HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/10/1989 - Adopted Board RecordsACTION #11089-1
ITEM NUMBER -D — Z
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 10, 1988
AGENDA ITEM: Board request for Planning Commission to review and
make recommendations to the Board, after public notice and public
hearing, on Special Exception Permit applications for Demolition
and Sanitary landfills proposed in Roanoke County.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
The Roanoke County Zoning Ordinance requires that a Special
Exception permit be obtained for all sanitary fill methods of
garbage and refuse disposal (Section 21-102-3). Currently these
permit requests are processed by the Department of Planning and
Zoning and sent directly to the Board of Supervisors for
consideration and action. These requests are not reviewed by the
Planning Commission. Two such permit requests have been received
by staff and will appear on the Board's agenda on January 24th.
At the same time, Section 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia requires
the Planning Commission to review and approve any public facility
for consistency.with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The proposed
regional landfill, as well as any other landfill receiving public
refuse, whether publicly or privately owned, would be considered
a public facility and therefore must be reviewed for consistency
with the adopted Comprehensive Plan.
In considering consistency a major emphasis will be placed on the
compatibility of land uses and methods of design which will
mitigate any negative impacts on adjoining uses. Such mitigating
design measures could be addressed through conditions attached to
a project, but there are no provisions in the State Code for
attaching conditions to an approval pursuant to Section 15.1-456.
However, conditions can be attached to Special Exception Permits.
By combining the two processes, it would allow the imposition of
conditions to insure compatibility and therefore consistency with
the comprehensive plan. The Planning Commission's review of
special exception permits for landfills would also assist the Board
in identifying the issues before presented to the Board.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
'a) -Z
The current method for County approval of any landfill is through
the requirement in the Zoning Ordinance that a Special Exception
permit be obtained from the Board of Supervisors. At the same
time, if refuse from public sources is landfilled, the Planning
Commission must first determine that the proposal is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan. However, the Commission has no
authority to review and comment on the Special Exception permit.
Concurrent review by the Commission would allow attaching
recommended conditions necessary to insure consistency with the
Plan to any landfill proposal, and would aide the Board in arriving
at a final determination on any Special Exception permit requested.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS:
Alternative No. 1: Formally request the Planning Commission
to review and make recommendations to the Board of
Supervisors on all Special Exception Permit applications
submitted for debris and sanitary landfills.
Alternative No. 2: Formally request the Planning Commission
to review and make recommendations to the Board of
Supervisors on only the proposed regional landfill sites.
Alternative No. 3: No action. Independent consideration of
landfills will be made by the Planning Commission and
the Board of Supervisors.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Alternative No. 1.
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
4n"athan W. Hartley Elmer C. Hodge
ting Zoning Administrator County Administrator
ACTION
Approved ( N1
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
To
cc: File
VOTE
Motion b Harry C. Nickens/
Richard W, o ers
Jonathan Hartley
No
Yes
Garrett
x
Johnson
x
McGraw
x
Nickens
x
Robers
x
Abs
ACTION NUMBER 11089-2
ITEM NUMBER Z2D —
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 10, 1989
AGENDA ITEM: Reimbursement Policy for Committees, Commissions,
and Boards.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
/ f,3 Zif
BACKGROUND
The Board of Supervisors recently requested that a study be
conducted of all committees, commissions and boards to determine
which are now receiving reimbursement for their duties and which
are not.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
The committees included in this study were those which were
established either by State Code provision, official board
resolution or contract/agreement with other localities. All
these committees must travel to the meeting place and/or travel
to sites for the specific purpose of determining action or
recommendations that are part of the responsibilities of the
committee.
The Committees which met this criteria are as follows:
-- Regional Airport Commission
-- Board of Zoning Appeals
-- Fifth District Planning Commission
-- Grievance Panel
-- Industrial Development Authority
-- Library Board
-- Planning Commission
-- Parks and Recreation Commission
-- Roanoke Valley Regional Solid Waste Management Board
-- Social Services Board
Attached is a chart outlining the results of the study.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS
ID -�
Alternative #1: Reestablish the salaries for members of the
Board of Zoning Appeals at a cost of $1250 per year ($250 per
member) and continue the present policy for all other committees.
For the remainder of fiscal year 1988/89, funding of $625 could
be appropriated from the Board Contingency Fund.
Alternative #2: Continue the present reimbursement policy adding
no new committees. No additional funding would be necessary.
Alternative #3: Establish a reimbursement policy for all
committees, commissions and boards which meet the above criteria.
Funding should be included in the 1989/90 budget process.
TAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Alternative 91.
A L - - 51,
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION
Approved ( Motion by- Bob L. Johnson/Harry
Denied ( ) C. Nickens to approve Aiternative
Received ( )#i and in orm Board ot Zoning
Referred Appeais ot action
To:
cc: File
Committee File
Jonathan Hartley
M. E. Maxey, Chairman, BZA
Members, BZA
Assistant County Administrators
VOTE
Yes No Abs
Garrett x
Johnson x
McGraw x
Nickens x
Robers x
�
M
>1
4-)
>1
M L-n
M
(rYi
4-3
G "0
.-I
O rl
7
O 0�3
r
(noo-1
z
z
+h z
ro
`d
(n
z
U 4-4
z
>1 ih
z
z
��
C) �n
U)
o
a)
a
o -1
R;
r�
U) . rl
U) 0
b
O
O
o
0
o
a) N (d
a) a
0
0
z
z
z
z
z
��
>4—M
z
z
b
a)
W
�U)
Ln
w
y
o�
H
a) ci (1)
O
O
O
O
a) LO (a
O
O
O
X
>i - 4
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
a
�
�
U)
Ub
(ro
z
U)
U
H
U)
H
a)
a)
a
W
a) U
a) U
W
N
N
N
N
N
J
>
q
�
f-:
Q, b
0
O
ri
U
(n
(O U
M N
[—
to
LO
r I
N
M
N
C".
O
O
G
�4
-r-I
d
a)
G
O
U
Qa,
(fidO
0
a
v,
o
-)
NU
o
rl
(d
Q
i4
a)
(a
ri
�
0
s4
a
(d
o
�4
o
.�
N
4-)
ri
O
U
U
W
34
Q,
H
�
a'
cn
O
Q U)
(a
H
b
vi
(�4
(0
o
E((0
4�(
'o
N0
A
((0
O
O
-r( O
�4
(d
(d
O
N
ul
m
W 0
0
+
F-I
a
a
a
U)
R;
ACTION NUMBER 11089-3
ITEM NUMBER �—
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 10, 1989
AGENDA ITEM Request for Amendment to Employee Handbook to
Allow Overtime Leave or Overtime Pay for
Nonexempt Employees
COUNTY ADMINIST�RJATOR`S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act was applied to local
governments in 1985. Among other provisions, the act offers
public sector employers the option of providing time off at the
time and one-half rate, or overtime leave, in lieu of time and
one-half overtime pay for nonexempt employees. The present
policy of Roanoke County is to provide overtime pay and not
utilize overtime leave for nonexempt employees. The budgetary
impact of overtime pay could be reduced by using overtime leave
for nonexempt employees, at the option of the appropriate
department head or constitutional officer.
The Board of Supervisors received a request at the December
13, 1988, meeting to amend the Employee Handbook to permit the
use of overtime leave. However, this request was deferred for
thirty days to allow further study.
SUMMARY INFORMATION:
Attachment A contains a survey of overtime practices for
a number of representative localities and state agencies
throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. This study indicates
that seven localities and one state agency allow their
department heads the option of providing either overtime leave or
overtime pay for nonexempt employees.
Attachment B illustrates overtime situations in which the
overtime leave option might be used.
The attached amendments to t
option of using overtime leave in
amendments could be incorporated
which was approved by the Board o
1988.
The
-
he Employee Handbook allow the
lieu of overtime pay. The
into the new Employee Handbook
f Supervisors on December 13,
attached amendments permi
head or constitutional officer the
leave for hours worked over 40 in
employees, with the exception of 1
protection employees. Law enforc
employees are on a 171 -hour, 28 -da
of the Sheriff or the Chief of Fir
could be provided for overtime hou
28 -day work period. Earned overt
time off by the end of the next wo
accrued but unused overtime leave
current hourly rate.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
t the appropriate d
option of allowing
a 7 -day period for
aw enforcement and
ement and fire prot
y work period. At
e and Rescue, overt
rs worked over 171
ime leave would be
rk period. Upon to
must be paid at the
epartment
overtime
nonexempt
fire
ection
the option
ime leave
in the
taken as
rmination,
employee's
The use of overtime leave was requested by Sheriff Michael
F. Kavanaugh for law enforcement employees in an effort to reduce
the budgetary impact of overtime pay. The attached handbook
amendments are submitted for your consideration to allow
county department heads and constitutional officers the option of
using either overtime leave or overtime pay for all nonexempt
employees.
SUBMITTED BY: APPROV D BY:
D. K. Cook Elmer C. Hodge
Director of Human Resources County Administrator
------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION
Approved ( ) Motion by: Harry C. Nickens/
Denied (x) Ricahrd W. Robers to deny Garrett
Received ( ) staff recommendation and Johnson
Referred continue present overtime McGraw
To pay policy Nickens
Robers
cc: File
D. K. Cook
2
VOTE
No Yes Abs
x
x
x
x
x
ACTION # 11089-4
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 10, 1989
AGENDA ITEM:
New Regional Landfill Sites
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
tv
BACKGROUND:
Over the past 18 months, the Roanoke Valley has been
identifying the needs and options for the disposal of solid
wastes generated by our businesses and residents. In a final
report, the need of a sanitary landfill was identified as the
first step in a multi -phased approach to solving the solid waste
problems. The report also identified numerous potential landfill
sites in the region including Botetourt, Bedford, Franklin and
Roanoke counties.
After the regional approach was determined to be not
workable, Roanoke County was identified to be the next site for
the Valley's landfill. Roanoke County assumed the role of
identifying and selecting the best landfill site possible.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Fifteen sites were identified in Roanoke County as possible
landfill sites. Of the fifteen sites, the top five priority
sites have been reviewed and tested. An additional priority
site, located in the Red Hill area of the Cave Spring Magisterial
District just off State Route 220, has been identified and
determined to be a good potential site. After a preliminary
review of the site, the consultant and the staff feel that
further testing should be performed to determine its suitability
as a landfill.
The report and the results of the preliminary review and
testing for the initial five priority sites will be complete by
January 24. If the Red Hill site is included, the report will be
delayed until February 28.
D -5
The final report will prioritize the tested sites from which
three sites will be selected for submittal to the Department of
Waste Management for landfill permits.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS:
Alternative 1: Add Red Hill to the sites to be tested and
included in the final report to be received on February 28.
Alternative 2: Do not add Red Hill to the sites to be
tested and request staff to present the final report on
January 24.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff_ recommends Alternative 1.
SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED:
Z!zlv'c
JjAn R. H bard, P.E. Elmer C. Hodge
Assistant County Administrator County Administrator
Community Services and Development
-------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (K) Motion by: Steven A. McGraw/ No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Harry C. Ntukens tu appro Garrett x
Received #1 Johnson —�
Referred McGraw -�
to Nickens
Robers x
cc: File
John Hubbard
• I
� f
f �1•
c» i
J
a�
I n �
" VICINITY MAP
COMMUNITY SERVICES�tAND DEVELOPMENT
RED HILL
LANUI-ILL JI I L
44
ACTION # 11089-5
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:
AGENDA ITEM:
January 10, 1989
Approval of Grant Application for CORTRAN Bus
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: vie-
��
BACKGROUND:
The County of Roanoke has contracted with RADAR to provide
public transportation for the elderly and handicapped residents
of Roanoke County. Currently, RADAR leases two buses from the
County to provide this service.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
RADAR has contacted the County to notify us that they
qualify for a special grant through the State which will pay for
80 percent of the cost of a new bus equipped with a handicapped
lift. The bus that is currently in use by RADAR has 95,000 miles
on it. The County would not qualify for this grant money
directly, but as a separate agency, RADAR does qualify for this
grant money and can apply in our place. In order to meet the
application deadline, RADAR must advertise its intent to apply by
January 15, 1989 and complete all applications by mid-February.
We would be notified by mid -summer if the application is
approved, and the actual funding would not be necessary until
January, 1990.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost of a new bus equipped with a handicapped lift is
approximately $27,000. The County's portion of this bus if the
grant application is approved would be 20 percent or $5,400.
This money would not be needed until January, 1990 and could be
included in the 1989-90 budget.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors allow RADAR
to apply for grant monies to purchase a bus equipped with a
handicapped lift and include the funding necessary for the
County's share in the 1989-90 budget process.
0— C0
Respectfully submitted, Approved by,
Diane D. Hyatt'% Elmer C. Hod e
Director of Finance County Administrator
------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by:'Harry C. Nickens/ No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Steven A. McGraw Garrett x
Received ( ) Johnson x
Referred McGraw x
To Nickens x
Robers x
cc: File
Diane Hyatt
Reta Busher
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1989
RESOLUTION 11089-6 ENDORSING A
SINGLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
EFFORT UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIP
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, as follows:
WHEREAS, the Regional Partnership was established by the
Counties of Roanoke and Botetourt, the Cities of Roanoke and
Salem, and the Town of Vinton to present a regional economic
development approach; and
WHEREAS, this organization has aided the recruitment efforts
of the Roanoke Valley, but has been hampered by limited financial
resources; and
WHEREAS, each participating locality has continued its
individual economic development endeavors, while allocating only
a portion of its funds to the Regional Partnership; and
WHEREAS, the economic development needs of the Roanoke
Valley could be better served if the financial resources and
personnel currently serving each jurisdiction could be directed
by one organization, the Regional Partnership.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County endorses the concept of one regional economic
development organization in the Roanoke Valley, and recommends
that all participating localities in the Regional Partnership
direct that their economic development financial resources and
personnel be incorporated under this organization.
FURTHER,. The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, directs that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to
the governing bodies of the localities who participate in the
Regional Partnership, and that they be requested to endorse this
action.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor
McGraw, and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
1/11/89
CC: File
Mark Heath, Executive Director, Regional Partnership
The Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor, City of Roanoke
The Honorable James Taliaferro, Mayor, City of Salem
The Honorable Charles Hill, Mayor, Town of Vinton
The Honorable G. C. Thompson, Chairman
Botetourt County Board of Supervisors
Timothy Gubala, Economic Development Director
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1989
ORDINANCE 11089-7 AUTHORIZING THE
ACQUISITION OF AN INTEREST IN AN EIGHT
(8) ACRE TRACT KNOWN AS THE NORTH CLEAR
ZONE PROPERTY IN EXCHANGE FOR THE
CONVEYANCE TO THE CITY OF ROANOKE OF A
REVERSIONARY CLAUSE IN THE EIGHT (8) ACRE
TRACT KNOWN AS THE IDA MAE HOLLAND TRACT
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That pursuant to provisions of Section 18.04 of the
Charter of Roanoke County, a first reading concerning the
acquisition of a reversionary interest from the City of Roanoke
in the eight (8) acre tract known as the North Clear Zone
property in exchange for the conveyance of a reversionary
interest to the City of Roanoke in the eight (8) acre tract known
as the Ida Mae Holland tract was held on December 13, 1988. A
second reading on this matter was held on January 10, 1988.
2. That the acquisition of the reversionary interest
in the eight (8) acres, more or less, known as the North Clear
Zone property more particularly described as located adjacent to
the Airport Clear Zone property in exchange for the conveyance of
a reversionary interest to the City of Roanoke in the eight (8)
acres, more or less, known as the Ida Mae Holland tract more
particularly described as located adjacent to Thirlane Road and
the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission property is hereby
authorized and approved; and
3. That the County Administrator is authorized to
execute such documents and take such actions on behalf of Roanoke
County as are necessary to accomplish the acquisition and
conveyance of the interest in said properties, all of which shall
be upon form approved by the County Attorney.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson , seconded by
Supervisor Robers and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, Nickens, Garrett
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Supervisor McGraw
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
John Willey, Director, Real Estate Assessment
Tim Gubala, Director, Economic Development
Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering
2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1989
RESOLUTION NO. 11089-8 APPROVING AND
CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH
ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA
FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM K -
CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That that certain section of the agenda of the
Board of Supervisors for January 10, 1989, designated as Item K -
Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to
each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 6, inclusive, as follows:
1. Minutes of Meeting - July 12, 1988
2. Request for acceptance of Scarlet Oak Drive into
the Virginia Department of Transportation
Secondary System.
3. Request for acceptance of Lakemont Drive into the
Virginia Department of Transportation Secondary
System.
4. Acknowledgment from Va Department of
Transportation that the following roads have been
accepted into the Secondary System:
a. 0.06 miles of Route 1337 (Bear Ridge Circle)
b. 0.11 miles of Route 1006 (Stonebridge Circle)
5. Acceptance of a drainage easement being dedicated
by David Mangrum and Pamela Mangrum across Lot 13,
Block 2, Section 2, Forest Edge.
6. Acceptance of a drainage easement donated by the
U. S. Department of Interior across the Blue Ridge
Parkway - Montgomery Village Subdivision.
2. That the Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized
and directed where required by law to set forth upon any of said
items the separate vote tabulation for any such item pursuant to
this resolution.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor
McGraw, and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
1/11/89
CC: File
Phillip Henry, Director of Engineering
Clifford Craig, Utility Director
Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1989
Ilp�9-8.ci..
RESOLUTION .a REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
SCARLET OAK DRIVE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the
proceedings herein, and upon the application of Scarlet Oak Drive
from its intersection with Wood Haven Road (Route 628) to the
existing Falls Development for a distance of 0.20 miles, to be
accepted and made a part of the Secondary System of State
Highways under Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code.
2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements
and a fifty ( 50 ) foot right-of-way for said road have been
dedicated by virtue of a certain map known as Extension of
Scarlet Oak Drive recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 76, of the
records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Roanoke
County, Virginia, on December 21, 1988 and that by reason of the
recordation of said map no report from a Board of Viewers, nor
consent or donation of right-of-way from the abutting property
owners is necessary. The Board hereby guarantees said
right-of-way for drainage.
3. That said road known as Scarlet Oak Drive and which is
shown on a certain sketch accompanying this Resolution, be, and
the same is hereby established as public road to become a part of
the State Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only
from and after notification of official acceptance of said
street or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor
McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering
Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections, and
copy for Virginia Department of Transportation
K%
AMENDED 3/1/89
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1989
RESOLUTION 11089-8.b REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF LAREMONT
DRIVE INTO TTE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That Resolution 2988-7.k requesting acceptance of
Lakemont Drive into the VDOT Secondary Road System is rescinded.
2. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the
proceedings therein and upon the application for Lakemont Drive,
a section of road extending from Club Lane (Route 1443), 0.15
miles west of Valley Drive (Route 1442), and extending in a
westerly and then easterly direction 0.69 miles to the cul-de-sac
pursuant to Section 33.1-72.1, Paragraph C-1 and funded pursuant
to Section 33.1-75.1, Paragraph A of the Code of Virginia of
1950, as amended.
3. That this Board does guarantee the Commonwealth of
Virginia an unrestrictedright-of-way of 40 feet with necessary
easements for drainage as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 5, dated
August 13, 1974 and other deeds of record in the Roanoke County
Circuit Court Clerk's Office.
4. That this Board does certify that this road was open to
public use prior to January 1, 1976, at which time it was open to
and used by motor vehicles.
5. That___this Board does certify that speculative interests
are not involvod.
6. That said road known as Lakemont Drive and which is
shown on a certain sketch accompanying this resolution, be, and
t
the same is hereby established as a public road to become a part
of the state secondary 14ystem of highways in Roanoke County, only
y
from and after notification of official acceptance of said street
or highway by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor
McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Phillip Henry, Director, Engineering
Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections, and
copy for Virginia Department of Transportation
E
W
ACTION NO. 11089-8.c
ITEM NUMBER, 4
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 10, 1989
AGENDA ITEM: Addition to Va. Department of Transportation
Secondary System
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Roanoke County has received notification from the Virginia
Department of Transportation that the following roads have been
accepted into the Secondary System.
a. 0.06 miles of Bear Ridge Circle (Route 1337)
b. 0.11 miles of Stonebridge Circle (Route 1006)
Mary H. Allen Elmer C. Hodge
Deputy Clerk County Administrator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( Motion by: Bob L. Johnson/Steven Yes No Abs
Denied ( ) A. McGraw Garrett x
Received ( ) Johnson x
Referred McGraw x
To: Nickens x
Robers x
cc: File
Phillip Henry
DE C 16 1988
RAY D. PETHTEL
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Board of Supervisors
County of Roanoke
P. 0. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND, 23219 OSCAR K. MABRY
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
December 12, 1988
Secondary System
Addition
Roanoke County
As requested in your resolution dated November 9, 1988, the
following addition to the Secondary Ssytem of Roanoke County is
hereby approved, effective December 12, 1988.
ADDITION LENGTH
MEADOWCREEK - SECTION III
Route 1337 (Bear Ridge Circle) - From Route 1336
to Southwest cul-de-sac. 0.06 Mi.
Sincerely,
AL
Oscar K. Mabry
Deputy Commissioner
., r'(:Hl A110N I ()(2 IVi� ?1';7 CErii(mY
C 1988 ,-
/
1y
COMMONWEALTH of VIRCjINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RAY D. PCI HTEL RICHMOND, 23219
OSCAR K. MABRY
COMMISSIONER
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
December 5, 1988
Secondary System
Addition
Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors
County of Roanoke
P. 0. Box 29800
Roanoke, VA 24018
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD:
As requested in your resolution dated September 13, 1988, the
following addition to the Secondary System of Roanoke County is
hereby approved, effective December 5, 1988.
A nn T T T nu
STONEBRIDGE COURT
Route 1006 (Stonebridge Circle) - From Route 1007
to West cul-de-sac.
Sincerely,
Oscar K. Mabry
Deputy Commissioner
1c? AN N)R1AIION FOR IHE 21S1 Cc NII1HY
LENGTH
0.11 Mi.
ACTION # 11089-8.d
ITEM NUMBER —
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 10, 1989
AGENDA ITEM: Acceptance of a drainage easement being dedicated
by David M. Mangrum and Pamela B. Mangrum across
Lot 13,'Block 2, Section 2, Forest Edge
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
David M. Mangrum and Pamela B. Mangrum have agreed to dedi-
cate, grant, and convey to the County of Roanoke a twenty (20)
foot wide easement for the location of a drainage facility.
This easement is located in the Windsor Hills Magisterial
District across Lot 13, Block 2, Section 2, Forest Edge.
Pursuant to Ordinance No.
1987, the Board authorized the
donations or dedications of
matters.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
10278741 adopted on October 27,
County Administrator to accept
non -controversial real estate
It is recommended that the Board favorably consider this
acceptance by resolution under the consent agenda.
Respectfully submitted,
Sarah A. Rice
Assistant County Attorney
Approved (x)
Denied ( )
Received ( )
Referred
To
cc: File
Paul Mahoney
Phillip Henry
Cliff Craig
Motion by:
A. McGraw
ACTION
Bob L. Johnson/Steven
is - 5
VOTE
No Yes Abs
Garrett x
Johnson x
McGraw x
Nickens x
Robers x
ACROSS LOT 13, BLOCK 2, SECTION N2,
FOREST EDGE (P.B. 10, PG. 69)
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
SCALE: 1•• = 50' DATE: 1 MARCH 1988
BUFORD T. LUMSDEN Er ASSOCIATES, P. C.
ENGINEERS -SURVEYORS
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
COMM . 65. Q; 7
w
I
g60GK Z. 6wiov i
I
- —
g IO P�. ?9
LOT !3
)Z
f �V,
i2
QRAINAOr
b qac
A
reY,6r 15' PU3�rG
\J
C) Gvav: A ; A- r6^ 95'
mora.)
GEr�a�
h �,
E1J66:
Gd2�'E 'ii'
r
Q = 2"5.00'
PLAT SHOWING
NEW DRAINAGE EASEMENT
BEING GRANTED TO
THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE. VIRGINIA
F. 00'
BY
DAVID M. MANGRUM &
PAMELA B. MANGRUM
ACROSS LOT 13, BLOCK 2, SECTION N2,
FOREST EDGE (P.B. 10, PG. 69)
WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
ROANOKE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
SCALE: 1•• = 50' DATE: 1 MARCH 1988
BUFORD T. LUMSDEN Er ASSOCIATES, P. C.
ENGINEERS -SURVEYORS
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
COMM . 65. Q; 7
ACTION # 11089-8.e
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA ITEM:
January 10, 1989
Acceptance for a drainage easement being donated
by the United States Department of Interior across
the Blue Ridge Parkway - Montgomery Village Subdi-
vision
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
/�i t,c,-,-•t-.^�..�•�cl' A.c�^�c3/��-cwt
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The County has applied to the United States of America for a
drainage easement to construct a paved waterway across lands with-
in the boundaries of the Blue Ridge Parkway, a unit of the Nation-
al Park System, U. S. Department of the Interior.
The drainage easement will be located on Parkway lands for a
distance of approximately 387 feet. The purpose and intent of
the drainage easement is to create a waterway to provide a proper-
ty channel for surface water runoff from Elizabeth Drive in the
Montgomery Village Subdivision.
Pursuant to Ordinance No.
1987, the Board authorized the
donations or dedications of
matters.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1027874, adopted on October 27,
County Administrator to accept
non -controversial real estate
It is recommended that the Board favorably consider this
acceptance by resolution under the consent agenda.
Respectfully submitted,
Sarah A. Rice
Assistant County Attorney
------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( Motion by: Bob L. Johnson/Steven No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) A. McGraw Garrett x
Received ( ) Johnson �—
Referred McGraw _
To Nickens x
Robers x
cc: File
Paul Mahoney
Phillip Henry
Cliff Craig
ACTION NO. 11089-9
ITEM NUMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: January 10, 1989
AGENDA ITEM: 1989 Board of Supervisors Committee Assignments
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION•
Attached is a copy of the 1988 assignments for members of the
Board of Supervisors.
Please note that several positions are automatically assigned to
the Chairman, and that several others have regular expiration
dates and are not appointed at this meeting.
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: Lee Garrett nominated Yes No Abs
Denied ( ) HCN to serve three-year term on Garrett
Received ( ) Community Corrections Policy Board; Johnson
Referred Additions: LG to Audit Committee: McGraw
To: BLJ and HCN to Consolidation Nickens
Negotiating Committee Robers
cc: File
Committee Book
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
Lee Garrett
-- State Emergency Services Committee (As Chairman)
-- Regional Partnership (As Chairman)
-- Social Services Board (4 -year term expires 1/1/90)
-- Regional Airport Commission
-- Audit Committee
Bob L. Johnson
-- Fifth Planning District Commission (3 -year term expires
6/30/90)
--Audit Committee
-- Regional Airport Commission
-- Consolidation Negotiating Committee
Steven A. McGraw
-- Cablevision Committee
-- Blue Ridge Region Commission
-- Roanoke Valley Cooperation Committee
Dr. Harry C. Nickens
-- Cablevision Committee
-- Transportation and Safety Commission (4 -year term expires
4/1/91)
-- Court Community Corrections Policy Board ( 3 -year term expires
12/21/91)
-- Consolidation Negotiation Committee
Richard W. Robers
-- Western Virginia Development Corporation
-- Fifth Planning District Commission (2 -year term expires
6/30/89)
-- Clean Valley Committee
-- Roanoke Valley Cooperation Committee