HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/23/1988 - Adopted Board RecordsAT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1988
RESOLUTION 82388-1 OF APPRECIATION TO J. R. JONES
FOR HIS SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE ROANOKE
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
WHEREAS 0-J. R. Jones was first appointed to the Roanoke
County Planning Commission for a four-year term on April 4, 1979,
and subsequently was re -appointed on January 1, 1983, and January
1, 1987; and
WHEREAS, during his tenure on the Planning Commission,
his assistance was invaluable in developing and implementing the
Land Use Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance
Update; and
WHEREAS, for a period of nine and a half years, Mr.
Jones did tirelessly and selflessly devote many hours to the
Is
business of Roanoke County and the Planning Commission, and at
all times, he did capably serve the citizens of the County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County wishes to express its deepest
appreciation and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke
County to J. R. JONES for his many years of capable, loyal,
and dedicated service to Roanoke County; and
4
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors extends its best
wishes for continued success in all his future endeavors.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor
McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTS:
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Resolution of Appreciation File
W
2
r -
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1988
RESOLUTION 82388-2 EXPRESSING THE APPRECIATION
OF THE BOARD OF -SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY
TO VIRGINIA FARROW FOR TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF
SERVICE TO ROANOKE COUNTY
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
WHEREAS, Virginia Farrow was first employed on January
16, 1963, as Deputy Commissioner by the Commissioner of the
Revenue; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Farrow was employed through the terms
of three Commissioners of the Revenue, and was named the Chief
Deputy Commissioner on January 1, 1980; and
WHEREAS, Virginia Farrow has been a valuable asset to
Roanoke County through her assistance to the citizens in
preparing their personal property and Virginia income taxes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County expresses its deepest appreciation
and the appreciation of the citizens of Roanoke County to
Virginia Farrow for over twenty-five years of capable, loyal
and dedicated service to Roanoke County.
FURTHER, the Board of Supervisors extends its best
wishes for a happy, restful and productive retirement.
On motion of Supervi."sor.Nickens, seconded by Supervisor
McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
"V.
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Resolution of Appreciation File
Keith Cook, Director, Human Resources
r
2
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1988
RESOLUTION 82388-3 REQUESTING THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO ENTER
AN ORDER TO HOLD A REFERENDUM ON THE
QUESTION OF CHANGING THE METHOD OF
SELECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE COUNTY SCHOOL
BOARD, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 22.1-42 OF
THE CODE OF VIRGINIA, 1950, AS AMENDED.
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County
determines that it is desirable to hold a referendum on the ques-
tion of the method of appointment of members of the School Board
of Roanoke County, as provided by Section 22.1-42 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended; and,
WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on the ques-
tion of such referendum on July 26, 1988 at 7:00 p.m. at the
Roanoke County Administration Center at 3738 Brambleton Avenue,
S.W.; and,
WHEREAS, said public hearing was advertised in the
Roanoke Times and World News on July 12, 19.98 and July 19, 1988.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervi-
sors of Roanoke County, Virginia, that said Board does respect-
fully request the Circuit Court of Roanoke County to enter an
order requiring the regular election officials on the day fixed
in such order to open the polls and take the sense of the quali-
fied voters of Roanoke County on the question of changing the
method of appointment of members of the Roanoke County School
Board from the Roanoke County School Board Selection Commission
to the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Deputy Clerk of the
Board is hereby directed to certify a copy of this resolution and
to present it to the judge of the Circuit Court for the County of
Roanoke, and to file a certified copy of this resolution with the
Clerk of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke.
On motion of Supervisor McGraw to adopt resolution and
authorize funding up to $10,000 for informational brochure,
seconded by -'Supervisor Robers and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Robers, Garrett
NAYS: Supervisor Nickens
ABSENT: None
A COPY TESTE:
rn6Z4"v, -,4/.
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Kenneth E. Trabue, Chief Judge, Circuit Court
Elizabeth Stokes, Clerk, Circuit Court
Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
Bayes Wilson, Superintendent, Roanoke County Schools
E
ACTION # 82388-4
ITEM NUMBER Z) - Z
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: August 23, 1988
AGENDA ITEM: Request to Amend County's Bonding Policy for
Subdivision and Site Development
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
On October 23, 1984, with the support of the Roanoke Valley
Home Builders Association, the Roanoke County Board of Super-
visors adopted the present Bonding Policy.
The policy was established
to work when administering forms
Bond, Cash Accounts, Letters of
Credit), reductions and defaults.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
to provide a procedure with which
of guarantee (Corporate Surety
Escrow and Irrevocable Letters of
Since adopting the Bonding Policy there have been organiza-
tional changes and current policy problems which have created a
need to amend the present policy.
The organizational changes are attached, therefore, should
not need further explanation.
Currently, the County monitors approximately 80 Irrevocable
Letters of Credit. According to the County policy, notification
must be made to each developer 90 days prior to expiration of
their Letter of Credit. If further extension is required, comple-
tion dates and explanations must be provided by the developer.
Due to poor response from the ;developers on requested information
and notification to banks to extend the Letter of Credit, the
following changes should be made:
�-2
1. Amend Chapter III (C)(4) so that the following language
is required on all newly -issued Letters of Credit:
"This Irrevocable Letter of,Credit shall remain in full
force for a period of one (1) year from the effective
date hereof and shall automatically renew itself from
year to year thereafter unless and until the (issuing
bank name) shall give ninety (90) days prior written
notice to the County of Roanoke, Virginia, by certified
mail, return receipt requested, of its intent to termi-
nate the same at the expiration of the ninety (90) day
period. During the last thirty (30) days during which
the Letter of Credit is in full force and effect, the
County may draw up to the full amount available under
the Letter of Credit with a draft accompanied by a docu-
ment stating that (applicant' name) has not completed
the improvements and has not proviaeed-an acceptable sub-
stitute Irrevocable Letter of Credit and that the draw-
ing is for the explicit purpose of guaranteeing and/or
providing for the completion of the improvements."
2. Amend Chapter IX titled "Default and Evaluation
Procedure" to require that once the ninety (90) day
notification is received from the bank, all physical
improvements must be completed and accepted by all
County and State agencies within sixty (60) days from
bank notification or Roanoke County is required to auto-
matically draw on the Letter of Credit. This amendment
will relieve Roanoke County from continuous monitoring
of Letters of Credits and insure that bonds do not lapse
without completion of all improvements.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS:
Alternative 1: Amend the County's Bonding Policy to reflect
organizational c anges, require self -extending language on all
newly -issued Letters of Credit, and amend the default procedure;
direct the County Attorney to prepare the appropriate resolution.
The only cost involved is approximately $100 to reprint the Bond-
ing Policy.
Alternative 2: Amend the County's Bonding Policy to reflect
only organizationa changes and all other portions of the policy
will remain the same; direct the County Attorney to prepare the
appropriate resolution. The only cost involved is approximately
$100 to reprint the Bonding Policy.
Alternative 3: Do nothing and enforce the current Bonding
Policy. t.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Alternative 1.
-2-
SUBMITTED BY:
Arnold covey, uirector
Development and Inspections
APPROVED:
i ..LLJJ
Elmer C. Ho ge
County Administrator
------------------------------------------ ----------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: Steven A. McGraw/ No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Richard W. Robers to approve Garrett x
Received ( ) Alternative #1 Johnson x
Referred McGraw x
to Nickens x
Robers x
cc: File
Arnold Covey
John Hubbard
Phillip Henry
Paul Mahoney
ti
-3-
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES TO BONDING POLICY 0 - 2,
1. Change "Development Review Coordinator" to "Director of
Development and Inspections"
2. Change "Department of Public Facilities" to "Department of
Engineering"
3. Page 7(C) - Bonding Committee shall be composed of Assistant
County Administrator of Community Services and Development,
Director of Development and Inspections, County Attorney,
and Director of Engineering.
4. Change "V.D.H.T•.1' to "V.D.O.T."
i
-4-
ACTION # 82388-5
ITEM NUMBER , -3
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE
AGENDA ITEM
August 23, 1988
Report and Planning Commission Recommendation on
Individual On -Site Aerobic Wastewater Treatment
Systems in Roanoke County.
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS
114 aqnlc�
BACKGROUND
In July 1987, the Code of Virginia was amended (Section 62.1-
44.15:3) to include a provision that an applicant for a permit under
the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) must
obtain written notification from the governing body of the County
that the proposal is consistent with all ordinances adopted pursuant
to Chapter 11 (Section 15.1-427) of Title 15.1 of the Code of
Virginia. Since then, Roanoke County has received three requests
(one denied; two pending) for approval of individual aerobic
wastewater treatment systems. After initial consideration by the
Board of Supervisors, the matter was referred to the Planning
Commission for review and recommendation.
The Planning Commission and staff in considering this matter,
researched available information and met with private vendors and
representatives of the Virginia Water Control Board (VWCB) and the
Virginia Department of Health (VDH). A summary of the information
obtained is attached.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
In relationship to the foundation offered by the conventional septic
system or other accepted alternatives for on-site sewage treatment,
these systems present a number of issues which should be addressed
prior to approval.
(1) Foremost is the problem of ensuring proper maintenance.
Independent studies of these systems have indicated that the quality
of the effluent has been inconsistent due primarily to the
maintenance problems associated with these systems.
(2) At the present time, responsibility for approving these systems
rests with the VWCB, with recommendations provided by VDH. However,
neither agency formally monitors or inspects these systems on a
routine basis. They do, however, recognize the problem of
maintenance and encourage local communities to establish public
service authorities to monitor and maintain these aerobic units, or
require maintenance contracts with private industry.
(3) In Roanoke County, under current requirements in Chapter 16 of
the County Code, these systems are not permitted. The only accepted
methods of waste disposal are septic systems with soil absorption
fields (drainfields) or central sewer systems. In addition, these
systems represent a private improvement related to land development,
similar to the private roads and water systems now prohibited by
ordinance, which has the potential for becoming a public
responsibility.
(4) Finally, individual aerobic wastewater systems are not reflected
or contemplated in the policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
These systems, if left to the current regulatory mechanisms, could
encourage growth in a fashion inconsistent with the plan, and contra-
dict policies related to resource protection such as water quality.
Despite these aspects, the Planning Commission concurs with health
officials that these systems, if closely monitored, would provide a
more acceptable solution to an existing failing septic system which
poses a hazard to public health. This would allow limited numbers
of these systems to be utilized in hardship situations, while
permitting further evaluation by VWCB, VDH, and the County.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS
Alternative No. 1: That an ordinance be prepared amending Chapter
16 of the County Code establishing criteria, standards, monitoring
requirements, provisions for maintenance, and determining the admin-
istrative process to permit individual aerobic treatment systems on
a hardship basis only as a replacement system for a failed septic
system on an improved lot which constitutes a risk to public health.
This ordinance should incorporate the recommendations of the
Planning Commission contained in the attached report.
Alternative No. 2: Maintain existing ordinances and provisions in
the County Code which prohibit use of these individual aerobic
systems.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission and staff recommend Alternative 1 to develop
an ordinance through a joint effort of the Planning Department,
Utility Department, and the County Attorney's office.
SUBMITTED BY:
Jonaan W. Hartley
Acti g Zoning Administrator
APPROVE BY:
Elmer C. dge
County Administrator
------ -------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION z VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: Steven A. McGraw/Bob L. No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Johnson to approve Aiternative #2 Garrett x
Received ( ) and that statt work with Health Johnson x
Referred Department to i.mp ement approval of McGraw x
To sewage disposai prior to plat Nickens x
Robers x
cc: File Dr. Margaret Hagan
Jonathan Hartley
John Hubbard
Cliff Craig
July 15, 1988
FINAL REPORT RELATED TO
INDIVIDUAL AEROBIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
Background
In July 1987, the Code of Virginia was amended (Section 62.1-44.15:3)
to include a provision that an applicant for a permit under the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) must obtain
written notification from the governing body of the County that the
proposal is consistent with all ordinances adopted pursuant to
Chapter 11 (Section 15.1-427) of Title 15.1. Since then, Roanoke
County has received three requests (one denied, two pending) for
approval of individual aerobic wastewater treatment systems. After
initial consideration by the Board of Supervisors, the matter was
referred to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation.
The following report summarizes the Commission's review based on
information obtained by the Commission and staff. Also included are
draft recommendations for consideration by the Commission. This
report focuses on these systems as a whole, since the issues are
related to County policy rather than specific application. Also, the
County does not have the technical expertise, nor is it County
policy, to evaluate or recommend a specific vendor's product over the
numerous individual aerobic systems marketed at this time.
Description of Individual Aerobic Wastewater Treatment Systems
a
The typical aerobic unit consists of a compartmentalized tank
constructed of fiberglass or,concrete. Generally the first
compartment is a presettling chamber where heavy solids and grease
are removed. The second chamber consists of the aeration chamber
where compressed air is forced into the effluent, normally with some
form of mechanical stirring. A small final settling chamber is
usually provided incorporating ports or slots for gravity sludge to
return to the aeration chamber. The effluent is then discharged from
the tank, either into a chlorinator, if required, or into a receiving
stream or other approved location.'
These individual units differ from conventional septic systems by
their method of sewage treatment. They rely primarily on the
principle of oxidation in the decomposition of sewage by introducing
air into the sewage (aerobic treatment), after which the effluent is
discharged. A conventional septic system uses an anaerobic process
(without air) to partially treat the waste. Final treatment occurs
in the soil absorption or drain field where the wastewater is
1
filtered and treated by organisms in the soils and by physical and
chemical reactions with the soil. This treatment by the soil is why
the soil capabilities are so critical in the siting of a septic
system.
They also differ from larger.publicly owned treatment plants. First,
by comparison, they are small in size, with flows generally under
1000 gallons per day. Second, since larger treatment plants handle a
larger volume of effluent, including commercial and industrial
wastewater, higher levels of treatment have been mandated by law. In
turn, to insure that discharge standards are being met, state law
requires that the effluent by sampled daily. Finally, from a more
technical perspective, the individual aerobic systems have the
appearance of an extended aeration process used in larger publicly
owned systems. However, by relying on a gravity sludge return in the
final settling chamber_,. rather than a mechanical return system, these
individual systems are not efficient in capturing or retaining
solids, resulting in poor quality effluent.2
General Performance of Individual Aerobic Systems
The National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) of Ann Arbor, Michigan is a
nonprofit research organization established to develop standards and
criteria for special equipment related to public health. The NSF
Standard 40 was developed to specifically evaluate the performance of
individual aerobic wastewater treatment systems, independent of the
design and construction of the system., based on the installation and
operating instructions of the manufacturer. Conformance with this
standard is not an approval of the particular unit, but a
certification of the data provided by the tests and an indication of
compliance with the requirements expressed in the standard. Plants
conforming to Standard 40 are classified as Class I or Class II
plants according to the quality of effluent produced during their
performance evaluation. Table 1 below contains the maximum level of•
discharges allowed in each class.3
Table 1
NSF Standard 40
Plant Classification
Class I Class II
Effluent Quality Maximum Value* Maximum value*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
BODS, mg/l 20 60
Suspended Solids, mg/l 40 100
---------------------------------------------------------------------
*Maximum value not to•be exceeded more than 10% of the time.
Source: National Sanitation Foundation, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
2
As of August, 1987 the NSF had certified more than a dozen 'D '3
manufacturers producing more than 40 different models as conforming
with Standard 40. Many of these have in turn been approved for use
in Virginia by the Department of Health based on their review of
plans and specifications
Although a number of these systems have been certified by NSF and
approved by VDH, testing and evaluation of individual aerobic systems
installed in the field have raised some concerns related to their
performance.
The primary problem cited in studies conducted during the 1970's is
the maintenance of the systems by homeowners. One study in Colorado
conducted by Edwin Bennett in 1973, concluded that the performance of
the individual aerobic systems tested was disappointing, and
summarized the problem -as follows:
"One important factor is neglect by the homeowner. Many owners
will not accept any maintenance responsibility related to their
sewage system and therefore the successful unit must have a high
degree of reliability with minimal maintenance."4
A similar study undertaken in Jefferson County, Colorado between 1971
and 1973 likewise concluded that:
"Many homeowners are unfamiliar with sewage treatment process and
find maintenance of the [aerobic] plants is a bothersome chore
which results in the plant being neglected."5
Finally, the most extensive study to date was conducted by the Ohio
Department of Health in Hamilton County, Ohio in 1978. The study was
based on 61 aerobic treatment systems random sampled by vendor from
2000 units. Based on their laboratory results, the systems tested
frequently failed to comply with the Ohio State standards or NSF
Class II standards, as indicated in Table 2. Is
Table 2
Hamilton County Individual Aerobic Systems
Test Results
Suspended
BODS Solids
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Totals
132 mg/l
Systems Meeting Ohio Standards 23%
Systems Meeting NSF Class II Standards 40%
2779 mg/l
46%
59%
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Hamilton County Home Aerobic Systems Sewage Disposal Program
Survey, Ohio Department of Health, 1979.
3
Also during the study, approximately half of the owners were
�-3
interviewed on the performance and maintenance of the systems. Based
on this information, the following conclusions were reached.
"The levels of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended
solids (SS) in the majority of these units exceeded those as
permitted for off-site discharge as required by Ohio's household
sewage rules, and for the National Sanitation Foundation
standards. These excessive levels are indicative of the problem
which creates nuisances, water pollution, and possible disease
outbreak.
There are several reasons for the high levels of BOD and SS in
each of the units and for the program as a whole. Primary is the
real possibility that the units themselves are designed and
manufactured -inadequately, and/or the units are not functioning
properly.... An equally important reason for excessively high
effluent levels is the lack of proper maintenance. Both
homeowners and service personnel must be aware of good operating
practice and the requirements necessary for their particular
system."6
According to conversations by staff with officials in Ohio, the
maintenance problem still persists. One health official indicated it
was not uncommon to find that the owner had shut the power to the
system off causing the treatment system to go septic. To address the
maintenance problem, Ohio public health officials are now preparing
legislation to permit the creation of Sanitation Districts in order
to institute a routine monitoring and inspection program based on
annual user fees.
Role of the Virginia Water Control Board (VWCB)
The primary agency responsible for regulating these individual
aerobic treatment systems is the Virginia Water Control Board
(VWCB). Among other duties, they are responsible for any discharge
of sewage and other wastes into or adjacent to state waters,
including discharges into a dry run, stream or ditch, or onto the
ground. This is regulated through the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits, pursuant to Section 62.1-44.15 of
the Virginia Code and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act under
contract with the Environmental Protection Agency.
Prior to obtaining an NPDES, a formal application must be submitted
containing specific information about the location, design and extent
of treatment anticipated. Notification of the local governing body
must also be submitted at this time. Discharge limitations are then
set for the proposed system, and a notice is published soliciting
public comments on the application related to water quality issues.
At this time the application is also referred to VDH for their review
and recommendation. Should favorable comments be received, the
application is approved. Permits are issued on a first come first
serve basis.
4
_o
The VWCB utilizes standardized effluent limitations, which are shown
in Table 3, as the specific standards for the quality of the
wastewater discharged. These standards are equivalent to secondary
treatment. In addition, chlorination and dechlorination must be
provided. These limitations are utilized.for all discharges to all
surface water, except those classified as "prohibited waters" and
"protected waters". There are no "prohibited waters" located in
Roanoke County. Protected waters, which would include the following,
are evaluated on a case by case basis.
-Public Water Supply waters,
-Natural Trout and Put and Take Trout waters,
-Waters containing endangered or threatened species, and
-Multiple dischargers in close proximity to one another.
Dependent upon these factors, standardized effluent limitations are
accepted, modified to be more stringent, or the permit request should
be denied.
Table 3
Virginia Water Control Board Effluent Limitations
for Individual Aerobic Treatment Systems
Discharge Limitation
Effluent Characteristics Monthly Average Weekly Average
--------------------------------------------------------------------
BODS, mg/1
30 45
Suspended Solids, mg/l 30 45
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Virginia Water Control Board, 1988.
NPDES permits must be renewed every five years. At this time
available performance records are reviewed, if available, and a
visual inspection of the site is made. Otherwise, inspections are
made only in response to a complaint. VWCB policy does not require
routine testing and sampling, as it does for larger public systems.
Also at renewal time, additional effluent limitations could be
imposed, requiring modifications to these systems after initial
approval.
Due to the overlapping roles of the VWCB and VDH, there has been
discussions of transferring sone or all of the responsibilities for
these individual systems to VDH. To date no specific agreement
between agencies has been reached. However, VDH personnel will be
providing NPDES permit packages to applicants and will assist
individuals as staff time allows.
5
Role of the Virginia Department of Health (VDH)
The VDH is responsible for approving all individual sewage disposal
systems which utilize soil absorption systems. In addition to the
conventional gravity flow septic tank-drainfield system, VDH also
presently permits low pressure distribution drainfield systems,
elevated sand mounds, and chlorinated sand filters.
Through a memorandum of understanding, VDH, has also been reviewing
NPDES permit applications in order to provide recommendations related
to public health. In May, 1988, the first set of interim policies
and guidelines were issued by VDH , effective immediately as well as
to solicit comments. They are intended to provide for more thorough
and consistent review and recommendations on these systems across the
State. Final guidelines are under preparation and are expected to be
implemented this'fall.-
These interim guidelines first require that all other options for
sewage disposal be explored and found unsatisfactory. In addition,
three primary concerns have been cited in considering a
recommendation on these systems. These include: 1) the type of
discharge; 2) the development density within the area of the
discharge; 3) and long term maintenance. The policy encourages that
these three items be addressed prior to offering a favorable comment
on an NPDES permit request.
In terms of the types of discharges, the interim guidelines recommend
that dry ditch or no ditch discharges be given an unfavorable
recommendation unless strict buffering standards (500 feet) under
control of the property owner (ownership or easement) is provided
below each discharge point. This can be modified following a site
inspection for site topography or soil absorption characteristics,
other means of controlling access, commitment to proper maintenance,
or additional methods of pretreatment prior to discharge. Dry ditch'
discharges would also be given an unfavorable 'recommendation within
one mile upstream from any public water intake or any public swimming
or bathing area.
The interim guidelines also specifically state that VDH will not
support multiple lot subdivisions unless a public service authority
exists which will perform inspections and maintain the systems.
Large single treatment systems are usually the more appropriate
treatment method for subdivisions. Regardless of their location, VDH
strongly supports local creation of public service authorities
designed to routinely inspect and maintain these systems. In lieu of
this, they support local regulations requiring maintenance contracts
with private industry.
Finally, these guidelines stat4. that VDH will inspect these
individual aerobic systems for compliance with plans and
specifications which were permitted by the VWCB. However, no
schedule or frequency, -of inspection proposed is identified.
0
Although these interim guidelines and policy are temporary until Z),.3
final guidelines are developed and adopted, they provide an
indication of the areas of concern to VDH.. Completion of the final
guidelines should be closely monitored in order to determine the most
appropriate role for the County to pursue.
Role of Roanoke County
Roanoke County's role in regulating sewage disposal is based on a
number of interrelated ordinances and standards. Foremost of these
is Chapter 16 of the Roanoke County Code of 1971 (Chapter 18 of the
County Code of 1985) which includes standards for private sewage
disposal systems and specifications for septic tank systems. More
specifically, Section 16-15 states:
"It shall be unlawful for the owner of any house used as a place
of habitation... to be occupied until the house ... shall have an
approved method of disposal of human excrement of such
construction as will comply with the requirements of this
article.
The only methods cited in Chapter 16 are septic tank systems and
public sewer systems. This is further supported by Section 16-45(c)
which states:
"Unless exception is granted by the approving authority [defined
as the County Administrator or his duly authorized
representative] or by other provisions of this chapter, the
public sewer system shall be used by all persons discharging
wastewater..."
This provision of the County Code is cross referenced to Building
regulations, Chapter 7; erosion and sediment control, Chapter 8;
zoning ordinance, Appendix A; and subdivisions, Appendix B. These
sections of the Code make up the body of local, -regulations related to
land use and land development.
In addition to the specific regulations, land use and development are
guided by the Roanoke County Comprehensive Plan. This document,
adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1985, establishes policy for
the future growth and development of the County through the year
2003. Included in this document and related support documents are a
number of policies directly and indirectly recommendations related to
sewage disposal and individual aerobic treatment systems.
First, the Development Framework Guide recommends that growth be
stimulated in those areas which can be most efficiently served by
public facilities. Conversely, growth is to be limited in those
areas which can not be efficie6tly served with all public utilities.
These areas are designated in the plan and referred to as the urban
service area and rural service area. In the table of Public Service
Characteristics (Tabl.e II, page 10) public systems are recommended
for urban service areas and individual septic systems are recommended
for rural service areas. No other alternative methods of wastewater
treatment are referenced in the Plan. Should these individual
7
Elm_j
treatment systems be allowed, particularly for new construction, it
could accelerate growth in areas not anticipated in the Plan,
particularly under the present zoning.
The Future Land Use Guide portion of the Plan recommends overall
densities of one dwelling unit per 5 acres for the areas designated
Rural Preserve, one unit per acre for Rural Village areas, and one to
three units per acre for areas designated as Village Center. Under
the present interim guidelines used by VDH in evaluating an
individual system proposal, there would be little to no effect on the
Rural Village and Village Center areas, since these guidelines would
limit their use in multiple lot subdivisions. However in the areas
designated as Rural Preserve, all of these interim guidelines could
be met, again permitting additional growth not anticipated.
Finally, in the Resource Protection Guide portion of the Plan the
policy guidelines recommend reevaluation of the performance of septic
systems in order to protect groundwater and other water resources.
Based on the performance record of these systems as indicated above,
they do not appear to have established a reliability consistent with
these guidelines. Therefore cautious and deliberate evaluation
should be undertaken prior to approval of their use. Extreme care is
also recommended in addressing on-site sewage disposal on steep
slopes. The thin soils and rates of runoff make,these areas
particularly susceptible to surface and groundwater pollution.
Historically, areas with steep slopes have gone undeveloped, unless
public sewer was available due to the slope limitations of
conventional septic systems and other approved methods of sewage
disposal. Individual aerobic systems have no known limitations
related to slope. This could expose substantial areas of the County
to new development previously not suitable for development.
Related to this issue of private individual treatment systems is the
county's past experience with the public costs associated with the
development of land with private improvements.,& Between the State and
County, $1.5 million will be spent over the next 5 years to upgrade
private roads, previously approved, to state standards in order to
permit acceptance into the State road system. The costs in the
future to convert private roads to public stands is estimated to be
an additional $1.5 to 5.0 million. In response to this public cost,
private road subdivisions are no longer permitted by policy, unless
unique and unusual circumstances exist. Similar policies have been
adopted for private community sized water supply and sewage disposal
systems. At the same time, the public sewer system is being extended
into areas not scheduled for service at this time due to failing
septic systems. This experience has led to an overall policy of
reluctance to endorse privately owned improvements which carry public
responsibilities.
4
Experience of Other Communities
There have been a wide range of responses to requests for approval of
the individual aerobic systems across the State. In Loudoun County,
they are prohibited unless owned and maintained by the Sanitation
Authority, while in Clarke County (known for its activities in
8
tw__n
groundwater protection) they are prohibited. In contrast, Frederick
and Shenandoah are reportedly approving requests upon favorable
recommendation by the local health department. At the regional
level, Middle Peninsula PDC is researching the issue at the request
of a number of local jurisdictions in that region, while the
Southeastern PDC has recommended their use only if no other options
are available. They have also suggest the posting of a performance
bond to insure maintenance.
As with the jurisdictions in Virginia, the same extremes can be found
among the states. Massachusetts has recently banned their use. Ohio
permits them without discharge permits or chlorination. Iowa and
Minnesota permit individual aerobic treatment systems as long as they
discharge into a soil absorption system.
Issues Related to Individual On-site Treatment
One item identified during a review of the subdivision ordinance is
that the current practice of approving lots without prior approval of
the Health Department for on-site sewage disposal. This may be
partially responsible for the recent interest in individual treatment
systems. In January, 1988, the Roanoke County/Vinton Health
Department prepared requirements for approving sewage disposal
systems for subdivisions prior to recordation and subsequent sale.
The necessary steps should be taken to formally adopt these
requirements to avoid further intensification of the problem.
Summary
In relationship to the foundation offered by the conventional septic
system or other accepted alternatives for on-site sewage treatment,
these systems present a number of issues which should be addressed
prior to approval. Foremost is the problem of insuring proper
maintenance. Independent studies of these systems have indicated
that the quality of the effluent has been inconsistent due primarily
to the maintenance problems associated with these systems. Simply
stated, these studies concluded that these individual aerobic units
are often neglected and improperly maintained by the homeowner once
they are installed.
At the present time, responsibility for approving these systems rests
with the Virginia Water Control Board (VWCB). Prior to installation
the property owner must obtain a National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This permit determines the
quality of effluent discharged by the system. Approval by the County
pursuant to Section 62.1-44.15:3 of the Code of Virginia is also
required prior to issuing a permit. In addition, the Virginia
Department of Health (VDH) reviews NPDES permit applications for
public health issues. VDH hisialso recently issued interim
guidelines for commenting on any applications for these systems.
Final guidelines are expected to be issued this fall. However,
neither agency formal.'monitors or inspects these systems on a routine
basis. They do, however, recognized the problem of maintenance and
encourage local communities to establish public service authorities
to monitor and maintain these aerobic units, or require maintenance
contracts with private industry.
9
E�-j
In Roanoke County, under current requirements in Chapter 16 of the
County Code, these systems are not permitted. The only accepted
methods of waste disposal are septic systems with soil absorption
fields ( drainfields) or central sewer systems. In addition, these
systems represent a private improvement related to land development,
similar to the private roads and water systems now prohibited by
ordinance, which has the potential for becoming a public
responsibility. Finally, individual aerobic wastewater systems are
not reflected or contemplated in the policies contained in the
Comprehensive Plan. These systems left to the current regulatory
mechanisms, could encourage growth in a fashion inconsistent with the
Plan, and contradict policies related to resource protection such as
water quality.
Despite these aspects,. -the Planning Commission concurs with Health
officials that these systems, if closely monitored, would provide a
more acceptable solution to an existing failing septic system which
poses a hazard to public health. This would allow limited numbers of
these systems to be utilized in hardship situations, while permitting
further evaluation by the VWCB, VDH and the County. Therefore,
listed below are recommendations to guide the county in formulating
the necessary measures in a manner which will permit the approval of
individual aerobic systems, where unique and unusual circumstances
exist, while insuring that the public interests and concerns are
adequately addressed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That an ordinance be prepared amending Chapter 16 of the County
Code establishing criteria, standards, monitoring requirements,
provisions for maintenance, and determining the administrative
process to permit individual aerobic treatment systems on a hardship -
basis only as a replacement system for a faile-d septic system on an
improved lot which constitutes a risk to public health. This
ordinance should address the following specific items:
a. Specific systems should be limited to those certified under NSF
Standard 40 meeting Class I criteria and approved by VDH for use
in Virginia.
b. The VDH interim guidelines should be reviewed and where
appropriate to Roanoke County incorporated into the ordinance.
c. A system for monitoring should be established to permit
evaluation of the quality of effluent discharged and serve as a
check on proper maintenance.
d. Provisions should be incorporated into the deed to each parcel
approved for an individual system to serve as a notice to future
property owners..
e. Require a perpetual maintenance agreement for the life of the
individual system, and/or if appropriate require a bond to
insure proper maintenance.
10
3
f. Establish a fee structure and design maintenance and monitoring
requirements to minimize or eliminate.any negative fiscal impact
on the County.
g. Work closely with the Roanoke County/Vinton Health Department,
VDH, VWCB and involved county agencies in developing the
ordinance.
Related Recommendations
1: Take the necessary steps to implement, as soon as possible, the
Health Departments approval of sewage disposal in subdivisions prior
to recording of the plat.
FOOTNOTES
Z-3
1. Edwin Bennett, et al, "Comparison of Septic Tank and Aerobic
Treatment Units: The impact of Wastewater Variations on
These Systems" , Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Colorado University, Boulder, Colorado.
Presented at the Rural Environmental Engineering Conference,
Warren, Vermont on September 26, 1973.
2. John W. Clark, et al, Water Supply and Pollution Control
(New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1977) p. 622.
3. "Report on -the Performance Evaluation of Norweco, Inc.
Singulair Model 820 Individual Home Wastewater Treatment
System" Report No. 540-8-1. (National Sanitation Foundation,
Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1984) pp. 2-4.
4. Edwin Bennett, et al. p. 20.
5. Dan W. Tipton, "Experience of a County Health Department
with Individual Aerobic Sewage Treatment Systems", Jefferson
County Health Department, Lakewood, Colorado. Presented at
the APHA Convention, New Orleans, Louisiana in November,
1974. p. 8.
6. Ohio Department of Health, "Hamilton County Home Aerobic
Systems Sewage Disposal Program Survey", Department of
Health, Columbus, Ohio, 1979. Unpublished. p. 11.
tl
12
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 26, 1988
RESOLUTION 82388-6 AMENDING RESOLUTION 10-14-86-
209 ALLOWING MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT FOR MILEAGE IN
THE USE OF A PERSONAL VEHICLE FOR COUNTY BUSINESS
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That Resolution 10-14-86-209 adopted October 14, 1986,
allowing mileage reimbursement for the use of personal vehicles
while conducting County business be, and hereby is, .amended to
provide a reimbursement of 22.5 per mile for the first 15,000
miles and ll� per mile for all miles over the first 15,000
miles; and
1. That this rate shall be in full force and effect for
mileage expenses incurred from and after September 1, 1988.
On motion of Supervisor Nickens, seconded by Supervisor
McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
A
cc: File
Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance
Reta R. Busher, Director, Management & Budget
Assistant County Administrators
Department Heads
Constitutional Officers
ACTION # 82388-7
ITEM NUMBER _ D — S
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: August 23, 1988
AGENDA ITEM:
Approval of a Mutual Aid Agreement with Floyd
County for Fire Protection and Emergency Medical
Services
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
Floyd County and Roanoke County have been negotiating the
terms and provisions of a mutual aid agreement to provide fire
protection and emergency medical services for their citizens.
This agreement is an integral part of implementing an E911 link-
age between Floyd and Roanoke Counties.
Statutory authority for this mutual aid agreement is found
in Chapter 1 of Title 27 of the 1950 Code of Virginia. This
agreement is attached to this report and it provides for mutual
aid in firefighting and emergency medical Services in designated
areas and in non -designated areas, if personnel and equipment are
available and can be safely spared; reservation of immunities and
liability; and termination provisions.
The Board of Supervisors of Floyd County reviewed and
approved this agreement on August 15, 1988.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Board authorize the County Admin-
istrator to execute this mutual aid agreement with Floyd County.
D-5
Respectfully submitted,
9'j
Paul M. Mahoney
County Attorney
------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (X) Motion by: Lee Garrett/Harry C. No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) Nickens Garrett x
Received ( )- .
Johnson x
Referred McGraw x
To Nickens x
Robers x
cc: File
Paul Mahoney
Tommy Fuqua
.Q
Z)-.5
This Agreement, made and entered into this day of ,
1988, by and between the COUNTY OF ROANOIE,' VIRGINIA, hereinafter referred to
j as Roanoke County and the COUN'T'Y OF FLOM, VIRGINIA, hereinafter referred to
as Floyd County and The FLOM COUNTY VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, INC., A
Virginia Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Floyd County Volunteer
Fire Department; and the FIM COUNTY LIFE SAVING AND FIRST AID SQUAD, INC., A
Virginia Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Floyd County Rescue
Squad.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the Boards of Supervisors of Roanoke County and Floyd
County desire to provide the best and most cost-effective fire protection and
emergency medical services for their citizens; and
WHEREAS, Floyd County and the Floyd County Volunteer Fire
Department own fire -fighting equipment used by the Floyd County Volunteer,Fire
Department, and Floyd County and the Floyd County Rescue Squad own emergency.
medical equipment used by the Floyd County Rescue Squad; and
WHEREAS, the Boards of Supervisors of both counties and the Floyd
County Volunteer Fire Department and the Floyd County Rescue Squad, have
concurred in the effort to develop a mutual aid agreement for improved fire
fighting and emergency medical services in Roanoke and Floyd Counties, as
authorized by Section 27-3'd "the Code of Virginia; and
-1-
-D-5
WHEREAS, Section 27-3.1 of the Code of Virginia provides that
cooperating counties may procure or extend the necessary public liability
linsurance to cover claims arising out of mutual aid agreements.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the undertakings
thereinafter set out, the parties covenant and agree as follows:
1. Mutual aid in firefighting & Emergency Medical Services
a. Roanoke County Fire & Rescue Department - Station 8 will
respond to calls in areas designated by C & P Telephone Co. E-911
coverage map (see attached).
b. Floyd County Volunteer Fire Department & Floyd County Rescue
Squad will send units to assist on calls in Roanoke County in the
area from Floyd County - Roanoke County line East to top of Bent
Mountain, when personnel and equipment are available and can be
safely spared.
2. Assistance in non -designated areas
Roanoke and Floyd Counties agree to respond when called to
assist in the other areas not described in this agreement, when the
personnel and equipment are available and can be safely spared.
3. Designation of officials
Roanoke and Floyd Counties Fire and Rescue shall respond to a
call for service only upon request of the official designated for
-2-
2) -5
that purpose. The parties shall notify one another of the identity
of the official or officials designated to request such assistance.
4. Notification of Calls in Floyd County
Roanoke County dispatcher will notify Floyd County of all Fire
and Rescue calls that Roanoke County responds to in Floyd County,
at the time the units are dispatched.
5. Application of Department policies
Officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall comply with
the operational policies of their own departments. The parties
agree to hold their own officers, agents, employees, and
volunteers, respectively, responsible and accountable for
compliance with operation policies of the respective departments.
6. Retention of benefits
While acting under this Agreement, officers, agents, employees,
and volunteers shall have all the immunities from liabilities and
exemptions from -laws, ordinances, and regulations and shall have
all the pension, relief, disability, workers' compensation, and
other benefits enjoyed by them while performing their respective
duties within the territorial limits of their political sub-
division.
7. Liability for damaged equipment
Roanoke County shall have no liability for any destruction,
-3-
Z-6-
loss,
-5
loss, or damage of any Floyd County -owned or Floyd County Volunteer
Fire Department and/or Floyd County Rescue Squad -owned motor
vehicle, equipment, or personal property and Floyd County and Floyd
County Volunteer Fire Department and Floyd County Rescue Squad
shall have no liability for any destruction, loss, or damage of any
Roanoke County -owned motor vehicle, equipment, or personal property
in the exercise of any power under or pursuant to this Agreement.
8. Immunities not impaired hereby
This Agreement shall not be construed to impair or affect any
sovereign or governmental immunity or official immunity that may
otherwise be available to Roanoke County or any officer, agent, or
employee of Roanoke County, or to Floyd County or any officer,
agent, or employee of Floyd County.
9.Commencement of Agreement
This Agreement shall become effective on
Is
1O.Termination of Agreement
Any party to this Agreement may terminate same, with or without
cause, by giving written notice to the other parties by -certified
mail, return receipt requested. Any termination notice must be
given at least sixty (60) days prior to July 1st of any given year.
This Agreement shall continue from year to year unless terminated
as indicated above-; or all parties mutually.agree to terminate.
-4-
ll.Entire Agreement _5
This Agreement represents the -entire and intergrated..Agreement
between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, repre-
sentations, or agreements, either oral or written. This Agreement
may be amended only by written instrument signed by authorized re-
presentatives of all parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the
day and year first above written.
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
BY:
County Administrator
I Attest:
Deputy Clerk
COUN'T'Y OF FLOYD, VIRGINIA
BY:
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
Attest:
Clerk
FLOYD:COUNTY VOLUNTEER FIRE
DEPARTMENT, INC.
BY:
President
Attest:
Secretary
FLOYD COUNTY LIFE SAVING AND
FIRST AID SQUAD, INC.
BY:
President
ATTEST:
Secretary
-5-
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1988
RESOLUTION NO. 82388-8 APPROVING AND
CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH
ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA
FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM I -
CONSENT AGENDA
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That that certain section of the agenda of the
Board of Supervisors for August 23, 1988, designated as Item I -
Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to
each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 5, inclusive, as follows:
1. Minutes of Meetings - April 12, 1988, April 26,
1988.
2. Confirmation of committee appointments to the
Community Corrections Resources Board and
recommendations to the Landfill Citizens Liaison
Committee.
3. Request for acceptance of Meadow Valley Circle and
Orchard Valley Circle into the VDOT Secondary
System.
4. Request for acceptance of Red Barn Lane into the
VDOT Secondary System.
5. Request for a Raffle Permit from the Northside
High School Band Boosters.
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
Robers, and upon the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, Robers, McGraw, Nickens, Garrett
NAYS: None
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
8/24/88 Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Phillip Henry, Director of Engineering
John Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER -252
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE August 23, 1988
SUBJECT: Confirmation of Committee Appointments to the Community
Corrections Resources Board and the Landfill Citizens
Liaison Committee
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The following nominations were made at previous board meetings
and must now be confirmed by the Board of Supervisors. The
nominee has agreed to serve.
Community Corrections Resources Board
Bernard Hairston has been nominated by Supervisor Nickens ,to
serve another one-year term. His term will expire August 13,
1989.
Landfill Citizens Liaison 'Committee
The following recommendations to the Landfill Citizens Liaison
Committee been made and must be confirmed.
Supervisor McGraw recommended Ms. Barbara Fasnachat to represent
the Catawba Magisterial District. Supervisor Robers recommended
Mr. Carl Wright to represent the Cave Spring Magisterial District.
Supervisor Johnson recommended Harold Richardson to represent the
Hollins Magisterial District. Supervisor Nickens recommended Ms.
Donna Wood to represent the Vinton Magisterial District.
Supervisor Garrett recommended Mr. I. Boyd Overstreet to
represent the Windsor Hills Magisterial District.
SUBMITTED BY:
Mary H. Allen
Deputy Clerk
APPROVED BY:
1"'L &
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
-r z
------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (3) Motion by: _ Bob L. Johnson/Richard Yes No Abs
Denied ( ) W. Robers Garrett
Received ( ) Johnson
Referred McGraw
To: Nickens
Robers .�
cc: File
Community Corrections Resources Board File
Landfill Citizen Liaision Committee File
Is
A
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1988
RESOLUTION 82388-8.b REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
MEADOW VALLEY CIRCLE AND ORCHARD VALLEY CIRCLE 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 Meadow Valley
Circle from the intersection with Route 1390 to the terminus at
the cul-de-sac for a distance of 0.09 miles and Orchard Valley
Circle from the intersection with Route 1390 to the terminus at
the cul-de-sac for a distance of 0.14 miles to be accepted and
made a part of the Secondary System of State Highways under
Section 33.1-229 of the Virginia State Code.
2. That it appears to the Board that drainage easements
and a fifty (50) foot right-of-way forisaid roads have been
dedicated by virtue of certain maps known as Section One and
Section Two of Meadowcreek Subdivision which maps were recorded
in Plat Book 9, Page 305, and Plat Book 9, Page 345,
respectively, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on September 5, 1984 and
November 12, 1985, respectively, and that by reason of the
recordation of said maps no :teport 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.
1
- ar
3. That said roads known as Meadow Valley Circle and
Orchard Valley Circle and which are shown on a certain sketch
accompanying this Resolution, be, and the same are hereby
established as public roads to become a part of the State
Secondary System of Highways in Roanoke County, only from and
after notification of official acceptance of said streets by the
Virginia Department of Transportation.
On motion of Supervisor Johnson, seconded by Supervisor
Robers and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
10
cc: File
Phillip T. Henry, Director, Engineering
Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections, and
copy for Virginia Department of Transportation
I
2
AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1988
RESOLUTION 82388-8.c REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE OF
RED BARN LANE INTO THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION SECONDARY ROAD SYSTEM
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That this matter came this day to be heard upon the
proceedings herein, and upon the application for Red Barn Lane,
from the intersection with Route 1096 to the terminus at the
cul-de-sac for a distance of 0.17 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 Section 2, Little
Tree Acres Subdivision which map was recorded in Plat Book 9;
1
Page 322, of the records of the Clerk's Office of the Circuit
Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, on May 14, 1985, 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 Red Barn Lane and which is
A
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
1
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
Robers and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mar H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Phillip T. Henry, Director, Engineering
Arnold Covey, Director, Development & Inspections, and
Copy for Virginia Department of Transportation
1
2
ACTION NO. 82388-8.d
ITEM NUMBERS" -5
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: August 23, 1988
AGENDA ITEM: Request for approval of Raffle Permit for the
Northside High School Band Boosters
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
The Northside Band Boosters has applied for a Raffle Permit to be
held on November 4, 1988. They have paid the $25.00 fee.
The application has been reviewed by R. Wayne Compton,
Commissioner of the Revenue and he recommends approval.
Mary H.Allen
Deputy Clerk
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved ( Motion by: Rnh T,_ .Tnhncnn/Rir-harr1 Yes No Abs
Denied ( ) w_ Rahers Garrett x
Received ( ) Johnson x
Referred McGraw x
To: Nickens x
Robers x
cc: File
Bingo/Raffle File
COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO CONDUCT RAFFLES OR BINGO
--r-..5
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. seg.
of the criminal statutes of the Virginia Code, and by Section
4-86 et. seq. 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 county or 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 BINGO GAMES
Name of Organization
Street Address VI 1U0iP,tlt!9JDt A
Mailing Address S 44K.
City, State, Zip Code .014e, ( g . Q uol q
Purpose and Type of:Organization V� Qk)-
A i _ 1 1%
When was the organization founded?
1
Roanoke County meeting place? &&*Ib� 4 6A --*�L
Has organization been n existence in Roanoke County for two con-
tinuous years? YES_ NO
Is the organization non-profit? YES_ NO
Indicate Federal Identification Number #
Attach copy of IRS Tax Exemption letter.
Officers of the Organization:
President
Address:
Secretary
Address:
: *'
�6ME
.A Lf.l✓ ice -President Tpu� i%-cL.,�D
JI'3 Address: SZo dR,�l/ SQ/Q/F*A) J//Q/A
Mo VA . 'a 060J09E, VA'. a�oi9
:�go S aiTreasurer c�i� i �E OI_69STRFE7T
kAddress:x/24 �ie.� /µE
Ate +_ �OPWOKG A
Member authorized to be responsible for Raffle or Bingo opera-
tions:
Name I/A WF— TOBeI27 SDN1
Home Address& / 0y, %, ZT-Z. ✓ A .• � �"/a
Phone V 3 o3/-3*d Bus. Phone
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.
f NR4t,F 7 ME- A -r
RAFFLES: Date of Drawing Time of Drawing POOTIAVL 6 4W E
A OPO - 9:00 e°
BINGO: Days of Week & Hours of'Activity:
Sunday
From
To
Monday
From
To
Tuesday
From
To
Wednesday
From
To
Thursday
From
To
Friday
From
To
Saturday
From
To
0
=__S
State specifically how the proceeds from the Bingo/Raffle will be
used. List in detail the use of the planned or intended use of
the proceeds. Use estimated amounts if necessary.
ITEMS 89 BUDGET
uniforms, supplies
700.00
Entrance fees
420.00
Transportation
600.00
Front Camp fees
250.00
Scholarships (2)
1000.00
Band equipment
1000.00
Recruitment
300.00
Newsletter
200.00
Marching camp
500.00
Handbook
100.00
Student workshops
1000.00
Marching camp dep.
1000.00
70TAL 7070.-00 I
WE PC,RxJ It USE i�w- fftePEDS FRDr►q ooIZ,
(ZAff(,E -ro Fuqua Ttls ASaIE i'rCnS ►+t1 Su�2�
OF -1-f}g /UO/z771 S%DE N%6H SU4WC_ /%lfh?&,41X1G
4
3
s -s
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
2nd Quarter
3rd Quarter
4th Quarter
Total
1st Quarter
2nd Quarter
3rd Quarter
4th Quarter
z
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?
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? yE5
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?
VES
4
.z s
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?
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? W -S
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 obta=ined? VES
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?
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? tjE�j
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?
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?
13. Does your organization"understand that any organization found
in violation of the County Bingo and Raffle Ordinance or §18.2-
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?
5
_r 5
14. Has your organization attached a complete list of its member-
ship to this application form? VAS
15. Has your organization attached a copy of its bylaws to this
application form? �/FS
16. Has the organization been declared exempt from pr�op erty taxa-
tion under the Virginia Constitution or statutes? No
If yes, state whether exemption is for real, personal property,
or both and identify exempt property.
17State the specifi type an purpose of the organization
.NON- OenFir ,nPr Xi 7_AjHnAJ 7n Si iwn,P7- liPrµ-ci bG
18. Is this organization incorporated in Virginia? leo
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 Chafitable
Solicitations Act, Section 57-48 of the Virginia Code? IV
(If so, attach copy of registration.)
Has the organization been granted an exemption from registration
by th Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs?
Q(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
Foe, 2 -
Foe Z
ExlosIsa
70
I.
Fair Market Value
60022
040 00
o•
3c�
== s
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 of the dates on which Bingo
the number of people in attendance on each date,
amount of receipts and prizes on each day?
(These records must be retained for three years.)
is played,
and the
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.)
7
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 §18.2 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:
�t
1,.5;abs;cribed and sworn before me,
+` N-00mmis
sion expires:
19�
03 &WMDAir d te.
2AX&< . �s�aiF
this day / `19��
J. �
ro_ , 1 d�'7
NotarylPublic
PLEASE RETURN THIS COMP1R,TED APPLICATION TO:
R. Wayne Compton,
Commissioner of the Revenue
P. 0. Box 20409
Roanoke, VA 24018-0513
EV
5
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.
'T(- 1a- - 7FY P �J � (2,, A
Date ommiss oner of th Revenue
The above application is not approved.
Date
FJ
Commissioner of the Revenue
a
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1988
RESOLUTION 82388-9 PURSUANT TO SECTION
15.1-238 (e) OF THE 1950 CODE OF
VIRGINIA, AS AMENDED, SETTING FORTH THE
INTENT OF ROANOKE COUNTY TO ENTER UPON
CERTAIN PROPERTIES AND TO TAKE CERTAIN
SANITARY SEWER EASEMENTS IN CONNECTION
WITH THE EXTENSION OF PUBLIC SEWER TO
NICHOLS ESTATES
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the extension of the public sewer service area
adjacent to Nichols Estates is being undertaken by the County of
Roanoke to alleviate the problem of failing and substandard sep-
tic systems by extending the sanitary sewer service along the
natural drainageway; and
2. That in order to complete this project, certain
sanitary sewer easements are needed and more particularly des-
cribed:
a. A fifteen (15) foot wide ;Strip of
.land across the property of Valley
Developers, Inc. and more particularly
described on the attached appraisal
report as located adjacent to the
existing drainage easement and con-
taining 2,251.5 square feet and being
shown on the attached plat prepared
by T. P. Parker & Son, Engineers and
Surveyors, Ltd., dated May 6, 1988.
Together with a thirty (30) foot wide
temporary construction easement more
particularly described on the
attached appraisal report as being
150.1 feet long, located adjacent to
the permanent sewer easement and con-
taining 4,503 square feet.
The fair market value of the afore-
said interest is $956.00, such compen-
Fo. -';:'4 1
sation and damages, if any, having
been offered the property owners.
b. A twenty (20) foot wide strip of land
across the property of Mabel Naff
Bowman and more particularly des-
cribed on the attached appraisal re-
port as containing 9,438 square feet
and being shown on the attached plat
prepared by T. P. Parker & Son, Engi-
neers and Surveyors, Ltd., dated May
6, 1988.
Together with a thirty (30) foot wide
temporary construction easement more
particularly described on the attach-
ed appraisal report as containing
14,157 square feet.
The fair market value of the afore-
said interest is $1,006.00, such com-
pensation and damages, if any, having
been offered the property owners.
C. A twenty (20) foot wide strip of land
across the property of James C. Pate
and Judy B. Pate and more particular-
ly described on the attached apprai-
sal report as being 8.94 feet along
the centerline and containing 178.8
square feet and being shown on the
attached plat prepared by T. P.
Parker & Son, Engineers and•rSurvey-
-ors Ltd., dated May 6, 1988.
Together with a thirty (30) foot wide
temporary construction easement more
particularly described on the
attached appraisal report as contain-
ing 262.2 square feet.
The fair market value of the afore-
said interest is $59.00, such compen-
sation and damages, if any, having
been offered the property owners.
d. A twenty ( 20 ) ,, foot wide strip of land
across the property of Barbara W.
Bova Croy and more particularly des-
cribed on the attached appraisal
report as being 288.34 feet long and
containing 5,766.8 square feet and
being shown on the attached plat pre -
2
pared by T. P. Parker & Son, Engi-
neers and Surveyors, Ltd'., dated May
6, 1988.
Together with a thirty (30) foot wide
temporary construction easement more
particularly described on the
attached appraisal report as being
288.34 feet long and containing 8,650
square feet.
The fair market value of the afore-
said interest is $654.00, such compen-
sation and damages, if any, having
been offered the property owners.
2. That it is immediately necessary for the County to
enter upon and take such property and commence said .sanitary
sewer improvements in order to alleviate failing and substandard
septic systems and provide long term sewer capacity for the
health, safety, and welfare of its citizens and to thereafter
institute and conduct appropriate condemnation proceedings as to
said sanitary sewer easements; and
3. That pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.1-238
(e) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and pursuant to
a
notice and public hearing as made and provided therein, the Board
does hereby invoke all and singular the rights and privileges and
provisions of said Section 15.1-238 (e) as to the vesting of
powers in the County pursuant to Section 33.1-119 through Section
33.1-129 of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, all as made
and provided by law.
On motion of Super,v�sor Robers, seconded by Supervisor
McGraw and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Paul Mahoney, County Attorney
Clifford D. Craig, Director, Utilities
John R. Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator
,a
4
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA, HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
CENTER, ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1988
ORDINANCE 82388-10 AMENDING CHAPTER 18
OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE, SEWERS AND
SEWAGE DISPOSAL, CONCERNING THE
PROCEDURES AND PRESCRIBED FEES FOR
ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR SEPTIC TANKS AND
WELLS
WHEREAS, by ordinance adopted on June 23, 1987, the
Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, amended Chapter
18, Sewers and Sewage Disposal, to require that any person desir-
ing to install a septic tank secure a permit to do so and pre-
scribed reasonable fees for the issuance of such permits; and
WHEREAS, legislation adopted by the 1988 session of the
General Assembly, Acts of the Assembly 1988 Session, Chapter 203
(House Bill 418), authorized the Board of Health to establish
fees for applications for permits to construct on-site sewage
disposal systems, not to exceed Fifty Dollars ($50), and private
wells, not to exceed Twenty-five Dollars ($25); and
WHEREAS, the State Board of Health meeting on May 10,
1988, has adopted emergency regulations to implement a fee system
for applications for permits for both on-site sewage disposal
systems and private well construction effective July 1, 1988; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the County to modify its
procedures to achieve coordination between the County and the
Department of Health as to the processing of application for and
payment of both County . ah&. State permit fees for on-site sewage
disposal systems and state permit fees for private well construc-
tion.
1
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Sewers and Sewage Disposal, of
the Roanoke County Code be, it hereby is, amended to read and
provide as follows:
1. All building in the County in those areas where
septic tanks are permitted shall have an on-site sewage disposal
system or septic tanks installed for the disposing of sewage and
other human waste.
2. Before any on-site sewage disposal or septic tank
systems or private wells are constructed or installed, it shall
be the duty of the landowner upon whose land the construction or
installation is to shall take place to secure a permit
from to be issued by the Health Department. Application for
such permit(s) shall be made to the County's Department of Devel-
opment and Inspection, or its successor, upon forms prescribed by
the Health Department.
3. There is hereby established;a County permit fee of
fifty dollars ($50.00) for each on-site sewage disposal system or
septic tank. This permit fee, along with the state permit fee of
fifty dollars ($50.00) shall be paid to the Treasurer at the time
application is made for a permit and before the application will
be processed by the Health Department The state permit fee of
twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for construction of a private well
likewise shall be paid to .the Treasurer at the time application
is made for such permit and before processing by the Health
Department. The Treasurer shall not collect the state fee(s)
2
from owner's whose family income is at or below the applicable
Income Guidelines as provided under state regulation
4. The Health Department shall review this permit
request application based upon the requirements and regula-
tions promulgated pursuant to Title 32.1 of the Code of Virginia.
Any septic tank permit issued under this section shall be valid
for a period of fifty-four (54) months from the date of issuance
unless there 'has been a substantial, intervening change in the
soil or site conditions where the septic system is to be located.
The availability of a public sewer system shall constitute a sub-
stantial intervening change in the site conditions to void a per-
mit.
5. In the event the Health Department denies a permit
on the land on which the owner seek to construct his principal
place of residence, the county's portion of the state application
fee shall be refunded to the owner. Such fee shall not be re-
funded by the County until final resolution by the Health Depart-
ment of any appeals made by the owner from such denial
6. Applications shall be limited to one site specific
proposal. When site conditions change, or the needs of the appli-
cant change, or the applicant proposes and requests another site
be evaluated, and a new site evaluation is conducted, a new appli-
cation and fee is required
7. Any person, firm, or corporation violating any pro-
r
visions of this ordinance shall be subject to a Class 3 misdemean-
or for each offense; and a separate offense shall be deemed com-
mitted on each day during or on which a violation occurs or con -
3
tinues. Further, any violation or attempted violation of this
ordinance may be restrained, corrected, or abated by injunction
or other appropriate proceeding.
8. The effective date of this ordinance shall be
September 1, 1988.
On motion of Supervisor McGraw, seconded by Supervisor
Robers and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Johnson, McGraw, Nickens, Robers, Garrett
NAYS: None
A COPY TESTE:
Mary H. Allen, Deputy Clerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
cc: File
Alfred C. Anderson, Treasurer
Don C. Myers, Assistant County Administrator
John R. Hubbard, Assistant County Administrator
Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney
Diane Hyatt, Director, Finance
Reta R. Busher, Dirctor, Management & $udget
Clifford D. Craig, Director, Utilities
Dr. Margaret L. Hagan, Director, Health Department
Commonwealth Attorney
Magistrate
Sheriff's Department
Roanoke Law Library, 315 Church Ave., S.W., Roanoke 24016
Main Library
Roanoke County Code Book
4
ACTION # 82388-11
ITEM NUMBER-
AT
UMBER
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF -SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
MEETING DATE: August 23, 1988
AGENDA ITEM: Reroofing of Fort Lewis Fire Station
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
In December 1987, roofing membranes installed on the Hollins
and Fort Lewis Fire Stations started leaking. After several
attempts to patch the membranes, the guarantee holding firm
(Roofing Membrane Services Incorporated, (RMS)) and the repairing
vendor agreed with the county staff that both roofs needed to be
replaced. Following the normal policy of the roofing industry,
RMS made an offer of guarantee buy-out of 35% based on a 6-1/2
year old roof. A query to Roanoke City revealed that this offer
was in line with market trends. Because there were two roofs
involved and the offer would not replace either, the staff made a
counter-offer of 50% buy-out with the replacement of the Hollins
roof (the worst leak).
On July 20, 1988, RMS accepted the counter-offer.
ig
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION:
RMS will replace the Hollins Fire Station roof with a new
surface membrane which will have a 10 -year warranty. The county
must replace the Fort Lewis Fire Station roof, at county expense.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPACTS:
1. Accept the counter-offer to which RMS has agreed.
2. Pursue legal action for greater cooperation.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
4
Staff recommends Alternative 1.
SUBMITTED BY:
dner W. Smith
Director, General Services
APPROVED:
— ?Z 14z 4
Elmer C. Hodge
County Administrator
------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION VOTE
Approved (x) Motion by: Bob L. Johnson/Richard No Yes Abs
Denied ( ) W. Robers to approve Garrett
Received ( ) Alternative #1 Johnson
Referred McGraw
to Nickens
Robers
cc: File
Gardner Smith
Tommy Fuqua