" forms; members of the boards of zoning
appeals, resource authority, and County-appointed members to the
regional airport commission are added to the list of persons
required to file. Superintendents of Fiscal Management, Develop-
ment, and Public Facilities; the Personnel Officers; and the County
Assessor are no longer required the file a disclosure form.
During the regional meetings conducted eighteen months ago by
the Attorney General's office to explain the
act, Roanoke County was the only locality in thisvpartnof thehstate
to require such an extensive disclosure by its officers, appointees
and employees.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS:
1) The Board could repeal Ordinance No. 83-174, and rely upon
the mandatory disclosure required by state law (Section 2.1-
639.14.F requires members of the planning commission, board of
zoning appeals real estate assessors and the county administrator
to file the real estate disclosure form
governing bodies must file the disclosure form found ein Sec.12c11
639.15.
2) The Board could repeal Ordinance No. 83-174 and adopt a new
ordinance as provided in the attached draft.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board favorably consider the
attached ordinance, Alternative 2).
~ ;/
Respectfully submitted,
,Y l~~_
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
Action Vote
Approved ( ) Motion by No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Garrett
Received ( ) Johnson
Referred McGraw
to Nickens
Robers
f~--/
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER,
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1983
ORDINANCE NO. 83-174 REQUIRING DISCLOSURE OF
PERSONAL AND FI~ IAL INTEREST OF CERTAIN
COUNTY OFFICERS, OFFICIALS, AND EMPLOYEES
PURSUANT TO §2.1-613 OF THE 1950 CODE OF VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, as
follows:
1. That in addition to the members of the Board of Su er
p visors of Roanoke
County the following persons occupying certain positions of trust appointed by the Board
of Supervisors be, and they hereby are, designated and directed to file as a condition
to assuming office or employment or continuing in such position to file a disclosure
statement of their personal interests and such other information as is specified on the
form set forth in §2.1-614 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended and shall
thereafter
file such a statement annually on or before January 15, to-wit:
• County Administrator /
Superintendent of Fiscal Management /
Superintendent of Development l/
Superintendent of Public Facilities ,/
Personnel Officer ,/
County Attorney /
County Assessor /
Members of the Roanoke County Industrial Development Authority /
Members of the Roanoke County Library Board ~
Members of the Roonoke County Planning Commission
2. That the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall cause the forms hereinabove
mentioned to be distributed no later than December 10 of each year to each ogficer
or person required to file such a form pursuant to this ordinance or §2.1-613 of the
1950 Code of Virginia, as amended. Such disclosure forms shall be filed and maintained
as public records for five years in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
of Roanoke County.
~- /
Adopted on motion by Supervisor Nickens and the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Burton, Nickens, Minter, Johnson
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Myers
A Copy - Teste:
Donald R. lan rs, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
9-30-83
Copies to: County Administrator
Superintendent of Fiscal Management
Superintendent of Development
Superintendent of Public Facilities
Personnel Officer
County Attorney
County Assessor
Members of the Roanoke County Industrial Development Authority
Members of the Roanoke County Library Board
Members of the Roanoke County Planning Commission
File
~~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER,
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1989
ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE 83-174 AND
ADOPTING A NEW ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE FILING
OF A DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC
INTERESTS AND OTHER SPECIFIED INFORMATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.1-639.14 OF THE CODE OF
VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, on September 27, 1983, the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, adopted Ordinance No. 83-174 requiring
disclosure of personal and financial interests of certain County
officers, officials, and employees pursuant to the provisions of
the Comprehensive Conflict of Interests Act; and
WHEREAS, said Act was repealed by the 1987 Virginia General
Assembly which enacted the State and Local Government Conflict of
Interests Act; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance repeals and reenacts Ordinance No. 83-
174 and adopts a new ordinance to conform with the revised State
Code; and
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on
November 28, 1989, and the second reading of this ordinance was
held on December 19, 1989.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, that Ordinance No. 83-174 is hereby repealed. Further,
a new ordinance requiring the filing of a disclosure statement of
economic interests and other specified information pursuant to
Section 2.1-639.14 of the Code of Virginia as follows:
1. That in addition to the members of the Board of
Supervisors and the Constitutional Officers of Roanoke County,
/~,../
Virginia, the following persons occupying certain positions of
trust appointed by the Board of Supervisors and such other persons
employed by the County be, and they hereby are, designated and
directed to file as a condition to assuming office or employment
or continuing in such position to file a disclosure statement of
their personal interests and such other information as is specified
on the form set forth in Section 2.1-639.15 of the 1950 Code of
Virginia, as amended, and shall thereafter file such a statement
annually on or before January 15, to-wit:
County Administrator
County Attorney
Director of Economic Development
2. Nonsalaried citizen members of the following boards,
commissions, or authorities shall file, as a condition of assuming
office, a disclosure form of their personal interests, and such
other information as is specified on the form set forth in Section
2.1-639.15:1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and
thereafter shall file such form annually on or before January 15:
Members of the Roanoke County Industrial Development Authority
Members of the Roanoke County Library Board
Members of the Roanoke County Planning Commission
Members of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission (appointed by
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia)
Members of the Roanoke County Resource Authority
3. In addition to any disclosure required by sub-sections
1 and 2 of this ordinance, members of the Planning Commission,
Board of Zoning Appeals, real estate assessors, and the County
-'
Administrator shall make annual disclosures of all their interests
in real estate located in Roanoke County. This disclosure shall
include any business in which such persons own an interest, or from
which income is received, if the primary purpose of the business
is to own, develop or derive compensation through the sale,
exchange or development of real estate in the county. Such
disclosure shall be filed as a condition to assuming office or
employment, and thereafter shall be filed annually on or before
January 15.
4. That the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall cause
the forms hereinabove mentioned to be distributed no later than
December 10 of each year to each officer or person required to file
such a form pursuant to this ordinance or Section 2.1-639.15 or
Section 2.1-639.15:1 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended.
Such disclosure forms shall be filed and maintained as public
records for five years in the office of the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County.
5. The effective date of this ordinance shall be January 1,
1990.
gOA ~Zo
O~ 2gp'
Eg~lsp A~~~~ZS
O~ SAC ~1119a9
~ p~E 2a ~
~ Bp g0~~~$g E
E`SZ~ EZ'~ I~$S~A~ ~ G ~xE Cp~~
,gEG v~pZ 2Eg p~ W CEgT TY WZ2~ C°~ri'c`I '
A A ~ ~ Cgs a O~ pg~Z a °xe ~ 1~,
p4~ ~ Za 9 C ~ go r a
C -y1 ~ 5,1~ c~ ale ~ a
pv~~ WA REV eY~l5oZ5 ~r15 d ~eGp'L
gRS ~S,11C' .~ S~l'Q or ~1V e ~
vE~ G-~~1Z za p~ ~ee~ir~ a~~ti,~~a e vjZ~
a
,ire B° execUtlve Grit ~'° ari , Ori5 °~" T
WR~g~~p,S f veried ari •~ • ~ p~z5v e 4z °v 151 V ~
cori oo '~ '~~, e °~
ras ,~ $ : w itn ~°d ,
viz~lz'la 5eg51°ri a ozaarice Arid 1 ° f ,one ispZS o~
eriiriq ri acc A°~ ~ '3 ~ ~ • SUpe~ Gcrd,
e~ i tiori 2.1 °f a5
vote aria ~ Zri~ozma sects°ri the B°aza ~ee~lriq ~
F z eea°~ ° v1~~g~.p,g ' ca~lori p`I e~'ecvtlV e ire
eztl~l s°cn ~ra~
es a c is trat aw ' ~Spy~F,~ i cez~l~,
z edi`~iz ~ v iz ~ iri 4 lzgiriia v BE ZT R rila rez e~Y
co~rit`I mlt~ w itr R~ggF OgE ritY ~ 4 iz~31 lY
c°rifoz how ' ~ aripXe C°~ Wledge' S la`~f~l
5 °~ Rc ez5 Kris 5 ,mat~ez ere dl.
S~'~ezV 15oz each temp tic ~ J51.~es ~iriia law ~ zes`
the hest of prilY pU~ Brits ,n`I V lz ez~'i£icatlori
1 • z eq`~iz e-m t i5 c
r
meetiriq riq whicY~ mat~ezs
open meets Tress e
eXec~tive p°pllc pus Xec~~lve m
SV'cn ~,re e SU7
a~,d pril`I eriiriq B°aza °£
2 • cpriv t,~e
$e m°tipri rislaezea ~~
t c0
iri d °z
di5c~5se ii'ia
V izq ,
c°v`rit`~ '
v
On motion of Supervisor Garrett, seconded by Supervisor
Nickens, and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, Nickens, Garrett
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor McGraw
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
11/29/89
CC: File
Executive Session File
M E M O RAN D U M
TO; Diane Hyatt
Director of Finance
FROM: Mary H. ALlen
Clerk to the Board
DATE: November 30, 1989
SUBJECT: Board Action - November 28, 1989
The Board of Supervisors, at their meeting on November 28, 1989
authorized the allocation of the following funds:
- $180,000 from the General Fund unappropriated balance for the
drainage projects.
- Roanoke County's share to update the 1985 Feasibility Study for
a Roanoke Valley Comprehensive Stormwater Management Program,
estimated to be $3382 per Wayne Strickland of the Fifth Planning
District Commission. Funds to be allocated from the Board
Contingency Fund.
mha
p AN ,~.
F
~ A
ai
18 ~~ 88
$FSUUICEIiTENN\P\'
A Bcauti~u/Bcginning
(~vitnfy of ~nttnukr
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR November 30, 1989
ELMER C. HODGE
Mrs. Sue Ivey
5120 Burnt Quarter Drive
Vinton, Virginia 24179
Dear Mrs. Ivey:
LEE GARRETT CHAIRMAN
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTE RiAL DISTRICT
RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
BOB L. JOHNSON
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
STEVEN A. MCGRAW
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C NICKENS
VIN TON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
The Board of Supervisors have asked me to express on their behalf
their sincere appreciation for your previous service to the Mental
Health Services of the Roanoke Valley Community Services Board.
Citizens so responsive to the needs of their community and willing
to give of themselves and their time are indeed all too scarce.
This is to advise that at their meeting held on Tuesday, November
28, 1989, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to reappoint
you as a member of the Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley
Community Services board for a three-year term. Your term will
expire on December 31, 1992.
State law provides that any person elected, re-elected, appointed
to any body be furnished a copy of the Freedom of Information Act;
your 1989 copy is enclosed. We are also sending you a copy of the
1989 Conflict of Interest Act.
On behalf of the Supervisors and the citizens of Roanoke County,
please accept our sincere thanks and appreciation for your
willingness to accept this appointment.
Sincerely,
~•
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
MHA/bj h
Enclosures
cc: Dr. Fred Roessel, Jr., Executive Director
Mental Health Services
P.O. BOX 29800 ROAN OK E. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 • (703) 772-2004
p AN ,~.
F
a
ti p
z ~
a
~ 8 ~.~ 8$
~FSQl11CENTENN~P~
A Bcauti/ulBcgixning
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
November 29, 1989
Mr. Wayne Strickland
Executive Director
Fifth Planning District Commission
P. O. Box 2569
Roanoke, Virginia 24010
Dear Mr. Strickland:
LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL GIST RICT
RICHARD W. ROBERS. VICE-CHAIRMAN
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
BOB L. JOHNSON
MOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
STEVEN A- MCGRAW
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C NICKENS
VIN 70N MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 112889-2 supporting a regional
approach to watershed planning and stormwater management for the
Roanoke Valley. This resolution was adopted by the Board of
Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, November 28, 1989.
If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Sincerely,
~-
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
bjh
Attachment
cc: W. Robert Herbert, Roanoke City Manager
Randolph M. Smith, Salem City Manager
George W. Nester, Vinton Town Manager
John Williamson, Botetourt County Administrator
~Alln~l~ itf ~DMYiII~iP
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004
A~~~:
~• p
a
18 ~~ 88
~FSQU/CENTENN~P~
A Beauti fu1 Bcginning
~Altnfl~ iif ~A~tYiII~2F
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C HODGE NOVember 29, 1989
Rev. Alan Rowbothan
Unity of Roanoke Valley Church
3300 Green Ridge Road, N.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Dear Reverend Rowbothan:
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
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, November 28, 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.
Sinc ely,
L Garrett, Chairman
R anoke County Board of Supervisors
bjh
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4 018-07 9 8 (703> 772-2004
~Fa 4-~~
CC-~e~-~-,'o,v:
.r--- rn-r'. Lee (a-a r r e `t}"
y~ o r ~ s ~--e ~ I ~ YQd .
~va ,u o ~ ~ , tTi' r~ ~' ~ i c~ - a ~D ~ ~
OCTOBER 17 , 1989
PHILLIP T. HENRY P.E.
DIRECTOR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
~~ ~ c
g~G~~aQ~,
~'~~~
SIR:
IN REFERENCE TO THE RECENT INFORMATION CONCERNING A "DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE
PRIORITY LIST" AS WAS VOTED ON BY OUR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON OCTOBER 12, 1989.
1) THE FACT THAT SUCH A LIST WAS BEING PRESENTED WAS NOT PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.
INTERESTED AND AFFECTED TAXPAYERS WERE NOT HEARD. I CONSIDER THIS VOTE
INVALID.
2) I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT BOTH THE., CURRENT BOARD AND THE ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT HAD BEEN ADVISED MANY TIMES OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE
DRAINAGE ON MY PROPERTY AND ADJACENT TO IT.
3) THERE IS NO BETTER TIME THAN IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE TO CORRECT ONCE AND
FOR ALL THE PROBLEMS THAT EXIST. FENCES ARE DOWN, TREES AND SHRUBS HAVE
BEEN REMOVED AND EQUIPMENT CAN EASILY GET INTO THE DITCH FOR CORRECTIVE
ACTION.
IRREGARDLESS, I REQUEST THAT THE PROBLEMS ON AND ADJACENT TO MY PROPERTY BE
PLACED ON THE SO CALLED "DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE PRIORITY LIST" PREFERABLY
NEAR THE TOP BECAUSE OF THE SITUATIONS THAT NOW EXIST.
I CERTAINLY DO NOT APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT MY FAMILY AND MY EFFORTS
IN THE PAST HAVE BEEN, FOR THE MOST PART, IGNORED OR, WHEN SERVICE WAS
PERFORMED, CORRECTIVE ACTIONS BY MY FAMILY HAD TO BE MADE TO DECREASE THE WATER
DAMAGES TO MY PROPERTY.
PLEASE REPLY BY RETURN MAIL AS TO YOUR INTENTIONS
TAKE WHATEVER RESPONSIVE 'ACTIONS NECESSARY.
;;
YOUR SPECTIVELY
ROBERT M. BOSTIAN
~ .~
IN THIS MATTER, SO I MAY
6
J ~. .
MEMO T0: Mr. Elmer Hodge, County Administrator
RO~,,~; phi 11 ip T. Henry, Director of Engineering /7`t~
F
DATE: October 13, 1989
SUBJECT: Item E-1-October 10, 1989 Board Meeting
Concerning subject item andeidna~ainagenprioritynlist~,I,have
funding this year for the approv
one major concern:
Engineering has the equivalent of an engineer
for 1/2 year budgeted for drainage. During
FY88-89 more than one man year was span plan
drainage to the detriment of r Wh t+ I am
review, and other activities.
implying is, we don't have the staff to
engineer and mamntenanceap oJ'ects dur ngOth~s
of drainage
fiscal year.
SOLUTIONS:
1, Provide an additional engineer to handle these
projects. (Cost 535,000)
2, Proceed with current funding level which will
allow time for engineering easement acquisition
and construction administration to be scheduled
and handled by staff.
sjp
pc: John Hubbard, Assistan^tCounty Administrator of Community
Services and Developme
5
-~ fo ~ ~
l'1" °E' ~ ~ ~ - ~- ~
t
n ~t` ~ti rq. 61ti ~ '~
_ ~ C ~~
.. ~,.~.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Elmer C. Hodge
FROM: John Hubbard ~= '°~`~`~~
DATE: October 30, 1989
SUBJECT: Stormwater Management Meeting -Update
r Mana ement Technical Committee met today. A resolution for
The Stormwate g
a royal will be ready by mid-November. o lat on, for an lupdate by
each governments pp date.
to the support of a new study and a cost sharing, base on p p
date will not exceed $10,000. A scope of work was set out for the up
CDM. 'The up
u date is completed, the committee will establish a scope for the master
Once the p
plans for each of the priority watersheds. verrunents is whether or not the
An important issue that must be decided by the go the affects of new
dress the stormwater management and/or a°ainst ntrol and whether or
master plan will ad roblems or protect g
not the plan will address existing p
development.
JRH:wr
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
W. Robert Herbert
Roanoke City Manager
215 Church Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24011
Randolph Smith
Salem City Manager
P.O. Box 859
Salem, VA 24153
Elmer C. Hodge, Jr.
Roanoke County Administrator
P.O. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018
George Nester
Vinton Town Manager
P.O. Box 338
Vinton, VA 24179
John 8. Williamson, III
Botetourt County Administrator
1 W. Main Street, Box 1
Fincastle, VA 24090
W. E. Wright
Virginia Department
Salem Office
P.O. Box 3071
Salem, VA 24153
of Transportation
Mike Scanlan
State Water Control
P.O. Box 7017
Roanoke, Virginia
David Nunnally
Division of Soil &
P.O. Box 1506
Dublin, VA 24084
Board
24019
Water Conservation
~ ~~ ~-
G I TY OF SALETT, VIRGINIA
OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER P. O. BOX B69 24153.0669
(703) 375.3016
November 14, 1989
Mr, h?ayne G. Strickland
Executive Director
Fifth Planning District Commission
P. 0. Box 2569
Roanoke, VA 24010
Dear Wayne:
The Counci 1 of the City
on November 13, 1989, passec
the need to cooperate with c
managing stormwater runoff
share of the cost (based on
update the 1985 feasibility
Comprehensive stormwater Mar.
providing direction for devE
tributaries of the Roanoke F
attached for your informatic
If you have any questio
me.
~~~ ~
~~ ~ti~~
-_,~ys e
Forest G. Jones
Assistant City Manager
ing held
izing
.s in
~ rata
to
~,e of
of
on is
contact
FGJ:jcb
Fnclo~ ure
c: ./Elmer C. Hodge, Jr., Roanoke County Administrator
W. Robert Herbert, Roanoke City Manager
George Nester, Vinton Town Manager
John B. Williamson, III, Botetourt County Administrator
John Abbott, Salem City Engineer
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, November 13, 1989:
RESOLUTION 672
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A REGIONAL APPROACH TO WATERSHED PLANNING
AND STORbiWATFR MANAGEMENT FOR THE ROANOKE VALLEY
WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Commission, at the
request of Roanoke Valley governments, prepared a Feasibility
Study for a Roanoke Valley Comprehensive Stormwater Management
Program in 1985 which presented a detailed analysis of. (1) the
benefits of a regional Stormwater management program, (2)
drainage problems and future stormwater management concerns, (3)
existing local stormwater management programs, (4) databases for
stormwater management planning, (5) a proposed approach to
regional stormwater management planning, and (6) institutional
and regulatory issues affecting stormwater management; and
WHEREAS, this study determined that twenty-two of the
thirty-nine watersheds in the Roanoke Valley are
interjurisdictional and development activities in the upper
reaches of these tributaries will adversely affect areas
downstream; and
WHEREAS, the high cost of facilities encourages local
governments to have a plan and methods of examining possible
alternatives to find the most cost-effective solution; and
WHEREAS, a cooperative regional approach to watershed
planning and the managing of stormwater runoff .appears beneficial
to all communities in the Valley; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA, that the City of Salem recognizes the need to cooperate
with other Roanoke Valley governments in managing stormwater
runoff and supports a regional approach to developing watershed
master plans and a stormwater management program; and
BF IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Salem, as a first
step, will provide its pro rata share of the cost (based on
current population estimates) to update the 1985 feasibility
study for a Roanoke Valley Comprehensive Stormwater Management
Program for the purpose of providing direction for developing
watershed master plans of tributaries of the F.oanoke River. The
total cost for the update of the 1985 study will not exceed
$10,000, to be shared by the participating localities on a pro
rata basis.
Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as
follows:
Howard C:. Packett - Aye
Alexander M. Brown - Absent
Carl E. Tarpley, Jr. - Aye
W. Mac green - Aye
James E. Taliaferro - Absent
ATTEST:
Forest G. Jones
Clerk of Counci 1
City of Salem, Virginia
TOWN OF VINTON
P. O. BOX 338
VINTON. VIRGINIA 24179
(703) 983.0807
FAX (703) 983.0621
f.,EORGE W. NESTER
TOWN MANAGER
No~veutber 9, 1989
Mr. Wayne G. Strickland
Executive Director
Fifth Planning District Commission
P. 0. Box 2569
Roanoke, VA 24010
Dear Mr. Strickland: ..
Please find attached a copy of Resolution No. 789 announcing the Town of
Vinton's endorsement of the concept of a regional stormwater management and
agreeing to pay a prorata share of the cost for upgrading the 1985 Camp,
Dresser & McKee Storn~rater Management Study.
Should you have any questions or need additional information, do not hesitate
to contact me.
Sincerely,
George W. Nester
Tom Manager
GWN/cr
Attachment
cc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, Roanoke City Manager
Mr. Elmer C. Hodge, Roanoke County Administrator
Mr. Randolph M. Smith, Salem City Manager
Mr. John Williamson, Batetaurt County Administrator
Mr. Robert W. Benninger, P.E., Assistant Town Manager
RESOLUTION N0. 789
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE VIN'IC)N TOWN OOUNCIL HELD ON 1~7VIIKBER 7, 1989, IN
THE VINTnN MUNICIPAL BUILDING LOCATED AT 311 SOUTH POLLARD STREET, VINTON,
VIRGINIA 24179.
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A REGIONAL APPROACH Ta WATERSHED PLANNING AND SPURMSn~T-
ER MANAGII~TP FOR THE ROANOKE VALLEY.
WHEREAS, stormwater management is an important activity in a developing urban
area since development dramatically alters the runoff potential of
stormwater, compounding problems far downstream. Recent new develop-
ment in the Roanoke Valley, coupled with an unusually high rainfall
during 1989, has encouraged local governments to give greater oonsid-
eration to the long-term impacts of stormwater management and mechan-
isms for handling stormwater runoff; and
WHEREAS, the high cost of facility improvements encourages local governments
to anticipate problems before they occur and to have a method of
examining possible alternatives to find the most cost effective solu-
tion; and
WfiEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Commission, at the request of Roanoke
Valley governments, prepared a Feasibility Study for a Roanoke Val-
ley Com rehensive Stormwater Mans ement Pr
senzea;a aetailed anal sis of: o~~ in 1985 which pre-
y (1) the benefits of a regional
stormwater management program, (2) drair,~ge problems and future
stormwater management concerns, (3) existing d.ocal stormwater man-
agement programs, (4) databases for stormwater management plan-
ning, (5) a proposed approach to regional stormwater management
planning, and (6) institutional and regulatory issues affecting
stormwater management; and
WHEREAS, twenty-two of the thirty-nine watersheds in the Roanoke Valley are
interjurisdictional and development activities in the upper reaches
of these tributaries will affect flood management downstream; and
WHEREAS, a cooperative regional approach to watershed planning and the manag-
ing of stormwater runoff appears beneficial to all communities in
the vallex.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Vinton recognizes the need to
cooperate with other Roanoke Valley governments in managing stormwater runoff
and supports a regional approach to developing watershed master plans and
stormwater management program; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town of Vinton will provide its pro rata
share of the cost (based on current population estimates) to update the 1985
feasibility study for a Roanoke Valley Comprehensive Stormwater Management
Program for the purpose of developing watershed master plans of tributaries of
.,the Roanoke River. The total cost for the update of the 1985 study will not
exceed $10,000, to be shared by the participating localities on a pro rata
basis.
This Resolution adopted on motion made by Councilman Sandifer
and seconded by Councilman Altice with the following
votes being recorded:
AYES S
~py~ 0
BY:
~ ~'
~Q
-/
Charles R. 11, Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk Council
STORMWATER TECHNICAL SUBCOMMITTEE GROUP
Charles Huffine and John Peters
Roanoke City Engineering Dept.
215 Church Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24011
Mr. John Abbott
Salem City Engineer
P.O. Box 869
Salem, VA 24153
Mr. John Hubbard
Asst. Roanoke County Administrator
P.O. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018
Mr. Bob Benninger
Asst. Vinton Town Manager
P.O. Box 338
Vinton, VA 24179
Mr. Ned McElwaine
Asst. Botetourt County Administrator
1 W. Main Street, Box 1
Fincastle, VA 24090
W. E. Wright
Virginia Department of Transportation
Salem Office
P.O. Box 3071
Salem, VA 24153
Mike Scanlan
State Water Control Board
P.O. Box 7017
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
David Nunnally
Division of Soil & Water Conservation
P.O. Box 1506
Dublin, VA 24084
O~ POANO,y-F
~~
Z
o Z
v a
18 E5o as
v
SFSQUICEN7ENN~P
A Beau~i'ulBeRinnin~;
Cnuixn~~ of ~-Rv~tnnkr
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ~
ELMER C HODGE
~, ~(A/,~
~~~ J y
t \ /~~~
~'~"~ ~ January 5, 198
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
LEE GARRETT. CHAIRMAN
`.'11N DSOR HiLL~ MAGISTERIAL DI;iTRICT
RICHARDWEROBNRMAGI TERAHDISTRCIT
BOB L. JOHNSON
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
STEVEN A. MCGRAW
CAT qyV BA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
.
~
~
fs 8
Rev. an and Katherine Rowbothan ~~-l' ~U~
nity of RoanokeValley Church ~ T
3300 Green Ridge Road, N•W•
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Dear Reverends Rowbothan:
n behalf of the Board of Supervisors, I would like to thank you
0
for iving the invocation at the Board of Supervisors' meeting in
g
the past.
ou to present the invocation on
We would again like to cell on Y m. If you are unable to do
Tuesday, June 13, 1989,,1at 3:00 p. ou soon to
lease call me a~ 772-2005. I wino be f ayounwould prefer
this, p table to you,
see if this time is ac~~cep
another date. and
fe aware of how busy your schedule is,
The Board members fur volunteering the time to offer God's
they appreciate y~ .
blessing at their Meetings.
Sincerely,
13~,^-~~~' ~
Brenda J. Holton, Secretary
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
,~ ~
r U ;~~~
~, ;>' J ~
~t
~~
p O, BOX 29800 - R ANOKE
VIRGINIA ?_4018-0798 (-703i 7722004
G. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
H. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
r ..'
I. APPOINTMENTS
//
=X ~S~ 1. Community Corrections Resources Board
2, Health Department Board of Directors
3. Industrial Development Authority
4. Library Board
5. Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley
Community Services Board.
RR NOMINATED REAPPOINTMENT
OF SUE IVY
~~ ~" 6. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
r' =~z
7. Regional Partnership Site Advisory Committee
$. Roanoke County Resource Authority
9, Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and
Family Services Advisory Board
J. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
ROBERS (1) REPORTED ON PROGRESS ON THE PROPOSED "SMART HIGHWAY" -
UPDATED BOARD ON MEETINGS WITH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; (2)
MET WITH RANDALL EDWARDSTHERNRVA.MCOME TOITHESROANOKEjJVALLEYNG
BUSINESS PEOPLE FROM NOR
MCGRAW HIGHLIGHTED EVENTS IATION OFCVACONFROMNTHEOVIRGINIA2-14.
ALSO ANNOUNCED THE DISASSOC
REVIEW MAGAZINE.
3
2, An ordinance to change the zoning classification
of approximately 15 acres of real estate located
at the end of Benois Road in the Cave Spring
Magisterial District from R-1 to M-1 for
industrial development with conditions upon the
application of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia.
3. An ordinance to change the zoning classification
of approximately 35 acres of real estate generally
located south of I-81 .and west of Plantation Road
in the Hollins Magisterial District from R-1 to M-
1 for mixed-use development with conditions upon
the application of the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia.
4. An ordinance to change the zoning classification
of approximately 8 acres of real estate located at
the southeast corner of the intersection of State
Route 643 and I-81 in the Catawba Magisterial
District from B-2 to M-1 for industrial lication
development with conditions upon the app
of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia.
5. An ordinance to am~oximatelyt25eacres locatedneast
designation of app
of Carvins Cove Dam Road and immediately north of
I-81 in the Catawba Magisterial District from
Development to Principal Industrial.
6. An ordinance to change the zoning classification
of approximately 125 acres of real estate located
south of Routes 11 and 460, south and west of
Barley Drive and the N&W railway in the Catawba
Magisterial District from A-1MH to M-1 for
industrial development with conditions upon the
application of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia.
7. An ordinance to issue a Use-NotiPcationdofoGregory
Permit with conditions upon app
Pierce to operate a training/education center on
approximately 72 acres of real estate located
northwest of the intersection of Routes 637 and
631 in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District.
g. PUBLIC HEARING AND SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
3
AWARDS WERE PLACED ON DISPLAY AND RECOGNIZED BY LG AND BLJ•
D• NEW BUSINESS
1, Request from the Planning Commission for an
Interstate 81 Corridor Study.
A-102489-1
AMENDED MOTION
g~/RWR TO APPROVE REQUESE~~ ~NTTBUDGETUFOR THISFyEAR,GAND B
TAKEN FROM THE ECONOMIC D
THAT THE COUNTY ~TICIPA ETOR(INCL DINGMONTGOMERY COUNTY)
GOVERNMENTS TO PAR
URC
2, Ratification of certain terms of $1,115,000
General Obligation School Bonds.
R-102489-2
BI,J/SAM TO APPROVE RESOLUTION
URC
E. REQUEST FOR WORK SESSIONS
NONE
g. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
NONE
G. REQUESTS ~gDINpIIiBNCEB HE ONSENT AGENDAT BEADING FOR
REZONING
BLJ/HCN TO APPROVE SECOND READINGS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
FOR 11-28-89
URC
1, An ordinance to amend the Future Land Use Plan map
designation of approximately 54 acres located west
of Hollins Road and south of Lois Lane in the
Hollins Magisterial District from Development to
Principal and to change the zoning classification
from R-1 to M-1 for industrial developication of
purposes with conditions upon the app
the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
2
` . __ _..
LEGAL NOTICE
ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public
hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, November 28, 1989 in the Community
Room of the Roanoke o° hear the following orequestsrl 3738 Brambleton
Avenue, Roanoke, VA, t
1. Petition of Roanoke County Board of Superviso rox°mately t54
Future Land Use Plan map designation of app
acres from Development to Principal Industrial and to rezone
said property from R-1 to M-1 for industrial development,
located west of Hollins Road and south of Lois Lane, Hollins
Magisterial District.
2. Petition of Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to rezone
approximately lcatedrat the end of Benois Road, CavesSpring
development, to
Magisterial District.
3. Petition of Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to rezone
approximately 35 acres from R-1 to M-1 for mixed use
development, generally located south of I-81 and west of
Plantation Road, Hollins Magisterial Distrervisors to rezone
4. Petition of Roanoke County Board of Sup
approximately 8 acres from B-2 to M-1 fo.r industrial develop-
ment, located at the southeast corner of the intersection of
SR 643 and I-81, Catawba Magisterial District.
5. Petition of Roanoke County Board of Superviso rox °mately t25
Future Land Use Plan map designation of app
acres from DeveDammRoadtoimmediapelylnorthroflI-81Ca Catawba
of Carvins Cove
Magisterial District.
6. Petition of Roanoke County Board of Supervisors to rezone
approximately 125 acres from A-1MH to M-1 for industrial
development-ivecanddtheuN&W Railway,lCatawba Magisterial
of Barley Dr
District.
A copy of this application is available for inspection in the
Department of Planning and Zoning, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke,
VA.
.~~ ~.
Dated: November 6, 1989 Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Please publish in the evening edition
of the Roanoke Times & World-News
Tuesday, November 14, 1989
Tuesday, November 21, 1989
Direct the bill for publication to:
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
P.O. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018
(703) 772-2003
TELECOPY INFORMATION
30 October 1989
TO:
Name: Martha Plank
Firm• Roanoke Times and World News
Location: Legal Ad Department
Telecopy No: 981-3365
No. of Pages: 1
FROM:
Name: Mary Allen, Clerk
Firm• Roanoke County, Virginia
Location: 3738 Brambleton Avenue
P. O. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018-0798
Telepcopy No: 703-772-2030
Telephone No: 703-772-2003
1. Ordinance amending Sections 10-4 and 10-15 and
adding Section 10-19, Chapter 10, Licenses of the
Roanoke County Code.
NO ONE SPORE
0-X02489-3
RWR/HCN - IIRC
2. Ordinance amending Chapter 8, "Erosion and
Sediment Control", of the Roanoke County Code by
amending Section 8-11 (a), "Control Measures
Gener~.lly" to provide .for the adoption of
stormwater management criteria; and Resolution
adopting a new section of the Design and
Construction Standards Manual entitled "Stormwater
Management Criteria."
NO ONE SPORE
HCN/SAM TO CONTINUE-ggB~LiIIEETINAGR•ING AND CONSIDERATION OF SECO
READING UNTIL 11-28
URC
BLJ REQUESTED STAFFU~RLYIGOINGCFROMR10E2 TOF50~.l0IAND SHOW TABLE
SPECIFICITY, PARTIC
REGARDING DRAINAGE BASIN.
LG/SAM EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 3:30 P.M. - URC
OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION - 4:15 P.M.
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SESSION AT 4:17 P.M.
R-102489-4
LG/SAM - URC
COMMITTEE VACANCIES IN 1989
JANUARY
Court~Service Unit Advisory Council
Services Advisory Board
/Youth and Family
Two year term of Hoyt C. Rath, Vinton District, will
expire 1/26/89.
FEBRUARY
Electoral Board - Appointed by the Courts
MARCH
JUNE
Three year term of Mrs. May Johnson will expire
2/28/89.
Council/Youth and Famil
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•
Court Service Unit Adviso
Services Advisory Board
League of Older Americans
One year term of Webb Johnson,
will expire 3/31/89.
County Representative,
Board of Zonin A eals - A ointed b Jud e of Circuit
Court
Five Year term of Neil W. Owen will expire 6/30/89.
Three year terms of Richard W. Robers, Fred Anderson
and John Hubbard, Citizen Representative and Executive
Committee will expire 6/30/89.
Fifth Plannin District Commission
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.
SEPTEMBER
Court Service UnitBoardsor Council/Youth and Famil
cArvices Advisory
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. BarachVinton District will
District, and W. Darnall Viny
expire 9/26/89•
Grievance Panel
Two year term of Kim Owens will expire 9/27/89•
NOVEMBER
Health De artment Board of Directors
Two year term of Susan Adcock will expires 11/26/89.
DECEMBER
Library Board
Four year term of RichaMd•KKirkwood resignedDl2/88ct,
will expire 12/21/89•
Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valle Communit
Services Board
Three year term of Sue Ivey, County appointee, will
expire 12/31/89.
Roanoke Count Plannin Commission
Four year term of Wayland Winstead, Catawba District,
will expire 12/31/89.
• Roanoke County Resource Authorit
Initial terms of Lee Garrett, Bob L.1989nson and Henry
C. Nickens will expire December 31,
Re Tonal Partnershi Site Advisor Committee
Three year term of Charles Saul will expire 12/21/89•
a RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A REGIONAL APPROACH
TO WATERSHED PLANNING AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
FOR THE ROANOKE VALLEY
WHEREAS, the Fifth Planning District Commission, at the
request of Roanoke Valley governments, prepared a Feasibility
Study for a Roanoke Valley Comprehensive Stormwater Management
Program in 1985 which presented a detailed analysis of: (1) the
benefits of a regional stormwater management program, (2)
drainage problems and future stormwater management concerns, (3)
existing local stormwater management programs, (4) databases for
stormwater management planning, (5) a proposed approach to
regional stormwater management planning, and (6) institutional
and regulatory issues affecting stormwater management; and
WHEREAS, this study determined that twenty-two of the
thirty-nine watersheds in the Roanoke Valley are
interjurisdictional and development activities in the upper
reaches of these tributaries will adversely affect areas
downstream; and
WHEREAS, the high cost of facilities encourages local
governments to have a plan and methods of examining possible
alternatives to find the most cost-effective solution; and
WHEREAS, a cooperative regional approach to watershed
planning and management of stormwater runoff appears beneficial
to all communities in the Valley;
~~ ~ ~~
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the 2~e~~-..~;., ;r
~Ree~kq recognizes the need to cooperate with other Roanoke
Valley governments in managing stormwater runoff and supports a
regional approach to developing watershed master plans and a
stormwater management program; and ~C i- ~ S
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the L7 , as
will provide its pro rata share of the cost (based
on current population estimates) to update the 1985 feasibility
study for a Roanoke Valley Comprehensive Stormwater Management
Program for the purpose of providing direction for developing
watershed master plans of tributaries of the Roanoke River. The
total cost for the update of the 1985 study will not exceed
$10,000, to be shared by the participating localities on a pro
rata basis.
~ /..~ ...
PUBLIC NOTICE
Please be advised that the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, at its meeting on November 28, 1989, at the
Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton Avenue,
Roanoke, Virginia, at the evening session beginning at 7:00 p.m.
will hold a public hearing on the following:
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8, "EROSION AND SEDIMENT
CONTROL" OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BY AMENDING SECTION
8-11(a), "CONTROL MEASURES GENERALLY" TO PROVIDE FOR THE
ADOPTION OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CRITERIA
All members of the public interested in the matter set forth
above may appear and be heard at the time and place aforesaid.
<~~ ~
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
Roanoke County, Virginia
Publish on the following dates in the morning edition:
November 14, 1989
November 21, 1989
Send invoice to:
Ms. Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Board of Supervisors
P. O. Box 29800
Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798
w
TELECOPY INFORMATION
31 October 1989
TO:
Name: Martha Plank
Firm' Roanoke Times and World News
Location: Legal Ad Department
Telecopy No: 981-3365
No. of Pages:
FROM:
Name: Sue Gubala
Roanoke County, Virginia
Firm:
Location: 3738 Brambleton Avenue
P. O. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018-0798
Telepcopy No: 703-772-2030
Telephone No: 703-772-2007
~~~
Pbe &Cronk
REAL ESTATE GROUI? INC.
800 Professional Arts Building
30 W. Franklin Road
Roanoke, Vrginia 24011
703/982-2444
Fax/342-8549
November 1, 1989
Mr. John Hartley
County of Roanoke
Department of Planning and Zoning
P. O. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018-0798
Dear John,
:1;
T ~a e ~f~~
` ty~ t~ Y~ t'K+.i ~ I ~. "CI
Np~ ~ ~~
p ~~9
jQ1~lryG .
ny
Per the instruction of my client, Mr. G
Glenn Drive, Marietta, Georgia 30067,
application for the Use Not Provided
Education/Training center on Route 631. We
on our behalf and look forward to working
future.
Sincerely,
reg Pierce, 1858 Hidden
I am withdrawing the
For permit for the
appreciate your efforts
with you again in the
Ronald K. Testerman
Dennis R. Cronk, CCIM
William D. Poe, CCIM, CPM
Michael M. Waldvogel, CCIM
M. Dale Poe, CCIM, SIOR
MANAGEMENT GROUP
Thomas M. Hubard
Norma L Carden
Tammy G. Allman
SALES GROUP
Joseph W. Carter
John R. Dickinson
James R. Lindsey, Jr.
Deborah J. Robinson
Ronald K Testerman
LEGAL NOTICE
ROANORE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors will hold a public
hearing at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, November 28, 1989, in the Community
Room of the Roanoke County Administration Center, 3738 Brambleton
Avenue, Roanoke, VA, on the petition of Gregory Pierce for a Use Not
Provided For Permit with conditions to operate a training/
educational center on approximately 72 acres located northwest of
the intersection of Routes 637 and 631, in the Windsor Hills
Magisterial District.
A copy of this application is available for inspection in the
Department of Planning and Zoning, 3738 Brambleton Avenue, Roanoke,
VA.
Dated: October 12, 1989 Mary H. A len, Clerk
Please publish in the evening edition
of the Roanoke Times & World-News
Tuesday, November 14, 1989
Tuesday, November 21, 1989
To be paid on delivery
~~
~t.,c..bl'~c~ ~4
~~ ~ ~~
Zoning:
Comprehensive
Plan Designation:
Access:
Water:
Sewer:
Availability:
M2, Al
Development
Carson Road
Off site
On site
Owners wish to sell a portion of the property
for economic development purposes.
Recommendation: Amend Comprehensive Plan to Principal
Industrial.
Rezone to M1.
Place Carson Road in VDOT Secondary plan for
improvement.
Extend water service to site.
Fiscal Impact: 1994 for water improvements; 1995-96 for VDOT
improvements.
Department of Site name: Dowdy Property
Economic Development Size: 115 acres