HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/24/1990 - Regular~~ ~
F
a ~
18 ',~50. 88
+EE~UICEMTEMN~'~
~ B~~rr~fulB~~nning
~AIYIifI~ I1f ~II~InIIkP
ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ACTION AGENDA
JULY 24, 1990
All-AMERICA CRY
~ ~~ ~
~~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.
THERE WILL BE NO EVENING SESSION TONIGHT AT 7:00 P.M. AS
THERE ARE NO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. OPENING CEREMONIES (3:00 P.M.)
1. Roll Call. ALL PRESENT AT 3:00 P.M.
2. Invocation: The Reverend Arthur E. Grant
Woodlawn United Methodist Church
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. Resolution of Appreciation to Virginia Amateur Sports,
Inc. and CorEast Savings Bank for bringing the 1990
Virginia .State Games to the Roanoke Valley.
i
R-72490-1 HCN TO ADOPT RESOLUTION - URC
DOUGLAS FONDER, EXE DIR, VA AMATEUR SPORT, AND ANDY
SHUMATE, REG EXE, COREAST, PRESENT TO RECEIVE RESO
2. Recognition of Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance, for
winning National Association of Counties Information
Officers Award for Excellence for the Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report.
DIANE HYATT PRESENT TO BE RECOGNIZED
D. NEW BUSINESS
1. Yearly report from the Roanoke County Health
Department.
CANCELLED DUE TO DR. HAGAN CONFLICT IN SCHEDULE
2. Approval of Resolution requesting Virginia Association of
Counties to consider certain issues of statewide
significance for adoption in its 1991 Legislative Program.
R-72490-2
HCN TO ADOPT RESOLUTION - URC
3. Claim of Kenneth L. Wright and Mary Y. Wright for
punitive damages in relation to drainage maintenance
project in Penn Forest Subdivision.
A-72490-3
HCN MOTION THAT CLAIM BE DENIED - URC
4. Request for authorization for participation in the FEMA
Community Rating System.
A-72490-4
HCN MOTION TO PROCEED WITH APPLICATION - URC
E. REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS
a
LBE REQUESTED DATES FOR WORK SESSION WITH PLANNING
COMII~IISSION. STAFF HAS ONE DATE ACCEPTABLE TO PL~INIVING
C011~IlVHSSION BUT WILL OBTAIN ADDITIONAL DATES FROM
BOARD MEMBERS.
F. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
NONE
G. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING
FOR REZONING ORDINANCE -CONSENT AGENDA
BI;T TO APPROVE FIRST READING
PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8/28/90
URC
1. An ordinance modifying an existing Planned Unit
Development plan on a 2 acre tract generally located
within the Stonehenge PUD, south of Kelly Lane in the
Cave Spring Magisterial District. This request is to
permit the construction of a 16 unit, single building
condominium, upon the request of J. Allison Associates.
2. An ordinance modifying the proffered conditions on a
24.94 acre tract to increase the size (number of
bedrooms) of a portion of the 264 apartment units
previously approved; located on the west side of Colonial
Avenue, near the intersection of Ogden Road in the Cave
Spring Magisterial District, upon the request of
Occidental Development Ltd.
3. An ordinance modifying the proffered conditions on
approximately .25 acres to allow the use of the property
for atake-out restaurant and food service, with the
existing office and video store, located at 5314 Fallowater
Drive in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the
request of John Lee Davenport.
3
4. An ordinance rezoning two parcels containing a total of
approximately 1.78 acres from R-1 to B-1 for office uses,
located on the west side of Starkey Road north of its
intersection with Buck Mountain Road in the Cave
Spring Magisterial District, upon the request of Thomas
Scarce.
5. An ordinance rezoning approximately .028 acres from B-
2 to M-1 to expand an existing grocery to include the
sale of tires and related services, located at the southern
intersection of State Route 904 (Starkey Road) and 632
(Crescent Blvd.), in the Cave Spring Magisterial District,
upon the request of Norman T. Wright.
6. An ordinance to modify the proffered conditions on a
2.25 acre parcel to permit the construction and operation
of a retail drive-thru window, located at 4515 Brambleton
Avenue in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon
the request of Springwood Associates.
H. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance authorizing the conveyance of surplus real
estate and the acquisition of real estate and right-of--way
for the Fort Lewis E-911 tower site.
0-72490-5
HCN TO WAIVE SECOND READING AND ADOPT ORD - URC
I. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance imposing or increasing user fees for the Parks
and Recreation Department.
FIVE CITIZENS SPOKE
HCN MOTION STAFF RECONIlVIENDATION OF ADOPTING THE
REVISED ORD AND AMENDING BUDGET BY $30,650, WITH
4
MODIFICATION IN PARAGRAPH C, PAGE 3 OF ORD
LBE SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO DELAY SECOND READING UNTIL
8/14/90 FOR STAFF TO BRING BACK REPORT CONCERNING
PERCENTAGE OF YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN OTHER CATEGORIES,
INCLUDING ALTERNATIVES AND EVALUATION OF DIFFERENTIAL
FEES BETWEEN YOUTHS AND ADULTS, WITH DOLLAR COST
AYES - LBE, BLJ, RWR
NAYS -SAM, HCN
2. Ordinance authorizing the reconveyance of the former
joint fire station site in the Roanoke-Botetourt Industrial
Park to the Greater Roanoke Valley Development
Foundation and the Roanoke Valley Development
Corporation.
0-72490-6
BLJ TO ADOPT ORD - URC
BLJ DIRECTED THAT LETTER OF APPRECIATION FOR DONATION
BE SENT
J. REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
SUPERVISOR EDDY: RECEIVED BOARD CONCURRENCE FOR
COUNTY ATTY AND ZONING DIR TO EVALUATE NOISE AND
ZONING ORDINANCES IN VIEW OF RECENT NEIGHBORHOOD
PARTY.
SUPERVISOR MCGRAW: REPORTED ON HIS ATTENDANCE
REPRESENTING ROANOKE COUNTY AND VACO AT NACO
CONFERENCE IN FLORIDA.
SUPERVISOR TOHNSON- REQUESTED THAT KEITH COOK
STUDY AND EVALUATE CONTRACT FOR DEFERRED
COMPENSATION PROGRAM FOR COMPETITIVE RATES.
SUPERVISOR NICKENS: (1) REQUESTED THAT COUNTY
ADM TOGETHER WITH DR WILSON BRING CONTINGENCY PLAN
5
TO 8/14/90 MEETING SHOULD THERE BE REDUCTION IN AID TO
LOCALITIES FROM GOVERNOR (2) REQUESTED THAT COUNTY
REIlVIBURSE THOSE RECREATION CLUBS THAT PURCHASED THE
LIABILITY INSURANCE TO OPERATE VENDING. (3) EXPRESSED
APPRECIATION THAT AGENDA PACKET WAS RECEIVED ONE DAY
EARLIER THAN USUAL.
lK. APPOINTMENTS
1. Board of Zoning Appeals
2. Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals
3. Community Corrections Resource Board
4. Landfill Citizens Advisory Committee
5. Southwest Virginia Health Systems Agency
A-72490-7
LBE NOMINATED AND APPOINTED RWR
SECONDED BY SAM - URC
L. 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 WII.L BE REMOVED FROM THE
CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED
SEPARATELY.
R-72490-8
BLJ WITH MINOR CORRECTIONS TO MAPS ON ITEMS 3, 4, 5, 6
UW
1. Approval of Raffle Permit -The Knights Booster Club at
Cave Spring High School.
6
A-72490-8.a
2. Acknowledgement from the Virginia Department of
Transportation of the acceptance of 0.45 mile of Cedar
Edge Road (Route 2035) into the Secondary System.
A-72490-8.b
3. Resolution requesting changes in Secondary System due
to relocation and reconstruction of Sugarloaf Mountain
Road (Route 692).
R-72490-8.c
4. Resolution requesting changes in Secondary System due
to relocation and reconstruction of Roselawn Road
(Route 689).
R-72490-8.d
5. Resolution requesting changes in Secondary System due
to relocation and reconstruction of Brookridge Road
(Route 660).
R-72490-8.e
6. Resolution requesting changes in Secondary System due
to relocation and reconstruction of Tinsley Lane (Route
711).
R-72490-8.f
7. Authorization to settle pending litigation with Fabricated
Metals, Inc. for outstanding utility bills.
A-72490-8.g
8. Resolution supporting Total Action Against Poverty's
application for grant from the Virginia Indoor Plumbing
Program.
R-72490-8.h
M. CITIZENS' CO11~IlV~NTS AND COA~IlVIUIVICATIONS
NONE
N. REPORTS
LBE RECEIVE AND FILE N.1, 2, 3 AND REQUESTED COUNTY
ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS N. 4, 5, 6 - URC
1. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
3. Board Contingency Fund
4. Report on Hidden Valley drainage complaint -Mrs.
Graham/Mr. Flora
HCN MOTION TO REFER THIS MATTER TO SCHOOL BOARD AND
]INFORM MRS. GRAHAM AND MR. FLORA - URC WITH BLJ ABSENT
5. Report on Disposal of Animal Waste (TO BE
PROVIDED BY COUNTY ATTORNEY)
LBE REQUESTED COUNTY ATTY AND COUNTY ADM. WRITE
LETTER TO OWNER OF SEABOARD WITH STRONG SUGGESTION
TO FOLLOW DIRECTIVES IN PAST.
BOARD CONCURRED THAT COUNTY ATTY PROCEED WITH
LETTER TO STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD TO ENCOURAGE
PROCEEDING WITH THEIR ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES.
LBE REQUESTED THAT ECON DEV DIR BE CONSULTED IN
PREPARATION OF LETTERS.
6. Report on Penalty for Late Filing of Personal Property
Tax (TO BE PROVIDED BY COUNTY ATTORNEY)
HCN MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR DISCUSSION
ACCORDING TO SECTION 2.1-344 (a) ('n LEGAL MATTERS OR
PENDING LITIGATION.
s
SAM SUBSTITUTE MOTION THAT IF BOARD WANTS TO DISCUSS
FURTHER, ONLY WAY TO DISCUSS WOULD BE IN EXE SESSION
AYES -SAM, HCN, RWR
NAYS - LBE
ABSENT - BLJ
HCN MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ACCORDING TO
SECTION 2.1-344 (a) (7) LEGAL MATTERS OR PENDING
LITIGATION.
AYES - LBE, HCN, RWR
NAYS -SAM
ABSENT - BLJ
O. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia
Section 2.1-344 (a)
HCN MOTION AS ABOVE AT 4:55 P.M.
P. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION
R-72490-9
HCN MOTION AT 5:15 P.M.
URC - BI~J ABSENT
Q. ADJOURNMENT
HCN MOTION AT 5:17 P.M.
URC - BLJ ABSENT
9
~N ~
F
a ~
.. ;p
,.. ALL-AMERICA CI1Y
n~ ~~ ..~~
~ ~rtuk~
8 ~ 88
+E~~!/ICENTEMN~~~
Buun~u/Bt~rrn~eg ~ • 9 .V . Q
ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA
JULY 24, 1990
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 hearin s are held at 7:
g 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 Arthur E. Grant
Woodlawn United Methodist Church
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
i
1. Resolution of Appreciation to Virginia Amateur Sports,
Inc. and CorEast Savings Bank for bringing the 1990
Virginia State Games to the Roanoke Valley.
2. Recognition of Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance, for
winning National Association of Counties Information
Officers Award for Excellence for the Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report.
D• NEW BUSINESS
1. Yearly report from the Roanoke County Health
Department.
2• Approval of Resolution requesting Virginia Association of
Counties to consider certain issues of statewide
significance for adoption in its 1991 Legislative Program.
3. Claim of Kenneth L. Wright and Mary Y. Wright for
punitive damages in relation to drainage maintenance
project in Penn Forest Subdivision.
4. Request for authorization for participation in the FEMA
Community Rating System.
E- REQUESTS FOR WORK SESSIONS
F• REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
G. REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING
FOR REZONING ORDINANCE _ CONSENT AGENDA
2
1. An ordinance modifying an existing Planned Unit
Development plan on a 2 acre tract generally located
within the Stonehenge PUD, south of Kelly Lane in the
Cave Spring Magisterial District. This request is to
permit the construction of a 16 unit, single building
condominium, upon the request of J. Allison Associates.
2. An ordinance modifying the proffered conditions on a
24.94 acre tract to increase the size (number of
bedrooms) of a portion of the 264 apartment units
previously approved; located on the west side of Colonial
Avenue, near the intersection of Ogden Road in the Cave
Spring Magisterial District, upon the request of
Occidental Development Ltd.
3. An ordinance modifying the proffered conditions on
approximately .25 acres to allow the use of the property
for stake-out restaurant and food service, with the
existing office and video store, located at 5314 Fallowater
Drive in the Cave Spring Magisterial District, upon the
request of John Lee Davenport.
4. An ordinance rezoning two parcels containing a total of
approximately 1.78 acres from R-1 to B-1 for office uses,
located on the west side of Starkey Road north of its
intersection with Buck Mountain Road in the Cave
Spring Magisterial District, upon the request of Thomas
Scarce.
5. An ordinance rezoning approximately .028 acres from B-
2 to M-1 to expand an existing grocery to include the
sale of tires and related services, located at the southern
intersection of State Route 904 (Starkey Road) and 632
(Crescent Blvd.), in the Cave Spring Magisterial District,
upon the request of Norman T. Wright.
6• An ordinance to modify the proffered conditions on a
2.25 acre parcel to permit the construction and operation
of a retail drive-thru window, located at 4515 Brambleton
3
Avenue in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District, upon
the request of Springwood Associates.
H. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance authorizing the conveyance of surplus real
estate and the acquisition of real estate and right-of--way
for the Fort Lewis E-911 tower site.
I. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
1. Ordinance imposing or increasing user fees for the Parks
and Recreation Department.
Z. Ordinance authorizing the reconveyance of the former
joint fire station site in the Roanoke-Botetourt Industrial
Park to the Greater Roanoke Valley Development
Foundation and the Roanoke Valley Development
Corporation.
1• REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
K. APPOINTMENTS
1. Board of Zoning Appeals
2. Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals
3. Community Corrections Resource Board
4• Landfill Citizens Advisory Committee
5• Southwest Virginia Health Systems Agency
4
L. CONSENT AGENDA
ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA
ARE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD TO BE ROUTINE AND
WII,L 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• Approval of Raffle Permit -The Knights Booster Club at
Cave Spring High School.
2. Acknowledgement from the Virginia Department of
Transportation of the acceptance of 0.45 mile of Cedar
Edge Road (Route 2035) into the Secondary System.
3. Resolution requesting changes in Secondary System due
to relocation and reconstruction of Sugarloaf Mountain
Road (Route 692).
4. Resolution requesting changes in Secondary System due
to relocation and reconstruction of Roselawn Road
(Route 689).
5. Resolution requesting changes in Secondary System due
to relocation and reconstruction of Brookridge Road
(Route 660).
G. Resolution requesting changes in Secondary System due
to relocation and reconstruction of Tinsley Lane (Route
711).
7. Authorization to settle pending litigation with Fabricated
Metals, Inc. for outstanding utility bills.
8• Resolution supporting Total Action Against Poverty's
application for grant from the Virginia Indoor Plumbing
Program
M. CI'T'IZENS' COMII~NTS AND C011,IlVIUNICATIONS
N. REPORTS
1. Capital Fund Unappropriated Balance
2. General Fund Unappropriated Balance
3. Board Contingency Fund
4. Report on Hidden Valley drainage complaint -Mrs.
Graham/Mr. Flora
5. Report on Disposal of Animal Waste (TO BE
PROVIDED BY COUNTY ATTORNEY)
6. Report on Penalty for Late Filing of Personal Property
Tax (TO BE PROVIDED BY COUNTY ATTORNEY)
O. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to the Code of Virginia
Section 2.1-344 (a)
P. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION
Q• ADJOURNMENT
6
r
'~
t,.--
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1990
RESOLUTION 72490-1 OF APPRECIATION TO VIRGINIA AMATEUR
SPORTS, INC. AND COREAST SAVINGS BANK FOR BRINGING THE
1990 VIRGINIA STATE GAMES TO THE ROANORE VALLEY
WHEREAS, Virginia Amateur Sports, Inc., planned, promoted
and presented the 1990 Virginia State Games, providing an
opportunity to athletes from all over the Commonwealth to
participate in the various events; and
WHEREAS, thousands of people visited the Roanoke Valley
during the three days of the Games, providing an economic benefit
to area businesses; and
WHEREAS, CorEast Savings Bank sponsored the 1990 Virginia
State Games, providing funding and support to Virginia Amateur
Sports, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the 1990 Virginia State Games were a tremendous
success and an event of which the Roanoke Valley can be proud.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors hereby expresses its appreciation, and the
appreciation of its citizens to VIRGINIA AMATEUR SPORTS, INC., and
to COREAST SAVINGS BANK for bringing the 1990 Virginia State Games
to the Roanoke Valley; and
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board
of Supervisors extends its sincere wishes for the continued success
of the Games in the Roanoke Valley.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
-~~-~c/
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Resolutions of Appreciation File
C~/
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1990
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO VIRGINIA AMATEUR SPORTS,
INC. AND COREAST SAVINGS BANK FOR BRINGING THE 1990
VIRGINIA STATE GAMES TO THE ROANORE VALLEY
WHEREAS, Virginia Amateur Sports, Inc., planned, promoted
and presented the 1990 Virginia State Games, providing an
opportunity to athletes from all over the Commonwealth to
participate in the various events; and
WHEREAS, thousands of people visited the Roanoke Valley
during the three days of the Games, providing an economic benefit
to area businesses; and
WHEREAS, CorEast Savings Bank sponsored the 1990 Virginia
State Games, providing funding and support to Virginia Amateur
Sports, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the 1990 Virginia State Games were a tremendous
success and an event of which the Roanoke Valley can be proud.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors hereby expresses its appreciation, and the
appreciation of its citizens to VIRGINIA AMATEUR SPORTS, INC., and
to COREAST SAVINGS BANK for bringing the 1990 Virginia State Games
to the Roanoke Valley; and
FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roanoke County Board
of Supervisors extends its sincere wishes for the continued success
of the Games in the Roanoke Valley.
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER -°
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 24, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Yearly Report from the Roanoke County Health
Department
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION•
Dr. Margaret Hagan, Director of the Alleghany Health District, has
requested time on the agenda to review the activities of the Health
Department in Roanoke County during the past year.
~,.' f
L ,~~ -~
~r;,~z Elmer Hodge
County Administrator
--------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To ( )
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
,_.
'.~ ° °~,,
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON
TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1990
RESOLUTION 72490-2 REQUESTING THE VIRGINIA
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES TO CONSIDER CERTAIN
ISSUES OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE FOR ADOPTION
IN ITS 1991 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Virginia Association of Counties annually adopts
a legislative program for submission to the General Assembly for
the Commonwealth of Virginia; and,
WHEREAS, the Virginia Association of Counties has requested
its membership to submit to it issues of statewide significance for
consideration and adoption in its 1991 legislative program; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
has considered and debated a variety of issues of statewide
significance for consideration by the membership of the
Association.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1) That the following issues of statewide significance are
hereby submitted to the Virginia Association of Counties for the
consideration of its membership for adoption in the 1991
legislative program:
a) Support the findings, conclusions and
recommendations of the Grayson Commission;
b) Support additional State funding for human services
needs, including Medicaid reimbursement and funding
for mandated programs, administrative costs and
equipment costs; and
1
c) Support the enactment of legislation granting equal
borrowing and taxation powers for cities and
counties.
2) That the Clerk is hereby requested to mail a certified
copy of this resolution to the Virginia Association of Counties.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens to adopt resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTS:
-~• ~~c~
Mary H. lien, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
Virginia Association of Counties
2
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: July 24, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: 1991 Legislative Program, Virginia Association of
Counties
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY•
The Virginia Association of Counties requested its membership
to identify issues of statewide concern that could be considered
in the adoption of its 1991 legislative program. This agenda item
and draft resolution suggests several issues for Board considera-
tion.
BACKGROUND•
At its meeting on June 26, 1990 and its work session on July
10, 1990, the Board discussed various issues for submission to the
Virginia Association of Counties for its consideration in the
adoption of a legislative program for the 1991 session of the
Virginia General Assembly.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Based upon Board decisions at its work session on July 10,
1990, the following three issues are suggested for adoption and
submission to the Virginia Association of Counties:
a) Support the findings, conclusions and recommendations of
the Grayson Commission;
b) Support additional State funding for human services
needs, including Medicaid reimbursement and funding for
mandated programs, administrative costs and equipment
costs; and
c) Support the enactment of legislation granting equal
borrowing and taxation powers for cities and counties.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
~-a
It is recommended that the Board adopt the attached Resolution
for submission to the Virginia Association of Counties, for its
consideration in the adoption of the 1991 legislative program.
Respectfully submitted,
6~.X. ~1.. °~M.
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
Action
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
to
Motion by
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
Vote
No Yes Abs
''
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON
TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1990
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION
OF COUNTIES TO CONSIDER CERTAIN ISSUES OF
STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE FOR ADOPTION IN ITS
1991 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Virginia Association of Counties annually adopts
a legislative program for submission to the General Assembly for
the Commonwealth of Virginia; and,
WHEREAS, the Virginia Association of Counties has requested
its membership to submit to it issues of statewide significance for
consideration and adoption in its 1991 legislative program; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
has considered and debated a variety of issues of statewide
significance for consideration by the membership of the
Association.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1) That the following issues of statewide significance are
hereby submitted to the Virginia Association of Counties for the
consideration of its membership for adoption in the 1991
legislative program:
a) Support the findings, conclusions and
recommendations of the Grayson Commission;
b) Support additional State funding for human services
needs, including Medicaid reimbursement and funding
for mandated programs, administrative costs and
equipment costs; and
1
~-a
c) Support the enactment of legislation granting equal
borrowing and taxation powers for cities and
counties.
2) That the Clerk is hereby requested to mail a certified
copy of this resolution to the Virginia Association of Counties.
2
1
ACTION NO. A-72490-3
ITEM NO. "'
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 24, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: CLAIM OF KENNETH L. WRIGHT AND MARY Y. WRIGHT FOR
PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN RELATION TO DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE
PROJECT IN PENN FOREST SUBDIVISION
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
By letter dated
presented a claim for
Kenneth L. and Mary Y.
Attachment A.) This
maintenance project ~
construction within th
property.
BACKGROUND•
July 9, 1990, Terry N. Grimes (Attorney)
punitive damages of $100,000.00 on behalf of
Wright for consideration by the Board. (See
additional claim arises from the drainage
n Penn Forest Subdivision, which included
e existing drainage easement on the Wrights'
On June 26, 1990, the Board considered a previous claim
presented by the Wrights' attorney, Terry N. Grimes. The claim
involved a request that the County restore the drainage channel on
the Wrights' property to the condition it was in prior to the
alterations. Alternatively, they requested that the County pay
them the sum of $4700 and agree to certain conditions as to
maintenance and liability. The claim was denied.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The present claim involves the same facts and circumstances
as that of June 26, 1990. The Wrights are requesting an award of
punitive damages in the amount of $100,000.00 for "aggravated
trespass."
Punitive damages may be awarded to a plaintiff over and above
the damages that would compensate for the actual loss. Punitives
come into play where the wrong done, if any, was aggravated by
circumstances of violence, oppression, malice, fraud, or wanton
~~' ~
2
and wicked conduct on the part of the defendant. They are
considered money given to the plaintiff as punishment to the
defendant or as compensation for the injury inflicted on the mental
feelings of the plaintiff, i.e. shame, degradation, loss of social
position, and the like.
A finding of compensatory damages is a necessary predicate for
an award of punitive damages. County staff recommends that the
claim for punitive damages be denied in accordance with the Board's
previous decision to deny the Wrights' claim for restoration or for
compensatory damages and an agreement to conditions of maintenance
and liability.
FISCAL IMPACTS•
There is no direct fiscal impact in denying this claim, as it
would require no immediate expenditure of public funds. It is
anticipated, however, that the Wrights will pursue their claim in
the Circuit Court which is likely to involve a significant amount
of County time.
ALTERNATIVES•
(1) Reconsider the previous decision of June 26, 1990.
(2) Deny the claim.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the claim of Kenneth L. and Mary Y.
Wright for punitive damages be denied. Any other alternative would
have a significant adverse impact upon Roanoke County and the
Drainage Maintenance Program.
Respectfully submitted,
~~- ~ ,
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney '
Vickie L. Huffman
Assistant County Attorney
_~~..
..~
3
Action Vote
No Yes Abs
Approved (x) Motion by Harrv C. Nickens Eddy x
Denied ( ) that claim be denied Johnson x
Received ( ) McGraw x
Referred Nickens x
to Robers x
cc: File
Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
ATTACHMENT A
I.Aw oFEtcEs
KING, FULGHUM, SNEAD, NIXON
112 1['EST KLYK A V~'NUE
ROANOKE, VIRGBv'iA 24011-1602
W. COURTNEY KING, JR.
JAMES II. IIJLGIIL.'~i, IR.
W. BEN SNFi1D, JR.
G. DAVID ND:ON
TERRY N. GRIMES
Paul Mahoney, Esquire
County of Roanoke
PO Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018-0798
July 9, 1990
RE: Wright v. County of Roanoke
Dear Paul,
TELGPI IONS
703-982-3711
W. COURTNEY KING, SR.
1897 - 1985
In addition to injunctive relief, compensatory damages and
declaratory judgment, the Wrigh~!s will be seeking an award of
punitive damages of $100,000.00 from the County for aggravated
trespass. Accordingly, please place the Plaintiffs' claim for
punitive damages on the Board of Supervisors agenda for July 24,
1990 at 3:00 p.m. for consideration by the Board of Supervisors.
Given that the Board of Supervisors has denied the Wrights'
claim for claim for compensatory damages and other relief, it is
not likely that the Board will approve the Wrights' claim for
punitive damages. Accordingly, I will not appear on their behalf
at the Board of Supervisor's meeting and ask that I be notified
of the Board's decision in writing as provided by Virginia Code
§15.1-552 (1950), as amended.
Very truly yours,
KING, FULGHUM, SPdEAD, NIXON & GRIMES, P.C.
Terry N. Grimes
TNG:bg
I ~~w :;:
,. ,
& GRIMES, P`.~. J~tS~ 1-~ i~:';~ 1~ ~
E ~`' L~
c: Kenneth and Mary Wright
ACTION # A-72490-4
ITEM NUMBER ~-
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 24, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Request Authorization for Roanoke County's
Participation in the FEMA Community Rating System
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS•
THE N~i,~; ~~lM~ TZA'-(i~--c~ 7.~~~ it~vvl +~. i.`Ciw'.~ c~¢~r*-.c:~ L.C:;~' ` t`.'~ TC
~-(Acu-~ Lim v .ac--~ t •ar~ c ~ F -~4-c i~ .; , ~n i~~tL.c_: ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~.~ c ~ iT-w-r~n `~ ~l ~~ -~ '..v C i~c~.':c
\Ni ~~J~c`~~"~> TC Cw'i C'GCZ-iZ~ ~ki~7 j~l~i.~ n~-L':~~<'1fti `7 1~-nX7 #~VGiu> ~'-'L?,L~.1 ~„~:`
-~~i3ltc-'~!°+~h ~-~'-r Cr C ~ a-\-f ~~~ ~,•V \-C~-t "7'i. ~:i L.cM ay,: vim.-Ti._'?VZ ,~ -T4-Nc ''~
ic Ai'G>v a'~t+v`TCit~~~C-/~7 C~c'~3
~C C Z`~C+c-' t=.t::[i Za'7~ t'.'~- FLU La_~7 1Nz.~~: ':LJ~"ilC ~t..`YZ.. f~~.~~Z.. R'tzl~t~tr" L~
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has recently
initiated a Community Rating System (CRS} program to reward and
recognize Community Programs which reduce the impact and
frequency of flooding. CRS is similar to insurance rating which
allows a reduction in premiums to people living in communities
which have done more than minimum requirements.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Based on information from FEMA there are 259 property owners in
Roanoke County that have flood insurance. Their total premium is
$81,920 per year or an average policy cost of $316.
The Community Rating System will
classifications. The Class 10 Rating
reduction, and a Class 1 Rating would al
reduction, and would recognize community
the impact and frequency of flooding.
represents a 5$ reduction in premium.
have
would
low up
prog
Each
ten different
have no premium
to a 50o premium
rams which reduce
change in Class
Each year a community can apply for a 5o reduction in Flood
Insurance Premium Cost. The request has to be based on the
implementation and/or development of a variety of activities
which would reduce the impact and frequency of flooding. Based
on a review of the CRS Program, staff believes that Roanoke
County possibly could obtain a 25o reduction in Flood Insurance
Premium over a five to ten year period with a minimum
~-`~
expenditure of County Funds. While there is no charge to apply
to the program, there is considerable cost to complete the
extensive application, implement the creditable activities, and
provide for the required followup verification. Roanoke County
is currently providing the following activities that qualify for
reductions in flood insurance premiums and could provide up to a
loo reduction:
:Elevation Certificates,
:Assisting the public,
:Stormwater Management Ordinance,
:Drainage System Maintenance,
:and Repetitive loss projects.
The following activities are projects that could provide
additional reduction in class. These will be presented to the
Hoard of Supervisors for their consideration, cost evaluation,
and possible approval on a yearly basis.
:Documentation on elevation certificates,
:Outreach projects to landowners in special flood hazard
:area,
:Adopting higher regulatory Standards,
:Sending additional floodwater calculations to FEMA for
:approval,
:Updating FEMA Maps,
:Additional repetitive loss projects,
:Retrofitting.
It is estimated that the application will require between 100 and
150 manhours with the majority of this time by Engineering
Department personnel.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS:
Alternative #1: Approval for Roanoke County to apply for and
participate in the FEMA Community Rating System to provide
benefits to the current or future flood insurance policyholders
in Roanoke County. In addition, implementation of programs
developed will have general benefit to citizens countywide. This
program will utilize existing engineering personnel under the
Drainage Activity. No additional staff will be needed.
.,t. ,
~ -`~
Alternative #2: By not participating in the Community Rating
System Roanoke County would not change the cost of flood
insurance to the citizens. The FEMA Flood Insurance Program
would not be jeopardized. There is a possibility that the
relative insurance cost for a Class 10 Locality may increase in
future years, if the Community Rating System Program is
successful nationwide.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board approve Roanoke County's
application and participation in the Federal Emergency Management
Community Rating System Program.
SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY:
~~~~~
. a,
Phillip T. Henry, P. ~ Elmer Hodge
Director of Engineering F
_____________________________________________County_Administrator
Approved ACTION VOTE
(x) Motion by: Harr C' N-LC1Cens No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) to proceed with Eddy x
Received ( ) application Johnson
Referred x
To McGraw x
Nickens x
Robers x
cc: File
Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering
Cliff Craig, Director, Utility
1
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO . L7' ~ -'~ `p
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 24, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Requests for Public Hearing and
First Reading for
Rezoning Ordinances
Consent Agenda
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
_~ ~~ ~ ~:; W ,..+~-.~-v.-~r~b p~?,`~T.. L; ,; ~~ ~ r- '~~-~-,-~ :~taAZ-,ice-e-]
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 reading and public hearing
on these ordinances is scheduled for August 28, 1990.
The titles of these ordinances are as follows:
1. An ordinance modifying an existing Planned Unit
Development plan on a 2 acre tract generally located
within the Stonehenge PUD, south of Kelly Lane in the
Cave Spring Magisterial District. This request is to
permit the construction of a 16 unit, single building
condominium, upon the request of J. Allison Associates.
2. An ordinance modifying the proffered conditions on a
24.94 acre tract to increase the size (number of
bedrooms) of a portion of the 264 apartment units
previously approved; located on the west side of Colonial
Ave, near the intersection of Ogden Road in the Cave
Spring Magisterial District, upon the request of
Occidental Development Ltd.
3. An ordinance modifying the proffered conditions on
approximately .25 acres to allow the use of the property
for a take-out restaurant and food service, with the
existing office and video store, located at 5314
Fallowater Drive in the Cave Spring Magisterial District
2
G i-~
2
upon the request of John Lee Davenport.
4. An ordinance rezoning two parcels containing a total of
approximately 1.78 acres from R-1 to B-1 for office uses,
located on the west side of Starkey Rd. north of its
intersection with Buck Mountain Rd. in the Cave Spring
Magisterial District, upon the request of Thomas Scarce.
5. An ordinance rezoning approximately .028 acres from B-
2 to M-1 to expand an existing grocery to include the
sale of tires and related services, located at the
southern intersection of State Routes 904 (Starkey Rd.)
and 632 (Crescent Blvd.), in the Cave Spring Magisterial
District, upon the request of Norman T. Wright.
6. An ordinance to modify the proffered conditions on a 2.25
acre parcel to permit the construction and operation of
a retail drive-thru window, located at 4515 Brambleton
Avenue in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District upon the
request of Springwood Associates.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends as follows:
(1) That the Board approve and adopt the first reading of
these rezoning ordinances for the purpose of scheduling
the second reading and public hearing for Auqust 28.1990
(2) That this section of the agenda be, and hereby is,
approved and concurred in as to each item separately set
forth as Items 1 through 6, inclusive, and that the Clerk
is 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 action.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
Action
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
to
Motion by
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
Vote
No Yes Abs
i
Y '4 ^ L~
' •
. '
' `~ ` - Date Rec. V ~
• ~~ ~ Received By:
Case No.: "
~:sa;;tC., c!~,~. ~. ~, Ord. No.
ROANOKE COUNTY REZONING G,u ~'..
APPLI ION
, , ~ ~~?
~ ~' `'~''`~`' ~
~~r~ ~ ~ L ~zz~~c
1. Owner's Name: Northview Corporation Phone: 34q_r,151
Address: 145 W. Cam
2. Applicant's Name:
11 Avenue, Roanoke; VA 24011
J. Allison Assoc i ~:t?s
Phone:
Address: Route 4, Box 121, MOneta, VA 2~i121
2 Acres of remaining acrQac~e of Section 1, Phase III
3. Location of Property: Riixtnn of Rnannkp~ ~ zjnnn KE'11~L Jnp
Tax Map Number (s) : Portion of 87.10-1-24
4. Magisterial District: Cave Springy
5. Size of Property: 2 Acres
6. Existing Zoning: P.U.D.
Existing Land Use: Undeveloped
7. Proposed Zoning: Amend PUD from permitted to~~nhoses to 16 unit condominium
Proposed Land Use: multifamily residential
8. Comprehensive Plan Designation:
9. Are Conditions Proffered With This Request? Yes x 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: $2,300,i1u0.Gu
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:
x Letter of Application x Concept Plan
x Metes and Bounds Description x List of Adjacent Owners
of Property (Attach Exhibit A) x Vicinity Map
x Application Fee x Written Proffers
x Water and Sewer Application (If Applicable)
12. Signature Of Property Owner, Contract Purchaser,
Or Owner's Agent:
Signature ~ Date ~ ~ ~ ,mod
~ ~. ~~ti
~~-Yt~.. ~-~~er ~ e~ ~,., ~ ~t ~ _ gz3~~
G-~
:~ fj,}11SC?Il /~E:_;CC_c~tCY
~~- ~_It F 4 . P~~.~:. 1
l~lcr:eta. VH ?~_~1
?0:~-?Z1 _ ~~C
,June ?~' . 1990
R~~ _.nok~ C~.~t:r:ty Plar:.:ili~,~ De~;_zrt;nen±
?7?S ~'rar.iblet~=;i A•,:~~.
T.
1~ V a Ii 01~: ~' . 'J A -z ~.J i
R~': Porti~?n of 87.1C~-_-24
along Kelly Lane. ~. W.
Gent. 1 eme;:.
F}ease a;-~e~;t t}":lti let±~=r as apj?llcat__~r, to change t.t:~ r;~;.=}ln
PU~~ ~r, thr captioned prr~perty from the permitted c•vn= _ruct for of
`:-,wnhoU~-}_,s tc~ a 16 Unit, vingle bU•ldil:~.~ ~ond~.mini,-in; riY;i~_~h is
sh~.~wn or: the concept ~;; ar; made a part ~± t}-ii appl is=. _ ~ :..
T'.:~ U;:-.c: ~ ~Qn~C: api~~lit'-x~:r -~ -. C'_~C.t2`r3._•?_ '!~rC'(i,=tSf=2' ~_,r +_ -_
:,'dU~ i~ .._ =1 prOf;4-p~tv tY01!i ;J C._ ~hV1~W ~';=;'i' _ _`a' 3;~ 1
= li
`~'-!- : = nt - 1;` the SUb 1e. ;= T_ '',7^~}ti-'r':'t` , S ~_;..::~`,'p' ~ti-rd . end n,,~_ - +
5~~:"y :.rlC: nQ i~-rJ-~ai,t``~r ~ - +7 ~+ 1 ~ -~L t}1r-
1 !-' r J ti ~ ~~-JnE'.jjF' .f_~.- t': FI11 r:v iF- ^~,I` __. `_. +-..r
,~.. Ni.l
proposed developr.;ent wo~sld be consistent ir. style an% ~uality~of
et: i st i nr deve 1 opl;,ent as wT~= propose '. ~ b _: _ 1 ^~ ar.d e 1 _ u.~.,~,-`r
coed<>I~;iniu,n dwel l in•YC wi+;- ,-,~ -, ,.,a n,.r _ _ y
•_~..~ ~ 1 11P..1 rgr J1_t_ ~;~.rriy, y _~1;IIliay- t`_ _};F~
plan of Stonehenge C'ondc,minitln: near}-:y.
r;r;~ i part _`e~=1s that a, ~ 1.- + - _ - -.+
~t-- `~ ~a__ _, _}1F laI';_jE= ~:~:;b~l;"~- it'iV-_r_+-,_-., ;-,~
townh,_,USeti, building c .t tl-:e sub a .+ p .- ~' r
~•_ .. bey ~`"c` ro:-'e2"tY wlth the sa^:e wo:ald
~:'~~ - 1 tr~° 't lint°rP~y'• t_~f ~;pp} lcar.' r a~_ Qlnlri~~ tpwr;}7~~L1Se
r~ ~Y :-: F' r .- A 7 ^ 1 r _~ ~~ ~ 1 1. 1 f' ~ 1 L. 1_. }i i~ ~ ~ ~~ `' wl ~~ y
i-c- e. s a _a:-;tic.l rnzrk~+ f~:r^ a
:^c_~rj~a~~rr:l^:_1_li;; Wlth covr>YPC~ p~r~lrl<J, One f1C''>Y plar! dW~-:_ir:nS, and
elevat~.;r-= . e=:peclall~,r amc,nq retired ~,eopTe.
The proffered conditions are set forth on a separate rage
attached to ti:e appl icat .or:.
1 riC'ere l`I,
~7. Al 1 i o ~ As,~:~ciates
PAY = -~ ~ _ -C~dG_'L2~- - ~ ~
~i
RE. J. A._,~_,n A~~_~c_~_~_.
!''GY't iOri O~ n^ 1!1-~- '4
Pro~tered Condit;ons ~~.~ Ap~lic~
} atic:n to Arne-: p~);)
A~ ~ ican± hereby ~,rotteY-s It shall cf~ns`r:_ic` in -~.tbs•tan'.. Y.~.l
-=`-fc:rmity t]-,e impY-ov~rnents depYCted ~~~~ t};e cc:~r:~:_~-;+ ? r
_.~.1i t t ed herewi t.h ~~;y BrY_}.1 e -H ~ - `- - c a. `
_. ~ • n~-} ~ e n;•_i 1 ti-tami ly reti ,,~ nt i ow" i 1 A:~,sociate:_ , tl-:~~ ~.u;:,F ;hewing
' 1e al structure cons;«` =n'~ ,,~ o
-_~:-:~3omini2_un dwellings. ~ --
:: :-:ther site i:.~~r"~~~ ~~ s_.
~mer;,_.
r _ r k {~ N -., i ,clueing l,~nd~:_•aPir-g, shall c~~r~;tor
_ _ JanO ~~ !jiJ;t";t~' pr~ln3nC~° C nCj Y'^'"Llla± ~ ~ 2-15. m
-T. Alliti•~,r. ASS~cia`_e:~
arr:~r
/~~~~
~~~ - ~~..
... Y
a
_.t F
s_se
FF~ -;i E
'E:- .._ s
'Yit -_.~. e Q
_G -~Y C T
G
s'~ ~"5
" ~ii E
___
..
~~, "
~ \ ' \ ~ V ~ i
\ - `
ss \ `" O ~y
/\ o i`iV t~ \
_~ v Q : ~°~ o; ~\ A~ I X1,1
l~M ~ ^ =; \ c sq ~ ~I I i I ~ III ~
_ v _ I~ I
'O 4 ~ ' ~?~ 4' i~/_. ~- ~Y^ ~ X11 I ,~~ ~y
r? ~`'' ,^~ / , \ r'~ , ,\ d, 'I~'I ~ 'I = , III
~M ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ II I~,I`1 I
~ O \ ~I II ``III I I
-%~I 0 0; '~~ clblslYJ'" ,..ft4t":++ :~''i i
ode °,'~-` `,, '
- ~ F I;'.',;~ ~`_:~°' ~' / ,lid _, ' ~ ,~
'- ', fi 'eO ~ , r 1- A ~ ,~ '~
~..
a
o
c ~[
~
' ~ i a ' '
~ ~
3 / °~ ~ ~' ,~/
/ Y
I
b o
~ C
M T O
3 AI
` C ` ~' / I 1
1
~ ~ T ~
~ ~ L 4/
1
' J /
I~/
V
~ ~ '
,
` ~
' a 1 1 I I , /
''
1~ A
.. N~ N
~ ~ O i /4 ' I' i f I
!
I { I I, "1 I I I I
I I I I
~ I I
~ a ~
~ ~ O ~ _ ^
I
~ ~ ' ~ ! % ~ ~ ~ I
I ' I I , ' ' ~
I
1 o
i h
r
^
v ~~
I I 'il I
1
II
1
I I
S I
;'
, ' \ ~ 1'
h
3 ~ o
A ~ ~
° /
,
/ !
'
~ ~
~
~ ,
1 ,
~~
'
a \~ r~ ~ ~ I; ~~;
I
~
~ ~
` 1 •
~ E
;; _
.\ s n
y a: I ~
c , ~ 3 r.,'
i Z 1 ee 2 ~
~ Z ~:`
~0 i
. ~ + i=
r ~ ~ ~ ~ \~\
o ; ' ~. ~+ ~
a L ~
~ r ~~ L
'.I ~ i ^Ir, ~ 2
~ i ; ` t i
t
t '~
I~~' II
.~
I tt ., ~'
"•'
t .., ~
t• ~,"rr~ T Ir
l~ i~ ~f~ ~
~, ~~ h L
~~ ~ ; ~ `g
~7m,
\ `fir' ~~~i. '~ , 4
~ 4q • ~~ Fit a ~ •P
v~ F~-
~'
r ~
.
f.` ,• ~ Date Rec..
~',,~1 Received By:
~ ' ` Case No .
JUiV 22 ,q~,~ Ord. No.:
ROANOKE COUNTY REZONING APPLIC~~ ,,~ /~ ,
~! +;
1. Owner's Name• Occidental Development, Ltd.
Phone:
Address: c/o Donald L. Wetherington. P. 0. Box 90, Roanoke
2. Applicant's Name: Same
Address:
Phone: 982-3800
3. Location of Property: West Side Colonial Avenue opposite Ogden Road
n ersection
Tax Map Number(s): 77.11-1-55
4. Magisterial District: Cave Spring
5. Size of Property: 24.94 acres
6. Existing Zoning: R-3 Multi-Family Residential District
VA 24002
Existing Land Use: Vacant with apartment development proposed
7. Proposed Zoning: R-3 Multi-Family Residential District (Modification
o ro ere on itions
Proposed Land Use: Apartment Development
8. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Development
9. Are Conditions Proffered With This Request? Yes X
No
(If you are voluntarily offering proffers as a part of your applica-
tion, these proffers must be in writing. A member of the Planning
Staff can assist you in the preparation of these proffers.)
10. Value of Land and (Proposed) Buildings:
11. The Following Items Must Be Submitted With This Application. Please
Check If Enclosed. Application Will Not Be Accepted If Any Of These
Items Are Missing Or Incomplete:
X Letter of Application X Concept Plan
X Metes and Bounds Description X List of Adjacent Owners
X of Property (Attach Exhibit A) X Vicinity Map
Application Fee X Written Proffers
X Water and Sewer Application (If Applicable)
12. Signature Of Property Owner, Contract Purchaser,
Or Owner's Agent:
1
Signature ___. ~ ~/~. Date June 22 , 1990
~~
~~~
VIRGINIA:
BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
A 24.94 acre parcel of land generally )
located on the western side of )
Colonial Avenue, S.W. opposite the )
intersection of Ogden Road within )
the Cave Spring Magisterial District )
being parcel ~~ 77.11-1-55 in the )
Roanoke County Tax Records.
PETITION OF
Occidental
Development, Ltd.
TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY:
Occidental Development, Ltd. files this petition
pursuant to Section 21-105 0~ the Roanoke County Zoning
Ordinance and in accordance with the Code of Virginia of
1950, as amended, to show the following:
1) The Petitioner owns the above-referenced parcel of
land.
2) The property is presently zoned under the
provisions of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance as R-3
Multi-Family Residential District, subject to certain
proffered conditions.
3) Among the proffered conditions to which the present
zoning classification of the property is subject is the
following:
No more than eleven dwelling units per acre will
be constructed on the land. No more than two
hundred sixty-four dwelling units will be
constructed in the entire development. No more
than one hundred eighteen dwelling units will
contain as many as two bedrooms. No dwelling
will contain more than two bedrooms.
Because of a change in market conditions during the
period of approximately two years since the above condition
was proffered, Petitioner wishes to amend the zoning of the
property to eliminate the above condition and to substitute
in its place the following:
s: M~1
iITC YC\tl~.i~P <iY \~ELCNC
G~
rio more than eleven dwelling units per acre will
be constructed on the land. No more than two
hundred sixty-four dwelling units will be
constructed in the entire development. No more
than thirty-two dwelling units will contain as many
as three bedrooms. No more than one hundred forty
other dwelling units will contain as many as two
bedrooms. No dwelling unit will contain more than
three bedrooms.
4) For convenience, the Petitioner now tenders on a
separate sheet ten profferd conditions. The proffer of
conditions reproduces verbatim the conditions previously
adopted with two exceptions. Condition number 2 provides for
a nominal change in bedroom mix explained in the preceding
paragraph. Also, a previous condition which allowed for
exploration of the land by the Roanoke Archaeological Society
and for removal of certain buildings from the property within
a limited period of time is now obsolete and has been
eliminated.
5) The parcel for which rezoning is sought is more
fully described in the Exhibit attached hereto.
WHEREFORE, your Petition respectfully requests that the
Zcning Ordinance of Roanoke County be amended and that the
above referenced parcel of land be rezoned from R-3
Multi-Family Residential District, subject to existing
conditions, to R-3 Multi-Family Residential District, subject
to the proffered conditions separately tendered with this
Petition.
FURTHER, your Petitioner respectfully requests that this
petition be referred by the Secretary to the Roanoke County
Planning Commission for its consideration and recommendation.
Respectfully submitted,
Occidential Development, Ltd.
By ~-- -~
Counse or Petitioner
Occidental Development, Ltd.
c/o Donald L. Wetherington
Wetherington & Melchionna
Post Office Box 90
~M ~~ (1100 Crestar Bank Bldg.)
-,K,~.;,.,,,,,~_,~, Roanoke, Virginia 24002
2
.~ F
VIRGINIA:
BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPEPVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
A 24.94 acre parcel of land generally)
located on the western side of )
Colonial Avenue, S.W, opposite the )
intersection of Ogden Road within )
the Cave Spring Magisterial District,)
being parcel ~~ 77.11-1-55 )
in the Roanoke County Tax Records. )
PROF:ER OF
CONDITIONS
June 22, 1990
Occidental Development,
Ltd.
TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY:
~M
+rn warn: inn ~. , Y acv., c~
Being in accord with Sec. 15.1-491.1 et set. of the Code
of Virginia and Sec. 21-1O5E of the Roanoke County Zoning
Ordinance, the Petitioner Occidental Development, Ltd.
hereby voluntarily proffers to the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia the following conditions to the
rezoning of the above-referenced parcel of land.
This proffer of conditions supersedes all proffered
conditions previously tendered by the Petitioner.
1. Old Towne Road, Ashmeade Drive and Greencliff Road
will not be extended beyond their present terminuses at the
boundary of the referenced parcel or otherwise used for
vehicular access to or from the parcel.
2. No more than eleven dwelling units per acre will be
constructed on the land. No more than two hundred sixty-four
dwelling units will be constructed in the entire development.
No more than thirty-two dwelling units will contain as many as
three bedrooms. No more than one hundred forty other dwelling
Ga
units will contain as many as two bedrooms. No dwelling unit
will contain more than three bedrooms.
3. Access to Petitioner's intended development within
the parcel will be by a single entrance on Colonial Avenue at
its intersection with Ogden Road, S.W.
4. Petitioner will include within its development a
storm-water detention pond sufficient to detain increased
surface-water runoff from the development following a "10-year
storm" with a release rate of the increased water no greater
than would follow a "2-year storm".
5. Development of the land in this parcel will be in
substantial conformity to the concept plan dated July 11, 1988
by Buford T. Lumsden ~ Associates, P.C., a copy of which plan
has been submitted with Petitioner's application and petition.
However, Petitioner may elect to construct fewer buildings and
dwelling units than depicted on the concept plan.
6. An entrance marker sign and plaques, or some combi-
nation thereof, may be placed at the entrance of the property.
The entrance marker sign, if used, will have no more than two
faces and will contain no more than 75 square feet of surface
area on any one face. No more than two plaques will be used;
each will have a single face containing no more than nine square
feet of surface area on a face. For purposes of promotion and
lease-up during construction and for the one year following
construction, Petitioner may maintain a sign within the interior
of the property situated no closer than 50 feet to Colonial
Avenue and having a single face with a surface area of no more
than 128 square feet to communicate such information as the
name of the community, office hours, a telephone number or
numbers, rental rates and other such information. This sign
will remain on the property no longer than one year from the
completion of construction. Other signs that identify buildings,
regulate traffic, designate parking areas and the like that are
~~-;,,~, not visible or conspicuous from Colonial Avenue may be utilized
~Me'na within the project without restriction.
2
G-2
7. Area lighting in the immediate vicinity of adjacent
residential properties will be focused toward the interior of
the project to avoid unnecessary glare and distraction to
neighboring residents. Freestanding light poles will not exceed
20 feet in height, and the intensity of the lighting will not
exceed 2-foot candles on the ground beneath the lamp.
8. No building will be constructed closer than 100 feet
to the Georgetown Park subdivision.
9. Buffering of the type described as "Type C-Option 2"
in Section 21-92(G) of the Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance will
be provided along the boundary of Georgetown Park and Greenwood
Forest where existing natural growth does not provide reasonably
similar buffering. "Type C-Option 2" buffering specifies a
25-foot buffer yard with small evergreen trees (having an ulti-
mate height of 15 feet or greater and planted each 15 linear
feet) and evergreen shrubs (having an ultimate height of 6 feet
or greater, at least 18 inches at time of planting and planted
each five feet). Planting will occur as soon as feasible in the
course of construction.
10. A11 dumpsters will be screened by solid wooden fencing
and landscaping. No dumpster will be closer than 75 feet to
Georgetown Park or Greenwood Forest.
Respectfully submitted,
Occidental Development,Ltd.
By:
Counse or Petitioner
~ ~~kh~on~na
.+n, ie~rn asn r~ x ~~_. X~
3
~ ~~ v
y I c-~
o
~ ~
< ~ -,~
~' 3 a ~ _ i Y „ ~ ..
Y ° ~ is . w ~ 41 ~
~ < ~ ~ ~ 1-1 r--I
ou ~ • ~~ ~ ~
W F
i ~, ~ ~ O N u0 ~ U
r 1 ~: / N
~ '' ~ ;.;
11 ~ t ~ - ~ i~"'
r ~ ~ a ~'k 1 \ T I 1 •~ Iii ~~ l ~~ I: ~~-
~ l . ~ ~~ i
a y4 ~~' ~_ Y~ j/ li
~ I
t e,
...
C~
¢ ~ - M~-. ~/~` ~" ~`~ f P.r.~ i ~ cc y, 7" ~~ ~~-Y -R~ S-o" w_
S 9 *' ~. '-} '~~ ~ b
s S ~ ~ ~wv .. ».t r~ a R
~ ~ ~ err " * v
• 4py ~ ~4 9a ~4~f V~:f. <~~i~~ ~~~
~ .XF r 3
.. ~ v
~.
NORTH
COMMUNITY SERVICES OCC IDENT~~ DEVELaP~~1ENT, ~Ti~
AND DEVELOPMENT ~3+° R~ ~"'~ M~-~~Fi~AT~~N O~ ~OND's.
`77.1Y - I-55
,,~,~~ a;.: ~ is ~ tea
~ -~. ~ ,: R e c .
. _ 1 `'.
Red `ived By:
J~'w 22 ?~qr, Case No.
Ord . N .,~ " ~~ ~
~ ~' ~ ~
ROANOKE COUNTY REZONING APPLICATION`S"~';''~~ 1'~'~''~~ }',~'~~"•"''~`-.~~ ~~(. Ott v~~-, ~
1 . Owner' s Name : John Lee Davenport ~~ ~~, ~ ` ' .'~„. ='y 4
Address: 5260 Crossbow Circle, Unit 8C Roanoke VA `2~ lq= .t"i _;;,
' - - - .,r'J~~
2. Applicant's Name: same
Address:
Phone:
3. Location of Property: 5314 Fallowater Lane, Roanoke, Virginia
Tax Map Number(s): 77.19-1-24
4. Magisterial District: Cave Spring
5. Size of Property: 64.67+28.13 x 179.59 x 50.95 x 188.47
6. Existing Zoning: B-2
Existing Land Use: Office & Video Store
7. Proposed Zoning: B-2 with proferred conditions
Proposed Land Use:_ Office & Video Store and Take Out 12estaurant & Food
8. Comprehensive Plan Designation: CORE Service
9. Are Conditions Proffered With This Request? Yes X
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.)
lo. Value of Land and (Proposed) Buildings: $77,400
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:
x Letter of Application
x Metes and Bounds Description
of Property (Attach Exhibit A)
x Application Fee
N/A Water and Sewer Application
x Concept Plan
x List of Adjacent Owners
x Vicinity Map (Tax Map 77.19)
x Written Proffers
(If Applicable)
12. Signature Of Propert wn tract Purchaser,
Or Owner's AgOen : E
J P R
Signature By: ~ ~ Date June 21, 1990
His att ey
VIRGINIA:
BEFORE THE BORRD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
A a parcel of land, )
Page 1 of 2
z~z~~4z4~g~t~Y~ located at intersection )
of Bernard Dr. & Fallowater Lane )
within the Cave Spring ) PETITION
Magisterial District, and )
recorded as parcel # 77.191-24 )
in the Roanoke County Tax Records.)
TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY:
WHEREAS, your Petitioner John Lee Davenport
G-3
respectfully files this petition pursuant to Section 21-105 of the
Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance and in accordance with the Code of
Virginia of 1950, as amended, and would respectfully show the
following:
1) The Petitioner is the owner of the above-referenced parcel of
land.
2) The property is presently zoned under the provisions of the
Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance as Business B~2,
District.
3) The property is designated CORE.
in the Future Land Use Guide of the Roanoke County
Comprehensive Development Plan.
4) Your Petitioner now desires to have this property rezoned as
proffered conditions,
Business B~2 District with / ~~ for the purpose of
operating a take out restaurant and food service, along with
the existing Office and Video Store.
G-~
Page 2 of 2
WHEREFORE, your Petitioner respectfully requests that the Zoning
Ordinance of Roanoke County be amended and that the above-referenced
parcel of land be rezoned as set out in number 4.
FURTHER, your Petitioner requests that this petition be referred
by the Secretary to the Roanoke County Planning Commission for its
consideration and recommendation.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN LEE DAU~:NPART
_I IJ! i ~....,
titio er h.s attorney
W. H. Fralin, Esq.
JOLLY, PLACE, FRALIN & PRILLAMAN, P.C.
3912 Electric Road, S. W.
Roanoke, VA 24018
`:IRGINIA: ''~
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
y ~~ec parcel of land, )
~c~c~ac located at intersection )
of Bernard Dr. & Fallowater Lane ) PROFFER
OF
within the Cave Spring ) CONDITIONS
!~agisterial District, and )
recorded as parcel # 77.19-1-24 )
in the Roanoke County Tax Records. )
TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY:
Being in accord with Sec. 15.1-491.1 et seq, of the Code of
Virginia and Sec. 21-1O5E. of the Roanoke County Zoning
Ordinance, the Petitioner John Lee Davenport
hereby voluntarily proffers to the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia the following conditions to the rezoning
of the above-referenced parcel of land:
1. The property will be used for a take-out restaurant and food
service, along with the exist ~g Office and Video Store.
Re e t 1 mi ed,
l
Petiti ner his attox'neX
~~
~~
~~~ w ~'~ /--tom..
/ ~
~.
f ~\^7`/
.~ ~~' - _
~~ d
,: ...
L. ~,
qJ
~ d ~.:!
i~ ~/ l~ ~
fi%~ L L OL~//,QT~/~ LA~1/E
~ ti~e~~ee~, s1~•~~•bs
:~~ G~2c..~Ciu,pv~t~Q2S
~ °~Q+~~Q,.. SI..~,,,bS~obQ ~~d.,,~2~
~~ ~ic.ti.~,c -able s
~~~ ~
,~ r ~
/ I~ 1~ St
``/ / / / Ir 1~ ~_ 1
/:~J \ J
~~ .~ ~ ~ / I
~~
9~f~~
l
I I~
-~
-_ 1 i ~
i
i
V,~~j~, a _ ~'- ~ cb°1ry~, dig ~~ r ~,F` / 4
ti i a a. ~ 1
9~``~ `"4Y ~\~a? ~ F~~` 7t~~4~• ~ moo`
ty' ~ F `riot ' ~ ` ~ `B.. ~ Y °a
7 ~b ~' V! BE(~ 4 fir` \ J . " a, r r~ cor.,u,c"r'n Q+ct
S R ~/ .e,. ~ F'0.~_w. t ~:` ~+ r~~~~nai~+u'ci.v~s'~~ Y R \ k~c~
a0
~DHN LEE pA~/ENPov1-
COMMUNITY SERVICES a - z ~ 0 3- Z GoN ~, ~ 7l oN A ~
AND DEVELOPMENT ~ ~ ,. ~ 9 _1 - Zy
t~ ,~'1
C~°' ~D
~~\~/~~~,~ G//~ Date Rec.:
~j / Received By.
' ~/~ /` C Case No.
rd. No.
ROANOKE COUNTY REZONING APPLICATION ~ ~~~~ ~Sa QC%
~/
1. Owner's Name: Thomas Scarce Phone: 703-774-1197
Address: c/o Edward A. Natt, 1919 Electric Road, SW, Roanoke, VA 24018
2. Applicant's Name: Thomas Scarce Phone: 703-774-1197
Address: c/o Edward A. Natt, Esq., 1919 Electric Road, SW, Roanoke, Va 24018
3. Location of Property: West side of Starkey Road north of its intersection with
Buck Mountain Road
Tax Map Number(s) : 87.18-1-38 and 87.18-1-41
4. Magisterial District: Cave Spring
5. S ize of Property: 1 acre plus 0.78 acres for a total of 1 78 acres
6. Existing Zoning: Residential district R-1
Existing Land Use: Vacant/tenant residential
7. Proposed Zoning: Business District B-1
Proposed Land Use: Office
8. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Core
9. Are Conditions Proffered With This Request? Yes X 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: 87.18-1-38 - Land-13,500 - Bldg-47,40
• 35, 1 G
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:
X Letter of Application X Concept Plan
~- Metes and Bounds Description X List of Adjacent Owners
of Property (Attach Exhibit A) Vicinity Map
X Application Fee X Written Proffers
X Water and Sewer Application (If Applicable)
12. Signature Of Property Owner, Contract Purchaser,
Or owner's Agent:
Signature C~,.~ ~ ~ o~ ~,,.,-M.,,.~, S ca~up Date 1 3 I q a
C HARLES N. OSTERHOUDT
MIp MAEL 5. FERGUSON
EDWARD A. NATT
MIG MAEL J- AHERON
G. STEVEN AGEE
MARK D KIDD
OSTE RHO U DT,
LAW OFFICES
FERGl1SON, NATT.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
1919 ELECTRIC ROAD, S. W
P O. BOX 20068
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
24018
June 15, 1990
Board of Supervisors
of Roanoke County
P. O. Box 29800
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Re: Rezoning of 2 parcels of land
containing a total of 1.78 acres
Gentlemen:
AHERON £~ AGEE
G-~
TELEPHONE
703-774-I 197
FAX NO.
703-774-p 961
This is to advise that our firm is representing Mr. Thomas
Scarce, owner of two parcels of land situate on the west side of
Starkey Road immediately north of its intersection with Buck
Mountain Road in the County of Roanoke. The property, located in
the Cave Spring Magisterial District, contains a total of 1.78
acres and is identified as Tax Map Nos. 87.18-1-38 and 87.18-1-41
on the Roanoke County tax maps.
Each of the parcels presently has situate thereon a single
structure which has been used for residential purposes. At the
present time, the properties are either vacant or being occupied
as landlord/tenant properties for residential purposes.
My client is desirous of having the two parcels rezoned to
Business District B-1 so that offices may be located therein. He
plans to utilize one of the structures for his own appraisal
business and to lease the other structure out to tenants who would
qualify under the B-1 zoning.
It is pointed out that the property immediately between the
two parcels has recently been rezoned to Business District B-1.
My client is willing to proffer the following conditions:
1. That the existing structures on the property will not be
modified except for very minor cosmetic modifications.
2. That the parking required for the office zoning would be
in substantial conformity with the site plan prepared by Dixon
Architects & Associates, P.C. under date of May 30, 1990.
It is further pointed out that this property is designated as
~, ~ ...
"core" under the County's long range land use plan and that this
proposal would fit within that district. It is therefore
respectfully requested that the matter be referred to the Planning
Commission for its meeting on August 7th and for consideration by
the Board of Supervisors at its meeting on August 28th.
Should there be any questions, please advise.
Very truly yours,
OSTERHOUDT, FERGUSON, NATT,
AHERON & AGEE, P.C.
Edward A. Natt
EAN/dle
Ci -~
~ ~~
i t1
1
i .
r
n ~ 1
` 1
j
7 ~
!~ I 1
rQ , 1
l ~
r~ ~
Q~ ~ ~ ,6
1 ~ !r
~~ ,I f
_ ,~
o ~ ~ ~ ~i
S ~ ~'
u ~.
'~ a
~ ~! ~
O ~ t~
J~ ~~ ~~
/ E i~ ~,
0 ~ ~ ~ ~~
F~ ~ ~ -
Ii ~ .~ ~ I1
7
s l~ -~ 1~,
{~ ~ ~ 1
II
_._ _ ___._ - R
OTA/tJ~BY
t.'.nP.. ..ca
s
~~
J
0 =
~ ~ }
f Ni ~ ~t t
i
-
a
. E;>p 41TE PLAN - LOT °SrBl3 7Tid.~2.F~-6Y I~Q !
'n fli
~~Z7nc
~! irk
Earl ~G.~:.KLG~ p~toP62T~f ~~/.aLUS.TON '-_-' .
G-`~
-- --
~:
i
-~,
c
~,
~~ ~
i
J-.
I~
i
ee ~
I,
~, f ~ ~F
~ °~ ~~~
_ ~
~~ ~ ~°
_~ . _ _-~~~ T=
~ 9 ~
f
j I i -~~ to - - -- ~! _I
t ~ z . g~>~
(0 ~.'{
i P3 ?: ;~ ~ ~ 6~Z~
I t :i ~~ p
?~~z
91T~ f°I..AN - LOT '~rfiD i7rr.RicEY ~L7
f./AQR ep /~o~/ni C~ /e~. ~ .,.-, ~~
I I-I-I-N ~I-~ 1
~i .t..R~+u~ , ,Z",~
u
~~ ~ . i'
.~
c ~ ~ -'~~ ~ ,~\~~``f .[~?r,~`. ~-",,~ ~NN F$REST ~~•; ~ . __~ L:/
Y ~ f~~f
~~ ~q 4 ..~~ 3~; .l, cv- a l ~ ~.~~! .~uRK ~0. ~~!: ~$~ SOl o~Rl
~r b ,
Y '0r~ ~^ ~- ~q'~~~~p'~'" _ ~~~, ;~~~,r"'• y't.F~ ; ~ ~0 TN~~Q F Sic~o+,.
•~~T aD ~FOast a I~,,~ ~~ ~°.,,~ ~ W gyp"" ,+a,N,,,~
~r,~~vrtpw~t~ I v
~f ~ M \ f ~ ~t' ` MoS~C
~ ~
r ~
NORTH
-rNOMAS SCgRcE
COMMUNITY SERVICES R 1 7 0 3 ~„
AND DEVELOPMENT 87 . ~ ~ - t -3 S
- I - ~-1 I
~ c~ ~,
VG U
~,
ROANOKE COUNTY REZONING
/y
/~
APPLICATION
G-5
Date Rec.: - -
Received By: _
Case No.:
Ord. No.
1. owner' s Name : _ ~o~,,,,,,;N i /~,~~~ Phone : 7C~~ 7 74.7_?t3 t
Address : 7~1 d ~s S ra,~.~,yc- !?gyn., i~~ ~ ~~ i/~~,; ? ~~ ~
2. Applicant's Name: ~(iv.:~,.~;-, T ~/,~,..~~- Phone• •]~>;-174-7~f:t
Address : ~~ s n,~~-;,~ )
3 . Location of Property: v„~,Z j,,,,-C,~,,~_~;, 5»; -~_~~4 1~ ~, 3
Tax Map Number (s) : rl~,; ,-Qi Y ~~7c= iil'IC.A"i )i.i /~%qf~ ~ t~ ~7 ~8 - ~ -'~'j
4. Magisterial District: ~;;~~- 5,.~,~,,,~,~-~~;~~,2~~~
5. Size of Property: ~.>- ? y-,~~s
6. Existing Zoning:
Existing Land Use: y,-~,~~,- ~~,; ,~,,,,, ,A ,., ~„
7. Proposed Zoning: _ N~-/ ,t ,r„1; / ~n ~ %~„ate
Proposed Land Use: ~-Av.3~s;~:.~i-.- C'/ar ,~tr~q,~ i„c?= SrfG?
8. Comprehensive Plan Designation: C~~a~
9. Are Conditions Proffered With This Request? Yes No_ (•
(If you are voluntarily offering proffers as a part of your applica-
tion, these proffers must be in writing. A member of the Planning
Staff can assist you in the preparation of these proffers.)
10. Value of Land and (Proposed) Buildings: ~~~;; ~ ~?~
11. The Following Items Must Be Submitted With This Application. Please
Check If Enclosed. Application Will Not Be Accepted If Any Of These
Items Are Missing Or Incomplete:
~' Letter of Application / Concept Plan
;i Metes and Bounds Description r 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 u„~ ~ ~ ~ Date ~ • 1 ~,(- ~T O
G-5
June 13, 1990
Honorable Board of Supervisors
Roanoke County
Roanoke VA
Gentlemen:
I, Norman T. Wright, the undersigned, your petitioner, do
hereby declare the need to expand my commerical venture known
as Crescent Heights Grocery and Tire in order to better serve
my customers and insure my own security in accordance with
local and state regulations acid with our American system of
free enterprise.
Only after conferring with my neighbors acid finding no
objection~~, do I respectfully submit this petition to change
the existing designation of Lot 45 from B-2 to M-1.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
y~~ a~~lJ ~ ~f
Norman T. Wrigh
5745 Starkey Road
Roanoke VA 24014
~,.~..
• D{
~ ~ s~
,~~
Ih,
~~
STQ,~E'fY
!'Gb40
LACA7/ON MQ
.-.r ,y ,~
,F e~ r'/'~•~•~i~~
D 1
+ P~oFrety of
10r ae -QI
' ~ ~ ~
+ S'GG JesCtnt ~/e~,aN1 EJv~
24JfI ~ S 7~
GEJ-f~~p! ,it7TE
/nfo~r~.Tfvr, pirttirnfe~daotbis.~frrw-
Dec.r:~xntof TiQna~or afnn
k'on/n~re ~'o~!y 4dni~,.t~xha~;'«ter,
.]nd o: ~rrY~ ly TEFar~e~. E.So~-
riq, .'err {., ~JrCN~ Sole, Yir~i~a~ct
p~CO/PtV Cf
QCEfQf kf /E~txJi44t'sS
LJT s9 -~P!
~ ~;~1d
%/ 81.8G~
' ~ ~ t-- ~ . _.__ .__;~++!! ~ TO ~ LOT 45
.._ ,
2 i ~~ 1 /C ~ i ~ h ~
~. 3 F '9Z I ~ EX,.. Ti,ti(i ~'~' Grrne;ed ~
p ~ Q • ~~ • ; C,QE,SCEiV T N6T r~ ~ - - -- - ~iwn,~ a~, ~
~ f
I i ~ ~ i ~ ~
V tic~v \1 y ~~ iL ~ 7Q~/ ~~' ~!
~ 1, ,
' Q ~ ~-~
~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~fv'
itrr~..ver~+ •.i
~i~~
et.cc ~
1`~
I~
,w
!~
j~,
w
i 2
H N T,QAI.X.S KAO': t i ~~.ti¢-. • ~ _ - - et y • Sd E -~ ~-~
- 'v~. _ r ~"~' G.tr~nce _~ iHTERSECT~GtiI ?W'+ ~
-----=-------------=--=- STQTFROUTE 904 STAQ~Er~':~,eC ----------------------- ~
--- --' ~.:~~ yin - u~CT~ -
Fr~itu o~
:S!4 Shsrmctr, .4'e! S /J. Qke.
24~ fS
~~ =X/ST/NG
CONGA ~T PL 4N
NC~~ ACGi71Cti'
__ _ .__ _ M
1 ___. _____-:~~~ - -
~Or::+srt~q ~l
G. K 6C.!!D
:OAed N•1
LI DS ioii,.ny furs~As ,S,(1,Q,h!
?IrOtd
~,~~~~a ~f rlTi~~~/
pQ::AE,~TY Of i(IG,~',~l~N :' k7k/GHT
DoT N'° ~~ P~FE,ET Y 1LENT/F-/CATIO~tI M4,~
e~. fe
QOANOKE !'GUNTy
PrOpr~.ty Of
N4QY ~BECIA JfU~G'h~.S
w4QT~Q
C.1T~-sZ ~
s~?~sro.~~y kd, ,
?4.^!4
Y/QG/N/A
~naQEO nr
Ay'~[i0' k/ SNiTN DESfGNEk
703 - 3y I •Sd R? ~R~1y ~ G 1
~ • • ~~~ ), cP,~OQ~~x~a ..I,~ ~^T2~'~HN ipREST •~ 47
~~ , ' -, ~~+ y '"` !~ :'c~' _'S,~._.~"~. ~ ~f ~ ~ ~ rte.. • , I.
• ~' - 4 "K tit s ~~.~.. + ~ ~, t
\ ~~s ! '~' ~'E q EC~be ,r~. ! ~~"~ 4 SOi. oERr
- ,~~ ~ ~` ,~;,~®'~`~ /r ~• fir ~ O.J ~'Q ~~ Sl Eton '
S ~ N _
4y ~i ~i .Ik.1 a~o.i'~r $ W R~ug51 / ld-NMc
aEhi Ob M~'1{RingE=ST qr?' ~i ~~3 "~oi~v• ~ ~ '`i( ~ ~ ~rM r"a,ar
°" ~ ~0"`~ ~ _ titi
~~~ r? \ ` ' ~E OOi
4R Ri0GE PIANTAr~ON PIPE LINE ~~~
~f~
iV
NORTB
25
a
•
ra
•
,
v
I 24
I.~J4 Ac O
I
• 241
37
.o a T A~
1
1
R~ 1
„~
` s~
i1 17 +w 39
r00 ~
1 -
~2
y4
38
19 p ~ ~i ~ ~. raoA+
e a,
le W
~ .. _
40
i N •c B1C
20
1.. a~ '°'~.E 1 '°
,~
~~
1
41
49
ZI 1004
~
22 + .
•
w 48 • • 42 /
H•' .~»~ X00 A.
1 9 -,
_ + '+ /
M ~ •' ~ 43
` zp , g2
+ , g2 ~ ~ ''
47 Z 1 ~• /
1 - 46 •, •• /
v •' / /
„~., ~ /
a,,e
s\o,..r
\ g04
N
ALL FARCE LS
ARE ZC?NED_ ~
OTHERWISE Ir
KORMe-N T. WR 1 GHT 1
COMMUNITY SERVICES 3 2 ro n~ ~
AND DEVELOPMENT g ~-1 g _ , _ 4 5 ,
G~~
Date Rec.: ~ ~~
Received By: ~~
Case No.:
Ord. No.:
ROANOKE COUNTY REZONING APPLICATION
1. Owner's Name• Springwood Associates
Phone : 774-6500
Address•Suite 200 3214 Electric Road, Roanoke, Virginia 24018
2. Applicant's Name• Springwood Associates Phone: 774-6500
Address:Suite 200 3214 Electric Road, Roanoke, Virginia 24018
3. Location of Property: 4515 Bramb1eton Avenue, :Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Tax Map Number(s) :86.08-p4-~7 & 08
4. Magisterial District: C~~9 ~U%~dsat ~/~s
5. Size of Property: 2.25.
6. Existing Zoning: B-2c
Existing Land Use: Office and Retail
7. Proposed Zoning: B-2c with modification of proffered conditions
Proposed Land Use: Office and Retail with a drive-thru window
8. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Transition
9. Are Conditions Proffered With This Request? Yes X 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: $2,000,000.00
11. The Following Items Must Be Submitted With This Application. Please
Check If Enclosed. Application Will Not Be Accepted If Any Of These
Items Are Missing Or Incomplete:
x Letter of Application x Concept Plan
x Metes and Bounds Description x List of Adjacent Owners
of Property (Attach Exhibit A) Vicinity Map
x Application Fee ~- Written Proffers
x Water and Sewer Application (If Applicable)
12. Signature Of Property Owner, Contract Purchaser,
Or Owner's Agent:
Signature ~~~~ ,~ ~ Date February 21, 1990
~, ~ ~~~
:~:.
-~~
~` r. 1990
WOODS, ROGEI3S SC HAZLEG$OVE
!06 FRANKLIN ROAD, S.W. P. O. BOX '720
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 2 4004-0720
TELEX 3792815 TELECOPIER 703-982-4216
TELEPHONE 703-982-200
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL TELEPHONE
982-4252
March 30, 1990
Mr. Terrance Harrington
Director of Planning
County of Roanoke
3738 Brambleton Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Gb
6~0 MAIN iTREET
~. o. iox iso
OANVILLt, VIROINtA 24643-0540
TELtrNONt 404-7YI-1350
T[LtCO~ItR X04-7Ytf-3627
Re: Change of Proffered Conditions on Behalf of
Springwood Associates, Roanoke County Tax
Parcel Nos. 86.08-04-07 and 08
Dear Terry:
Enclosed please find Amended Proffer of Conditions which
the Petitioner has agreed to as a result of a meeting with the
neighbors held on Wednesday evening, March 28th.
We are sending a copy of this letter and a copy of the
Amended Proffer of Conditions to those people who were in
attendance at the meeting.
Please give me a call if you have any questions.
Very t my yours,
t~
Michael R. Smeltzer
MKS/lgb
Enclosure
cc: Neighbors (w/enc.)
i
^~ ~
VIRGINIA:
BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
A 2.25 acre parcel of land, )
generally located on the )
northerly side of Brambleton )
Avenue, SW, (U.S. Route 221) ) AMENDED
within the Windsor Hills ) PROFFER OF
Magisterial District, and ) ONDITIONS
recorded as Parcel #86.08-04- )
07 and 08 in the Roanoke )
County Tax Records (the )
"Property"). )
TO THE HONORABLE SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY:
In accordance with Section 15.1-491.1 et seq. of the. Code
of Virginia and Section 21-105E of the Roanoke County Zoning
Ordinance, the Petitioner, Springwood Associates, a Virginia
General Partnership, hereby voluntarily proffers to the Board
of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, the following con-
ditions to the rezoning of the Property:
1. The conditions previously proffered shall remain in
full force and effect with the exception of the addi-
tional proffers hereinafter set forth.
2. The Property will be developed in accordance with the
Concept Plan made by Balzer and Associates, dated May
3, 1988, and Amendment thereto dated February 21,
1990, except for such changes as may be required by
the site plan review.
3. There will be no restaurants on the Property using a
drive-through facility.
4. There will be no "fast food restaurants" on the
Property. "Fast Food restaurants" shall be defined
as McDonalds, Hardees, Burger King and Wendys.
5. There will be no restaurant of any kind in Building
"D" on the Property.
LAW OFFICES
WOODS,ROOERS
8 HAZLEOROVE
ROANOKE, VA.
(3- ~O
6. There will be no convenience market on the Property.
Respectfully submitted,
SPRINGWOOD ASSOCIATES
By: GNP- ~-
Mic ae R. Sme tzer
Attorney for Petitioner
uw oFFK;Es
WOODS,ROGERS
i HAZLEGROVE
ROANOKE, VA.
-2-
., ,~
~~~ '~~
b
to .
a
#a~
_ ~~
-~wwrs~i,~ t~ ~~oNrcav
IW~ 1d3JW~ ` t
SMOWl.~.7.3H1 ~~~~
l:~ ° ~j
~ ~
~a
~ ~ a°~
ATTACHMENT A
.•r ~e
~brb wiisrw
~-
~~
t
N
b
~_?~;
3~~.
.:
u
`b~~
~~ ~° i
~ ~w i
i
i
~~ I
t O
t
F
M7v y~ w~~~
• ~'-pFh n IO
N
Gb
~~/
w
.:
Y~:~
~~
V~~
V\ ~
~~
/ '
t
ter
~~s _
"~~~ W
O2 2`
Lai w °v
ai
J t ~ -~
/ ?
O
e
~$
~~ z
~~
~o~_~
Y ,O
0
V ~
•
u~
~ s
y~ 0
• ~a
+~~,~i
~y ~~1y
I~ ~
Vic.
i
ATTACHMENT B
- ~~Ya
fV
1
dCa4
• i.
~ ` ~~~
;o \s ~~e
~ s~c~
~° o
w 4~~G.
y
r ~~~.
~ t -
•C +•~~
2 ~~ ~ ~
hL ~ L
~~`
~a
~~ ;,~ ,
~ \ ~~
~ ~ • `~`•
i ~ \ //ry
~\ ~ ~
K ~ ~ 1~
~ ,~~
~~ 1 ~~~
~~ " ` ~
~ ~\ ~ ~
~~
~ i ~,, ,
~~~
I ~
v
I v /~ ~~~/
~ _ ~
-~- - -~ c
L_-- ;_~ __-~
~-~' i=""
~-+ 1 ~~
~ ~ ,- i~ o
t ~ ~
1 I _ ~ 1 o J~~
Nv~ - R~ '
~_ ~ ;a
L_--~ --~
1 W W
1 ~ oC
3
r--_~ ~ - - J -- 1 0
- ~ ---_~
~ ~ -- - s W i
I - -l
W
o ~
t ~ -
_=~ ~ r
~~ ~p ~'
~--~ ~
i
~ _
E
c j
I
, W ~
~ ~~ E ~ I~
~
~~
I
~I ~
M i 'l
I
I
' ~
~~ ~
~ I1 ' II
1 '
~ ~
I
W W
~ - ~1
~' j
~ ~I
_-~/
~ ~
i i
i
Z
~R
~ .~
i
ti ~gS
~W ~ NW
tc ,~
~:
V 4
Ir W
/I
LW~J /1VLCLJNiY Y 0-00 00 ar bW ioL 1-O/•~l
i rT0'G ~) LO) :Y/70J NO[59N:Y ~ H. ~ .Mq~ n~yv ioi
: YJ07p '/ l07 d1: 4f Y11: OC
.WJ OA/i 9N~^
1/1
"~
\ ~
`
i
~~~
~; ~ ~ ®
~~~
~~
r
W
W
r I
I ~
" II w +
j
'
~ ~ ~
~
_$ 0 I
c
~
~
:
~
^
p I
~ I
k
~ p
O
S
I
~
W
c
4
W ~
7'}~+~~ ~ `~..~-. ~ ICJ
N I '
1
f
~ I d
•
W I
W
T. ~ '. /J c~ b~ F~ ~ i'T a7 $
o~ "Lt` t~ ti ~n c~~Rl~/~y~ f4j~oaf
t 4 . i , ~ "~"tirr 9q " (~ •'FICRAV'r~_'Y~~ 4. r~
Av' _
. ~ z ~ 'V '.'_ __ ~ w[fi
led ~ ~M ...~ V ~BUMKfN y~L. D4, ",~i (''+.a ~ ,~ S PRA
~ 1 ygw_i ,~ ~ s ~
'~l ~ ~ n~.K '~sau ~ ' ' yoga •.~~a +~.
.4~' * -'
'°• WREN FtI- ~ ~ \~' /~ ^4
• ~ A $ as °~.,.-
d~, b ~ ,~ ~4 ~ ,~
~4,Mw ~ Ln:
~ ,
~ ..tea -~ ~ ~t ~ ~..--b~~
1<! t .,.
'~.,.d
NORTB
2
' 11
M
/ o
ee
x
• ~,. o
;. 4 , B7 ' / ~ ~ / /
. .o ~
~~ /
~
d ` ~~ / /
1
I /
/ ;f
/ /
~ 81 t/
~IJR1 3s 2 -
e
`
~
M 1
s.
.
`,'+.
~ ~'
g
R5C ~~
/
61
61
~
s / A'
B~ ~~~
B /
~ ~~
. ~ ~~ ~
~~ ~~
•
35
~ / B~~ t~
BL // CSR 7NtiBtMC~
~
I
/ 21
~
; 1
22
,
~ 79 k
Q Q ~ Lions C1~0
tr caf+ jaNa ~ zp ~c
, •
I
/ ~~ 8.1 OfsE nt
~ ~ ~~.~ ~
~~-., o ,
p, I ~ , R1
20
~
"
B2 P
~ "'
B2 /
,~ , ~. ~..,..
/ J 19
~ ~
2
-
w x
~ / /
~.
~ '
t I 1 : f...
_'
'
12 '
/ le 6
/ ~ /
/
.
,. 25
``
•
/ x
R
i t0,-c ~ / ~I irk $ ~ 4j' O
/ •
7 tf,s ~ ~ ria
f
~ 13
IT ~
B~ / / - ~
10 c ~ 4 _
~ '~
r / -~ 16 ~ Z
e /
/ j0
S r Ib i ~ J `
~ 9 - R'~ 5 -
1
i
)o .
,j
`
~0 0
v ~~ ~•
6
7
M
20 ` 117 8 -
- $R-K6H000 assocla~s
sBxv~e~s ~-2c T~ Moo.F,~f~ a-2~
~~BNr e~.oe-o~ -o~
,~'
1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON
TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1990
ORDINANCE 72490-5 AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE
OF SURPLUS REAL ESTATE AND THE ACQUISITION OF
REAL ESTATE AND A RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE FORT
LEWIS E-911 TOWER SITE
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July
24, 1990; and the second reading of this ordinance was waived
pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County
Charter, in that an emergency is deemed to exist; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the
Roanoke County Charter, certain real estate has been deemed to be
surplus in relation to the use for which it was originally
acquired, and is hereby made available for disposition.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows:
1) That the conveyance of that certain tract of real estate
(Tax Map No. 43.00-1-43) containing approximately 5.25 acres of
real estate, previously a well lot, and designated as Lots 1
through 7 and 7A of Talking Leaves Park (as shown in Plat Book 3,
Page 200 in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke
County, Virginia) to David W. Shelor and Constance R. Shelor is
hereby authorized and approved.
2) That the acquisition of a metal reservoir well lot
(approximately 100'x 100') from David W. Shelor and Constance R.
Shelor, on land of Shelor on the southern slope of Fort Lewis
Mountain is hereby authorized and approved.
3) That the acquisition of a right-of-way and easement from
2
David W. Shelor and Constance R. Shelor, being the same as
previously granted to the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of
State Police (as shown in Deed Book 1233, Page 174 in the Clerk's
Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia) for a
period of five (5) years, with an additional term, is hereby
authorized and approved.
4) That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to
execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary
to accomplish these conveyances, all of which shall be on form
approved by the County Attorney.
5) That in order to provide for the immediate construction
of a radio tower for the Roanoke County E-911 radio system an
emergency is deemed to exist, that the second reading of this
ordinance is hereby waived, and that this ordinance shall be in
full force and effect upon its passage.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens to waive second reading and
adopt ordinance, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
John Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment
Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance
r
ACTION N0.
ITEI~1 NUMBER ~~ ~ _-
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SiJPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
CCTJNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY .ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE•
July 24, 1990
AGENDA ITEM:
Ordinance authorizing the conveyance of surplus real estate and the
acquisition of real estate and right-of-way for the Fort Lewis E-
911 tower site.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
In exchange for a 5.2 acre tract of surplus property, Roanoke
County will. acquire a right-of-way to a tower site on Fart Lewis
Mountain and quit claim title to a well lot on the property of
David Shelor, While of limited duration, the savings in road
:improvement cost, maintenance response time and ease of access and
installation make this a very effective exchange.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACT:
Further delays to the installation of the E-911 secondary tower
will impair communications and increase the hazards to public
safety, life, and property in addition to considerations of
contractual obligations to the Motorola Corporation.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the adoption and approval of the attached
ordinance and request waiver of a second reading due to the
existence of this emergencey situation.
R spectfull sub~itt d, Appr by
~;~- lmer C . Hodge
-- County Administrator
------------------------------
ACTION
Approved { ) Motion by:
Denied ( }
Received ( )
Referred { }
To { )
VOTE
No Yes Abs
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Idickens
Robers
~1`~
1
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON
TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1990
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF
SURPLUS REAL ESTATE AND THE ACQUISITION OF
REAL ESTATE AND A RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE FORT
LEWIS E-911 TOWER SITE
WHEREAS, the first reading of this ordinance was held on July
24, 1990; and the second reading of this ordinance was waived
pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the Roanoke County
Charter, in that an emergency is deemed to exist; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the
Roanoke County Charter, certain real estate has been deemed to be
surplus in relation to the use for which it was originally
acquired, and is hereby made available for disposition.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows:
1) That the conveyance of that certain tract of real estate
(Tax Map No. 43.00-1-43) containing approximately 5.25 acres of
real estate, previously a well lot, and designated as Lots 1
through 7 and 7A of Talking Leaves Park (as shown in Plat Book 3,
Page 200 in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke
County, Virginia) to David W. Shelor and Constance R. Shelor is
hereby authorized and approved.
2) That the acquisition of a metal reservoir well lot
(approximately 100'x 100') from David W. Shelor and Constance R.
Shelor, on land of Shelor on the southern slope of Fort Lewis
Mountain is hereby authorized and approved.
3) That the acquisition of a right-of-way and easement from
~-i
2
David W. Shelor and Constance R. Shelor, being the same as
previously granted to the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of
State Police (as shown in Deed Book 1233, Page 174 in the Clerk's
Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia) for a
period of five (5) years, with an additional term, is hereby
authorized and approved.
4) That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to
execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary
to accomplish these conveyances, all of which shall be on form
approved by the County Attorney.
5) That in order to provide for the immediate construction
of a radio tower for the Roanoke County E-911 radio system an
emergency is deemed to exist, that the second reading of this
ordinance is hereby waived, and that this ordinance shall be in
full force and effect upon its passage.
. e
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER ,~_
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 24, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Second Reading of an Ordinance Imposing or
Increasing User Fees for the Parks and Recreation
Department
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY•
On May 22, 1990, the Board of Supervisors held the first
reading of an ordinance to impose or increase user fees of the
Parks and Recreation Department beginning with the 1990-91 fiscal
year. One of the concerns expressed by both the Board of
Supervisors and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission was
that instead of the normal cost recovery from youth athletics, that
a registration fee of five dollars per participant be considered
with the provision that no child would be denied the opportunity
to play as a result of an inability to pay. The first reading of
the ordinance included language providing for this concern.
Since that time, four meetings have been held with
representatives from the Recreation Clubs involved in youth
athletics to discuss concerns about the administration, collection,
and use of the proposed fees and to consider suitable alternatives
to the proposed fees. The attached ordinance revises the proposed
fee from youth athletics wherein the recreation clubs will provide
all equipment including game balls and will also drag and mark all
ball fields in lieu of imposing the five dollar per participant
registration fee for the youth athletics programs. A corresponding
reduction in the proposed revenues from fees and the expenditure
budget of the Parks and Recreation Department is suggested to
offset this provision of the ordinance. All other provisions of
the proposed ordinance for the other recreation programs remain the
same.
BACKGROUND:
In February, 1990, David M. Griffith & Associates, LTD., a
consultant hired by the Department of Management and Budget,
completed a limited User Fee Study of a number of departments of
the County including the Department of Parks and Recreation. The
1
~~ t
main objective of the Study was to calculate the full cost of
providing specific services, to compare these costs with the
revenues currently received for these services, and to recommend
fee levels to more fully recover the direct and indirect cost of
providing these services where practical.
In the case of the Parks and Recreation Department, direct
costs represent the specific cost of instructors and associated
supplies which the County is currently recovering in the fees
charged to participants. The indirect costs include the general
fund appropriation for each of the cost centers associated with the
recreation area based on the previous fiscal year budget, plus the
allocation of the central administrative costs for the Department
of Parks and Recreation, and, in the case of athletics, the share
of the ballfield maintenance cost, which is provided by the Parks
Division of the Department. The Registration fee is proposed to
be established at five dollars per participant, per activity and
a ten dollar membership fee is proposed for Senior Citizens in lieu
of the five dollar registration fee. These basic guidelines were
approved by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission.
On June 6 and July 16, meetings were held where
representatives from each of the Recreation Clubs participating in
the Youth Athletics program were invited to come and learn more
about the proposed ordinance, to discuss the logistics of
collecting the proposed fees, and to discuss alternatives to the
proposed five dollar registration fee for youth athletics which
could make the program less costly to the participants, yet would
allow the County to receive the projected revenues or experience
an offsetting expenditure reduction. Two other meetings were held
on June 20 and July 11 with a sub-committee of this group and the
proposal to allow the recreation clubs to provide the equipment
including the game balls and also to drag and mark the ballfields
(baseball, softball, football, and soccer) in lieu of the five
dollar per participant registration fee was developed. This
compromise proposal is considered more acceptable by the majority
of the Recreation Clubs.
Under this compromise proposal, the County Department of Parks
and Recreation will put the ballfields in proper playing condition
at the beginning of the season and will provide two markers to each
recreation club. The club will then be responsible for the
dragging and marking of the field and to provide the lime dust or
paint for subsequent marking. Additionally, the club will provide
all playing equipment including game balls for the program. These
two efforts should generate a cost savings of $30,650 annually to
the Parks and Recreation Department budget ($6,500 for equipment
and $24,150 from grounds maintenance). Our full-time staff will
then be able to direct their attention to mowing around other
public facilities and other operations currently being performed
under contractual services. The fees for youth athletics were
originally projected at $32,075. A corresponding reduction of the
2
$30,650 from both revenues and expenditures of the General Fund is
proposed in lieu of adopting any fee for youth athletics.
There are still strong feelings within the community against
the use of user fees in general; concerns about the equity of
charging user fees to participants of organized activities while
passive users of tennis courts, etc. are not being charged;
concerns of proposing an increase in fees from five dollars per
team to five dollars per participant instead of a gradual increase;
and concerns over the reduction of the real estate tax rate during
the budget process when user fees are being suggested to offset
some of the revenue loss. Staff has attempted to point out that
the real estate tax reduction and the user fee proposal are two
separate and distinct issues. Staff also feels that the compromise
proposal of sharing costs in lieu of assessing the participant fee
within youth athletics recognizes the community's dislike for the
principle of the fee, yet allows the quality of the program to
continue.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Since the 1990-91 budget was adopted using the projected fees
from the Parks and Recreation Department as one of the revenue
items, staff suggests that $6,500 be reduced from the equipment
account in the Youth Athletics cost center, and $24,150 from the
Grounds Maintenance cost center of the Parks and Recreation budget
and the revenue account for Recreation fees be reduced by $30,650
to provide for a balanced budget.
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternative #1
Adopt the attached ordinance as amended to allow the
Recreation Clubs in the youth athletics program to provide grounds
maintenance assistance and all playing equipment including the game
balls in lieu of the previously suggested five dollar per
participant registration fee. The Board of Supervisors should also
amend the budget as suggested in the fiscal impact statement to
reflect the change in dollars in both revenues and expenditures.
The ordinance should become effective immediately and all other
provisions of the ordinance should remain intact.
Alternative #2
Adopt the ordinance as originally proposed.
Alternative #3
Adopt the ordinance as originally proposed with the
exception of the youth athletics section and appropriate from the
unappropriated balance the $32,075 to offset lost revenues. This
would allow the County work force to provide the same level of
service proposed for the current fiscal year without instituting
any fee for the youth athletics program.
3
~!
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff suggests alternative #1 of adopting the revised
ordinance and amending the budget by $30,650 as outlined in the
fiscal impact section.
Respectfully submitted, Appr d by
~ ,
Ilf , J'i l f r~ t
hn M. Chambli s, Jr. .~~.~ Elmer Hodge
Assistant Administrator County Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Eddy _
Received ( ) Johnson
Referred ( ) McGraw
To ( ) Nickens
Robers
4
~- i
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER,
TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1990
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE IMPOSING OR
INCREASING OF CERTAIN FEES FOR SERVICES FOR
PARKS AND RECREATION ACTIVITIES
WHEREAS, on September 20, 1989, the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, selected David M. Griffith and
Associates, Ltd. to conduct a detailed cost/revenue study focusing
upon an analysis of user fee services; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of said user fee study was to calculate
the full costs of providing specific services, compare costs with
the revenues received for these services, and recommend fee levels
to recover the full costs of services when such fees are practical;
and
WHEREAS, the Board has found that it is both equitable and
efficient to ensure that those individuals who benefit from certain
governmental services bear the cost thereof while eliminating
unintentional general service cost subsidies; and
WHEREAS, as a result of said study the Board determined that
it was in the public interest to increase certain user fees, as
modified by staff recommendations, budget work sessions, and
citizen comments in order to recover a portion of the direct and
indirect costs of providing certain services as provided herein;
and
WHEREAS, the first reading on this ordinance was held on May
22, 1990, and the second reading on this ordinance was held on
July 24, 1990.
1
=-i
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Director of the Roanoke County Department of
Parks and Recreation is hereby authorized to establish fees for
parks and recreation services and activities, subject to the
approval of the County Administrator, and subject to the following
standards:
a) Definitions:
Indirect costs include the general fund appropriation for
each of the cost centers associated with the recreation area based
on the '^'^z-~Q previous fiscal year budget, plus the allocation of
the central administrative costs for the Department of Parks and
Recreation, and in the case of athletics, the share of the
ballfield maintenance, which is provided by the Parks Division of
the Department.
Direct costs relate to the specific costs of instructors
and associated supplies, which the County is currently recovering
in the fees charged to participants. The registration fee is
proposed to be established at $5 per participant, per activity and
the membership fee is proposed to be $10 annually for senior
citizens, in lieu of a registration fee. The guidelines, which
were approved by the Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission, are
as follows:
b) For activities included under community education:
leisure arts, outdoor adventure and adult athletics, the fee should
be based upon a $5 registration fee, per participant, plus 25~ of
2
..._.
the indirect cost, plus 100$ of the direct cost.
c) For youth athletics,
'' ~ 1 e~€ee ~ in lieu of a S5 registration
fee per participant the participating recreation +~b~~-;e
o="zzmi~--~}}-~}~}p}~-~~giis~r~- rrr-irtt~R~ ~@
'~ .~ 7 L
..iL, ~. ~ clubs and Department
of Parks and Recreation shall im lement cost savin s and cost
sharing alternatives to offset the fees which would have been
generated through the suggested user fees (S30 650 in the 1990 91
Budget).
d) For special events, the budget should plan to
recover 40$ of the indirect cost and 100$ of the direct cost.
e) For therapeutics, there shall be a recovery of 20$
of the direct cost.
f) For senior citizens, there shall be a $10 membership
fee, plus 100 of direct cost associated with the program.
2. That the Director shall develop guidelines for the waiver
or reduction of fees based upon demonstrable hardship and inability
to pay.
3. That the effective date of this ordinance and for the
imposition of the fees and charges authorized herein shall be
August 1, 1990.
3
jI~II~~~I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~
APPEARANCE REQUEST
AGENDA I M NO. -~ - '
_ /~ .~ ,
SUBJECT_ .S` O ~ Ff ~ ~Q/,~" S ~ ~~C /~c /~'o~
__
I would like the Chairman of the Board of Su ex~isors to
reco nize me Burin the ublic hearin on the above matter ':
so that I ma cowmen P
_ t.WHEN CALLED TO THE PODI
y UM,
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-
tions of cl ' 'cation may be entertained by the Chairman.
__
c • 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. -
• INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FQR AN ORGANIZED
GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION
FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT
_ ~~
- PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO DEPUTY CLERK
NAME_~i' w~ ~o.~ i~ s o ~,
_
_
_ ADDRESS ~~ Z `~ ~~ ~ -Q r
_' -
_
_
PHONE -3 ~ ~~ 7.3 ~` 7
_ -
__ __
~Illllilllill IIII111111111111111111111111111111Iillllilililllllllllllllil IIIlillllilll I IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIillllll lily
~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiu
_ c~
APPEARANCE REQUEST
_ _---
- ,~-~
AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ .~'
-
_ ---;
-
_
,~"
SUBJECT ~/,:'~.~~ ~. ~~ ~~~~ys c7-- ~%'
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 ~omment.WHEN CALLED TO THE PODIUM,
I WILL GIVE MY NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE
RECORD. I AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE GUIDELINES
LISTED BELOW.
c • 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.
_
c
_
• Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Ques-
tions of clarification maybe entertained by the Chairman.
c
• All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized
=_ speaker and audience members is not allowed.
• Both s Bakers and the audience will exercise courtes at all times.
p Y
c • Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments c
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.
v
~
.
_
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO DEPUTY CLERK
NAME ~~~ ~~,~~~`% '
•
•
•
c __
ADDRESS ~~ /%~ `iii'/~" ~ ~~ '
'
•
•
•
•
e PHONE ~,~'~ - ,~~ ~~ ~
•
m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i
~,(~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIiiilllllll~llllllll IIIIIIIIIII I IIIIIII~IIiilll~llllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII,(J
r _
APPEARANCE RE UE ST
Q _
- _
AGENDA ITEM NO. _--~---
= r
SUBJECT ~~ ~hti~, ~~~.~Q~ ~- :~~ ~,~ ~,~..~ ~ ~..f
- -
- -
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 s Baker will be iven between three to five minutes to comment
whether speaking as an individual or representative. The chairman will
c decide the time limit based on the number of citizens speaking on an issue,
and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Board to
do otherwise. '
_
• Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Ques-
tions of clarification maybe entertained by the Chairman.
• All comments must be directed to the Board. Debate between a recognized
speaker and audience members is not allowed.
• Both speakers and the audience will exercise courtesy at all times.
c =
• Speakers are requested to leave any written statements and/or comments
-_ with the clerk.
• INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED
GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION
FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT
'- THEM.
•
__
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO DEPUTY CLERK
mlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllillillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllillllllllllllllllll~
LUillillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllilllilillllillllilllllllllllllllliillillllllllillilllillilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllilllli
APPEARANCE RE UEST
Q
_
_- AGENDA ITEM NO. ~- - 1
SUBJECT =~ ~ ~~~ p~..,, k ~- ec ~ ~ ¢,
_
I would like the Chairman of the Board of Supex~isors to
= recognize me during the public hearin on the above matter
= so that I may comment.WHEN CALLS 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-
bons of cl ' 'cation 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 aze requested to leave any written statements and/or comments -
= with the clerk. -
• INDIVIDUALS PURPORTING TO SPEAK FOR AN ORGANIZED =
GROUP SHALL FILE WITH THE CLERK WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION
FROM THE GROUP ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL TO REPRESENT
THEM.
__
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND GIVE TO DEPUTY CLERK
_ -
"~ NAME /
- J @.. ~- r
- ADDRESS -~ ~ s ~ Q c r ~-
- y ~ ~ ~
- ~
~_ ~
PHONE _ ~ ~ q - ~ ~ ~ ~
-
- _, _
-
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIillllllllllllllllillllillllllllilllilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll~
~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiiiiiii~i~U
APPEARANCE RE VEST
_ Q
_
.
_
_
AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ ~- r ,
_ _
_
_
_
_ _.
SUBJECT S'~ - ~~~?s e , ~ - ~ ~ ~
_
_
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, c
- and will enforce the rule unless instructed by the majority of the Boazd to
_
do otherwise. c
_
• Speakers will be limited to a presentation of their point of view only. Ques-
bons of clarification may be entertained by the Chairman.
• All comments must be directed to the Boazd. Debate between a recognized __
c
_= 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 c
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 _
i
~
--
NAME `~:. 1 l~I C C C~ ti/ ~ ~`- _
_
= ADDRESS ~~~ _
'- PHONE
m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m
~~ ~r'2 ~jii.yf. ~ '~t1ti ~R;~Jr'i; y 'c"ir ~ .,~1? '..:!,'tit.;V {•'c~f't{ :vSrG1"> ~lt~:~ crcNn
try hundreds c r acrf:: ~ r ~~;i.: ~i r' i n~~ rf:a ~ rt±i•~n~.: ~.- _ , "'."~;c 8~;~ gr'Ut~tth n i r,C
e
1 ~8"1 , has s ~ri~?.:.i;~a ."3 ,tali r'Cir~> ~C'YUrd C ~j~~:~iC . c y . s 'r,t~ major i r1 ~+-eat.:2d
Rl~1ftL~t'1`??1^,6 ri~SJGfi`_i i til j i?; i~~ }1%z`/~ r,n'~: i,:.,r! ;ft~jCC'~"1@~ `uy t/`/P.CI !~1f''.1t*~~~
increaLf3 in far+: ;~i:~;;~t:;ar•~:;ce :m:.3t,4,._;wc~r ~ ~-
'r ,ara,.rlr# frlc~.l t'-t~rl8rr~r3
ea~ti;~rier7t. its a rn~L•'~E~r• ~° ,- t , nc rt~d ~ ~--
a~, t ~c~.>Za i fu ~tim~
fi'1t 1 r!Lanar?%9 ~"i-.;b'L' ~'CE~ti <:1•?i~~~..R . I (^, '', "!i 1 ~ ;J~'~~riE'/i'~~ 1 1 ~ ~ {
y es. • ;,her, errs ~ ;
:na;n*er:ar!c:~ .: ~ri;:3~ ~c r^+:.rZ#:~:`r~ f?~~''` ,,~ ;.t~f~ C'r~i.;i~*;~' ;,~
.. s partcs.
~a~}:tr•t~:~'.:r!~; ,"c.;~•~r ~irG f,~:e ~.~r ._ .i:•!'~ e~;r~:;_•;;c:r! ad~/;snry.
CotRl,~R 15 ~ or1 r F~~l' ~~i i ~ ~ ~ IU Y ~ e-~_~ 7.: ~
r ~J• t•f~:~' ~I t}Ir~. C .l .fll~ 1 `;:sc ;~.f_ r°d~~OC:i'G'':.S j frri-i tl~E?f;~rir:~
Gf'~tlrsf't~ :~~Ltt"~t:u `?~~;,i~~it;~7 ..5 .1 '; z:r~r:;t:`~'~-c3 rriC•~liiifY~l~(!(~ill'~:1G!",$ ~.iv'~r' 41kU {~~
Y ~ ~.1 I 3.rL!f!bi•~ # ~ ~
r8r5 ~ :~. T:a r"('1? G'i~1'"i :~:f.. ~~ .S:~FS'~ lri'1 'c3%6~ 6V~. ~j Ct"~
::.lJ'~'~ir}.1~ ~l.tld G;1Gr'%1~:.i~at'!j' E4tj~',:.i~;f1C;t:iS ;~, ~"Ir?'it:] ~lt?~::+:/1 ~~t1F' TUrt.lr~.
~ IYi ~ ~ 4 1~
~`,CjG? ~ 1 ~!Cl~i . ::~@``~3.1 :.•"ii~~i~t. [J~.; ~t-~!~ ` 1":~ l'ti'/i?;'i~.1=? 1 C i:ii Stl i ilt:L' ~ ~Il t.a Z
!'
>r0 }lf= 16J P"la i `~ItG'?''"! ~~lE:: F~i!'~: ~y::ttf:l.
{}'ii= 3~"t _:~i~?3:1".~~fsf.!.v of 1ljrY-;,?t;:~r~ s"~a.S-_... ~.G FiF-.~ ~ t-t ~~ -: .v~
~~ ~la~~r ~'r',dr,r;~a~ 1.~Y ft`f? ~'at"t;5 %?'1~ F?O=~.';-t'cit1G~! AdV1St7ry' r:cJT,rl11S51cJC1.
Tfie ~.: etld tcwar~ ; r,craasr-_~' rer,r e~ t. ! cy!-! fea,~ , f~~r s~frr ; .1 i 29>~
SOf'V Z tt?`~ i ;i riGY~' ~.i;^ R~Or~`!'; ic`~!' ~Llilj 1 C: ~~~rlr i!-~ci r=?Ci'f~.t':1 Ct"i i;t~k:';';4: ~ ~,S
vGiuZ:fl fr` ~i'! j Vii, t ~`.i +:c`i` f10~ "ey~,,'~i~-/,~tt'it? t;=; ~~it ~ UTl clrC: ~;?Q!1 I r r7Qr~ ~£~
1"1 ~03n~k~ CO~Irt '', ra - ~~ /~i~-~!J - r,- „-#
t)' ~, .! ,a ~.tir~ .,1_~~ ~:'Kf~~;1:31''iE+ E~.:r..=t~.iG,l ~q`i1~r2'li
S9r•~,'iC:3 .:~1`f;;rt~~, t.!'i$ ~V:!!i%t1 l~?;iC'i'l;iE3'.~ ~ =' t~
r ~-vc:;` ~ 1 ~ S ~;J ~dSC yt~~r• ~ IC~l1E~
~ ftd i rect ! y ;-~~ ! ..~tscf a=fR~ ' nd ; rac':t.
f;?tijJt?r~::e~:i Ut'! YOii;!'i Athl'3tics. A~.
~.{i6 C:1rr9!lt YdCJ1';;~r.~T iC•!"i ff3~ i?f ¢+Ci,Ql1 ~~,r l.~~tR~l lOXC:IU[jlnj yolatn
br~seb~':1 and ~O'tbai') , th<~ Cc+.,nty teas rLcc+v~~r-~d 1es~ than .3~ ai:
l` """ ~, ~
V}'1 ~
Cow' ~`~
- r' !'~-J
,~ -..
T 1J L - ? ?: - y ~: i•1 :-~ r-i ~ ,c._ _, _-~ i~ i l Fr. .:' ti: (-~ to
P _ ~-_~ ._
i~C},Stl it)i~..%~~'lfit~i, ~::: l;i?~I;~ai"'E{i ~'.i ~,'.a f;it..:::ti c's ~ ~0~ i'::tr Qt. }'l E's Pr~3r•~+%`•'
S~f't11 ~~: y ihC ~iiC:ji.;y i7•~fl-';:j; .'l'F`:. !F'~3..~:"~ '=•11t•~"1 ~i('t=Ct"ii,'1^.'Lr. ~ `J~ ~ ~~.
TCI~' r; c7t1'l:tl'! ~:i fC~'"! ~:fit~~?t"`=-,y ~•hr3 ~~:itt:'~.'}l: O'i X112 '(.^~i~thl R`..E'iZ Jf ~,.
~i~~li:.c, v1"^W'~iC~ltl~ 3~='~C~Ctiiti"E: ~.;c~.;;C,rr,::I~i`.C ~;/ 4.'t^_ fi ii?~iS"i !,}'1f;j
~X~:.i~.l'ti'S1~ U_`af' =?i.:; Ti':'~ 'rElf?. t `~';~:J::G"T.";~-. rr-,:r~:> t)i~l.5i. ?~i 5, ~~ !t'1 ~ lE•.»
Cat iRC~"~:~3E?~ ?'~3=~5• ~.'Gr?`'ri~~.±' iYr_ 7;:, }~r~`G ~t~•_~. ~~~:~~? ~!~?+.. Fi C. r'.`.}.:"?'~~~"iLi+7:.1,
C ~; tip} (" Q:lt 7 .'~' i3 .
~~i~ ~Q.`rl T~~r (::771L•~ ,•,js"l~::.~.?~C~ i1;7~ ~h~~:i..:t_iG ~'~l..jt~? .~t{{iF.1VZf.1.'~* X~~..r~
t!'1~ P.x~syp~„C`~t ~f ,r)I'O~~i^ai1'i S~:.f'~J7cas i~C:t' ciUi' %131.7. i.:~::y'~Nt=Ci r'C~,~f~i'y
!"4:5:..~6f1'~,~r~~ic3r ('t~Cr~ii~.'iC:ii ;i'~C'•:;i!`:~i:l :~r`_i Yl^E: ~~';::.~cl~, r.I.IC:•~ c~~ ~~CJrtiT:'t~-'17t,jI
Es~t~:.a~~ior~~, ,4th!!? ~ A~.h°e~:.~cs <<~;r~. .;u'• S~~r1i~:r G-i ~~ • Y~JliY.;f?r,-'!~c~*,lcrl .~i 11
pay ~t,~;~ir fait' ~~;Ur` ~:~;' irt4r~~~.~~~ f~•~s. Yal.!tf~ A`'rlleti~.s sh~~lr~ nit
~c"3 t'r~~fii~)1: fi";=;~i! iii i ~i 9'~"~~i;i15'+f~i ~ 5?; fi~~'.o i:t' lt'1 t}~r_'. Tlltlir'~' .
..,..~~
~~ ...~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1990
ORDINANCE 72490-6 AUTHORIZING RECONVEYANCE OF
THE FORMER FIRE STATION SITE IN THE ROANORE-
BOTETOURT INDUSTRIAL PARR TO GREATER ROANORE
VALLEY DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION AND ROANORE
VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
WHEREAS, a certain parcel of real estate located in Botetourt
County, Virginia, was deeded to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, and the Board of Supervisors of Botetourt County,
Virginia, for the specified purpose of constructing a fire station;
and,
WHEREAS, the donation of said parcel to the Counties was
subject to the condition that the property would revert to the
Grantors in the event that the Counties had not appropriated funds
for and had not begun construction of a fire station on the parcel
within five years, namely by November 24, 1991; and,
WHEREAS, the Counties have reached an agreement to construct
the joint fire station on a different parcel of land and the
subject parcel will not be used for the specified purpose.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the
Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real
estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading of
this ordinance was held on July 10, 1990; and a second reading was
held on July 24, 1990; and,
2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the
Charter of Roanoke County, the remaining rights in the subject
parcel of real estate are hereby declared to be surplus and the
condition applicable to the property renders it unacceptable and
unavailable for other public uses; and,
3. That reconveyance of the subject parcel, described as
Parcel B, consisting of 2.183 acres, located to the north of Route
460 in the Roanoke-Botetourt Industrial Park, in the Bonsack area
of the Blue Ridge District, County of Botetourt, Virginia, to the
Greater Roanoke Valley Development Foundation and the Roanoke
Valley Development Corporation, is hereby authorized.
4. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized to
execute such documents and take such actions as may be necessary
to accomplish this conveyance, all of which shall be on form
approved by the County Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt ordinance, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
yYl-c~-~-~ yU cc_t.e ems..
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
ACTION NO.
~. ~
ITEM NO. ~•"
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
C COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 10, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING RECONVEYANCE OF THE FORMER
JOINT FIRE STATION SITE IN THE ROANOKE-BOTETOURT
INDUSTRIAL PARK TO GREATER ROANOKE VALLEY DEVELOP-
MENT FOUNDATION AND ROANOKE VALLEY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY'
This is the first reading of the proposed ordinance to
authorize reconveyance of the former joint fire station site in the
Roanoke-Botetourt Industrial Park to Greater Roanoke Valley
Development Foundation and Roanoke Valley Development Corporation.
BACKGROUND'
By Deed of Gift dated October 20, 1986, the Greater Roanoke
Valley Development Foundation (GRVDF) and the Roanoke Valley
Development Corporation (RVDC), both Virginia corporations,
conveyed two parcels of land, aggregating 4.355 acres, more or
less, on the north side of Route 460 in the Bonsack area of the
County of Botetourt to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, and the Board of Supervisors of Botetourt County,
Virginia. (See copy of plat -- Attachment A). Parcel A, contain-
ing 2.172 acres, was donated for the purpose of constructing the
Roanoke County-Botetourt County Joint Library. Parcel B,
consisting of 2.183 acres, was donated for the construction of a
fire station. The deed contained a condition providing for
reversion of Parcel B to the Grantors in five (5) years if the
Counties had not appropriated funds for and had not begun
construction of a fire station on this parcel.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Counties have since reached an agreement to construct the
joint fire station, known as the Read Mountain Fire Station, on a
parcel of land along Route 604 in Botetourt County. Parcel B, as
ACTION NO.
ITEM NO. ~'
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
C COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 24, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING RECONVEYANCE OF THE FORMER
JOINT FIRE STATION SITE IN THE ROANOKE-BOTETOURT
INDUSTRIAL PARK TO GREATER ROANOKE VALLEY DEVELOP-
MENT FOUNDATION AND ROANOKE VALLEY DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY•
This is the second reading of the proposed ordinance to
authorize reconveyance of the former joint fire station site in the
Roanoke-Botetourt Industrial Park to Greater Roanoke Valley
Development Foundation and Roanoke Valley Development Corporation.
The first reading was held on July 10, 1990.
BACKGROUND•
By Deed of Gift dated October 20, 1986, the Greater Roanoke
Valley Development Foundation (GRVDF) and the Roanoke Valley
Development Corporation (RVDC), both Virginia corporations,
conveyed two parcels of land, aggregating 4.355 acres, more or
less, on the north side of Route 460 in the Bonsack area of the
County of Botetourt to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, and the Board of Supervisors of Botetourt County,
Virginia. (See copy of plat -- Attachment A). Parcel A, contain-
ing 2.172 acres, was donated for the purpose of constructing the
Roanoke County-Botetourt County Joint Library. Parcel B,
consisting of 2.183 acres, was donated for the construction of a
fire station. The deed contained a condition providing for
reversion of Parcel B to the Grantors in five (5) years if the
Counties had not appropriated funds for and had not begun
construction of a fire station on this parcel.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Counties have since reached an agreement to construct the
joint fire station, known as the Read Mountain Fire Station, on a
~~
described above, will not be used for the specified purpose and the
property will automatically revert to GRVDF and RVDC on November
24, 1991.
During the interim, there are no plans for use of Parcel B and
there is no reason for the Counties to retain ownership through the
reversionary period. GRVDF and RVDC have requested that the
Counties reconvey Parcel B so that other uses can be made of the
property without delay. The Board of Supervisors of Botetourt
County approved this reconveyance on April 16, 1990.
FISCAL IMPACTS•
None
ALTERNATIVES•
(1) Authorize the County Administrator to execute a deed for
reconveyance of Parcel B to GRVDF and the RVDC.
(2) Allow the time period for reversion to the GRVDF and the
RVDC to expire. Any development of the parcel, and perhaps the
surrounding area, would be delayed until it automatically reverted
to the corporations on November 24, 1991.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County
Administrator to execute a deed for reconveyance of Parcel B to the
Greater Roanoke Valley Development Foundation and the Roanoke
Valley Development Corporation.
Respectfully submitted,
Vi ki L. Hu m n
Assistant Co t Attorney
Action
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
to
Motion by
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
Vote
No Yes Abs
S~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1990
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING RECONVEYANCE OF THE
FORMER FIRE STATION SITE IN THE ROANOKE-
BOTETOURT INDUSTRIAL PARK TO GREATER ROANOKE
VALLEY DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION AND ROANOKE
VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
WHEREAS, a certain parcel of real estate located in Botetourt
County, Virginia, was deeded to the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, and the Board of Supervisors of Botetourt County,
Virginia, for the specified purpose of constructing a fire station;
and,
WHEREAS, the donation of said parcel to the Counties was
subject to the condition that the property would revert to the
Grantors in the event that the Counties had not appropriated funds
for and had not begun construction of a fire station on the parcel
within five years, namely by November 24, 1991; and,
WHEREAS, the Counties have reached an agreement to construct
the joint fire station on a different parcel of land and the
subject parcel will not be used for the specified purpose.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.04 of the
Roanoke County Charter, the acquisition and disposition of real
estate can be authorized only by ordinance. A first reading of
this ordinance was held on July 10, 1990; and a second reading was
held on July 24, 1990; and,
2. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 16.01 of the
Charter of Roanoke County, the remaining rights in the subject
ACTION NUMBER
KI-~
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 24, 1990
SUBJECT: Appointments to Committees, Commissions and Boards
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
1 Board of Zoning Appeals
Five-year term of M. E. Maxey, Vinton Magisterial District
expired June 30, 1990.
2 Building Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals
Four year terms of John Brownlee, Alternate will expire July 25,
1990
3 Community Corrections Resources Board
One-year term of Edmund J. Kielty, Alternate. His term expired
August 13, 1988.
4 Landfill Citizens Advisory Committee
Carl L. Wright, representative from the Cave Spring Magisterial
District has resigned and another representative should be
appointed.
SUBMITTED BY: AP V
~i
Mary H. Al en Elmer Hodge
Clerk to the Board 1~'~ County Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( ) Motion by• No Yes Abs
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To ( )
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
ACTION NO. A-72490-7
ITEM NUMBER K- 5
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 24, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Appointment to the Southwest Virginia Health
Systems Agency
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Southwest Virginia Health Systems Agency is currently seeking
a representative from local government to serve on its Board of
Directors. This organization is asking for nominees from each of
the forty-one governing bodies who would be willing to serve. From
these nominees, the Southwest Virginia Health Systems Agency will
select only one member to serve on their Board of Directors.
Supervisor R. W. Robers has expressed his willingness to be
nominated for this appointment.
RECOMMENDATION'
It is recommended that Supervisor R. W. Robers be nominated to
serve on the Southwest Virginia Health Systems Agency Board of
Directors and this information to be forwarded to Mr. A. Frank
Teske, Dr., Chairman, Nominating Committee.
Approved by,
Elmer C~`. Hodge
~.L County Administrator
Approved (x)
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To ( )
ACTION
Motion by: Lee B. Eddv nominated
seconded by Steven A McGraw Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
VOTE
No Yes Abs
x
x
x
x
x _
cc: File
Committee Book
1356 Maple Avenue SW • Post Office Box 2825 • Roanoke, Virginia 24011 • (703) 981-1822
May 23, 1990
Mr. Elmer C. Hodge
Roanoke County Administrator
P.O. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018-0798
Dear Mr. Hodge:
In accordance with state laws adopted by the 1989 General
Assembly, the Southwest Virginia Health Systems Agency is
currently seekinq a representative from local government to serve
on our Board of Directors. The Southwest Virginia Health Systems
Agency serves as the regional health planning agency for a 29
county area of southwest Virginia extending from Alleqhany County
to Amherst County to Pittsylvania County and westward. A copy of
our annual report for 1988-89 was sent to you at the beginning of
the year.
Our agency is seekinq nominations for this local government
representative from each of the 41 political ,jurisdictions in the
area they serve. We are interested in electing someone to our
Board with a firm knowledge of local government activities,
preferably an elected or appointed official. These individuals
will be elected for a three year term and should be able to
commit to attending a monthly meeting held on the first
Wednesday. If your ,jurisdiction would like to submit the name of
someone for the position on our Hoard, we would appreciate your
doing so by June 25, 1990. Please forward the name of your
nominee to our office at the address indicated above. If you
need additional information about our agency, please feel free to
contact our executive director, Ken Cook, at (703) 981-1822.
Your assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Please do not hesitate to contact the HSA staff if they may be of
assistance to you.
Sincerely,
~~~~~~
A. Frank Teske, Sr.
Chairman, Nominating Committee
~~-~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1990
RESOLUTION 72490-8 APPROVING AND
CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET
FORTH ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AGENDA FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS
ITEM L - CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the certain section of the agenda of the Board
of Supervisors for July 24, 1990, designated as Item L Consent
Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to each
item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 8 as follows:
1. Approval of Raffle Permit - The Knights Booster
Club at Cave Spring High School.
2. Acknowledgement from the Virginia Department of
Transportation of the acceptance of 0.45 mile of
Cedar Edge Road (Route 2035) into the Secondary
System.
3. Resolution requesting changes in Secondary System
due to relocation and reconstruction of Sugarloaf
Mountain Road (Route 692).
4. Resolution requesting changes in Secondary System
due to relocation and reconstruction of Roselawn
Road (Route 689).
5. Resolution requesting changes in Secondary System
due to relocation and reconstruction of Brookridge
Road (Route 660).
6. Resolution requesting changes in Secondary System
due to relocation and reconstruction of Tinsley
Lane (Route 711).
7. Authorization to settle pending litigation with
Fabricated Metals, Inc. for outstanding utility
bills.
8. Resolution supporting Total Action Against
Poverty's application for grant from the Virginia
Indoor Plumbing 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 to adopt resolution with
minor corrections to maps on Items 3, 4, 5, and 6, and carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
~a~~ ~-
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering
Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance
Bingo/Raffle Permit File
}
ACTION NO. A-72490-8.a
ITEM NUMBER ~ " /
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 24, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Request for approval of a Raffle Permit from the
Knights Booster Club at Cave Spring High School
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Knights Booster Club at Cave Spring High School has requested
a Raffle Permit to hold a raffle on September 24, 1990. This
application has been reviewed with the Commissioner of Revenue and
he recommends that it be approved.
The organization has paid the $25.00 fee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the application for a Raffle Permit be
approved.
SUBMITTED BY:
Mary H. A en
Clerk to the Board
APPROVED BY:
~~'Elmer C/. Hodge
County Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Eddy x
Received ( ) Johnson x
Referred ( ) McGraw x
To ( ) Nickens x
Robers x
cc: File
Bingo/Raffle File
L-~
COUNTY OE ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
COMMISSIONER OF `PHE REVENUE
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO CONDUCT RAFFLES OR BINGO
Application is hereby made for a bingo game or raffle permit.
This application is made subject to all County and State laws,
ordinances, rules, and regulations now in force, or that may be
enacted hereafter and which are hereby agreed to by the under-
signed applicant and which shall be deemed a condition under
which this permit is issued.
All applicants should exercise extreme care to ensure the accura-
cy of their responses to the following questions. Bingo games
and raffles are strictly regulated by Title 18.2-340.1 et. s_~.
of the criminal statutes of the Virginia Code, and by Section
4-86 et. sue. of the Roanoke County Code. These laws authorize
the County Board of Supervisors to conduct a reasonable investiga-
tion prior to granting a bingo or raffle permit. The Board has
sixty days from the filing of an application to grant or deny the
permit. The Board may deny, suspend, or revoke the permit of any
organization found not to be in strict compliance with county and
state law.
Any person violating ccunty cr state regulations concerning these
permits shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Any person who
uses any part of the gross receipts from bingo or raffles for any
purpose other than the lawful religious, charitable, community,
or educational purposes for which the organization is specifi-
cally organized, except for reasonable operating expenses, shall
be guilty of a Class 6 felony.
THIS APPLICATION IS FOR: (check one)
RAFFLE PERMIT X BINGO GAMES
Name of Organization Knight's Booster Club (Cave Spring High School)
Street Address 3260 Longhorn Road
Mailing Address Roanoke, Virginia 24018
City, State, lip Code
Purpose and Type of Organization Encourage, Promote & Support all
of the Athletic Programs of Cave Spring High School
When was the organization founded? 1975
1
-,
Roanoke County meeting place? Gave Spring High School
Has organization been in existence in Roanoke County for two con-
tinuous years? YES X NO
Is the organization non-profit? YES X NO
Indicate Federal Identification Number # In Process
Attach copy of IRS Tax Exemption letter.
Officers of the Organization:
President: Mr. Jack Lanq Vice-PresidentRoQer Jefferson
Address: 5932 Big Horn Dr. Address:
5359 Doe Run Rd.
Roanoke, VA 24018 Roanoke, VA 24014
Secretary: Karen Colgrove ~ Treasurer: an~c~e NnP11
Address: 3452 Greencliff Rd.
Roanoke, VA 24018
Roanoke, VA 24018
Member authorized to be responsible for Raffle or Bingo opera-
tions:
Name W, Peter Smithson
Home Address 4825 Hunting Hills Dr.
Phone 989-4633 Bus. Phone 982-0011
A COMPLETE LIST OF THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF CURRENT MEMBER-
SHIP MUST BE FURNISHED WITH THIS APPLICATION.
Specific location where Raffle or Bingo Game is to be conducted.
Cave Spring High School
RAFFLES: Date of Drawing5,~~~~mber.24 Time of Drawing7;00 PM
BINGO: Days of Week & Hours of Activity:
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
From To
From To
From To
From To
From To
From To
From To
Address: 3260 Longhorn Rd.
2
L-~
State specifically how the proceeds from the Bingo/Raffle will be
used. List in detail the planned or intended use of the proceeds.
Use estimates amounts if necessary.
The intent of the Raffle is to raise $25,000. The proceeds
are budgeted to be distributed in the following maner:
$11,000 will be distributed to patrons of the raffle in
five reverse drawings.
$10,000 will be used by the Cave Spring High School Football
Team to purchase equipment, uniforms.
Ln
$4000 will be used for the building fund far new press box/
concession stand currently being constructed at Cave
Spring Junior High School
ti--
~-
r
,,
;.
r.
3
L-~
BINGO: Complete the following:
Legal owner(s) of the building where BINGO is to be conducted:
Name:
Address:
County
State Zip
Is the building owned by a 501-C non-profit organization?
Seating capacity for each location:
Parking spaces for each location:
ALL RAFFLE AND BINGO APPLICANTS MUST ANSWER QUESTIONS 1 - 19
1. Gross receipts from all sources related to the operation of
Bingo games or Instant Bingo by calendar quarter for prior calen-
dar year period.
BINGO INSTANT BINGO
1st Quarter N/A 1st Quarter
2nd Quarter
3rd Quarter
4th Quarter
Total
2nd Quarter
3rd Quarter
4th Quarter
Total
2. Does your organization understand that it is a violation of
law to enter into a contract with any person or firm, associa-
tion, organization, partnership, or corporation of any classifica-
tion whatsoever, for the purpose of organizing, managing, or con-
ducting Bingo Games or Raffles? YES
3. Does your organization understand that it must maintain and
file complete records of receipts and disbursements pertaining to
Bingo games and Raffles, and that such records are subject to
audit by the Commissioner of the Revenue? YES
4. Does your organization understand that the Commissioner of
the Revenue or his designee has the right to go upon the premises
on which any organization is conducting a Bingo game or raffle,
to perform unannounced audits, and to secure for audit all re-
cords required to be maintained for Bingo games or raffles?
YES
4
G-
5. Does your organization understand that a Financial Report
must be filed with the Commissioner of the Revenue on or before
the first day of November of each calendar year for which a per-
mit has been issued? YES
6. Does your organization understand that if gross receipts ex-
ceed fifty thousand dollars during any calendar quarter, an addi-
tional Financial Report must be filed for such quarter no later
than sixty days following the last day of such quarter? YF~
7. Does your organization understand that the failure to file
financial reports when due shall cause automatic revocation of
the permit, and no such organization shall conduct any Bingo game
or raffle thereafter until such report is properly filed and a
new permit is obtained? YFS
8. Does your organization understand that each Financial Report
must be accompanied by a Certificate, verified under oath by the
Board of Directors, that the proceeds of any Bingo game or raffle
have been used for these lawful, religious, charitable, commu-
nity, or educational purposes for which the organization is spe-
cifically chartered or organized, and that the operation of Bingo
games or raffles have been in accordance with the provisions of
Article 1.1 of Chapter 8, Title 18.2 of the Code of Virginia? YES
9. Does your organization understand that a one percent audit
fee of the gross receipts must be paid to the County of Roanoke
upon submission of the annual financial report due on or before
the first of November? YES
10. Does your organization understand that this permit is valid
only in the County of Roanoke and only at such locations, and for
such dates, as are designated in the permit application? YES
11. Does your organization understand that no person, except a
bona fide member of any such organization who shall have been a
member of such organization for at least ninety days prior to
such participation, shall participate in the management, opera-
tion, or conduct of any bingo game or raffle, and no person
shall receive any remuneration for participating in management,
operation, or conduct of any such game or raffle? YES
12. Has your organization attached a check for the annual permit
fee in the amount of $25.00 payable to the County of Roanoke,
Virginia? YES
13. Does your organization understand that any organization found
in violation of the County Bingo and Raffle Ordinance or X18.2-
340.10 of the Code of Virginia authorizing this permit is subject
to having such permit revoked and any person, shareholder, agent,
member or employee of such organization who violates the above to
having such permit revoked and any person, shareholder, agent,
member or employee of such organization who violates the above
referenced Codes may be guilty of a felony? YES
5
L-(
14. Has your organization attached a complete list of its member-
~ship to this application form? Y S _
15. Has your organization attached a cony of its bylaws to this
application form? y S _
16. Has the organization been declared
tion under the Virginia Constitution or
If yes, state whether exemption is for
or both and identify exempt property.-
17. State the specific type and purpose of the organization.
Tn Pnrn~irag,g., nrmm~tP ~ cii~nrt al 1 of tha Athl at i r Prnnramc
of f avP ri g Huh ~rhnnl
18. Is this organization incorporated in Virginia? NO
If yes, name and address of Registered Agent:
19. Is the organization registered with the Virginia Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs pursuant to the Charitable
Solicitations Act, Section 57-48 of the Virginia Code? In Process
(If so, attach copy of registration.)
Has the organization been granted an exemption from registration
by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs?
In Process (If so, attach copy of exemption.)
ALL RAFFLE APPLICANTS DESCRIBE THE ARTICLES TO BE RAFFLED,
VALUE OF SUCH ARTICLES, AND PROCEED TO NOTARIZATION.
Article Description
Cash
exempt from property taxa-
StatuteS? Tn PrnrPCC
real, personal property,
Fair Market Value
$11,000
6
~.
L-I
ALL BINGO APPLICANTS MUST ANSWER QUESTIONS 20 - 27 BEFORE
NOTARIZATION
RAFFLE APPLICANTS, GO TO NOTARIZATION.
20. Does your organization understand that the bingo games shall
not be conducted more frequently than two calendar days in any
calendar week?
21. Does your organization understand that it is required to keep
complete records of the bingo game. These records based on §18.2-
340.6 of the Code of Virginia and §4.98 of Roanoke County Code
must include the following:
a. A record of the date, quantity, and card value of instant
bingo supplies purchased, as well as the name and address of
the supplier of such instant bingo supplies, and written
invoice or receipt is also required for each purchase of in-
stant bingo supplies?
b. A record in writing
the number of people
amount of receipts
(These records must b
of the dates on which Bingo
in attendance on each date,
and prizes on each day?
e retained for three years.)
c. A record of the name and address of each individual to whom a
door prize, regular or special Bingo game prize or jackpot
from the playing of Bingo is awarded?
d. A complete and itemized record of all receipts and disburse-
ments which support, and that agree with, the quarterly and
annual reports required to be filed, and that these records
must be maintained in reasonable order to permit audit?
22. Does your organization understand that instant Bingo may only
be conducted at such time as regular Bingo game is in progress,
and only at such locations and at such times as are specified in
this application?
23. Does your organization understand that the gross receipts in
the course of a reporting year from the playing of instant Bingo
may not exceed 33 1/3~ of the gross receipts of an organization's
Bingo operation?
24. Does your organization understand it may not sell an instant
Bingo card to an individual below sixteen years of age?
25. Does your organization understand that an organization whose
gross receipts from all bingo operations that exceed or are ex-
pected to exceed $75,000 in any calendar year shall have been
granted tax-exempt status pursuant to Section 501 C of the United
States Internal Revenue Service?
(Certificate must be attached.)
is played,
and the
7
L-~
26. Does your organization understand that a Certificate of Occu-
pancy must be obtained or be on file which authorizes this use at
the proposed location?
27. Does your organization understand that awards or prize money
or merchandise valued in excess of the following amounts are
illegal?
a. No door prize shall exceed twenty-five dollars.
b. No regular Bingo or special Bingo game shall exceed One Hund-
red dollars.
c. No jackpot of any nature whatsoever shall exceed One Thousand
Dollars, nor shall the total amount of jackpot prizes awarded
in any one calendar day exceed One Thousand Dollars.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
NOTARIZATION: THE FOLLOWING OATH MUST BE TAKEN BY ALL
APPLICANTS
I hereby swear or affirm under the penalties of perjury as set
forth in X18.2 of the Code of Virginia, that all of the above
statements are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and
beliefs. All questions have been answered.
Signed by: Jack Lang
Name Title Home Address
1 f
Subscribed and sworn before me, this .7L~ day of ~~ ~ ~T 19 ~Zi
My commission expires: ')
.~
19~ ~~7~,, ~ _~ -~ 1
~~
Nota P tic
RETURN THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION T0:
COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE
P.O. Box 20409
Roanoke, VA 24018-0513
8
L-~
NOT VALID UNLESS COUNTERSIGNED
The above application, having been found in due form, is approved
and issued to the applicant to have effect until December 31st of
this calendar year.
-~ G- ~ 1 °'
~..~-
D Commis -inner of t ~ evenue
The above application is not approved.
Date Commissioner of the Revenue
9
~~~~~~
~~,~ ~ ~~ .
,.~-
.~0.
~,
DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RAY D. PETHTEL RICHMOND, 23219
COMMISSIONER
July 9, 1990
Secondary System
Addition
Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors
County of Roanoke
P. O. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018-0798
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD:
As requested in your resolution dated March 27, 1990, the
following addition to the Secondary System of Roanoke County is
hereby approved, effective July 9, 1990.
ADDITION
LENGTH
FOR_E_ST_ EDGE , SECTION TWO
Route 2035 (Cedar Edge Road} - From 0.07 mile
North Route 221 on Route 1950 to 0.41 mile North
Route 221 on Route 1950. 0.45 Mi.
Sincerely,
o~!
a D. Pethtel
ommissioner
TRANSPORTATION FUR THE 21ST CENTURY
f>
~.
._ . ..~`
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1990
RESOLUTION 72490-8.C REQUESTING CHANGES IN
SECONDARY SYSTEM DUE TO RELOCATION AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF SUGARLOAF MOUNTAIN ROAD
(ROUTE 692)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the
proceedings herein, and upon the application of a portion Sugarloaf
Mountain Road (Route 692) which was relocated and reconstructed
under VDOT Project 0692-080-199,M-502;
2. That it appears to the Board of Supervisors that portions
of Secondary Route 692, from north of the intersection with Route
689 to a point north of Smokey Ridge Road for a combined distance
of 0.14 miles has been altered; a new road has been constructed and
approved by the State Transportation Commissioner, which new road
serves the same citizens as the road so altered; and these changes
are shown on the attached sketch titled "CHANGES IN SECONDARY
SYSTEM DUE TO RELOCATION AND RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 692, PROJECT
0692-080-199,M-502, DATED IN RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, ON NOVEMBER 2,
1987";
3. That the portion of Secondary Route 692, i.e., Section
#3 for a distance of 0.09 miles, and Section #4 for a distance of
0.05 miles, are hereby added to the Secondary System of State
Highways, pursuant to Section 33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia, as
amended.
4. That the Commonwealth Transportation Board take necessary
action to discontinue the sections of old location, i.e., Section
#1 and #2 for a total distance of 0.10 mile as part of the
Secondary System of State highways pursuant to Section 33.1-150
of the Code of Virginia, as amended.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
G'LL~L-~-~~-
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering
Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections
Fred C. Altizer, Jr., Resident Engineer, Virginia Department
of Transportation
NORTB
COMAlUNITY SBRVICBS CeANGES IN SECONDARY SYSTII~i DUE TO RELOCATION AND
CONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 692, PROJECT 0692-080-199,
AND DBVBLOPMBNT M-sot (ROANO~ couNTY )
i~
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER L/
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 24, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Requesting Changes in Secondary System Due to
Relocation and Reconstruction of Sugarloaf Mountain Road (Route
692)
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Sugarloaf Mountain Road (Route 692) was reconstructed to
eliminate severe horizontal alignment locations. All
construction has been completed and the Virginia Department of
Transportation now wishes to make these changes on the official
Route Maps.
FISCAL IMPACTS'
No County funds were involved
System.
in this change in the Secondary
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the
attached resolution to implement changes in the Secondary System
due to reconstruction of Sugarloaf Mountain Road (Route 692).
L- 3
SUBMITTED BY:
~~
~~~~~
Phillip Henry, P.E.
Director of Engineering
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
To
Motion by:
ACTION
APPROVED BY:
.• .~,
lmer Hodge
~~ County Administrator
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
VOTE
No Yes Abs
~- 3
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1990
RESOLUTION REQUESTING CHANGES IN
SECONDARY SYSTEM DUE TO RELOCATION AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF SUGARLOAF MOUNTAIN ROAD
(ROUTE 692)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the
proceedings herein, and upon the application of a portion
Sugarloaf Mountain Road (Route 692) which was relocated and
reconstructed under VDOT Project 0692-080-199,M-502;
2. That it appears to the Board of Supervisors that
portions of Secondary Route 692, from north of the intersection
with Route 689 to a point north of Smokey Ridge Road for a
combined distance of 0.14 miles has been altered; a new road has
been constructed and approved by the State Transportation
Commissioner, which new road serves the same citizens as the road
so altered; and these changes are shown on the attached sketch
titled "CHANGES IN SECONDARY SYSTEM DUE TO RELOCATION AND
RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 692, PROJECT 0692-080-199,M-502, DATED IN
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, ON NOVEMBER 2, 1987";
3. That the portion of Secondary Route 692, i.e., Section
##1 for a distance of 0.09 miles, and Section ##2 for a distance of
0.05 miles, are hereby added to the Secondary System of State
Highways, pursuant to Section 33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia,
as amended.
3
~'°
4. That the sections of old location, i.e., Section #3
for a distance of 0.06 miles, and Section #4 for a distance of
0.04 miles, is hereby abandoned as a public road, pursuant to
Section 33.1-155 of the Code of Virginia, as amended.
4
~'~ ~~ $ 8
a d
r .i ~°~-~ + O"
/', ~
~l "0 ~ ~ ~ ~° S ~ ~1
~ i. ) S
~tll 'F ~ N ~ 3 ~ 4 ~ 6 ~
RD. J
~~~~`' ~~ ; ~" ""°tl" VlCIN1TY MAP
~~
NORTB
~~~
O
O
d
~ '~'
,~ Sect.3
~ 0.06 mi. °'~
N ~~
00o m Sect. 4
,, ~ 0.04 mi.
g o~°o s~ ~
d o vJ
O~
~ Sect.2
Sect. I S~Dar Loaf Mt^~ 0.05 mi. c
~~
O 0.09 m i .
~~ 692 P6~9
LEGEND
~.+-- Section of nEw location to be addP-d to Secadaz9 Systen
oooococcco Section of old location to be abandoned
(76.03)
COMMUNITY SERVICES CHANGES IN SECONDARY SYSTEM DUE TO RELOCATION AND 1
CONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 692, PROJECT 0692-080-199,
ANDDEVBLOPMENT M-sot (ROANO~ coUNTY)
5 J
C O R R E C T E D
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1990
RESOLUTION 72490-8.d REQUESTING CHANGES IN
SECONDARY SYSTEM DUE TO RELOCATION AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF ROSELAWN ROAD (ROUTE 689)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the
proceedings herein, and upon the application of a portion of
Roselawn Road (Route 689) which was relocated and reconstructed
under VDOT Project 0689-080-192;
2. That it appears to the Board of Supervisors that
Secondary Route 689 from the intersection of Route 1537 eastward
to 0.539 miles east of Route 1537, for a distance of 0.539 miles
has been altered; new roads have been constructed and approved by
the State Transportation Commission, which new roads serve the same
citizens as the roads so altered; and these changes are shown on
the attached sketch titled " CHANGES IN SECONDARY SYSTEM DUE TO
RELOCATION AND RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 689, PROJECT 0689-080-
192,0-501, DATED AT RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, SEPTEMBER 26, 1986".
3. That the portions of Secondary Route 689, i.e., Sections
7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, for a total distance of 0.23 miles; and that
portions of Secondary Route 690, i.e., Sections 12 and 13 for a
total distance of 0.10 miles be, and are hereby added to the
Secondary System of State Highways pursuant to Section 33.1-229 of
the Code of Virginia, as amended;
4. That sections of old locations of Route 689, i.e.,
Sections #1, 2, 3 and 5 for a total distance of 0.21 miles, and a
Section of old location of Route 690, i.e., Section #6 for a
distance of 0.09 miles be, and are hereby abandoned as public
roads, pursuant to Section 33.1-155 of the Code of Virginia, as
amended;
5. That the State Highway Commission be requested to take
necessary action to discontinue the section of old location of
Route 689, i.e., Section 14, a total distance of 0.14 miles, as
part of the Secondary System of State Highways as provided in
Section 33.1-150 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering
Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections
Fred C. Altizer, Jr., Resident Engineer, Virginia Department
of Transportation
V 1
_ .~ _ /.
;~ ~~
~~ ,
~,~ ~~3
~~
~}
. J
•~~~~a
iVICINI7'Y MAr
l ~
~r ~ ~~ ^' "~V M
~~ ~ ~
r
Q _~,3 :te'a';
To Rt.
Sect.1
'- a :.:~'. Sect. Sect.
Sect.1
Sect. 7 J .::_ ~~'~~
f •i
.: ~:_
Sect.- 2 Sect 3
Sect.6
~ Sect.i Is
• •: Sect.10,
_'` Roselaw~
::
,~ _ sect. S:
1
~• -~.. ~ Sect. 1Z
1~ t
~•~.,~ Sect.. ~
S~ct. l4.-~~~.
~~
.~
To Rte. 221
~~~~ ~Ex~stinp Rte. 690
~•.o.
LBGEND ~f \
..c'+
.•••~~• Section of nev ]acatinn to be added to Seoondazy Systm 'ti^i•
`af
~~ Section of old location to be abendooed 'c•
Sectim of old location to 6e Te~be~d
- • -• - Section of old Location to be discaotia~ed
186.01)
COMMUNITY SBRVICR.S CHANGES IN SECONDARY SYSTEIi DUE TO RELOCATION AND
AND DBVBLOPMBNT CONSTRDCTION ON ROUTE 689 , PROJECT 0689-080-192 ,
C- 501 (ROANOt~ COI7NTY
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 24, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Requesting Changes in Secondary System Due to
Relocation and Reconstruction of Roselawn Road (Route 689)
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Roselawn Road (Route 689) was reconstructed to eliminate two
severe horizontal alignment locations. All construction has been
completed and the Virginia Department of Transportation now
wishes to make these changes on the official Route Maps.
FISCAL IMPACTS-
No County funds were involved in this change in the Secondary
System.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the
attached resolution to implement changes in the Secondary System
due to reconstruction of Roselawn Road (Route 689).
L- `~
SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY:
~ ~~
~~~
Phillip T. Henry, .E. Elmer Hodge
Director of Engineering ~"~ County Administrator
-------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( ) Motion by: No Yes Abs
Denied
Received
Referred
To
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
2
~- y
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1990
RESOLUTION REQUESTING CHANGES IN
SECONDARY SYSTEM DUE TO RELOCATION AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF ROSELAWN ROAD (ROUTE 689)
HE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the
proceedings herein, and upon the application of a portion of
Roselawn Road (Route 689} which was relocated and reconstructed
under VDOT Project 0689-080-192;
2. That it appears to the Board of Supervisors that
Secondary Route 689 from the intersection of Route 1537 eastward
to 0.539 miles east of Route 1537, for a distance of 0.539 miles
has been altered; new roads have been constructed and approved by
the State Transportation Commission, which new roads serve the
same citizens as the roads so altered; and these changes are
shown on the attached sketch titled CHANGES IN SECONDARY SYSTEM
DUE TO RELOCATION AND RECONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 6$9, PROJECT 06$9-
080-192,C-501, DATED AT RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, SEPTEMBER 26, 1986".
3. That the portions of Secondary Route 689, i.e.,
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, for a total distance of 0.23 miles;
and that portions of Secondary Route 690, i.e., Sections 6 and 7
for a total distance of 0.10 miles be, and are hereby added to
the Secondary System of State Highways pursuant to Section 33.1-
229 of the Code of Virginia, as amended;
3
z-y
4. That sections of old locations of Route 689, i.e.,
Sections 8, 9, 10 and 12 for a total distance of 0.23 miles, and
a Section of old location of Route 690, i.e., Section 11 for a
distance of 0.08 miles be, and are hereby abandoned as public
roads, pursuant to Section 33.1-55 of the Code of Virginia, as
amended;
5. That the State Highway Commission be requested to take
necessary action to discontinue the section of old location of
Route 689, i.e., Section 14, a total distance of 0.14 miles, as
part of the Secondary System of State Highways as provided in
Section 33-76.7 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended.
4
L-'f
,~
NORTB
~T
1 To Rt.692
..
Sect. IJ
Sect.
Sect.
Sect. 8
Sect. 2
Sect. 3
o a~ ,
oooa° //~
J ...
Sect. 10
LEGEND
~•.n
,...
.~.~..• Section of new location to be ad3ed to Seooodaiy ~~ t~m
cow
ao=~o~ Section of old loocation to be abaodooed .~~
- - - - Section of old location to be i+e~u~ered
- • -• - Section of old location to be discootin~ed
(86.01)
~~.r
COMMUNITY SERVICES CHANGES IN SECONDARY SYSTEM DUE TO RELOCATION AND
CONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 689, PROJECT 0689-080-192,
ANDDBVBLOPMENT C-503, C-5A2 (ROANOKE COUNTY)
5 J
To Rte. 221
,-Existing Rte. 690
\~
Sect. I I
6 ~ Sect. S
o ~ • Sect. 4
g''` Roselawn
u
•;;
~ ~l ~-Sect. l2
.'~- I
. ~~ ~~.~~ Sect. 7
~~ 1
\•'\
~; ~ Sect.l3
Sect. 14
\•~~
~~f`~
! i
4s-~
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1990
RESOLUTION 72490-8.e REQUESTING CHANGES IN
SECONDARY SYSTEM DUE TO RELOCATION AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF BROORRIDGE ROAD (ROUTE 660)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the
proceedings herein, and upon the application of a portion of
Brookridge Road (Route 660) which was relocated and reconstructed
under VDOT Project 0660-080-173,M-502;
2. That it appears to the Board of Supervisors that portions
of Secondary Route 660 from 0.60 miles north of the south
intersection with Route 617 to a point 0.72 miles northwest of the
south intersection of Route 617 for a total distance of 0.12 miles
has been altered; a new road has been constructed and approved by
the State Transportation Commissioner, which new road serves the
same citizens as the road so altered; and these changes are shown
on the attached sketch titled "CHANGES IN SECONDARY SYSTEM DUE TO
RELOCATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 660, PROJECT 0660-080-173-
M-502, DATED IN RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, ON JULY 6, 1988";
3. That the portion of Secondary Route 660, i.e., Section
#2 for a distance of 0.118 miles be, and is hereby added to the
Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to Section 33.1-229
of the Code of Virginia, as amended;
4. That the section of old location, i.e., Section #1 for
a distance of 0.04 miles, is hereby abandoned as a public road,
pursuant to Section 33.1-155 of the Code of Virginia, as amended.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. len, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering
Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections
Fred C. Altizer, Jr., Resident Engineer, Virginia Department
of Transportation
- v ~ -- '"
~ ~'.
w ~ ~" \\
~ ~~
J
JyG'C' ~~ ('I `PPA
kc ~ ~, tf~ ` i,
r°c~4g /
\\ r ~I .. 1 li
d ~`_~ ~ ~;L ..
..... ~..4t ... ............. M ~~ ~~
7/ •-
~. _ -
Sect.1
0.04 mi.
0~~oa~
@~` Q,o
~o `ti`
Q~
(80.00)
~~~
Bock ~ Creek .....__.. .~-^-~
ice-----t ... ~i. .
.. Oid 8~~dge has ~~
been Removed
`\
6roo
. k r~ d 9Q `, •~
ROOd
Sect.2
p:118~i. moo
~~o~e
O~/~
~f
i
1
LBGSND
~...~.~ Section of ner ]ovation to be aadad to Seooodazy Syst®
.~•~••» Section aE old location to be abandoio0d
CObl1NUN17'Y SBRVICfsS CHANGES IN SECONDARY SYSTE!! DuE TO RELOCATION AND
ANDDBVBLOPMBNT CONSTRIICTION ON ROOTB 660, PROJECT: 0660-080-173,
M-502 (ROANOKB COUNTY)
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER ~-~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 24, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Requesting Changes in Secondary System Due to
Relocation and Reconstruction of Brookridge Road (Route 660)
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Brookridge Road (Route 660) was reconstructed to eliminate a
substandard bridge. All construction has been completed and the
Virginia Department of Transportation now wishes to make these
changes on the official Route Maps.
FISCAL IMPACTS'
No County funds were involved in this change in the Secondary
System.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the
attached resolution to implement changes in the Secondary System
due to reconstruction of Brookridge Road (Route 660).
~,
SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY:
~~~ r°
Phillip T. Henry, .E. ~ Elmer Hodge
County Administrator
Director of Engineering
---------------------------------------------
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
To
Motion by:
ACTION
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
VOTE
No Yes Abs
L! -~
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1990
RESOLUTION REQUESTING CHANGES IN
SECONDARY SYSTEM DUE TO RELOCATION AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF BROOKRIDGE ROAD (ROUTE 660)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the
proceedings herein, and upon the application of a portion of
Brookridge Road (Route 660) which was relocated and reconstructed
under VDOT Project 0660-080-173,M-502;
2. That it appears to the Board of Supervisors that
portions of Secondary Route 660 from 0.60 miles north of the
south intersection with Route 617 to a point 0.72 miles northwest
of the south intersection of Route 617 for a total distance of
0.12 miles has been altered; a new road has been constructed and
approved by the State Transportation Commissioner, which new road
serves the same citizens as the road so altered; and these
changes are shown on the attached sketch titled "CHANGES IN
SECONDARY SYSTEM DUE TO RELOCATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE
660, PROJECT 0660-080-173-M-502, DATED IN RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, ON
JULY 6, 1988";
3. That the portion of Secondary Route 660, i.e., Section
#1 for a distance of 0.08 miles be, and is hereby added to the
Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to Section 33.1-229
of the Code of Virginia, as amended;
3
~...~~
4. That the section of old location, i.e., Section #2 for
a distance of 0.04 miles, is hereby abandoned as a public road,
pursuant to Section 33.1-155 of the Code of Virginia, as amended.
4
L-
NORTg
Bock Creek
Old Bridge has ~~
been Removed
i
Sect 2 9rookr~dge
. `Z-._
0.04 mi. R00d
Sect.l
0.08 mi. ~0 0
4~~ ~~
• p. co
o~~-~
~~1 O~ ~'>
~ ~ .iJ
~° ~ti~
Q~
1
LEGEND
~........~ Section of ~ location to be added to Seooodaury System
~~~~ Section of old location to be abatdooed
(80.00)
COMMUNITY SERVICES CHANGES IN SECONDARY SYSTEM DUE TO RELOCATION AND
AND DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 660 , PROJECT : 0660-080-173 ,
M-502 (ROANORE COUNTY)
~` ~.A
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1990
RESOLUTION 72490-8.f REQUESTING CHANGES IN
SECONDARY SYSTEM DUE TO RELOCATION AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF TINSLEY LANE (ROUTE 711)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the
proceedings herein, and upon the application of a portion of
Tinsley Lane (Route 711) which was relocated and reconstructed
under VDOT Project 0221-080-106,C-501;
2. That it appears to the Board of Supervisors that
Secondary Route 711, from the intersection of Route 221
northwestward to 0.07 miles west of Route 221, a distance of 0.07
miles, has been altered; a new road has been constructed and
approved by the State Transportation Commissioner, which new road
serves the same citizens as the road so altered; and these changes
are shown on the attached sketch title "CHANGES IN PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY SYSTEM DUE TO RELOCATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE 221,
PROJECT 0221,080-106,PE-101,RW-201,C-501, DATED AT RICHMOND,
VIRGINIA, ON MARCH 26, 1986";
3. That the portion of Secondary Route 711, i.e., Section
#2, for a distance of 0.07 miles be, and is hereby added to the
Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to Section 33.1-229
of the Code of Virginia, as amended;
4. That the section of old location,i.e., Section #1, for
a total distance of 0.07 miles be, and is hereby abandoned as a
public road, pursuant to Section 33.1-155 of the Code of Virginia,
as amended.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt resolution, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
~~
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering
Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections
Fred C. Altizer, Jr., Resident Engineer, Virginia Department
of Transportation
NORTB
~ LEGEND
X09
~~~ ter. Section of ~w ].,oca~inn to be armed to Seooada~y Spstm
.~o
...~.~.o Section of old location to be aba~dooed
--- - - Section of old location to be ze~eted
221
• ~~~~
Sect.l '~o
0.07 mi. `~fo
~'
Sect. 3----~-
0.14 mi. ~
~ RO~a ~~ti
?2~ a
00
Sect.. 2 ~
0.07mi.
?I t
~o
~\~c
(103.001
COMMUNITY SBRVICBS CHANGES IN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SYSTEM DUE TO
AND DSY$LOPMSNT RELOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 221, PROJECT
0221-080-106, PE-101, RW-201, C-SO1 (ROANOKE COUNTY)
ACTION #
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 24, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Requesting Changes in Secondary System Due to
Relocation and Reconstruction of Tinsley Lane (Route 711)
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
Tinsley Lane (Route 711) was reconstructed to eliminate the
substandard intersection with Route 221. All construction has
been completed and the Virginia Department of Transportation now
wishes to make these changes on the official Route Maps.
FISCAL IMPACTS
No County funds were involved in this change in the Secondary
System.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the
attached resolution to implement changes in the Secondary System
due to reconstruction of Tinsley Lane (Route 711).
4~- ~ W
SUBMITTED BY:
~~~~
Phillip Henry, .E.
Director of Engineering
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Received { )
Referred
To
Motion by:
ACTION
APPROVED BY:
~,~!<,-~
,Elmer ~C. Hodge
~~ County Administrator
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
VOTE
No Yes Abs
4~~
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1990
RESOLUTION REQUESTING CHANGES IN
SECONDARY SYSTEM DUE TO RELOCATION AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF TINSLEY LANE (ROUTE 711)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the
proceedings herein, and upon the application of a portion of
Tinsley Lane (Route 711) which was relocated and reconstructed
under VDOT Project 0221-080-106,C-501;
2. That it appears to the Board of Supervisors that
Secondary Route 711, from the intersection of Route 221
northwestward to 0.07 miles west of Route 221, a distance of 0.07
miles, has been altered; a new road has been constructed and
approved by the State Transportation Commissioner, which new road
serves the same citizens as the road so altered; and these
changes are shown on the attached sketch title "CHANGES IN
SECONDARY SYSTEM DUE TO RELOCATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUTE
221, PROJECT 0221,080-106,PE-lO1,RW-201,C-501, DATED AT RICHMOND,
VIRGINIA, ON MARCH 26, 1986";
3. That the portion of Secondary Route 711, i.e., Section
#1, for a distance of 0.07 miles be, and is hereby added to the
Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to Section 33.1-229
of the Code of Virginia, as amended;
3
f
L-G
4. That the section of old location ,i.e., Section #3, for
a total distance of 0.07 miles be, and is hereby abandoned as a
public road, pursuant to Section 33.I-155 of the Code of
Virginia, as amended.
4
~..
~`~P
NORTB
~~ LEGEND
~o
~ ~~
o '~~' Sactian of ~ location to be added to SeooodaxY S~st~
~.~~.oo.o Section of old location to be abandoned
--- - - Section of old location to be ~numbened
221
BP
~,
Sect.3 '~o
. 0.07 mi. ~~fo
~~
Sect.2 -~
0.14 mi. ~
~ ROOa ?2/ ~o`~
a
Sect. l ~°
0.07mi.
?I I
~o
~c
(103.00) ~\
COMMUNITY SBRVICBS CHANGES IN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SYSTEM DUE TO
ANDDBVBLOPMBNT RELOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION ON ROUTE 221, PROJECT
0221-080-106, PE-101, RW-201, C-501 (ROANOI~ COUNTY)
~ 4 _ i
ACTION # A-72490-8.q
ITEM NUMBER ~~' /
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
IN ROANOKE, VA., ON TUESDAY,
MEETING DATE•
AGENDA ITEM: Authorization to settle pending litigation with
Fabricated Metals, Inc. for outstanding utility
bills
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
In 1967, Fabricated Metals Industries, Inc., Steel Service,
Inc., and John Hall and Company donated easements to a private
sewer company with the understanding that they would receive free
sewer connection and use of the sewer lines without charge. Roanoke
County later purchased the sewer lines from Sanitary Disposal
Corporation without. knowledge of these understandings and began
charging each of these companies for their sewerage useage. They
refused to pay and began legal proceedings against the County.
This matter has been under litigation for almost a decade.
Although the other two companies have subsequently settled with the
county, Fabricated Metals had insisted for the past three years
that it should be paid $4,625.00 for the value of its easament as
a condition of settlement. As of March 31, 1990, the amount which
Utility Billing now calculates is owed by this company to the
county for sewerage services totals $4638.43 and will continue to
increase. Fabricated Metals has now indicated their willingness to
settle this matter out of court without a payment by either side
and by agreeing to install a water meter on their well system. They
have also agreed to pay all future sewer bills at the flat rate
sewer charge for commercial service effective in April, 1990.
Roanoke County agrees to release all liens placed against their
property for past due service.
Attached is a copy of the final settlement order executed by
Fabricated Metals' legal counsel. This is similar to the settlement
previously agreed to by Steel Service and John Hall, and will
result in the end of this litigation.
L-~
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors authorize the
acceptance of the settlement and authorize the Department of
Finance to bring the account of Fabricated Metals Industries,Inc.
to a zero balance as to April 1, 1990, and to release all
outstanding liens against the property of this company.
Respectfully submitted,
~~~'
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
Action
Approved (x )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
to
Motion by Rnh T .Tnhncnn
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
Vote
No Yes Abs
x
x
x
x
x
cc: File
Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance
L-7
VIRGINIA:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ROANOKE COUNTY
FABRICATED METALS INDUSTRIES, INC.,
ET AL.,
Plaintiffs
v. At Law No.
CH86000265
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
(formerly ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SERVICE
AUTHORITY),
Defendant
ORDER
This day came Fabricated Metals Industries, Inc., one of the
plaintiffs herein, by counsel, and the defendant, by counsel, and
advises the Court that all matters in controversy between the
defendant and Fabricated Metals Industries, Inc., had been
compromised and settled and that no outstanding issues remained
between the plaintiffs and the defendant in this law action. The
parties moved the Court to dismiss the claim asserted by Fabricated
Metals Industries, Inc., and to dismiss this action.
It is therefore, ADJUDGED, ORDERED AND DECREED that this
matter be, and it hereby is, "Dismissed Agreed" as to the claim
asserted by Fabricated Metals Industries, Inc.
It is further ORDERED AND DECREED that this action at law be
dismissed with prejudice and be stricken from the docket and the
Clerk is directed to place the file among the ended causes.
ENTER: This day of
We ask for tAiis:
1990.
Judge
Carr L. Kinder, Jr., q.
Counsel for Fabricate etals Industries, Inc.
Jo h B. Obenshain, Esq.
Se or As istant County Attorney
Cod ty of Roanoke, Virginia
a ~
~.~
AT A REGULAR MEETING T THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD A
ON TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1990
RESOLUTION 72490-8.h SUPPORTING TOTAL ACTION AGAINST
POVERTY'S APPLICATION FOR A GRANT FROM THE
VIRGINIA INDOOR PLUMBING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, Governor L. Douglas Wilder and the 1990 General
Assembly approved funding for the Indoor Plumbing Program to
provide grants and loans for the improvement of plumbing facilities
for lower-income Virginians; and
WHEREAS, the goal of the Indoor Plumbing Program is to
assist lower-income families and individuals in obtaining safe and
decent sanitary facilities within their houses; and
WHEREAS, Total Action Against Poverty's Housing and
Emergency Rehab Program wishes to apply for a $250,000 grant to
complete twenty-seven (27) indoor plumbing units, at a cost of
approximately $8,333 per unit, plus energy improvements and
water/sewage connections; and
WHEREAS, these twenty-seven (27) units will be built in
the Counties of Roanoke, Craig, Rockbridge, Alleghany, Botetourt
and the area around the City of Salem.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors
of Roanoke County, Virginia, strongly endorses the proposed
improvement of plumbing facilities for lower-income Virginians; and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, support Total Action Against Poverty's application for
a grant from the Virginia Indoor Plumbing Program to construct
these facilities.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson to adopt resolution, and
-~.
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Johnson, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
~•
Mary H. llen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Alvin L. Nash, Director, TAP, Housing/Energy Conservation
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER ~^i~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: July 24, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Resolution supporting Total Action
Against Poverty's application for a grant from
the Virginia Indoor Plumbing Program
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The 1990 General Assembly approved funding for a New Indoor
Plumbing Program which provides grants and loans for the
improvement of plumbing facilities for lower-income Virginians.
Total Action Against Poverty's Housing and Emergency Rehab Program
plans to apply for a grant under this program to construct twenty-
seven (27) indoor plumbing units in the Counties of Roanoke, Craig,
Rockbridge, Alleghany, Botetourt and area around the City of Salem.
They anticipate completing five units in Roanoke County.
Total Action Against Poverty has requested that the Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution supporting their request
for a grant.
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached
resolution.
Submitted by: Appr by,
.i ^~
Mary H. Al en ~ ~ lmer C. Hodge
Clerk to the Board County Administrator
-------------------------------------------------------------
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred ( )
To ( )
Motion by:
ACTION VOTE
No Yes Abs
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
L- ~'
TAP
Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley
July 16, 1990
Mr. Elmer C. Hodge
Roanoke County Administrator
P.O. Box 29800
Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798
Dear Mr. Hodge:
P. O. Box 2868, Roanoke, Virginia 24001-2868
TAP's Housing and Emergency Rehab program is applying fora $250,000 grant
to do twenty-seven (27) Indoor plumbing units. We anticipate a cost of
approximately $8,333 per unit plus energy improvements and water/sewage
connections. We well build 27 indoor plumbing units in the counties of Roanoke,
Craig, Rockbridge, A!leghany, Botetourt and the area around the city of Salem.
Of these units we anticipate completing five (5) units in your jurisdiction. The
deadline for this application is August 2, 2990 at 5:00 PM.
As part of the proposal, we need a resolution from your governing Board in
support of the Indoor Plumbing Program for your locality, to accompany our grant
request. These letters can be sent to us Roanoke, Virgin a~ 24001-2868.
If you need additional information, please contact myself or Susan Stacy ar
703/345-6864. Once completed we will provide you with a copy of our proposal.
Sincerely,
Alvin L. Nash
Director
Housing/Energy Conservation
Enc.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1990
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING TOTAL ACTION AGAINST
POVERTY~S APPLICATION FOR A GRANT FROM THE
VIRGINIA INDOOR PLUMBING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, Governor L. Douglas Wilder and the 1990 General
Assembly approved funding for the Indoor Plumbing Program to
provide grants and loans for the improvement of plumbing facilities
for lower-income Virginians; and
WHEREAS, the goal of the Indoor Plumbing Program is to
assist lower-income families and individuals in obtaining safe and
decent sanitary facilities within their houses; and
WHEREAS, Total Action Against Poverty's Housing and
Emergency Rehab Program wishes to apply for a $250,000 grant to
complete twenty-seven (27) indoor plumbing units, at a cost of
approximately $8,333 per unit, plus energy improvements and
water/sewage connections; and
WHEREAS, these twenty-seven (27) units will be built in
the Counties of Roanoke, Craig, Rockbridge, Alleghany, Botetourt
and the area around the City of Salem.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors
of Roanoke County, Virginia, strongly endorses the proposed
improvement of plumbing facilities for lower-income Virginians; and
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, support Total Action Against Poverty's application
for a grant from the Virginia Indoor Plumbing Program to construct
these facilities.
N-~
COUNTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA
CAPITAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE
Unaudited Beginning Balance at July 1, 1990 $ 9,608
Balance as of July 24, 1990
Submitted by
Diane D. Hyatt
Director of Finance
a y,vvo
Y''`~
COUNTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA
GENERAL FUND UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE
Amount
Unaudtied Balance at July 1, 1990 $2,653,756
Balance as of July 24, 1990
$2.653,756
Submitted by
Diane D. Hyatt
Director of Finance
N3
COIINTY OF ROANORE, VIRGINIA
RESERVE FOR BOARD CONTINGENCY
Beginning Balance at July 1, 1990 $ 50,000
Balance as of July 24, 1990
$ 50.000
Submitted by
Diane D. Hyatt
Director of Finance
N"~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Supervisors j~
FROM: Paul M. Mahoney ~/~' U " '~
DATE 18 July 1990
On July 10, 1990 Mr. Gary Flora and Mrs. James Graham appeared before the
Borad of Supervisors complaining about a drainage problem affecting certain real estate
owned by Mr. and Mrs. Graham located at 4805 Greenlee Road in the City of Roanoke,
allegedly caused by stormwater run-off from Hidden Valley Junior High School. The
Board directed the County Attorney to report to it concerning this citizen complaint at
its next meeting.
This office first became aware of this complaint in December, 1989. Since that
time I have worked with Mr. Homer Duff and various School Board officials, Roanoke
County Engineering Department personnel, officials from the City of Roanoke, Mr. Flora
and Mrs. Graham in an attempt to indentify the problem and to develop alternative
solutions to the problem. This has included numerous telephone calls, meetings,
discussions and correspondence. The Engineering Department has studied various
alternatives, several of which have been submitted to Mrs. Graham and Mr. Flora.
One alternative suggested by the School Board which met all regulatory standards
has been rejected by Mrs. Graham. Another alternative explored a neighborhood
stormwater drainage project; however this was extremely expensive. Other alternatives
were legally or financially objectionable.
r-~
2
In April, 1990 the School Board undertook certain work to alleviate an immediate
problem. This work is apparently unsatisfactory to Mrs. Graham.
At its meeting on July 12, 1990 the School Board authorized certain additional
work to be done to address this complaint. This action has been communicated to Mrs.
Graham.
Although the School Board denies any legal liability for this problem, it desires to
be a good neighbor in fashioning a solution to this problem. The Board of Supervisors
has no legal liability or responsibility for this issue or for any claims arising from it. It
is recommended that this issue and any claims arising from it be referred back to the
School Board.
PMM/sp
~ FtOANO~,
F
~ L
!- 7~
Z G7
2
a~
OFFICE OF DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT
ROANOKE COUNTY SCHOOLS
526 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE
SALEM. VIRGINIA 24153
July 17, 1990
Mrs. James Graham
4805 Greenlee Rd SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Dear Mrs. Graham:
j e'r~ ;~
~~~ ~
On Thursday, July 12, the School Board approved modifications to
the drainage system at Hidden Valley.
We are in the- process of developing specifications to enable us to
address your concerns regarding storm water run off. We are hoping
to install two additional drop inlets and piping to direct the
water into the natural drainage basin. Our time frame is to
complete this work by August 31.
I will contact you to review these specifications when they are
completed.
Sincerely,
Homer D. Duff, Director
Facilities and Operations
~, c: Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1990
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING EXECUTIVE MEETING WAS
HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant
to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the
provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia
requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, that such executive meeting was conducted in
conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to
the best of each members knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the
executive meeting which this certification resolution applies, and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified
in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed
or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia.
,.r.
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANORE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANORE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
ON TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1990
RESOLUTION 72490-9 CERTIFYING EXECUTIVE MEETING WAS
HELD IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CODE OF VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant
to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the
provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia
requires a certification by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, that such executive meeting was conducted in
conformity with Virginia law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, hereby certifies that, to
the best of each members knowledge:
1. Only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the
executive meeting which this certification resolution applies, and
2. Only such public business matters as were identified
in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed
or considered by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens, and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Eddy, McGraw, Nickens, Robers
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Johnson
A COPY TESTE:
~•
Mary H. A len, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Executive Session File
~~~
.
M E O R A N D U M
TO: Lee B. Eddy ~
FROM: Paul M. Mahone~~
SUBJECT: Legal Enforcement Alternatives to Prohibit the
Disposal of Solid Waste
DATE: 13 July 1990
1
At the June 26, 1990, meeting of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors you
requested that I investigate various alternatives for County enforcement actions to
prohibit the disposal of solid waste. Specifically you were concerned about the disposal
of chicken manure by Seaboard Farms, Inc. located on Bent Mountain. The purpose of
the memorandum is to discuss in general terms various governmental enforcement tools
that can be utilized in these situations, and in particular, to discuss several specific
alternatives with regards to the situation at Seaboard Farms.
A county may rely on the legal status of its adopted comprehensive plan to
prohibit the locating of a proposed new, privately- or publicly-owned sanitary landfill in
the county, even though the county has not enacted a local zoning ordinance. This
position is based upon a interpretation of § 15.1-456 of the State Code by the Attorney
General, to the County Attorney for Scott County (See Opinions of the Attorney General,
187-88, page 212). This opinion is also based upon the provisions of the Virginia
Waste Management Act (Chapter 14 of Title 10.1 of the State Code) which requires that
the location of a proposed solid waste disposal facility be in compliance with all
2
ordinances adopted pursuant to Chapter 11 of Title 15.1, and this Chapter includes
provisions concerning the development and adoption of comprehensive plans.
Potentially undesirable uses of land are subject to regulation, restriction, and
prohibition under Virginia's zoning enabling statutes (See § 15.1-486). The Virginia
Supreme Court has held that a county may as an exercise of its zoning powers prohibit
the operation of private landfills when acounty-operated landfill was available and the
county had developed a local solid waste management program. In addition, while the
Department of Waste Management is vested with the power to exercise general
supervision and control over waste management activities in the Commonwealth, the Act
displays a legislative intent to permit active local involvement in the field of waste
management regulation [See Resource Conservation Management, Inc., et al. v. Board of
Supervisors of Prince William County, 238 Va. 15 (1989)]. The Court cites as authority
for this finding the statutory provision which conditions the award of a permit upon the
locality's finding that the proposed facility is in compliance with all applicable local
ordinances.
In addition to utilizing the local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to
restrict or prohibit certain solid waste disposal activities, a locality may also utilize its
general police powers to "secure and promote the health, safety and general welfare of
the inhabitants" of the locality (See § 15.1-510). This power includes the adoption of
quarantine regulations, the adoption of necessary regulations to prevent the spread of
contagious diseases, and the adoption of regulations for the prevention of pollution of
water where it is rendered dangerous to the health or lives of the residents of that
3
locality. The authority to promote the general welfare of the county and the safety,
health, peace and good order is also found in § 2.01 of the Roanoke County Charter.
In addition, the County is specifically conferred with all of the powers found in the
"Uniform Charter Powers Act" (Chapter 18 of Title 15.1). These powers included § 15.1-
857 which provides, in part, for the authority to regulate and inspect dumps and other
places and facilities for the disposal of garbage and other refuse and the manner in which
these places are operated or maintained, and the authority to prevent the use thereof for
such purposes when they contribute or are likely to contribute to the contraction or
spread of infectious, contagious, or dangerous diseases.
The power to abate public nuisances is reflected in §§ 13-13 and 13-14 of the
Roanoke County Code. These sections address the unlawful disposal of rubbish or other
waste material, the unlawful accumulation of trash, and the abatement of public
nuisances. These County Code sections are based upon the authority found in § 15.1-
11 of the State Code. This statute and these ordinances provide for the governing body,
whenever it deems it necessary, and after reasonable notice, to have such trash, garbage,
refuse, litter and other like substances which might endanger the health of its residents,
removed by its agents or employees, in which event the cost or expenses shall be
chargeable or paid to the owners of the property.
At the State level, the Virginia Waste Management Act provides fora comprehen-
sive regulatory scheme which prohibits the operation of any sanitary landfill or other
facility for the disposal, treatment or storage of non-hazardous solid waste without a
permit; and which prohibits the operation of open dumps. The Act provides for the
4
revocation of permits where the facility is maintained or operated in such a manner as
to pose a substantial or potential hazard to human health or the environment, or where
leachate or residues from the facility pose a threat of contamination or pollution of the
air, surface waters, or ground water in a manner resulting in a substantial present or
potential hazard to human health or the environment. The penalties and enforcement
provisions under this Act are very broad and powerful, including civil penalties of
$25,000 for each violation, and in certain cases, criminal felony provisions (See § 10.1-
1455). These penalty and enforcement provisions are much broader, more extensive and
have a greater impact than any enforcement powers granted to localities.
The State Department of Health and the local health departments also possess
broad enforcement authority for the purpose of "suppressing nuisances dangerous to the
public health and communicable, contagious and infectious diseases and other dangers
to the public life and health." (§ 32.1-14) The Health Department is also vested with
broad powers with regards to penalties and the prosecution and enforcement of violations
(See § 32.1-27). With respect to specific citizen complaints regarding flies arising from
the chicken manure, § 32.1-247 vests specific authority with the Health Department to
investigate the occurrence of diseases borne by insects and rodents and to take such
measures as may be necessary to prevent the spread of such diseases and to eradicate or
control disease-bearing insects and rodents.
The State Water Control Board also has significant powers, duties, and enforce-
ment capabilities in this area. § 62.1-44.5 prohibits waste discharges or other water
quality alterations of state waters except as specifically authorized by a permit or
5
certificate from the SWCB. §§ 62.1-44.31 and 62.1-44.32 address the alternatives with
regards to a violation of a special order or certificate, and lists the various penalties for
violations. These penalties include civil penalties not to exceed $25,000 for each
violation, as well as criminal felony provisions for specific offenses. The enforcement
powers and penalty provisions are more extensive than any powers available to local
governments.
Through past practices, custom, and by regulation, the responsibility for regulating
the land disposal of agricultural wastes and manure from livestock operations has been
vested in the State Water Control Board. Seaboard Farms has asserted in the past that
the SWCB is not equally applying its enforcement powers, since it has allegedly failed to
hold the poultry producers in the upper Shenandoah Valley to the same standards that
it is attempting to impose on Seaboard Farms.
In addition, the Virginia "Right to Farm Act" (Chapter 4.5 of Title 3.1) provides
broad statutory protection to "agricultural operations" from public or private nuisance
actions.
With specific reference to the situation at Seaboard Farms, I have discussed this
issue with Mr. Neil Obenchain, a local SWCB official, and Mr. Charles Stitzer, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Auditing-SWCB in Richmond. SWCB entered into a consent
special order with Seaboard Farms dated February 7, 1989. This CSO contained specific
conditions, including a $10,000 fine, and the obligation to submit a "complete and
approveable VPA permit application" no later than January 15, 1989. In addition,
Seaboard Farms was to dispose of all animal wastes and contaminated water by June 30,
6
1989. It is Mr. Stitzer's opinion that Seaboard Farms is in violation of the consent
special order as a result of its failure to submit a permit application by the date required.
In addition, SWCB is investigating allegations of improper application of chicken manure
to agricultural fields, spillage of chicken manure onto the state highway, and complaints
with regards to odor and flies. SWCB's primary concern is the threat to groundwater
resulting from water runoff, but is cooperating with other state agencies to investigate
these complaints.
Mr. Stitzer (804-367-6771) is very cooperative in providing background
information concerning SWCB enforcement activities with regards to Seaboard Farms.
He suggested that I advise you to direct citizen complaints to him; he may be able to
utilize these complaints in the enforcement process.
Roanoke County has an extensive history of attempting to work with Seaboard
Farms to resolve some of their problems. The County provided industrial development
authority financing to Seaboard Farms in February 1986. In-March of 1988 the County
economic development department attempted to assist Seaboard Farms with their
problems with regards to state permits for handling animal wastes. Attached you will
find an internal staff memorandum from March 1988 summarizing certain discussions on
assistance to Seaboard Farms and the State Water Control Board permit regulations.
Although the County possesses certain legal tools which it could exercise in an
attempt to resolve some of the problems arising from Seaboard Farms operations, these
enforcement tools are not as powerful nor effective as state enforcement powers.
Therefore, I would suggest that the Board allow the various state agencies take the lead
in this enforcement situation. Since the County has worked closely with Seaboard Farms
in the past to promote economic development, I would suggest that the Board may want
to consider a strong letter from the County Administrator to the corporate officials in
New Jersey (who control the local operation) requesting that the Bent Mountain
operation "clean up its act." If these actions are unsuccessful in resolving the problems
on Bent Mountain and addressing the citizen complaints concerning Seaboard Farms
operations, then the Board could consider in the future appropriate legal enforcement
action. If I can provide any further information concerning this topic, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
PMM/sp
cc: Board of Supervisors
Elmer C. Hodge
Tim Gubala
DISCUSSION ON ASSISTANCE TO SEABOARD FARMS, INC
AND THE STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD PERMIT REGULATIONS
SEABOARD FARMS, INC:
Seaboard Farms (also Seaboard Foods), under the direction of Mr.
Bi11 Sellari, is one of Roanoke County's major agricultural
employers"employing 120 people. The company has 1,000,000 layers
for egg productions and has recently completed renovations and
` expansions to upgrade their existing facilities through the use
of a 1.2 million dollar bond.
During the summer months of 1986, Roanoke County received a
couple complaints from residents near the company addressing
strong odors as a result of manure distribution. During 1987, the
issue of manure distribution resurfaced as we learned that Floyd
County's Henry McDaniels wrote the Governor about manure
being spread on fields (in Floyd County). Since that time the
State Water Control Board has investigated Seaboard Farms and has
made extensive efforts to have all problems corrected
immediately, specifically in the area of traces of nitrate in the
groundwater as a result of improper manure distribution.
Seaboard Farms claims that immediate corrective action is not
feasible. The company purchased the property many years after it
had been operated by other parties. As such, the cumulative
effect of years of improper distribution of manure has. resulted in
a problem which is not entirely Seaboard Farm's wrongdoing.
Seaboard Farms has made attempts to rectify the situation and
admits that errors have been made. The company also believes that
clean-air and clean water are vital to our health and quality of
life. However, the company believes that "everything has its
price". - _
The following comments are made by Seaboard Farms in r-eference to
- the proposed-five year recertification requirement: _
1. How can a bank, industrial development authority, ar-private
financial source provide long term debt if it is unknown whether
or not the company will be recertified-every five years. -
2. It is not conducive to good business and public relations if
there is a regular need to "face the music" of a few well
intentioned but irate neighborhood citizens who complain about
each aspect about the manner a company conducts its business.
3. The company respectfully requests that some type of
grandfather clause allow for Seaboard to continue their operation
on the basis that the company had been in operation before the
laws were made.
ST,~TE WATER CONTROL BOARD:
Upon meeting with Robert Burnleigh of the State Water Control
Board (SWCB), a few points were made to justify the action taken.
Seaboard Foods:
A. Seaboard Farms is being sued for civil penalties. The
SWCB has issued "consent orders" to Seaboard Farms to
take corrective action. Seaboard refused to sign leaving
the SWCB to take legal action to force compliance.
B. Seaboard must upgrade their facilities and is
required to pay a fine for past violations.
C. The SWCB has made many attempts to communicate and work
with Seaboard Farms, but each time has been refused
cooperation. The SWCB does not believe that a "good
faith effort" has been made by Seaboard.
The SWCB had the following comments to make about the new
amendments:
Five Year Recertification Requirements:
A. Permit Issuance/Denial
1. Permits will not be denied just because some residents do
not like the smell of their neighbor farmer's property.
2. The permit will be denied only for water quality reasons.
3. Some type of treatment is suggested by the SWCB, although
the cost to provide the treatment may be extremely high.
4. Outright denial is extremely rare. Mr. Burnleigh could
only recall one such dena l ~_
B. Public- Hearings: -
1. A public hearing is not required every five years-just
_ because someone complains. The public hearing is only
required in extreme cases where there have been-
- - violations.
FINAL COMMENTS:
Roanoke County's Economic Development Department
is particularly concerned about how an existing company perceives
whether or not they are wanted and supported in their community
and in their state. Because of the significance of Seaboard
Foods as a major "basic-industry" employer, the company is
encouraged to continue their operations for the economic balance
of the community and the region. The County believes that
Seaboard's sustained effort to continue operations is an
important element for the economic vitality of the area. However,
the County must also abide by the regulations set forth by the
State Water Control Board, and must be conditionally supportive
for the continued .well being of Seaboard Foods_
~~~~
~~c~-~
1
CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Supervisors ,,,,,, ry~-~
FROM: Paul M. Mahoney ~~`~ 0 , ~'
SUBJECT: Late filing penalty
Personal Property Tax Return
DATE: 17 July 1990
Last month the Board of Supervisors requested that the County Attorney prepare a report
concerning the Count}~s method of assessing late filing penalties for tangible personal property, its affect
on Mr. William McIlwraith, the opinion of the Attorney General on this matter, its financial effect upon
the County, and various alternatives to address this issue.
In April 1990, a question arose concerning the application of the late filing penalty for personal
property returns. This office reviewed this issue and provided the Commissioner of the Revenue with a
written opinion supporting the method of applying this penalty. The taxpayer then appealed to Mr. Eddy,
who made inquiry of this office. While in the process of preparing a request for an opinion of the
Attorney General on behalf of the Commissioner of the Revenue, Mr. Agee requested an opinion, which
was issued June 19, 1989.
BACKGROUND
§ 58.1-3916 of the Code of Virginia authorizes a local governing body to provide by ordinance
penalties for the failure to file local license applications and annual returns of tangible personal property,
machinery and tools, and merchant's capital. This Code section provides that no penalty for failure to file
a return "shall be greater than ten percent of the tax assessable on such return or ten dollars, whichever
is greater; provided, however, that the penalty shall in no case exceed the amount of the tax assessable."
On November 11, 1986, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, adopted an ordinance
2
authorizing the proration of personal property tax as authorized by § 58.1-3516. § 21-16 (b) of the
Roanoke County Code provides as follows:
Sec.21-16. Returns.
+t**
(b) Returns of tangible personal property on motor vehicles, trailers, and boats with a
silos within the county on January 1 shall be filed with the commissioner of the revenue
on or before February 1, returns of tangible personal property on motor vehicles, trailers,
and boats which acquires a silos within the county or which has its title transferred after
January 1 shall be filed within thirty (30) days of the date on which silos is acquired or
tide transferred, of the year for which the tax is to be assessed. Any person who shall fail
to file such return on or before the date due of the year for which the tax is to be
assessed shall, in addition to the tax to be paid, be assessed a penalty of ten (10) percent
of the tax due or ten dollars ($10.00), whichever is greater; provided, however, that the
penalty shall in no case exceed the amount of the tax assessable.
At the time of the adoption of this ordinance staff provided the Board with a series of examples
showing how the proration process would be applied, including the assessment of penalties for failure to
comply with the ordinance. Each motor vehicle is assigned an individual billing number for record
keeping and accountability because: 1) A taxpayer reserves the right to pay the tax on one vehicle, but
not on another, and to secure a county license decal for that vehicle; 2) With the inception of proration,
the taxpayer may add or delete individual motor vehicle during the course of the year. Accordingly, each
motor vehicle is treated as a separate return and tax bill for purposes of assessing taxes, penalties, and
interest.
By way of example, please note the following information for Mr. McIlwraith for his 1990 personal
property tax.
Assessed Late Alternate Method
Value Tax Filing Penalty Filinst Penalty
William I. McIlwraith III $ 1,425 $ 49.87 $10.00
425 14.87 10.00
$ 1,850 $64.74 $20.00 $ 6.47
William I. and Ruth B. McIlwraith III $ 2,425 $84.87 $10.00
' 11,450 400.75 40.08
$13,875 $485.65 $50.08 $48.56
In Mr. McIlwraith's situation, his total tax is $64.74 and the penalty is $20.00 ($10.00 for each vehicle).
If the penalty was limited to ten percent of the total bill, it would be $6.47. If the penalty was $10.00
3
(10% or $10, whichever is greater) the allocation of that penalty to each tax bill (each vehicle generates
a separate tax bill) raises practical, administrative difficulties. Unfortunately, the computer softwaze is
limited when allocating the flat $10.00 penalty. Therefore, the penalty is applied to each vehicle, since
each vehicle is a separate tax bill.
In Mr. and Mrs. McIlwraith's second example, the penalty imposed by the current County method
is $50.08. Using the ten percent penalty and not the flat $10.00, it would be $48.56.
The problem and the challenge to the County's method for imposing this penalty arises in
situations where the taxpayer owns several vehicles, one of which is assessed a tax in an amount less
than $100 and the flat $10.00 penalty is applied. Where the tax due is less than $100, there is the
potential for a challenge to the minimal difference in the amount of the penalty since the penalty is in
an amount of ten percent of the tax due or ten dollars, whichever is greater. .
§ 58.1-3516 specifically provides that "no refund of less than five dollars shall be issued to a
taxpayer, unless specifically requested by the taxpayer." -For all practical intents and purposes, this
provision eliminates a significant portion of the problem.
The only records on the County computer system aze for the tax year 1990. The County has
approximately 40,000 personal property taxpayers. Approximately 5,595 of these taxpayers were assessed
a late filing penalty. 1,351 taxpayers may be affected by the Count}~s method of assessing the late filing
penalt}; 888 taxpayers would receive possible refunds of greater than $5.00. For tax year 1990,
approximately $11,300 is the potential magnitude of possible refunds. No computerized data exists for
1987, 1988, or 1989. It is estimated that an additional 1.5 employees would be necessazy in the
Treasurer's Office, the Commissioner of the Revenue's office and the Finance Office to review and verify
the records and prepaze the appropriate refunds. Beyond these additional personnel costs, no staff
estimate has been prepared for administrative overhead costs (postage, envelopes, correspondence, etc.).
DISCUSSION
Despite the contrary opinion of the Attorney General which Mr. Eddy distributed to you last
month, it is my opinion that the County could assert a reasonable, credible, good-faith defense to its
4
interpretation and application of the imposition of a late filing penalty on personal property tax returns
for motor vehicles. This interpretation and methodology has been uniformly applied since the adoption
of the proration ordinance beginning in tax year 1987. Even if a court would rule that this method is
unwarranted, a substantial legal question exists whether the court would apply its ruling retroactively.
The retroactivity issue is currently the subject of litigation in the pension income tax case brought by
retired federal employees against the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Commonwealth has prevailed in the
trial court, and the federal retirees have noted their appeal to the state supreme court. Recently the U.S.
Supreme Court decided two cases concerning the retroactive application of an adverse ruling to a state
taxation scheme. In one situation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that its decision was retroactive; in
another decision it ruled that the decision was not retroactive.
RECONIlIRF.NDATIONS
The Board has several alternative courses of action available to it to resolve this problem. These
are as follows:
1. Amend the County Code to provide for a ten percent late filing penalty (eliminate the
alternate provision of the minimum ten dollar penalty) for future tax years, do not authorize refunds for
current or past taa years.
2. Exonerate and refund all sums in question, regardless of amount, for tax years 1987
through 1990.
3. Exonerate and refund all sums in question, regardless of amount, for tax years 1987
through 1990, based upon a specific request by the taxpayer.
4. Eliminate the late filing penalty in its entirety for future tax years.
If the Board decides upon a retroactive refund policy, then the Board should appropriate additional
funds for additional staff and administrative costs. Board guidance concerning the minimum amount of
refund (State Code provides that no refund of less than five dollars shall be issued to a taxpayer unless
specifically requested by the taxpayer) should also be provided.
5
I recommend alternative no. 1. The methodology utilized since 1987 is reasonable and has been
uniformly applied since that time. If the Board desires to address this problem, I would suggest that the
Boazd act prospectively for future tax years. The elimination of the late filing penalty (Alternative 4)
would be a substantial disincentive to timely filing and payment of personal property taxes. Currently,
the County receives approximately $100,000 a year in these penalties.
This memorandum is submitted to you within the scope of the attorney/client privilege and is not
intended to be subject to disclosure pursuant to the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act
§ 2.1-342 (B) (5) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. Litigation on this issue may be imminent.
Judicial clarification may not be unwelcome.
PMM/sp
O~ p,0AN0,y-F
~ ,w
Z
~ z
v a
~8 150 as
SFSQUICENTENN~P~
d Beautiful8eginning
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
C~nixn~~ u~ ~nttnvke
July 27, 1990
Mr. C. E. Hunter, Jr., President
Greater Roanoke Valley Development Foundation
210 Nottingham Road, S.E.
Roanoke, VA 24014
Mr. Richard M. Lynn, President
Roanoke Valley Development Corporation
c/o S. H. Heironimus Company
P. O. Box 1580
Roanoke, VA 24007
Gentlemen:
-~~-~MEPILA CITY
'~~ I'~
1979
1989
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RICHARD W. ROBERS, CHAIRMAN
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
STEVEN A. MCGRAW. VICE-CHAIRMAN
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
LEE B. EDDY
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
BOB L. JOHNSON
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
This will advise that at our meeting held on Tuesday, July 24,
1990, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to authorize
reconveyance of the former joint fire station site in the Roanoke-
Botetourt Industrial Park to the Great Roanoke Valley Development
Foundation and Roanoke Valley Development Corporation.
On behalf of the members of the Board of Supervisors, I would like
to thank you for offering this site for a joint fire station, as
well as providing the site for the Blue Ridge Library. We are very
fortunate to have citizens with your foresight and generosity who
are responsive and concerned with the needs of their community.
Sincerely,
R. W. Robers, Chairman
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
RWR/bjh
pc: John B. Williamson, III, Botetourt County Administrator
Elmer C. Hodge, Roanoke County Administrator
Members, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004
O~ AOANp,I.~
~ ,w p
Z
2
,~ a
18 E50 $8
sFSQU1CENTENN~P~
:1 Benutiful8cginninK
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
July 26, 1990
Mr. Fred C. Altizer, Jr.
Resident Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 3071
Salem, Virginia 24153
Dear Mr. Altizer:
All AMfPICACIir
1' I I''
1979
1989
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RICHARD W. ROBERS. CHAIRMAN
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
STEVEN A. MCGRAW. VICE•CHAIRMAN
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
LEE B. EDDY
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
BOB L. JOHNSON
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
Attached are certified copies of the following resolutions
requesting changes in the secondary system due to relocation and
reconstruction which were adopted by the Board of Supervisors at
their meeting on Tuesday, July 24, 1990.
72490-8.c - Sugarloaf Mountain Road
72490-8.d - Roselawn Road
72490-8.e - Tinsley Lane
72490-8.f - Brookridge Road
If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Sincerely,
rn ~~- ~-
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
bjh
Attachment
pc: Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering
(~i~llri~~ A~ ~U~1lTA~tP
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004
O~ FiOANp,~-~
a .w
,_
v a
~a E5°, as
SFSQUICENTENN~P~'
A Bcautiful8rginning
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
July 25, 1990
Mr. W. D. "Berry" Gray, President
Virginia Association of Counties
1001 East Broad Street, Suite LL20
Richmond, VA 23219
Dear Mr. Bray:
AlL ~AMERIU CITY
'II I~~
1979
1989
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RICHARD W. ROBERS. CHAIRMAN
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
STEVEN A. MCGRAW. VICE-CHAIRMAN
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
LEE B. EDDY
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
BOB L. JOHNSON
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 72490-2 requesting that the
Virginia Association of Counties consider certain issues of
statewide significance for adoption in its 1991 Legislative
Program. This resolution was adopted by the Board of Supervisors
at their meeting on Tuesday, July 24, 1990.
If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Sincerely,
bjh
Attachment
C~vitn~~ of ~.~nttnnke
7`1~
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 2 4018-07 9 8 (703) 772-2004
O~ p,OANp,~~
~ ,~
J a
18 E50 88
SFSQUICENTENN~P~
A BeautifulBcginning
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
Mr. W. Peter
4825 Hunting
Roanoke, VA
C~n~int~ of ~n~nnke
Smithson
Hills Drive
24018
Dear Mr. Smithson:
July 25, 1990
~~~-~MENICII CITY
1' I I''
1979
1989
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RICHARD W. ROBERS. CHAIRMAN
UVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
STEVEN A. MCGRAW, VICE-CHAIRMAN
UTAWEiA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
LEE B. EDDY
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
BOB L. JOHNSON
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
At their regular meeting on Tuesday, July 24, 1990, the Roanoke
County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the request of the
Knights Booster Club at Cave Spring High School for a raffle
permit. The raffle will be conducted on September 24, 1990.
The fee has been paid and your receipt is enclosed.
You may consider this letter to be your permit, and I suggest it
be displayed on the premises where the raffle is to be conducted.
The State Code provides that raffle and bingo permits be issued on
a calendar-year basis and such permits issued will expire on
December 31, 1990. This permit, however, is only valid on the date
specified in your application.
PLEASE READ YOUR APPLICATION CAREFULLY. YOU HATE AGREED TO
COMPLY WITH STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS AND FAILURE TO COMPLY
MAY RESULT IN CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND REVOKING OF YOUR PERMIT.
YOU MUST FILE A FINANCIAL REPORT BY NOVEMBER l OF EACH CALENDAR
YEAR. PLEASE SUBMIT A NEW APPLICATION AT LEAST 60 DAYS PRIOR TO
DATE OR DATES YOUR ORGANIZATION PLANS TO HOLD BINGO OR RAFFLES.
PERMITS EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 31 OF EACH CALENDAR YEAR.
If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact me at 772-2003.
Sincerely,
'~-ems-, ~_~~-~-
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisor
bjh
Enclosures
cc: Commissioner of the Revenue
Commonwealth Attorney
County Treasurer
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004
o~ aoArvo,~~
. ~ ~,
~z
v .a
~a E5o sa
SFSQUICENTENN~P~
A Beautiful8eginning
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
July 25, 1990
Mr. A. Frank Teske, Sr.
Chairman, Nominating Committee
Southwest Virginia Health Systems Agency, Inc.
P. O. Box 2825
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Mr. Teske:
AII~AMFRICA pTT
1'I ~'I
1979
1989
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RICHARD W. ROBERS. CHAIRMAN
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERAL DISTRICT
STEVEN A. MCGRAW. VICE-CHAIRMAN
CATAWF3A MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
LEE B. EDDY
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
BOB L. JOHNSON
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS
VINTON MAGISTERAL DISTRICT
This is to advise that at their meeting held on Tuesday, July 24,
1990, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to appoint Richard
W. Robers as nominee from Roanoke County for selection to your
Board of Directors.
Mr. Robers is the current Chairman of the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors and has indicated his willing to accept this
appointment if elected.
If you have any questions or I can be of assistance in the future,
please let me know.
Very truly yours,
bjh
Enclosures
C~n~n~~ of ~vttnukr
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 <703) 772-2004
o~ aoaNO,~~
~ ,h p
Z
~ z
J a
18 , E50 88
SFSCIUICENTENN~P`'
A Beauti~ulBeginning
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
July 25, 1990
Mr. Alvin L. Nash, Director
Housing/Energy Conservation
Total Action Against Poverty
P. O. Box 2868
Roanoke, VA 24001-2868
Dear Mr. Nash:
Alt ~AMFRICA LIT1'
'' I ~''
1979
1989
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RICHARD W. ROBERS. CHAIRMAN
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
STEVEN A. MCGRAW. VICE•CHAIRMAN
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
LEE B. EDDY
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
BOB L. JOHNSON
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 72490-8.h supporting Total
Action Against Poverty's application for a grant from the Virginia
Indoor Plumbing Program. This resolution was adopted by the Board
of Supervisors at their meeting on Tuesday, July 24, 1990.
If you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Sincerely,
bjh
Attachment
C~n~inf~ of ~nttnvkr
Mary H. Allen, Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004
O~ POANp~.~
~ ,w A
Z
z
o a
18 E50 88
SFSQUICENTENN~P~
A Beauti~ul8ckinnin~;
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
July 25, 1990
Rev. Arthur E. Grant
Woodlawn United Methodist Church
3301 Ashby Street, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24015
Dear Reverend Grant:
All AMERICA CITY
'II ~'~
1979
1989
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RICHARD W. ROBERS. CHAIRMAN
UVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
STEVEN A. MCGRAW. VICE-CHAIRMAN
UTAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
LEE B. EDDY
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
BOB L. JOHNSON
HOLLINS 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, July 24, 1990, 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.
RWR/bj h
(~nun~~ of ~nttnvk~
Sincerely,
. W. obers, Chairman
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004
~c~
pOANp _ ~u -ME~IUtttr
F ~F i'I~~1
~ ~. 9 ~
~ z ~ ~~~~~~~ 1979
1989
~a E~. as ~ ,
sFSCUICENTENN~'~
A Bcnut~rulBeg+nninh ' ~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
~~ ~ E p ' ; ~ ; ` - RICHARD W. BORERS. CHAIRMAN
y GVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
STEVEN A. MCGRAW. VICE-CHAIRMAN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR UTAWBA MAGISTERUIL DISTRICT
ELMER C. HODGE M~Ogp~jDj~j LEE B. EDDY
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERAL DISTRICT
BOB L. JOHNSON
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NIQ(ENS
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
TO: Lee B. Eddy
Bob L. Johnson
Steven L. McGraw
Harry C. Nickens
Richard W. Robers
FROM: Ma ~ Al n _~"f~~~
ClE~o th~ Board
DATE: June 7, 1990
SUBJECT: Heath Systems Agency - Representative
The Southwest Virginia Health Systems Agency is currently seeking
a representative from local government to serve on its Board of
Supervisors. The organization is asking for nominees from each
of 41 local governing bodies who would be willing to serve. From
the nominees they will select only one member to represent these
governing bodies.
If you are interested in being a nominee from Roanoke County,
please let me know. The organization is requesting either an
elected or appointed official. Attached is additional information
from Keith Cook and the Health Systems Agency.
~~ ~.
-~'~ rl
~~
~.
~.
,~ ~ ~,.
~_ . o<~ r"
~~~
~~
~~, ~~
~~
~ ~~,~
~. e /i~nnxA
~l
P.O. BOX 29800 • ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 c703) 772-2004
n
Roanokc County
pOAN 1,
F
L ALL~AYE114 qTr
Z ~ ~ 1 1 I ~'
a ~~n~ ~~
1979
18 E~; 88 1989
SFSDUICENTENN~P~ DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
A Be~un~ul8r~rnnm~
M E M O R A N D U M
T0: Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
FROM: D. K. Cook
Director of Human Resources
DATE: May 31, 1990
SUBJECT: Health Systems Agency - Representative
I talked with Ken Cook at Southwest Virginia HSA. The Health
Systems Agency has been re-activated and is seeking nominations
for a representative from local government. One representative
will be appointed to represent the 41 political jurisdications
within the HSA area. The appointment will be made from
nominations submitted by the jurisdictions.
You may desire to ask the Board of Supervisors if they would like
to nominate a member of the Board or other appointed official.
The Health Systems Agency will probably select an elected
official from those nominations received.
DKC/gm
Attachment
~•
~..
`~
I10DOOR PLIIMBING PROGRAM
Governor L. Douglas Wilder and thefor9a
Background General Assembly have approved funding
new Indoor •Plutttbing initiative, which provides
• grants and loans for the improvement ofinians.
ing facilities for initiative m theirVirginia
. pursuant to this and Community Development
Department of Housing
was designated to administer the Indoor
Plumbing Program. program makes grants
The Indoor Plumbing er housing unit
or loans of up to $12,000 P improvements.
available for indoor plumbing eligible
These funds are administerublicybodies and
organizations such as local P e. cities,
local nonprofit organizat authorities, etc.).
counties, towns; housing onsible for
These Local Administrators a theirP designated
program operation within
service area.
Program Goal/ oal of the Indoor'Plumbing Program is to
Objectives The g
assist lower-incSafefa and esdecent ndsanitary
in obtaining
facilities within their homes.
Program Obieciu~ing facilities in eligible
1. Install P
homes. unit is free from
2. Insure that the housing
health and safety hazards. rove
g, Support local efforts in orde of °existing
the quality and habitability
housing.
ppplicant_~ To be eligible to receive an awai cant (Local
~i i cribilitY program an aPP
the Indoor Plu must
Administrator)
1, $e incorporated under t non lrofit,for be
Commonwealth of Virginia aslocal. governments,
.a public body including housing
(cities, towns and counties),
authorities or public agencie acity to oversee
2. Have the administrative cap which includes
and manage the program,
outreach, intake, inspections, work write-ups,
cost estimates, accounting, monitoring, client
3
education-,I and other program related activi-
ties.
Eliaible_ To be eligible, properties must have no indoor
.Activities or have an existing system which is
plumbing s stem may include a dry
failing. A failing Y er capable
well or drainfluids,wetch (This program is not
of absorbing ro ram used for
intended to be a maintena airing'1 eaks, etc.)
unstopping drains or rep be used to provide
Funds under this P adequatey water supply, and
indoor plumbing,
sewage disposal systems for includeincome
individuals or families and maY
0 wells and relate dra in ~ fields ~ and related
o septic tanks,
improvements;
o other alternat loc 1 sanitarian) systems, if
approved by the )red to
o adaptations or construction requ'
provide adequate space for toilet and bath
• facilities; including electrical
o hot water heater,
upgrade, if necessary; roved
o cost of percolation tests on aPP
projects; or assessments;
o connection fees and/ kitchen, sink;
o plumbing fixtures, including to meet the
o other improvem St ndardsss This expenditure
Minimum Dwelling
' is limited to 25~ of the total cost for
plumbing improvements of each individual job.
Note: All unit mcu mpletion M f m theDWIndoor
Standards afte
Plumbing_pra7ect.__--- -~
Maximum funds are
ExD~ ~_e Expenditures of 000 °pr Pl~ing The Local
er unit.
limited to $12,
Administrator may exceed the $12,000 cap (not
to exceed $15,000) in cases where extenses care
due to special septic or water exp
encountered. This exceptionletediduringttheo
percent of all projects comp )red
award period. Competitive bids will be requ'
for all indoor plumbing jobs. __
Ineliaible_ Indoor Plumbing Funds may not be used to paY
.Activities for:
repair or
as defined
p
o any
allowable costs
of
the definition
under Eligible Activities; -
r improvem
o any repairs o
building or other
ith local health,
comply w
regulations; rovement to housing units
air or imp
ls ineligible
re
p
o
occupied by families or individua
for this program;
Whlch
r
o
o any repair °
dwelling st ndards
nimum
t meet mi
•
will no
C ient
ibility lumbing projects may be completed for;
Indoor P the following requirements:
Elig households meeting
Grp unds -
er-occupant households with Incomes Guider
Own
below the 1990 Federal PO alify for grants•
utlined below qu
lines as o
co e
t+amily $1Z@
1
2
3
4.
5
6
7 __
8
$ 6
8 4
10,560
12,700
14,840
16,980
19,120
21, 260.
units of more than eight, add $2,140
For family
for each additional member. ____ ____
5
The following questions shall be .answered by
Application the applicant for consideration as a Local
Administrator. Submit one unbound oriq.inai and
Q to the Department by t e dea e
four copie
~~ date. Any application received after the
,~ deadline for any reason will not be considered.
Tns~ tions~. ~ Answer all questions. Attachments should
• be limited to only those requestedlicationk
those that apply and submit with app
_ Copy of documents of incorporation
including IRS designation as a 501(c)3 .or-
ganization.
Copy of governing body resolution
authorizing the application for funds.
_ Letter(s) of commitment by local govern-
ments, private or public sector indicating a
commitment of money or services . ( Do not submit
letters of support.)
rovided herein shall be used on all applica-
The cover sheet p
tions to include the original and copies.
10
CAVE SPRING KNIGHTS BOOSTER CLUB
THANKS FOR SUPPORTING OUR
ATHLETES
Ronkeith Adkins
John and Kay Allen
Russell and Maureen Anderson
Jack and Isis Ashworth
Ward and Diana Athey
Glen and Shirley Baker
Don and Sheila Barnhart
Luther and Margaret Beazley
Lloyd & Karen Beckett
Robert and Judy Beightol
Gerry & Rose Bingeman
Jennings and Marianne Bird
Tom and Jean Blankenship
Dwight and Elizabeth Bogle
Tom and Elaine Boyd
Steven and Gloria Brandt
Tom and Sandra Brewer
Mary Burnley
Bill & Jo Caldwell
"' Baxter and Linda Carter
Robert and Suzanne Casey
Bill and Jan Childs
Bill and Sandy Clark
Hat and Martha Cobble
'`* AI and Karen Colgrove
Lynn and Libby Collins
Marshall and Judy Cooper
Richard and Kathleen Crotts
Rich and Linda Cullinan
Sue Dalton
Walter and Sandra DeWitt
Bill and Linda Deyerle
Gino and Beverly Dezzutti
John and Marge Diehl
Jerry and Alice Ditch
Michael and Joan Driscoll
Matt and Sonja Duffy
James and Betty Dunn
Don and Barbara Dyer
Bill and Adele Elias
Lionel and Darlene Ellis
Bill and Joy Ergle
Larry and Anita Ewing
Jerry and Linda Fayed
Bob and Linda Fisher
Paul and Elaine Frantz
David and Andrea Freeman
Jack and Sandy Freeman
Carroll and Mary Alice Gentry
David and Carol Graybeal
Kim and Joy Greer
" Jack and Karen Griffith
Don and Betty Grisso
'` George and Sandra Hawes
Tom and Paula Hawthorne
Ned and Susan Hayes
* Bob and Patti Herskovitz
Jerry and Doris Higginbotham
Art and Marilyn W. Hofdelin
Bruce and Betsy Hol.lar
Van and Brenda Holton
Jay and Betty Honse, Jr.
Anne Humphries
Jim and Pam Hunter
Mike and Barbara Hutkin
** Roger and Linda Jefferson
Bill and Mickie Kagey
Bob and Jan Austin Keffer
Walt and Gerry Keister
Donnie and Lynn Kesler
Robert and Pat Kirkendall
Ken and Pamela Klinger
Alan and Elizabeth Koehler
Art and Marion Kunkle
"" Jack and Linda Lang
Glenn & Elaine Lavender
David and Carroll Lipps
Jim and Beth Long
Roy and Jean Main
Cary and Jeanne Mangus
Mary Ellen Marino
Richard and Pat Martin
Roy and Sylvia Martin
Jim Matheny
Bill and Punky Miller
John and Fran Morgan
John and Linda Morgan
Mary Morrison
David and Linda Murray
AI and Maureen Musci
Dick and Lane Nelson
Charles and Carolyn Newell
*` Tom and Joyce Noell
Mike and Judy Owens
* Dan and Bobbie Oyler
Loretta H. Phillips
Frank and Saundria Plecity
Edwin and Kathy Plemons
Glenn and Alice Prather
Fred Price
4
Don and Edith Prillaman
Bob and Carol Pruner
Fred and Esther Quioco
H. M. Quioco
Heathcliff and Lydia Quioco
Tom and Bonnie Rhodes
Barney and Dee Rosalia
Rodney and Ronda Rowan
Mary H. Russell
Joe and Sue Scanlin
Brian and Sharon Schwartz
Wayne and Elaine Shafer
Dale and Becky Sheets
Ralph and Sarah Sheffey
Tim and Kathy Shelton
George and Margaret Shorter
Haven and Nancy Shuck
Andy and Sondra Slemp
Dale and Diane Slider
Jack and Terri Smith
W. P. and Lynn Smithson
Russ and Karen Spicer
Board Member
"'' Officer
Ron & Jeannette Squires
Kenneth H. Stanley
Bob and Pat Stratton
Bob and Jeannine Strong
Dave and Debbie Tanis
Marvin and Susan Thews
Nancy Thomas
Frada and Louise Tillman
Walt and Barbara Troltinger
Charles and Carol Tull
John and Mary Valentine
Wally and Mary Lou Vaniels
Bill and Susan VanName
Austin and Nancy Verity
Dale and Majorie Walker
Dave and Loretta Walton
Betty F. Ward
Bob and Dale V~Jaters
Darrell and Carolyn Whitt
Jim and Betty Wilson
Barry and Libba Wolfe
Daniel and Mary Yasenchak
Dear Cave Spring Community Supporter:
Knight's Booster Club exists to help support all athletic activities at Cave Spring High
School. Our goal is to boost school spirit by assisting financially, offering recognition
to participating students, volunteering wherever we are needed in athletic programs, and
helping coordinate fund-raising activities for each team
Some of our accomplishments for 1988-89 included purchasing uniforms for girls'
softball, boys' basketball, practice jerseys for girls' basketball, batting cage, pitching
machine and equipment for boys' baseball, cheerleading uniforms, team meals for road
trips of 50 miles or more, bus transportation, and one section of football bleachers on
the visitors' side. We also provided meals and lodging for the girls' basketball team at
state tournament; provided two scholarships; supported our two All-State Athletes in
post-season competition.
Our revenue sources include dues, football programs, concessions from all sports, and
Christmas tree sales.
Our major project for the 1989-90 season is a new press box/concession stand which
will benefit all recreation, Junior and Senior High school teams at our home field.
We need your support by joining our booster club, supporting all fund raisers, and
attending the meetings which are held on the fourth Monday of each month--September
through May_Cost per family $10.00. Checks payable to Knights Booster Club. _ _ -
MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION
Name
(Please list husband ~ wife first name)
Address
City
Phone
State Zip
Grade level of child Principal Sports Interest
gpop-re.D G+~Iqo
()pNSITIZfTION AND BY-TAWS
THE KNIGHTS BOOSTE[t CUIB
I. Name
a. The name of this organization shall be the KNIGHTS BOOSTER CLUB.
II. Purpose
a. The purpose of the KNIGHTS BOOSTER CLUB is to encourage and promote the
athletic programs of the Cave Spring High School, Roanoke, Virginia.
SPECIFICALLY:
1. Endeavor to develop enthusiasm and pride in all athletics.
2. Encourage fan attendance at all athletic events.
3. Encourage all athletes to attain high scholastic achievements.
III. Membership
a. Any person of good character and reputation who agrees with and is willing
to work for the purposes of this organization and who is willing to
subscribe to its policies, rules and regulations is eligible for membership.
b. Annual dues shall be determined by the Board of Directors.
IV. Administration
a. 'The activities of the organization shall be directed by a Board of
Directors made up of President, First Vice President, Second Vice
President, Secretary, Treasurer and seven other board members.
V. Elections
a. The annual election shall beheld at the May regular meeting.
b. The following shall be elected:
President
First Vice President
Second Vice President
Secretary
Treasurer
Seven Board Members
c. Officers shall be elected for one year, directors for two years (three
directors shall be elected every other year and four directors in the
intervening years).
d. Election shall be majority vote of membership in good standing present.
Each membership in good standing shall be entitled to one vote.
e. Officers and Directors shall take office on the first day of the month
following their election.
VI. Meeti s
a. Meetings shall be held monthly and at other times as approved by the Board
of Directors or called by the President.
b. A quorum to transact business at any meeting of this club shall beat
least 15 members.
VII. Duties of Officers
a. The duties of the officers shall be such as prescribed by parlimentary
law. The President shall preside over all meetings of the club. He/She
shall appoint, at least 60 days prior to election date, a nominating
committee, which shall submit a slate of nominees for officers and
directors at the regular meeting in April of each year. Additional
nominations may be made from the floor.
b. All committees shall be appointed by the President.
c. The First Vice President shall preside at all meetings in the
absence of the President and shall work with the President on all matters
pertaining to the club.
d. The Second Vice President shall work with the President
and First Vice President on all matters pertaining to the club. He/She
shall become a proficient administrator of the club and upon successful
completion of this office should be capable of performing the duties of
the President.
e. The Secretary shall record the minutes of all regular or called meetings.
He/She shall notify the membership of all meetings and be custodian of
all records and papers belonging to the club.
f. The Treasurer shall keep the financial books of the club. He/She shall
sign the checks of the club. He/She shall keep regular books of account
and shall submit them, together with all vouchers, receipts, records
and other papers, to the directors for their examination as often as
they may require; and shall perform all other duties as are incidental to
his/her office.
VIII. Duties of the Board of Directors
a.
Except as otherwise provided by these by-laws the business of the club
shall be conducted and its property managed by its Board of Directors.
They shall:
1. Control and safeguard the funds and other properties of this club
and direct all expenditures; select a bank or banks to act as
depositories of the funds of this club; determine the manner of
receiving, depositing, and disbursing such funds; and if necessary
secure funds through loans to support the activities of the club.
2. Fmploy counsel and others as they may deem necessary, for such
purposes in the execution of their duties.
3. Carry out the policies, by-laws, rules, and regulations of
this club.
4. Keep minutes of its meetings and a full account of its
transactions.
5. Meet each month and at such other times as may be called by
the President.
6. A majority of the Board of Directors shall constitute a quorum.
7. In the event of a vacancy of any officer or director, his
successor to fill the remainder of his term shall be appointed
by the remaining members of the Board.
IX. Finances
a. All monies obtained from any source, by or through any person or persons,
acting for or in the name of the club, or under its direction or authority,
shall be considered club funds and shall forthwith be delivered to the
Treasurer for appropriate deposit.
X. Parliamentary Authority
a. Roberts Rules of Order shall govern the proceedings of all meetings of
the club except as provided in the by-laws.
XI. Policies, Rules and Regulations
a. The club shall never presume upon, or engage in any activities which
interfere with, or encroach upon, the duties, responsibilities, and
authority of the Board of Education, the teaching staff, the coaching
staff, or any other school official. '
b. No member shall collect any money or cause any debts to be incurred
or make any statement to the press in the name of the club, nor cause to
have printed anything pertaining to the club or its activities, unless
authorized to do so by the President.
c. The club shall adhere to the policy of confining itself
exclusively to such matters as pertain to the purpose of this organization
as set forth in Section II of these constitution and by-laws. For
continuity of purpose, any member who no longer can agree with the
policies, rules and regulations, and who cannot enthusiastically support
the purpose of this club may be expelled from membership by majority
vote of the Board of Directors.
d. Any member who is delinquent in dues for more than 60 days shall no
longer be considered a member in good standing.
XII. Amendments
a. This constitution and by-laws may be amended at any meeting of this
club by a 2/3 vote of those members present, provided previous written
notice of the proposed amendment has been given at least ten days in
advance by mail or at least thirty days in advance when announced at a
regular meeting.
July 13, 1990
Dick Robers:
To avoid future accusations that we did not respond to their
offer, I think we should have some communication back to Salem.
The attached letter has been prepared for your signature if you
choose that method of responding.
I suggest that it would be preferable to have the Board
take an official stand on the offer, i.e., leaving it on the table.
If you choose that option, please let Brenda Holton know to put
"Discussion of Salem's Offer" on the July 24 agenda.
I~ .. }.1
~~'o-' r~~
cc - Ms. Brenda J. Holton
~~~~ 1~-e-D ~ ~~~'` 'N-e
~~
O~ POANpy.~
z P
~ z
°~ a
18 E50 88
SFSOUICEN7ENN~P~
A Beautiful Beginning
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
ill-AMERICA Cirr
~/ '' I I ~ f
~~ ~~~~~ 1979
~~~ ~~
~~ 1989
July 12, 1990
The Honorable James E. Taliaferro
Mayor, City of Salem
P.O. Box 869
Salem, Virginia 24153
Dear Mayor Taliaferro:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RICHARD W. ROBERS. CHAIRMAN
CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRCT
STEVEN A. MCGRAW. VICE-CHAIRMAN
CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
LEE B. EDGY
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
BOB L. JOHNSON
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
Thank you for your letter of July 10, conveying the counter
proposal concerning the Catawba Magisterial District. It is not
acceptable to Roanoke County, however, and we will stand by our
original offer.
I am sorry that we have not been able to reach an agreement
on this matter. Our proposal will remain ope lease letyme know, to
accept it prior to the November referendum, p
Sincerely,
Richard W. Robers
Chairman
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 (703) 772-2004
ACTION NUMBER #
ITEM NUMBER '°
AT A VIRGINIA HELDIAT THE ROANOKER COUNTY ADMINISTRA O ONRO LATER
COUNTY,
MEETING DATE: July 10, 1990
AGENDA ITEM:
Approval of Roanoke County Em loyee Handbook
Amendments to Authorize the Reinstatement of
Annual Leave and Sick Leave.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKG
The E
Handb~
Handb~
t
t.
Attac] ~ ~ t ~.~c_.
for tl ~- _ '_ . ~ ~ '",
emplo,
the e~ 1 ~.
credit ->'~ =;~'_---,-'__
emp l o~
by the
These
option
reason .
FISCAL IMPACT:
~ Em lp oyee
riate, the
y policy.
ch provide
iken by an
ick leave,
the leave
day of the
incurred
.oyees the
or other
No appropriation of funds is required in the implementation of this
policy change.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve the
attached amendments to the Roanoke County Employee Handbook whir_h
will permit the reinstatement of leave credits at the request of
the employee.
r , ,~ .
~ `.' , ,:
-~ `~ _ ~` _
F
,' L f
SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY:
D. K. ook Elmer C. Hodge
Director of Human Resources County Administrator
Approved ( )
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
To
Motion by:
ACTION
VOTE
No Yes Abs
Eddy
Johnson
McGraw
Nickens
Robers
AMENDMENTS TO ROANOKE COUNTY EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK
CHAPTER IX, SECTION A
A.
for reins a e
a royal of the a ro riate de artment head or other
the
official, the Director of Human Resources and by
Count Administrator. In the reinstatement of annual
leave, the em loyee must reimburse the County in advance
for the leave credits to be reinstated based upon the
current rate of ay of the employee, plus any fringe
benefits or other ayroll costs incurred by the County
Any annual leave taken by an employee may be reinstated
for the employee upon the written request of the
em loyee. The reason for the request or other emergence
condition must be specified by the employee. The request
t t ment of annual leave is subject to the
CHAPTER IX, Section B
B. Sick Leave
1. Accumulation
Annual Leave
1. Gaining Credits
(Proposed Addition to this Section)
(Proposed Addition to this Section)
rate of pay of the emp oy ,
other ayroll costs incurred by the County.
Any sick leave taken by an employee may be reinstated
for the employee upon the written request of the
em loyee The reason for the request or other emergency
condition must be specified by the employee. The request
for reinstatement of annual leave is subject to the
a royal of the a ro riate de artment head or other
official, the Director of Human Resources and the County
Administrator. In the reinstatement of sick leave the
em to ee must reimburse the Count in advance for the
leave credits to be reinstated based upon the current
1 ee plus any fringe benefits or
i
L.
OF PDAND'~F
~ 9
2
~ a
18 E50~ 88
aFSOUlCENTENN~~~
A Bmati/u/BtFinnin4
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ELMER C. HODGE
C~niint~ of ~nttnnkr
Mr. William I. McIlwraith III
3647 Parkwood Drive SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dear Mr. McIlWraith:
IIU ~MEg41Intr
II~ I'~
1979
1989
June 27. 1990
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
RICHARD W. ROBERS, CHAIRMAN
GVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL pISTRICT
STEVEN A. MCGRAW. VICE-CHAIRMAN
GTAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
LEE B. EDDY
WINDSOR MILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
BOB L JOHNSON
HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
HARRY C. NICKENS
VINTON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
In response to your telephone call of 6/25/90 and the Attorney
General's opinion letter dated 6/19/90, I raised the question of
penalties for late filing and payment of personal property taxes
with the other members of the Board of Supervisors at our regular
meeting on 6/26/90.
As a result, the County Attorney, Paul Mahoney, has been asked to
investigate the actions the Board could and should take, and the
approximate fiscal impact on the County treasury if refunds are
made on penalties assessed betweeen 1987 and the present. Although
the Attorney General's letter addressed only the question regarding
penalties for late returns, Mr. Mahoney was. asked to report also on
the question of penalties for late payment.
I expect Mr. Mahoney's report to be submitted to the next meeting
of the Board, scheduled for July 10. For reference, I am attaching
a copy of my memo dated 4/28/90 to each copy of this letter.
Sincerely,
Lee B. Eddy
cc: Paul Mahoney, Elmer Hodge, Supervisors
P.O. BOX 29800 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24018-0798 <703) 772-2004
MEMO - 4/28/90
To: Paul Mahoney
From: Lee B. Eddy
Subject: Penalties for Late Filing/Payment of Personal Property Tax
Today, I met with Mr. William I. Mcllwraith III, of 3647 Parkwood
Drive, to discuss a complaint regarding the County's current
practice of assessing penalties for late filing and for late
payments on personal property tax. Mr. Mcllwraith had failed to
file his 1990 peronal property tax return on time, and received a
statement that included a S10 penalty on each of the two vehicles
listed on the form. The tax on each vehicle was less than $100.
The statement also indicated there would be a $20.00 penalty for
late payment.
Mr. Mcllwraith has spoken with Wayne Compton and Joe Obenshain
regarding this matter, and also with his personal attorney. He
showed me a copy of Section 58.1-3916 of the State Code which he
and I interpreted to say that localities may assess penalties for
filing a late "return" equal to 10$ of the tax or $10, whichever
was greater, and also that the penalty for late payment can be 10$
of the tax "on such property" or $10, whichever is greater. He
indicated that Mr. Obenshain had interpreted the Code's use of the
word "return" to mean each piece of property, and not the document
itself. Mr. Mcllwraith believes that the $10 minimum penalty
should apply jointly to all property listed on the return, and not
to each vehicle.
Mr. Mcllwraith has called some other urban Virginia counties and
learned that their policies are merely to charge a flat 10$ of the
tax, and not utilize the $10 minimum, in which case interpretation
of the terms "return" and "such property" is not significant.
I told Mr. Mcllwraith he appeared to have a legitimate question,
and that I would bring the matter to your attention. To me, the
word "return" implies all property listed on that form. In respect
to payments, the phrase "on such property" is less clear. If the
interpretation is not clear to you, he suggested that an opinion be
requested from the Attorney General. He also thinks that, if the
County practice is incorrect, refunds should be made.
Please review this matter and let me know how to respond. Mr.
Mcllwraith came to me without realizing he lives in the Cave Spring
District, so I am indicating a copy of this memo to Mr. Robers for
his information.
cc: Dick Robers, Elmer Hodge, Wayne Compton