3/13/1984 - Regular
~
3/13/84
41S
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Roanoke County Administration Center
3738 Brambleton Avenue
Roanoke, VA 24015
I
March 13, 1984
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
met this day in open session at the Roanoke County Administration
Center, Roanoke, Virginia, this being the second Tuesday and the
first regular meeting of the month of March, 1984.
IN RE:
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman, Harry C. Nickens called the meeting to order
at 3:15 p.m. The roll call was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairman, Harry C. Nickens, Supervisors,
Alan H. Brittle, Steven A. McGraw, Gary J.
I
Minter.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Vice Chairman, Athena E. Burton.
IN RE:
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Supervisor Brittle moved to go into Executive Session
pursuant to the Code of Virginia, Section 2.1-344(a) (1), (2),
(4), and (6) to discuss personnel, real estate, location of a
prospective business or industry, and legal matters. The motion
carried by a unanimous voice vote. Mr. Minter arrived at 3:27
p.m. during the Executive Session.
IN RE:
OPEN SESSION
I
At 4:18 p.m. Supervisor McGraw moved to return to Open
Session, and the motion carried by a unanimous voice vote.
Work Session - Driveway Policy Superintendent of
Public Facilities, John Hubbard, presented a proposed Driveway
Policy which would establish a policy that will require the build-
er to acquire a driveway permit from the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation or the County prior to the issuance
------
~
~
3/13/84
11 ~ ~~
, ;,.~,--'.',
"3 ± .
of a building permit. Prior to the certificate of occupancy
being issued, the driveway must have been inspected and an accep-
tance of construction letter issued by the Virginia Department of
instructed to forward a copy of the policy to the Roanoke Valley
I
Highways and Transportation or by the County. Mr. Hubbard was
Homebuilders Association for their review and consideration.
Work Session - Sewer Extension Policy - Assessments
Superintendent of Public Facilities, John Hubbard, presented the
Sewer Extension Policy which would establish a written policy for
the extension of sewers into existing developed areas as petition-
ed by local residents or established by the Board of Supervisors.
Work Session - Water Extension Policy -
Assessments Superintendent of Public Facilities, John Hubbard,
presented the Water Extension Policy which would establish a
written policy for the extension of water lines into existing
developed areas as petitioned by local residents or established
by the Board of Supervisors. Resolutions will be prepared
I
outlining the Sewer Extension Policy and the Water Extension
Policy and brought to the Board for public hearing.
Work Session - Comprehensive Development Plan Direct-
or of Planning, Rob Stalzer, presented Volume I: Inventory and
Analysis of the Comprehensive Development Plan. Mr. Stalzer dis-
cussed various portions of Volume I and answered questions from
the Board.
IN RE:
RECESS
Chairman Nickens then recessed the meeting at 5:55 p.m.
for dinner.
I
IN RE:
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman, Harry C. Nickens called the meeting to order
at 7:10 p.m. The roll call was taken:
-
~
~
3/l3/84
417
I
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Chairman, Harry C. Nickens; Supervisors Alan
H. Brittle, Steven A. McGraw, Gary J.
Minter.
Vice Chairman Athena E. Burton.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
IN RE:
OPENING CEREMONIES
Reverend Tom Toler, Baptist Supply Minister, offered
the invocation. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all pre-
sent.
IN RE:
APPOINTMENT - COUNTY ASSESSOR
I
County Administrator, Donald R. Flanders introduced Mr.
John Willey and recommended his appointment as County Assessor
for Roanoke County. Supervisor Brittle moved the following pre-
pared resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 84-59 APPOINTING AN
ASSESSOR FOR ROANOKE COUNTY
I
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That there be, and hereby is, appointed as Assessor
of Roanoke County John D. Willey effective April 1, 1984, at the
salary heretofore fixed by the Board of Supervisors for such posi-
tion for fiscal 83-84 and until such time as the salary may be
adjusted by the Board of Supervisors; and
2. That an attested copy of this resolution be forth-
with forward to Mr. John D. Willey.
Adopted on motion of Supervisor Brittle, and the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Brittle, McGraw, Minter, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Burton
------
~
r
41°
. L1
3/l3/84
IN RE:
CONSENT AGENDA
Supervisor Minter requested that Item #21 be deleted
from the Consent Agenda. Chairman Nickens requested that Items
#14 and #15 be removed from the Consent Agenda. Supervisor
I
Minter moved the following prepared resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 84-45 APPROVING AND
CONCURRING IN CERTAIN ITEMS SET FORTH
ON THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA
FOR THIS DATE DESIGNATED AS ITEM B -
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 March 13, 1984, designated as Item B -
Consent Agenda be, and hereby is, approved and concurred in as to
each item separately set forth in said section designated Items 1
through 22, inclusive, as follows:
1. Letter dated February 8, 1984, from the Department
of Conservation and Economic Development - Division
of Parks and Recreation - approving a $62,500 grant
to develop the Mount Pleasant project.
I
2. Letter dated February 21, 1984, from the Honorable
J. Granger Macfarlane acknowledging receipt of
Donald R. Flanders' letter regarding payment of
costs for physical and mental examinations ordered
by the District Court.
3. Letter dated February 21, 1984, from the Virginia
Skyline Girl Scout Council, Inc. responding to
Roanoke County's request for Girl Scouts to partici-
pate in raising and lowering flags for County build
ings.
4. Letter dated February 22, 1984, from the Virginia
Department of Highways & Transportation regarding
the speed limit posted on Sugar Loaf Mountain Road.
5. Letter dated February 22, 1984, from the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation regarding
funding for access roads leading to six Roanoke
County parks.
I
6. Letter dated February 23, 1984, from the Department
of Alcoholic Beverage Control concerning surveys of
ABC outlets in the Roanoke area.
7. Letter dated February 24, 1984, from the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation regarding
the addition of Brambleton Court
the Secondary System.
------
8. Letter dated February 24, 1984, from the Honorable
Jim Olin expressing thanks for Roanoke County assis-
~
~
3/13/84
41 ~1 ~
tance in arranging the Town Meeting at the Roanoke
County Administration Center.
I
9. Letter dated February 28, 1984, from the Town of
Vinton expressing thanks for the Town of vinton's
inclusion in the County Soil and Erosion Control
Ordinance.
10. Bid Report: Purchase of Athletic Equipment for
Parks and Recreation - Resolution.
ll. Bid Report: Purchase of Rubber-Tired Loader/Back
Hoe for Utilities Division - Resolution.
12. Bid Report: Purchase of Vehicle for Fire and Emer-
gency Services - Resolution.
13. Accounts paid for the month of February, 1984.
14. Resolution establishing delinquent collection
policy for utility accounts.
15. Report on uniform method for determining building
permit fees - Resolution.
16. Letter dated February 27, 1984, from the Clerk of
the House of Delegates acknowledging receipt of
resolutions regarding taxation on McVitty House and
Friendship Manor.
I
17. Resolution congratulating the Town of vinton on its
100th Anniversary.
l8. Letter dated February 29, 1984, from the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation approving
Walton Lane and Hickory Hill Drive for the Second-
ary System.
19. Raffle Permit - Botetourt Jaycees, Inc. - $25 fee
received.
20. Letter dated February 28, 1984, from Roanoke Valley
Cablevision summarizing their status as of December
31, 1983.
21. Letter dated March 2, 1984, from Mr. Glenn W.
Crowder regarding the Roanoke County Noise Ordin-
ance.
22. Letter dated February 27, 1984, from the Honorable
Dudley J. Emick acknowledging receipt of resolu-
tions on McVitty House and Friendship Manor.
I
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.
Adopted on motion of Supervisor Minter, and the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Brittle, McGraw, Minter, Nickens
NAYS:
None
------
~
,...-
4 ~, {'? ,
I....,; \.1
3/13/84
ABSENT:
Supervisor Burton
Regarding Item #21 Roanoke County Noise Ordinance
Supervisor Minter expressed his desire to conduct a work session
I
with the Commonwealth's Attorney to further explore what can be
done regarding the noise problem at the Roanoke Municipal Airport.
Mr. Glenn Crowder spoke briefly and stated that he felt the ordin-
ance ought to be enforced. County Attorney James E. Buchholtz
stated that if the violation of the noise ordinance is a misde-
meanor, the enforcement of the ordinance is the responsibility of
the Commonwealth's Attorney.
RESOLUTION NO. 84-45a ACCEPTING CERTAIN
BIDS MADE TO THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE FOR
THE PURCHASE OF ATHLETIC EQUIPMENT FOR
THE DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That those certain bids as set out in the following
I
words and figures, upon all and singular the terms and conditions
of the invitation to bid, the specifications of the County of
Roanoke, the bidder's proposals, and the provisions of this re-
solution, be, and same hereby is, ACCEPTED, as follows:
CMT Sporting
12 each
12 each
10 each
20 each
15 each
30 each
12 each
12 each
12 each
15 pairs
50 each
20 each
160 dozen
2 sets
2 sets
Goods, Inc. $6,785.05
Umpire Chest Protectors
Umpire Shin Guards
B2 Pitching Rubbers
B4 Pitching Rubbers
B3 Home Plates
Base Spikes
Basketballs
#4 Soccer Balls
#5 Soccer Balls
Soccer Nets
Baseball/Softball Score Books
Stop Watches
Baseballs
Football Chains
Football Yard Markers
I
Spartan Sporting Goods
10 dozen Softballs (PX2T-ASA)
15 dozen Softballs (SBl2LND)
l2 each Umpire Face Masks
-
~
$l,343.40
~
3/l3/84
4Q~
~ J
Graves-Humphries
10 sets Bases
6 each #ll9 Basketballs
403.80
Total
$8,532.25
I
2. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized
and directed to execute the necessary documents on behalf of
Roanoke County, all to be upon form approved by the County
Attorney; and
3. That all other bids for this equipment are hereby
rejected and the Clerk is directed to so notify such bidders and
express the County's appreciation for the submission of their
bids.
Adopted on motion of Supervisor Minter, and the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Brittle, McGraw, Minter, Nickens
NAYS:
None
I
ABSENT:
Supervisor Burton
RESOLUTION NO. 84-45b ACCEPTING A CERTAIN
BID MADE TO THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE FOR THE
PURCHASE OF A RUBBER-TIRED LOADER/BACKHOE
TO BE USED BY THE UTILITIES DIVISION OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC FACILITIES
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That that certain bid of Baker Bros., Inc., in the
amount of $53,369.00 for a rubber-tired loader/backhoe to be used
by the utilities Division of the Department of Public Facilities,
upon all and singular the terms and conditions of the invitation
to bid, the specifications of the County of Roanoke, the bidder's
I
proposals, and the provisions of this resolution, be, and same
hereby is, ACCEPTED; and
2. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized
and directed to execute the necessary documents on behalf of
Roanoke County, all to be upon form approved by the County
Attorney; and
------
~
~
I
I
3/13/84
422 ·
3. That all other bids for this equipment are hereby
rejected and the Clerk is directed to so notify such bidders and
express the County's appreciation for the submission of their
Adopted on motion of Supervisor Minter, and the follow-
I
bids.
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Brittle, McGraw, Minter, Nickens
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Supervisor Burton
RESOLUTION NO. 84-45c ACCEPTING A CERTAIN
BID MADE TO THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE TO
REPLACE A VEHICLE USED BY THE FIRE AND
EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATOR
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That that certain bid of World of Ford Sales in the
amount of $9,858.00 for a vehicle to replace the vehicle used by
I
the Fire and Emergency Services Coordinator, upon all and singu-
lar the terms and conditions of the invitation to bid, the speci-
fications of the County of Roanoke, the bidder's proposals, and
the provisions of this resolution, be, and same hereby is, ACCEPT-
ED; and
2. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized
and directed to execute the necessary documents on behalf of
Roanoke County, all to be upon form approved by the County
Attorney; and
3. That all other bids for this vehicle are hereby
rejected and the Clerk is directed to so notify such bidders and
express the County's appreciation for the submission of their
I
bids.
Adopted on motion of Supervisor Minter, and the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Brittle, McGraw, Minter, Nickens
NAYS:
None
,---
ABSENT:
Supervisor Burton
~
3/13/84
4;Z,
Regarding Item #l4 delinquent collection policy for
utility accounts, Chairman Nickens asked if a fee had been es-
I
tablished for reconnection once service is terminated. He also
asked that the utility customers be properly notified of the col-
lection policy. Superintendent of Fiscal Management, John Cham-
bliss, said that a reconnect ion fee had already been established.
Mr. Chambliss said a mailing would be included in the next cycle
of billing notifying the customers of the collection policy.
County Attorney James Buchholtz stated that only billings which
occurred after the adoption of the policy would be subject to the
policy. Supervisor Minter moved to adopt the following prepared
resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 84-45d ESTABLISHING A
POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR THE COLLECTION
OF DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS
I
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That all utility accounts established in Roanoke
County shall be due and payable no later than thirty days follow-
ing the date of billing of each such account; and
2. That any such utility account not paid in full on
or before thirty days after the date of billing shall incur a
penalty of ten percent of the amount of the bill then remaining
due and unpaid, but in any event, such penalty shall not be less
than the sum of $5.00; and
3. That any such utility account remaining due and
unpaid forty-five days following the date of billing of such ac-
I
count shall thereafter be subject to any and all legal procedures
available to the County for the collection of such account or
accounts, all as made and provided by law, subject, however, to
the utility customer appealing such account to the utility bill-
ing supervisor for the purpose of making any adjustments in said
account as may be needful or necessary to make the amount of such
I--
~
r
, 42 <t
3/13/84
account proper and/or in cases of extreme hardship, to make equit
able payment arrangements and
4. That any such account or accounts delinquent for a
period in excess of sixty days following the billing date shall
be subject to immediate discontinuation of service and, all and
singular, such other legal process as may be available to the
County to collect such account or accounts, all as made and pro-
vided by law; and
5. That the policy and procedures hereinabove set
forth shall be in full force and effect upon the passage of this
resolution.
I
Adopted on motion of Supervisor Minter, and the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Brittle, McGraw, Minter, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Burton
I
Regarding Item #15 building permit fees, Chairman
Nickens asked if the concern of the homebuilders had been addres-
sed with regard to this resolution. Superintendent of Develop-
ment, Timothy Gubala stated that the staff had met with the home-
builders and they were in concurrence with the fees. Supervisor
Minter moved the following prepared resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 84-45e ESTABLISHING CERTAIN
BUILDING PERMIT FEES FOR ROANOKE COUNTY
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the building permit fees for Roanoke County
be, and they hereby are, established in the following words and
figures, to-wit:
I
-
~
---- ~
3/13/84
425
BUILDING, RAZING, MOVING, MECHANICAL
Valuation Fee Valuation Fee
- -
I $ 1,000.00 $ 4.00 $ 51,000.00 $ 173.00
2,000.00 8.00 52,000.00 176.00
3,000.00 12.00 53,000.00 179.00
4,000.00 16.00 54,000.00 182.00
5,000.00 20.00 55,000.00 185.00
6,000.00 24.00 56,000.00 188.00
7,000.00 28.00 57,000.00 191.00
8,000.00 32.00 58,000.00 194.00
9,000.00 36.00 59,000.00 197.00
10,000.00 40.00 60,000.00 200.00
11,000.00 44.00 61,000.00 203.00
12,000.00 48.00 62,000.00 206.00
13,000.00 52.00 63,000.00 209.00
14,000.00 56.00 64,000.00 212.00
15,000.00 60.00 65,000.00 215.00
16,000.00 64.00 66,000.00 218.00
17,000.00 68.00 67,000.00 221.00
18,000.00 72.00 68,000.00 224.00
19,000.00 76.00 69,000.00 227.00
20,000.00 80.00 70,000.00 230.00
71,000.00 233.00
Over $20,000.00 equals 72,000.00 236.00
$80.00 plus $3.00 per M 73,000.00 239.00
21,000.00 83.00 74,000.00 242.00
I 22,000.00 86.00 75,000.00 245.00
23,000.00 89.00 76,000.00 248.00
24,000.00 92.00 77,000.00 251.00
25,000.00 95.00 78,000.00 254.00
26,000.00 98.00 79,000.00 257.00
27,000.00 101.00 80,000.00 260.00
28,000.00 104.00 81,000.00 263.00
29,000.00 107.00 82,000.00 266.00
30,000.00 110.00 83,000.00 269.00
31,000.00 113.00 84,000.00 272.00
32,000.00 116.00 85,000.00 275.00
33,000.00 119.00 86,000.00 278.00
34,000.00 122.00 87,000.00 281.00
35,000.00 125.00 88,000.00 284.00
36,000.00 128.00 89,000.00 287.00
37,000.00 131.00 90,000.00 290.00
38,000.00 134.00 91,000.00 293.00
39,000.00 137.00 92,000.00 296.00
40,000.00 140.00 93,000.00 299.00
41,000.00 143.00 94,000.00 302.00
42,000.00 146.00 95,000.00 305.00
43,000.00 149.00 96,000.00 308.00
44,000.00 152.00 97,000.00 311.00
45,000.00 155.00 98,000.00 314.00
46,000.00 158.00 99,000.00 317.00
I 47,000.00 161.00 100,000.00 320.00
48,000.00 164.00
49,000.00 167.00 Over $100,000.00 equals
50,000.00 170.00 $320.00 plus $2.00 per M
Figure Fractions From Here:
$ 200,000.00 520.00
300,000.00 720.00
400,000.00 920.00
500,000.00 1,120.00
r-- ~
~
~
426
3/13/84
Over $500,000.00 equals
$1,120.00 plus $1.00 per
M
$
600,000.00
700,000.00
800,000.00
900,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,220.00
1,320.00
1 420.00
1,520.00
1,620.00
I
Over $1,000,000.00 equals
$1,620.00 plus 50¢ per M
Signs 4.00 per $1,000 valuation cost
2. That the basis for the calculating construction
costs is based on the national and state averages of construction
costs as set forth in the following words and figures, to-wit:
U:e Gn:q>
Figures for Estimating
Uniform Building Permit Fees
Roanoke County
Square Foot Construction Costs
'lYIE of 0:n3tm±.im
]A 1B LA 2B æ ]A Ð
3::
4A 4B
A-l-àA<3ænbly, tŒata.:s $79.95 78.51 76.13 74.77 70.2169.75 67.88 67.83 60.81 N.P.
(with ~)
A-l-£ A<3ænbly, tlæta:s 67.44 66.30 63.92 62.58 58.11 57.55 55.67 55.62 48.61 47.52
(witln1t ~)
A-2 A<3ænbly,
night chi:s 44.50 43.62 42.74 40.04 39.01 38.88 38.87 37.91 34.16 33.04
A-3 A<3ænbly,
restaIrërrt:s 44.51 43.68 42.79 4O.11 39.25 39.15 38.92 37.97 35.06 33.98
à-4 A<3ænbly,
s::h:D1s 58.61 57.28 55.03 53.26 50.63 48.74 46.92 46.06 40.46 39.03
B1sin=ss
Fætory an
IrdBtri.al
H High lB2ard
I -l Instit:ut.ia1al,
rætraiœj
I -2 Instit:ut.ia1al,
~itata1
B
F
M ~
R-l lËSiŒ!lt.ial,
tDte1s
R-2 R:siŒntial,
nulti-fanily
R-3 lËSiŒ!lt.ial,
m::œrate lB2ard
&-1 ~,
m::œrate lB2ard
&-2 ~,
Jew lB2ard
I
53.83 52.51 50.26 48.48 45.86 43.59 42.15 41.29 35.69 34.26
33.24 32.40 31.16 Zl.93 Zl.55 25.56 24.51 24.44 20.22 18.91
31.70 30.86 29.62 26.39 26.01 24.02 22.97 22.90 18.71 17.40
72.66 71.33 69.08 67.32 64.68 62.79 60.97 6O.11 54.51 N.P.
84.43 83.10 00.86 79.08 76.45 74.57 72.75 71.89 66.29 N.P.
34.06 33.19 32.29 29.60 28.75 Zl.15 28.43 Zl.47 21.79 20.69
54.71 53.92 52.17 52.02 48.98 47.00 45.34 45.40 39.98 38.50
48.22 47.43 46.72 45.53 42.49 40.51 38.85 38.91 33.49 32.01
41.38 40.63 38.51 37.66 35.46 36.90 34.84 34.84 30.84 29.66
I
31.70 30.86 29.62 26.39 26.01 24.02 22.97 22.90 18.71 17.40
31.70 30.86 29.62 26.39 26.01 24.02 22.97 22.90 18.71 17.40
Foundations: $6.00 per square foot
Attached Garage: $8.00 per square foot
Detached Garage: $10.00 per square foot
Storage Buildings in Residential Areas: $8.00 per square foot
Greenhouses: $8.00 per square foot
-
~
~
4 '> I~'!
. ~ ,
Regional Cost Modifier
Virginia $.88
3. That attested copies of this resolution be forth-
I
with delivered to and maintained in the Department of Develop-
ment, Construction Building Services; and
4. That this resolution shall be in full force and
effect from and after its adoption.
Adopted on motion of Supervisor Minter, and the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Brittle, McGraw, Minter, Nickens
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Supervisor Burton
RESOLUTION NO. 84-45f EXPRESSING
CONGRATULATIONS TO THE TOWN OF VINTON ON
ITS 100TH ANNIVERSARY
I
WHEREAS, on March 17, 1884, the General Assembly of
Virginia granted a charter establishing the Town of Vinton as a
separate political subdivision located within Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, during its 100 year existence the Town of
Vinton, both as a separate political subdivision and as part of
Roanoke County, has made many significant contributions to both
the citizens of the Town and the citizens of Roanoke County; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Vinton has deter-
mined and proclaimed 1984 as the centennial year for the Town of
vinton to be called the vintennial in order to properly honor the
Town of Vinton and its many outstanding citizens, both past and
present who have made so many outstanding contributions to the
quality of life in the Town of Vinton and Roanoke County.
I
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County that it does hereby express its most genuine and
sincere congratulations to the Town of Vinton, its Council, and
its citizens on its Vintennial celebration celebrating the 100
years of the Town's most distinguished existence and and does
further express its sincere appreciation to the Town and its many
-
~
~
3-13-84
4 2 ç~
v
citizens, both past and present, who have made many substantial
contributions to the quality of life in boththe Town of Vinton
I and in Roanoke County.
FURTHER, RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution,
I
appropriately displayed, be forthwith delivered to the Town
Council of the Town of Vinton.
Adopted on motion of Supervisor Minter, and the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Supervisors Brittle, McGraw, Minter, Nickens
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Burton
,
IN RE: PROCLAMATIONS AND RESOLUTIONS
Supervisor Brittle presented the following prepared
resolution to Captain L. J. Wade and the members of the Roanoke
County Auxiliary Police Force, who were present at the meeting:
RESOLUTION NO. 84-46 EXPRESSING APPRECIATION
TO THE ROANOKE COUNTY AUXILIARY POLICE FORCE
MEMBERS AND THEIR COMMANDING OFFICER
I
WHEREAS, ten years ago Roanoke County established an
Auxiliary Police Force to aid and assist its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke County Auxiliary Police Force has
always discharged its duties and responsibilities in an exemplary
fashion culminating in 3,766 hours of service to Roanoke County
citizens in 1983 at a cost of approximately $.27 per hour; and
WHEREAS, for the past nine years the guiding force for
the Roanoke County Auxiliary Police Force has emanated from its
Commanding Officer, Captain L. J. Wade.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervi-
I
sors of Roanoke County, as follows:
l. That the Board does hereby express its genuine and
deepest appreciation to
Sgt. M. C. Philpott
Sgt. D. A. Palmer
Larry S. Carver
J. E. Forren
Sharon Brown
C. E. Salmon
~
-~
3/13/84
429
Carol Paxton
Pat Rhodes
Jerry Custer
James Hicks
Robert Jones
Steve Jones
I
Greg Sharp
Alan Bober
Bill McIlwraith
for their tireless and selfless dedication to Roanoke County and
its citizens as Auxiliary Policemen; and
2. That the Board does further express its most pride-
ful and heartfelt appreciation to Captain L. J. Wade for his
long, tireless, and most professional leadership given to the
Roanoke County Auxiliary Police Force; and
3. That attested copies of this resolution be forth-
with delivered to each of the above-named Auxiliary Policemen and
to Captain L. J. Wade.
Adopted on motion of Supervisor Minter, and the follow-
I
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Brittle, McGraw, Minter, Nickens
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Supervisor Burton
IN RE:
REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Brittle - Moved adoption of the following
prepared resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 84-47 APPROVING THOSE
CERTAIN JOB DESCRIPTIONS FOR POSITIONS IN
THE SERVICE OF ROANOKE COUNTY AS COMPILED
BY THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL SERVICES,
FEBRUARY, 1984, AS AMENDED
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
I
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That those certain job descriptions for both classi-
fied and unclassified positions in the service of Roanoke County
compiled by the Office of Personnel Services in February, 1984,
as amended through March 13, 1984, and all and singular the
terms, conditions, and provisions thereof, be, and same hereby
are, fully approved, ratified, and confirmed as set out in that
-
~
,...-
3/l3/84
4 C" .""
j ~
po ,'; "J
'-.... '-.""
certain book entitled "Job Descriptions", February, 1984, prepar-
ed by the Office of Personnel Services, as amended through March
13, 1984; and
2. That a copy of the aforesaid book amended as afore-
I
said entitled "Job Descriptions" be, and hereby is, directed to
be filed in the office of the Clerk to the Board, to there be
maintained under further order of the Board.
Adopted on motion of Supervisor Brittle, and the fol-
lowing recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Brittle, McGraw, Minter, Nickens
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Supervisor Burton
Supervisor Brittle asked staff to pursue a remedy to
the parking problem for personnel in Salem. Mr. Brittle sug-
gested staff investigate a shuttle service to and from work sta-
tions to congragate parking. He expressed his concern about fu-
I
ture parking problems upon completion of the new courthouse.
Supervisor Brittle asked the Superintendent of the De-
partment of Development, Timothy Gubala, to investigate a problem
involving building permits for Richard R. Hamlett and the Stone-
henge complex. He requested a report at the next Board meeting
as to how this problem could be solved.
Supervisor McGraw - Requested a report at the next
Board meeting from the Department of Public Facilities regarding
the water softening system for the North Lakes Subdivision.
Supervisor McGraw also announced the location of the upcoming
softball game to be Whispering Pines Park.
Supervisor Minter - Requested a report from the De-
I
partment of Public Facilities regarding the status of Verndale
Road.
Chairman Nickens - Stated that with the concurrence
of the Board he will draft a letter to Piedmont Airlines support-
ing Roanoke City's request for a rate break for flights out of
Roanoke Municipal Airport. Chairman Nickens mentioned several
~
~
3/13/84
4 f', 'J
. 0' _L
~
other items which relate to possibly generating additional reve-
I
nues for the County - ( i ) Set-Off Debt Collection Act, As Amend-
ed - Roanoke County is now able to benefit from this Act in
that any citizen who might owe the County any funds and who
would have an income tax refund from the State of Virginia, the
County would have first claim to this refund, even before the
citizen. Chairman Nickens suggested that Alfred C. Anderson,
Treasurer of Roanoke County, be named as the "contact person"
with the Department of Taxation for this purpose. Supervisor
McGraw moved that Alfred C. Anderson be designated as the "con-
tact person", and the motion carried by a unanimous voice vote.
(ii)Imposition of personal property tax on prorata basis
rather than waiting until January 1. (iii) Consideration of
utilities consumer tax - This is a tax on the first $l5.00 of
residential bills dealing with electricity, telephone, and gas.
I
(iv) Consideration of a utility license tax. (v) Considera-
tion service charge on tax exempt properties. (vi) Consider-
ation cost effectiveness of roadside refuse collection -
exempting those citizens not physically capable of moving the
refuse out to the roadside. Chairman Nickens wished to commend
Lawrence Musgrove and Associates for his recent letter to
County employees in an attempt to give guidance for reducing
health care costs on employees and dependents.
IN RE:
REPORTS OF CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
Sheriff's Department Sheriff Foster was present re-
questing Board support for his request to the State Compensation
I
Board for funding of two additional law enforcement officers and
a statement of the County's intent to provide the supplemental
salary and support (uniforms, etc.). Supervisor Minter moved to
adopt the following prepared resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 84-56 REQUESTING THE STATE
COMPENSATION BOARD TO AUTHORIZE CERTAIN
ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL IN THE SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT OF ROANOKE COUNTY
~
"...
4 b' \.. ':1
. ~3 I~:'
3/l3/84
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board does hereby request the State Compen-
sation Board to authorize the following additional personnel for
I
the Sheriff's Department of Roanoke County, Virginia, to-wit:
(a) Two additional law enforcement officers
2. That the County does hereby express its intent to
place in its 1984-85 fiscal year budget funds sufficient to fund
its portion of the cost and expenses of such additional posi-
tions¡ and
3. That an attested copy of this resolution be forth-
with forwarded to the Sheriff of Roanoke County and to the State
Compensation Board.
Adopted on motion of Supervisor Minter, and the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Brittle, McGraw, Minter, Nickens
I
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Supervisor Burton
Sheriff Foster presented a request for the purchase of
twenty-two police vehicles under State contract. Supervisor
Brittle moved to adopt the following prepared resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 84-48 AUTHORIZING THE
PURCHASE OF TWENTY-TWO POLICE VEHICLES
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the County of Roanoke is hereby authorized and
directed to purchase twenty-two police vehicles (1984 Ford LTD
automobiles) at a total cost of $212,759.10 for the use of the
I
Roanoke County Sheriff's Department, said vehicles to be purchas-
ed under a Commonwealth of Virginia contract with World of Ford
Sales Company in Alexandria, Virginia (Contract #5935-FL)¡ and
2. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized
and directed to execute the necessary documents to effectuate
this purchase, all upon form approved by the County Attorney.
....
~
3/l3/84
400
~0
Adopted on motion of Supervisor Brittle, and the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Brittle, McGraw, Minter, Nickens
I
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Supervisor Burton
A report was submitted from Sheriff Foster requesting
Board support for the hiring of a Clerk Typist II to work in the
Records and Evidence Section of the Sheriff's Department. Super-
visor Minter moved to adopt the following prepared resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 84-57 REQUESTING THE STATE
COMPENSATION BOARD TO AUTHORIZE CERTAIN
ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL IN THE SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT OF ROANOKE COUNTY
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the Board does hereby request the State Compen-
sation Board to authorize the following additional personnel for
I
the Sheriff's Department of Roanoke County, Virginia, to-wit:
(a) One additional Clerk Typist II position
2. That the County does hereby express its intent to
place in its 1984-85 fiscal year budget funds sufficient to fund
its portion of the cost and expenses of such additional posi-
tions¡ and
3. That an attested copy of this resolution be forth-
with forwarded to the Sheriff of Roanoke County and to the State
Compensation Board.
Adopted on motion of Supervisor Minter, and the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Brittle, McGraw, Minter, Nickens
I
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Supervisor Burton
Sheriff Foster then submitted a report requesting sup-
port for a request to the State Compensation Board for the hiring
of five additional baliffs for the new courthouse. Supervisor
Brittle moved to adopt the following prepared resolution:
------
I
I
~
~
~
I
I 4 3 ~l ~
I
3/l3/84
I
RESOLUTION NO. 84-58 REQUESTING THE STATE
COMPENSATION BOARD TO AUTHORIZE CERTAIN
ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL IN THE SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT OF ROANOKE COUNTY
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
I
County, Virginia, as follows:
l. That the Board does hereby request the State Compen-
sat ion Board to authorize the following additional personnel for
the Sheriff's Department of Roanoke County, Virginia, to-wit:
(a) Five additional bailiff positions
2. That the County does hereby express its intent to
place in its 1984-85 fiscal year budget funds sufficient to fund
its portion of the cost and expenses of such additional posi-
tions; and
3. That an attested copy of this resolution be forth-
with forwarded to the Sheriff of Roanoke County and to the State
Compensation Board.
Adopted on motion of Supervisor Brittle, and the follow-
I
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Brittle, McGraw, Minter, Nickens
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Supervisor Burton
IN RE:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PETITION OF MR. AND MRS. JOHN DAVID
MOWRER FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT TO
PLACE A MOBILE HOME ON A 2.85 ACRE TRACT,
LOCATED ON A 20-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY ON THE
EAST SIDE OF STATE ROUTE 692 APPROXIMATELY
l.5 MILES FROM U. S. 221 IN THE WINDSOR
HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
APPROVED
Mrs. John David Mowrer was present and expressed her
I
desire to have the permit approved. No one appeared in opposi-
tion. Supervisor Brittle moved to grant the special exception,
and the motion carried upon a unanimous voice vote.
PETITION OF GARLAND H. OVERFELT FOR A
SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT TO PLACE A MOBILE
HOME ON A 4.85 ACRE TRACT TO BE OCCUPIED BY
HIS SON, WITH AN EXISTING DWELLING, LOCATED
ON THE EAST SIDE OF U. S. 220 AT THE
~
I
I
I
~
3/13/84
4 ') ¡~
u ~)
INTERSECTION OF STATE ROUTE 615 AND U. S.
ROUTE 220 IN THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT
APPROVED
Mr. Garland H. Overfelt was present and stated it was
his desire to replace the old existing trailer with a new trailer.
No one appeared in opposition. Supervisor Brittle moved to grant
the special exception, and the motion carried upon a unanimous
voice vote.
PETITION OF CLEVELAND H. FURROW FOR A
SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT TO PLACE A MOBILE
HOME ON A 90 ACRE TRACT TO BE OCCUPIED BY
MR. AND MRS. CLEVELAND H. FURROW WITH AN
EXISTING DWELLING, LOCATED ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF STATE ROUTE 622 APPROXIMATELY 10
MILES FROM J & B MARKET IN THE CATAWBA
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
APPROVED
Mr. Frank Edward Furrow was present representing his
father and mother. No one appeared in opposition. Supervisor
McGraw moved to grant the special exception, and the motion car-
ried by a unanimous voice vote.
PETITION OF DONALD RAY AND KATHY ANN
WIMMER FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT TO
PLACE A MOBILE HOME ON A ONE ACRE TRACT
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF STATE ROUTE
711 APPROXIMATELY 660 FEET WEST OF U. S.
221 IN THE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT
APPROVED
Mr. Donald Ray Wimmer was present. Chairman Nickens
stressed that the special exception permits are two year permits.
No one appeared in opposition. Supervisor Minter moved to grant
the special exception, and the motion carried by a unanimous
voice vote.
PETITION OF WADE FRANKLIN AND MARIE C.
FRANKLIN FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT
TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE A PUTT-PUTT GOLF
COURSE AND GAME CENTER ON A 6.22 ACRE TRACT
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF U. S. ROUTE 11
(BEHIND MOORE'S STORE) IN THE HOLLINS
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
I Attorney, Mike Smeltzer, present representing Mr.
was
and Mrs. Wade Franklin. He introduced Clint Franklin, Wade
~
~
,-------
436
3/13/84
Franklin, and John Perkins, who is the manager for the Putt-Putt
operation in Roanoke. The Franklins will own the land and lease
it to the Putt-Putt operation. The property is presently zoned
B-2. Mr. Smeltzer handed out a minature copy of the site plan to
the members of the Board. The operation will consist of three
I
golf courses, club room, snack room, and parking area. The site
plan and blueprints have been reviewed with the Engineering Divi-
sion and the Planning and Zoning Division. The petitioners are
aware that they need to file and have approved a soil erosion and
sediment control plan and to control some drainage problems with
the property. Except for some residential property, the majority
of the surrounding property is business type property. The hours
of operation are to be 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. on weekdays and
9:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. on weekends and will not open on Sunday
until 1:00 p.m. There will be no alcohol allowed on the premises.
Supervisor McGraw noted that approximately one-half of the 6.22
acre would be used for the golf course and parking area, he asked
what the rest of the property would be used for. Mr. Smeltzer
said that the property adjoining Indian Road has drainage pro-
blems and they plan to hire a soil engineer who would prepare a
drainage and erosion control plan to be submitted to the County.
The Franklins have no immediate plans for the property other than
to control the drainage. Mr. Smeltzer suggested the special ex-
ception permit be limited just to the area shown on the site plan
which is not drawn to scale but shows the general location of the
golf course. Supervisor Minter asked if the petitioners would
consider installation of a privacy fence if necessary. Mr.
Franklin said they would consider the privacy fence.
Mr. B. R. Neely, owner of the Northview Mobile Home
Park, expressed his concern about disturbance to the fifty-seven
families in the mobile home park located on the northwest side of
the proposed golf course. Mr. Neely was concerned about the car
headlights bothering the residents and suggested shrubbery or a
privacy fence. Mr. Neely also expressed his concern about disrup-
I
I
~-
~
3/13/84
4 ") 1'/
u ,
tion of natural drainage. Superintendent of the Department of
Development, Tim Gubala stated that any soil disturbance would
have to meet County approval.
I
Mr. W. H. Vest expressed his concern about what would
happen to the remainder of the property. He stated that there is
a fifty (50) foot strip that is zoned residential. Superinten-
dent Tim Gubala stated that the fifty foot strip is not included
in the petition for a special exception and will remain zoned
residential. Mr. Vest then expressed his concern about the park-
ing lot being used at night after hours as a "hang out" or park-
ing area.
The following conditions were proffered:
(a) that appropriate screening from car headlights to
adjoining residential areas;
(b) that the fifty (50) foot buffer strip to remain
I
zoned residential and not be included in the special
exception;
(c) that County regulations on drainage and soil
erosion are met;
(d) that the hours of operation will be 9:00 a.m. to
12:00 a.m. weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. week-
ends;
(e) that every effort be made to make sure the park-
ing lot does not become a nuisance; and
(f) that the location of the golf courses be basi-
cally the same as on the site plan presented.
Supervisor Minter moved to grant the special exception
I
subject to the above proffered conditions, and the motion carried
with a unanimous voice vote.
PETITION OF C. M. DAVIS FOR A SPECIAL
USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A "BORROW PIT" ON A
THREE ACRE TRACT LOCATED ON OLD CAVE SPRING
ROAD IMMEDIATELY WEST OF ROUTE 419 AND
ROUTE 221 IN THE WINDSOR HILLS MAGISTERIAL
DISTRIST
CARRIED OVER
r----
~
"..
438
3/13/84
Mr. C. M. Davis was present and stated that his future
intentions are to put apartments on this tract of land and he is
trying to remove some dirt from this property. Superintendent of
the Department of Development Tim Gubala stated that staff is
I
presently working on a "borrow pit" ordinance and the ordinance
is to go before the Planning Commission at their March 20 meeting.
Chairman Nickens suggested that this matter be carried over until
April 10 in order to give staff time to complete review of the
"borrow pit" ordinance. Mr. Davis was in agreement with this
suggestion.
PETITION OF EDNA H. AND S. E. BASHAM
FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT TO OPERATE A
HOME FOR ADULTS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF STATE ROUTE 657 APPROXIMATELY 1200 FEET
FROM U. S. ROUTE 220 IN THE CAVE SPRING
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
APPROVED
Mr. S. E. Basham was present and stated that this pro-
perty had been previously used for this purpose.
No one appeared
I
in opposition. Chairman Nickens stated the following concerns of
staff; to each of which concerns Mr. Basham agreed:
(a) It is required that an attendant be on duty at
all times.
(b) The adults will not be allowed to leave the
premises without a pass or approval of the Veterans
Administration.
(c) It is required that bed checks be made at night.
(d) It is required that some precautions be taken to
keep the adults from walking along Route 220.
Mr. Basham stated that he is licensed by the Commonwealth of Vir-
to grant the special exception, and the motion carried with a
I
ginia and the Veterans Administration. Supervisor Brittle moved
unanimous voice vote.
REQUEST OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO
AMEND CHAPTER 2l ZONING OF THE ROANOKE
COUNTY CODE TO ESTABLISH AN ORDINANCE
REGULATING SATELLITE DISHES
CARRIED OVER
~
~
3/l3/84
439
Director of Planning, Rob Stalzer presented the recom-
mendation of the Planning Commission with regard to the placement
of satellite dishes.
I
Mr. Jerry Wilkinson of M & W Electronics and also Satel-
lite Country was present. He explained to the Board how the
satellite dishes operate. He stated the dishes must be placed
where nothing will obstruct the signal being received by the
satellite dish. For this reason he questioned the part of the
ordinance which limits the placement of the dishes. Mr. Wilken-
son explained to the Board how the satellite dishes are safely
installed. He expressed his concern about installing a dish
forty-five feet in the airas the proposed ordinance provides.
Mr. Wilkenson introduced Mr. Richard Goodwin of Star Tech Inc. to
express his viewpoints. Mr. Goodwin expressed his concern that
satellite dishes may become over-regulated. Chairman Nickens
I
stated it was the intent of the County to head off a potential
problem and he suggested that this Ordinance be referred back to
staff for further study and carried over to a meeting in April.
This would give the staff time to address the concerns of the
business community. Supervisor Brittle moved to carry this
matter over until the April 24 Board meeting and requested the
staff reevaluate the proposed policy and seek some input from the
business community. The motion carried upon a unanimous voice
vote.
REQUEST OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO
AMEND CHAPTER 2l ZONING OF THE ROANOKE
COUNTY CODE TO ESTABLISH AN ORDINANCE
REGULATING JUNK CARS
APPROVED
I
Director of Planning, Rob Stalzer stated that the in-
tent of the amendment was to allow the County to deal with junk
cars. There was no citizen comment. Supervisor Minter moved to
adopt the following prepared ordinance:
ORDINANCE NO. 84-49 AMENDING CHAPTER 21
ZONING RELATING TO THE DEFINITION AND
PERMITTED PLACEMENT OF WRECKED OR
JUNKED VEHICLES WITHIN ROANOKE COUNTY
------
~
"...
4·Î ()
3/13/84
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That Section 2l-1 Definitions of Chapter 21 Zoning
be amended to include the following definitions:
Junk vehicles. Any vehicles which are either with
or without a currently valid license plate or
plates, and is in either a rusted, wrecked, discharg-
ed, dismantled, partly dismantled, inoperative, or
abandoned condition. A junk vehicle shall be classi-
fied as to its condition in one of the following two
categories:
I
1. Restorable - A junk vehicle that is in a condi-
tion whereby repairs to same could be made to place
it in operating condition.
2. Wreck - A junk vehicle in such condition that it
is economically unsound to restore same to operating
condition considering the repairs to be made, age of
the vehicle, market value of the vehicle if it were
restored or in such condition that the public offi-
cer determines that it warrants such classification.
2. That Section 21-107 Generally of Article XV
Off-Street Parking be amended by the following addition:
(c) In all districts, all motor vehicles not
currently licensed and displaying a valid inspection
sticker shall be parked in an entirely enclosed
building or otherwise screened from public view by
the use of hedges or approved fencing. Wrecked vehi-
cles may not be stored in residential districts in
excess of seventy-two (72) hours except within a
fully enclosed permanent structure. Restorable vehi-
cles may not be stored in residential districts in
excess of thirty (30) days except within a fully
enclosed permanent structure. The Zoning Administra-
tor shall make the final determination as to the
classification to be assigned to anyone particular
vehicle.
I
3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect
from and after its passage.
Adopted on motion of Supervisor Minter and the follow-
ing roll call vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Brittle, McGraw, Minter, Nickens
I
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Supervisor Burton
~
~
441
PETITION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO
AMEND CHAPTER 2l ZONING REGARDING LOT
SIZES
APPROVED
I
Director of Planning, Rob Stalzer stated that this
amendment would bring the R-3 lot size requirements in conform-
ance with those in the R-l zoning district. There was no citizen
comment. Supervisor Minter moved the following prepared ordin-
ance:
ORDINANCE NO. 84-50 AMENDING CHAPTER 21
ZONING RELATING TO LOT SIZES IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT R-3
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That Section 21-50 Yards of Article VI R-3 Residen-
tial District be amended to read and provide as follows:
Section 21-50. Yards.
I
Single-family and two-family dwellings in an R-3
District shall conform with the regulations for Residen-
tial District R-l. Two-family dwellings in an R-3 Dis-
trict shall conform with the regulations for the Resi-
dential District R-2. Townhouses and high-rise apart-
ments shall conform to the requirements of Article
XVIII and XIX, respectively. Multi-family dwellings
shall have the following minimum yards:
a. Side. Twenty feet which shall include screen plant-
ing when adjoining R-l and R-2 Districts. Each side
yard shall be increased ten feet for each story over
two and one-half stories.
b. Rear. Each main building shall have a minimum rear
yard of twenty feet which shall include screen planting
when adjoining R-l and R-2 Districts.
c. Interior. For dwelling groups, each multi-family
building shall be separated by forty feet between
facing living areas and twenty feet between windowless
walls or corner of buildings placed at right angles (90
degrees) to one another. All interior yards shall be
increased ten feet for each additional story over two
and one-half stories.
I
d. Accessory buildings. Accessory buildings shall be
located no closer than three (3) feet to any side or
rear property line. No accessory building shall be
located in front of the building line.
2. That this ordinance shall be in full force and
effect from and after its passage.
Adopted on motion of Supervisor Minter, and the follow-
ing recorded vote:
------
~
r
I
I
4!12
,
AYES:
Supervisors Brittle, McGraw, Minter, Nickens
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Supervisor Burton
PETITION OF R. W. BOWERS FOR REZONING
FROM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT R-l TO BUSINESS
DISTRICT B-l, TWO PARCELS OF LAND
CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 4.15 ACRES AND
LOCATED ON ROUTE 24 IN ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, IN THE VINTON MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT. REZONING REQUESTED SO THAT
PETITIONER MAY DEVELOP THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
AS A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE PARK. PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDS DENIAL.
I
CARRIED OVER
Attorney Gilbert Butler was present representing Mr. R.
w. Bowers, who was also present. Mr. Butler backgrounded the
Board as to how the area had grown toward a commercial nature.
Mr. Butler presented site plan and a rendering the architects
prepared of the office park. Mr. Butler stated that Mr. Bowers
would be willing to proffer to build according to those specifi-
cations on the site plan and architects rendering. He also prof-
fered to landscape the property in the way suggested on the sub-
I
mitted elevation drawing. He would landscape the rear of the
property with evergreen trees and shrubbery in order to create an
acceptable buffer behind the park. The proposed office park
would house such tenants as dentists, lawyers, doctors, insurance
people, etc. The petitioner would agree to the County's request
to eliminate two of the four driveways entering into the property.
Chairman Nickens stated that each member of the Board had receiv-
ed the architects rendering, the brochure regarding the Spring
Grove Development, and the proffered conditions.
Mrs. Adell Karnes, a resident of Lindenwood, spoke
first. Her concerns were as follows: (a) felt citizens did not
I
need anymore businesses located in the area; (b) felt that Mr.
Bowers should consider locating this proposed office park on a
piece of his vacant property nearer vinton; (c) felt that Mr.
Bowers had not kept his word in previous developments in the area
and feared he would not keep his word in this case; (d) felt that
there would be undesirable traffic in the area.
~
~
3/13/84
443
I
Mr. E. W. Noell, a resident of Lindenwood, spoke next
and expressed his fear that any Business District B-1
establishment that is compatible with that district will be
permitted there. He stated that he knew some business would
develop along Route 24 but that the residents were not ready for
it today. Chairman Nickens stated that Business District B-1
zoning would allow anything that is compatible with that zoning
to be built there but that this petitoner proffered to construct
office buildings in substantial conformity to those shown on the
architects rendering.
Mrs. Donna Dean, a resident of Spring Grove, spoke next
and told the Board that she felt the rezoning had been done very
secretly and that the residents she spoke with had not been noti-
fied of the rezoning. Mrs. Dean stated that when the Deans pur-
chased their home from Mr. Bowers, he assured them that the pro-
perty in front on the columns leading into Spring Grove would
remain undeveloped residential area. She read from a brochure
describing the Spring Grove Subdivision and a letter from Owen
and Company Realtor which she felt led the residents to believe
Spring Grove would remain a country-side setting with a "peace-
ful, rural atmosphere." Mrs. Dean expressed her fear that their
property would depreciate in value because of the commercial de-
velopment behind the subdivision. She stated that the crime rate
is higher in areas where residential homes and commercial estab-
lishments are located in the same area. Mrs. Dean stated that
the residents did not have any control over what is to be built
on the property. Mr. Bowers responded that he did not promise to
keep the frontage zoned residential.
Chairman Nickens responded to some of the questions
raised by the speakers. He stated that it is not up to the Board
to decide whether or not another business could operate in Roa-
noke County. Also the fact that the petitioner may own property
in another location had no bearing on the petition before the
Board. He stated that the multiplicty of uses in the area could
be an argument against any land in that area remaining residen- ~
I
I
~
~
444
3/13/84
tial. The Comprehensive Development Plan indicates the intermed-
iate range use of that property as multi-family; long range use
calls for commercial development.
At 9:50 p.m. a recess was called and the citizens were
I
urged to study the architects rendering.
At 10:10 p.m. Chairman Nickens reconvened the meeting
and suggested that this matter be carried over for two weeks to
allow the citizens to meet with Mr. Butler and Mr. Bowers to try
to answer some of the questions raised this evening. This sug-
gestion was not agreeable to the citizens and they indicated they
wanted the public hearing to continue.
Mr. Butler offered rebuttal to comments of the citizens.
He pointed out to the citizens and the Board that the subject
property is clearly not part of the Spring Grove Subdivision.
Mr. Butler stated that the adjacent property owners were notified
of the rezoning request and that invitiations were sent out to
all those people to attend a meeting at the New Testament Baptist
I
Church the night before the Planning Commission meeting. There
were twenty-two people at the meeting at the Church. Mr. Butler
stressed that they did try to get in touch with the people prior
to the Planning Commission meeting. He wished to emphasize that
the petition was very narrowly drawn as far as the specific us-
ages that would be permitted within the permitted zoning classifi-
cation. He stated it is proffered where the buildings will be
located and what type of materials will be used so as to complete-
ly protect the public. He reiterated that they had proffered the
usages as a suburban professional office type of enterprise. He
wished to reemphasize that the nature of the trend of development
Supervisor McGraw moved to continue this matter until
I
on Route 24 is becoming more and more commercial.
the next Board meeting until further information could be gather-
ed. Supervisor Brittle stated that there had been no discussion
about the entrances to the proposed park. Chairman Nickens stat-
ed that the development would have to meet the State highways
standards with regard to entrances; however he felt he would like
~
~
3/13/84
4i~
~~
t~
for the staff and highway department approve the entrances.
Chairman Nickens said a question was raised about the 100 year
flood plain which had not been resolved. Supervisor Brittle ques-
I
tioned how eastbound traffic would enter the proposed park. Mr.
E. W. Noell stated that he understood that the Planning Commis-
sion had recommended denial. Chairman Nickens stated that the
Board read the recommendation and the Board could either concur
or reject the recommendation. Mr. Noell suggested the request go
back to the Planning Commission for further study. Supervisor
Minter made a substitute motion that the Board refer this matter
to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and more thorough
study. Mr. Butler stated that they had no objection to having
the matter referred to the Planning Commission; however, he stat-
ed that the questions brought up at this public hearing were not
even focused on at the Planning Commission meeting and felt that
the Board would be duplicating what had already been done. After
I
some discussion it was the concensus of the Board that the matter
would best be reviewed again by the Board of Supervisors and
Supervisor Minter withdrew his substitute motion. Supervisor
McGraw's motion was amended to provide for this matter to be con-
tinued until the April 24 meeting. During the interim time the
Board and staff will attempt to meet with the citizens and the
petitioner to discuss the questions raised this evening. The
motion carried by a unanimous voice vote.
I
PETITION OF AMP, INCORPORATED REQUEST-
ING REZONING FROM AGRICULTURE A-I TO
INDUSTRIAL M-l OF A TRACT CONTAINING
SEVEN ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
FRIENDSHIP LANE (VIRGINIA SECONDARY ROUTE
l895) APPROXIAMTELY 1,150 FEET EAST OF
PLANTATION ROAD (VIRGINIA PRIMARY ROUTE
1l5) IN THE HOLLINS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT.
REZONING REQUESTED TO CONSTRUCT AND
OPERATE A WAREHOUSE FACILITY. PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
APPROVED
Department of Development Superintendent, Tim Gubala
spoke representing Roanoke County and informed the Board that Mr.
Ed Kost, the industrial site representative for AMP, Incorporated
who planned to be at the meeting, was snowbound in Harrisburg,
------
~
r
446
3/13/84
Pennsylvania. Mr. Kost indicated he would like the matter to
be considered at this meeting. Mr. Doug Murray of Murray Realty
was present representing the current land owners.
Mr. Doug Murray explained that this request involves
I
the construction of a 40,000 square foot warehouse to be used for
the distribution of raw materials from this facility to the manu-
facturing plant. It would consist of two shifts overlapping
during the day with the day beginning at 6:00 a.m. and ending at
6:00 p.m. It is expected that 70 to 80 employees will be hired
at this facility. There will be a maximum of eight tractor
trailer trucks daily coming in and out of the facility in
addition to some small vehicles moving supplies from one location
to another. Mr. Murray stated that AMP, Incorporated spent eigh-
teen months locating a site for this warehouse. It was felt that
this site was ideal because of the topography of the site, be-
cause it has adequate utilties (sewer and water), and because it
has easy access to the interstate highway system.
Supervisor Minter asked if any consideration had been
given to the possible alternative access road between ITT and
I
FNEB. Mr. Murray stated there were several problems with this
alternative access. He felt there would be difficulty getting
the highway department to develop another road that would par-
raIl an existing road that could be upgraded. A road being dev-
eloped between ITT and FNEB would involve buying a tract of land
50 foot wide and this tract would be encumbered by three ease-
ments. Further, Mr. Murray felt that the development of the al-
ternate access would effectively cut off access to future develop-
ment for approximately thirty acres of land adjoining Friendship
Mr. Bruce E. Mayer spoke next representing approximate-
I
Lane.
ly seventeen families from Friendship Lane. He asked the Board
if they had been out to the area and seen Friendship Lane. The
Board members all stated that they had visited the area. Mr.
Mayer stated that the residents of the area requested that he
express their displeasure with the "rough handling" they received
~
~
3/l3/84
4 I~. Y''1
. ¿:.t: t~
at the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Mayer stated his clients
concern about the heavy truck traffic on Friendship Lane as a
result of the proposed development. He further stated his cli-
I
ents concern about the present drainage problem resulting from
the earlier construction of Dominion Bank Operations Center. Mr.
Mayer encouraged the Board to seriously consider the alternate
access into the facility.
Chairman Nickens stated that the long range plan for
this property in the Comprehensive Plan is industrial use. He
also stated that the County staff had been in contact with Domin-
ion Bank concerning the drainage problem in the area. Chairman
Nickens assured the residents that the matter of "rough handling"
at the Planning Commission will be discussed with the Chairman of
the Commission. Chairman Nickens stated his understanding that
if Friendship Lane were not improved AMP Incorporated would not
locate on the property.
I
Supervisor Minter suggested that the staff study the
alternate access for one month. Mr. Mayer stated that his cli-
ents would be willing to discuss the matter with the County staff.
Mr. Murray spoke next stating that there is a fifty
foot right-of-way extending for approximately 500 feet from the
intersection of Plantation Road and Friendship Lane already avail-
able for improving Friendship Lane. He stated that he measured
Friendship Lane to be from 14 to 16 feet wide. Improvement of
the road would add approximately 8 to 10 feet of pavement. Fur-
ther, in the process of improving the road he felt the drainage
would be improved. Mr. Murray stated that AMP Incorporated had
included a provision in the option to purchase an easement of
I
additional land to handle any drainage created by their construc-
tion. Mr. Murray further stated that he felt the proposed devel-
opment would increase the property values along Friendship Lane.
Supervisor Minter then asked the staff if one month
would be adequate to do a thorough study of the feasibility of
the alternate access. Superintendent of Department of Develop-
ment, Tim Gubala, stated that did not feel that the petitioner
I----
~
~
448
3/l3/84
would be willing to spend additional funds, possibly their own
funds and industrial access funds, to develop the alternate ac-
cess while there is an existing road available. He stated that
this particular industry could have additional sites available
which are not in Roanoke County. He further stated that Roanoke
County is in competition with approximately l4,000 organizations
trying to attract industrial prospects in their locality. Mr.
Gubala felt the problems of Friendship Lane could be resolved
with the industrial access funds.
Supervisor McGraw asked how Friendship Lane would be
improved. Mr. Gubala that once the rezoning is approved, AMP
Incorporated would request the Board of Supervisors to apply for
industrial access funds. The Highway Department would then do a
detailed study of the project in order to come up with a plan for
improving Friendship Lane and also the cost of the improvements.
This cost would be matched against available funds and the pro-
ject would be put out to bid. Supervisor McGraw stated that he
felt with the improvements Friendship Lane would actually be
safer and the drainage would be improved.
Supervisor Minter asked if there were any figures on
improving Friendship Lane or developing the alternate access.
The staff said none were available. Mr. Murray stated he felt it
would be impossible to buy land and construct a road consisting
of over l400 feet cheaper than utilizing the 500 feet of right-
of-way already within the highway system. Mr. Murray stated his
concern as to whether or not trucks would always use the alter-
nate access or would use the unimproved Friendship Lane. Super-
visor Minter agreed that the alternate access would probably be
more expensive, however, he did not know how much more. He fur-
ther stated that State industrial access funds would be used.
Mr. Mayer stated that the entrance to the project is actually
llOO feet from the interesection of Friendship Lane and Planta-
tion Road.
Supervisor McGraw stated that the following issues were
of concern to him: a) that the road would be safer if improved,
I
I
I
~
~
3/13/84
449
b) that the property values would increase if the road were impro-
ved, c) that the industry would locate in Roanoke County, d) that
the road would have to be improved before the industry would 10-
I
cate. Supervisor McGraw moved to approve the rezoning and allow
AMP Incorporated to locate in the area.
Supervisor Minter offered a substitute motion based
upon these comments: a) that the property values would go up
only if the property were sold to another industry and that the
quality of life for the residents would go down, b) that the safe-
ty of the road would be better but that the safety of the neigh-
borhood would not be improved because of the heavy truck traffic,
and c) that the improvements to Friendship Lane or the develop-
ment of the alternate access would be accomplished with State
industrial access funds. Supervisor Minter's substitution motion
was to delay action on this matter until the April 10 Board meet-
I
ing in order to allow the staff to work with the citizens, Mr.
Mayer, Mr. Murray and AMP Incorporated to see if the alternate
access is an acceptable possibility. The substitute motion was
defeated by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Supervisor Minter
NAYS:
Supervisors Brittle, McGraw, Nickens
Supervisor McGraw's motion to grant the petition re-
questing rezoning from A-l to M-l was approved by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
Superviors Brittle, McGraw, Nickens
NAYS:
Supervisor Minter
Supervisor Minter asked if Mr. Murray would bring the
information regarding the alternate access to the attention of
I
AMP Incorporated.
ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO
SECTION lS.l-238 (e) OF THE 19S0 CODE OF
VIRGINIA, AS AMENDED, CONCERNING
ACQUISITION BY ROANOKE COUNTY OF A WATER
LINE EXTENSION PROJECT - EASEMENT
REQUIRED TO EXPAND WATER SERVICE ALONG
ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY NEAR CORRUGATED
CONTAINER CORPORATION AND THE TAYLOR
ESTATE PROPERTY IN THE CAVE SPRING
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
~
~
r
I
3/l3/84
4~) 0
Superintendent of Public Facilities, John Hubbard, open-
ed the public hearing up to public comment. There was no one
present to address the public hearing. Supervisor Brittle moved
to adopt the following prepared resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 84-51 PURSUANT TO
§l5.l-238 OF THE 1950 CODE OF VIRGINIA,
AS AMENDED, SETTING FORTH THE INTENT OF
ROANOKE COUNTY TO ENTER UPON CERTAIN
PROPERTY AND TO TAKE A CERTAIN
RIGHT-OF-WAY OR EASEMENT THEREON
I
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That a certain water line extension project is ne-
cessary to provide more adequate water service to certain proper-
ties situate, lying, and being in the southwest portion of Roa-
noke County, which said water line project shall constitute an
extension of water service capabilities from the County's Starkey
Well Lot #4 and for which said extension a certain right-of-way
follows:
I
or easesment is needed, the center line of which is described as
Beginning at a point in the boundary be-
tween property of parties of the first
and second parts, which point is S. 75
deg. 38' 34" E. 7.5 feet from the south-
west corner of property of party of the
first part; thence, N. 14 deg. 21' 26" E.
281.51 feet to a point in the southwest
boundary of an existing 12 foot public
utility easesment, and a 10 foot tempo-
rary construction easement, as shown on
plat dated January 30, 1984, prepared by
Roanoke County Public Facilities Depart-
ment.
(single); Mr. Frederick E. Taylor (single); Miss Jean Stewart
Taylor (single); Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Connard; and Mr. and Mrs.
Henry Smythe, Jr.; and
2. That the fair market value of the property interest
I
of Corrugated Container Corporation in said right-of-way or ease-
ment is $649.00; and the fair market value of the interest of D.
M. Taylor heirs in said roadway easement is $50.00; that there
are no residual damages to the property of any of such owners,
which said sums have heretofore been offered by the County of
Roanoke to said persons; and
~
~
3/13/84
451
3. That it is immediately necessary for the County to
enter on such property and commence construction of said water
line extension in order to more adequately serve the needs of
I
certain properties located in close proximity to the County's
Starkey Well Lot #4 and to thereafter institute and conduct appro-
priate condemnation proceedings as to said right-of-way or ease-
ment; and
4. That pursuant to the provisions of §15.1-238 (e) of
the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and pursuant to notice and
public hearing as made and provided therein, the Board does here-
by invoke all and singular the rights and privileges and provi-
sions of said §15.1-238 (e) as to the vesting of powers in the
County pursuant to §§33.1-119 through 33.l-129 of the 1950 Code
of Virginia, as amended, all as made and provided by law.
Adopted on the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Brittle, McGraw, Minter, Nickens
I
NAYS:
None
IN RE:
CITIZENS COMMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Doug Woodson, representing the Roanoke Valley Re-
gional Solid Waste Management Board, presented an 18-minute video
tape regarding the bailing facility.
IN RE:
REPORTS OF OFFICERS, DEPARTMENTS AND COMMITTEES
Registrar - Elizabeth Leah was present to request
approval for the purchase of additional voting machines for use
in the November, 1984, Presidential Election. Supervisor Minter
moved to adopt the following prepared resolution:
I
RESOLUTION NO. 84-52 AUTHORIZING THE
PURCHASE OF EIGHT VOTING MACHINES UPON
CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
l. That the County Administrator be, and he hereby is,
authorized and directed to enter into a sole source contract with
~
~
3/l3/84
452
Virginia Election Services, Inc. of Richmond, Virginia, to pur-
chase eight reconditioned voting machines at a total purchase
price not to exceed $9,560.00; and
2. That said purchase agreement shall contain provi-
I
sion that the said eight reconditioned voting machines shall be
warranted for a period of five years from and after the date of
delivery thereof to the County of Roanoke; and
3. That such agreement shall otherwise be on form ap-
proved by the County Attorney.
4. That the Board hereby expresses its intent to bud-
get in the 1984-85 budget, funds sufficient to pay for the pur-
chase hereinabove authorized.
Adopted on motion of Supervisor Minter, and the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Brittle, McGraw, Minter, Nickens
NAYS:
None
County Administrator - Donald R. Flanders submitted a
I
report on maximum cost figures for relocation of a storm sewer,
and reconstruction and expansion of the Vinton Branch Library.
Mr. Bob Fry from VVKR was present to submit a report and recommen-
dation that the guaranteed maximum price for the project be ac-
cepted as set out in the following prepared resolution. The
County Administrator assured the Board that the complete plans
for the expansion and reconstruction had been reviewed with the
Library Board and that the Library Board approved the plans at a
recent meeting.
RESOLUTION NO. 84-55 AUTHORIZING THE
COUNTY OF ROANOKE TO ENTER INTO A CERTAIN
CONTRACT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION AND
EXPANSION OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY, VINTON
BRANCH LIBRARY
I
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, virginia, as follows:
1. That that certain proposal of Q. M. Tomlinson, Inc.
to reconstruct and expand the Roanoke County, vinton Branch Li-
brary for a sum determined as follows:
$323,000 . . . . . Reconstruction
~
~
3/13/84
4-0
. ~) ~..)
84,000 .
. . .
. Expansion
l,254 . .
. Pipe and storm sewer related to
expansion
all of which sums are guaranteed maximum costs for each separate
I
segment of said project, be, and same is hereby, accepted, approv-
ed, ratified, and confirmed; and
2. That the County Administrator be, and hereby is,
authorized and directed to execute all and singular the agree-
ments and documents needful and necessary in the premises, all of
which shall be upon form approved by the County Attorney.
Adopted on motion of Supervisor Brittle, and the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Brittle, McGraw, Minter, Nickens
NAYS:
None
Department of Public Faciliites - no report.
I
Department of Fiscal Management - Superintendent of
Fiscal Management, John Chambliss, presented the audit for fis-
cal year ending June 30, 1983.
Mr. Chambliss then submitted a report on the roll
over appropriation from the 1982-83 fiscal year. Mr. Chambliss
suggested that staff be authorized to advertise for a public hear-
ing for the March 27 Board meeting on the rollover appropriation.
Supervisor Minter moved to advertise for a public hearing on the
rollover appropriation, and the motion carried on a unanimous
voice vote.
Mr. Chambliss also request that a public hearing be
I
authorized for the April 10 Board meeting for the establishment
of a tax rate for personal property taxes and for machinery and
tool taxes for the 1984 tax year. Supervisor Brittle moved to
advertise for a public hearing for the establishment of a tax
rate for personal property taxes not to exceed $4.00 per $lOO of
assessed valuation and to advertise for a public hearing for the
establishment of a tax rate for machinery and tools not to exceed
-
~
r
I 4 5 ,:1
I
3/13/84
$3.00 per $lOO of assessed valuation. The motion carried by a
unanimous voice vote.
Mr. Chambliss submitted a report on the removal of
hazardous waste in the form of waste ink previously used by the
I
Roanoke County Fire Department for training purposes and now de-
signated by the EPA as a hazardous waste. Supervisor Brittle
moved to adopt the following prepared resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 84-53 ACCEPTING A CERTAIN
PROPOSAL FOR REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That that certain bid of Triangle Resource Indus-
tries in the amount of $3,405.00 for removal of hazardous waste,
upon all and singular the terms and conditions of the invitation
to bid, the specifications of the County of Roanoke, the bidder's
proposals, and the provisions of this r~solution, be, and same
hereby is, ACCEPTED; and
2. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized
I
and directed to execute the necessary documents on behalf of Roa-
noke County, all to be upon form approved by the County Attorney;
and
3. That all other bids for this service are hereby
rejected and the Clerk is directed to so notify such bidders and
express the County's appreciation for the submission of their
bids.
Adopted on motion of Supervisor Brittle, and the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Brittle, McGraw, Minter, Nickens
NAYS:
None
I
Department of Development - no report.
Personnel - no report.
County Attorney - no report.
~
~
3/13/84
455
County Administrator - Don Flanders submitted an up-
date on the Virginia Innovation Group and the minutes from the
I
February 1, 1984 business meeting. He stated that the Group pre-
sently is studying a mileage extender experimentation for possi-
ble use in the police, school, and fire fleets. He also stated
that they are studying a type of sprinkler head which works with
a sensor to determine the amount of water needed and could poten-
tially save water in watering lawns. The sprinkler head is pre-
sently being tested by Allstate.
Mr. Flanders requested authority to enter into a
lease agreement with the Salem Bank Building, Ltd. for the
Roanoke County Welfare Board. Supervisor McGraw moved to adopt
the following prepared resolution:
I
RESOLUTION NO. 84-54 AUTHORIZING THE
COUNTY OF ROANOKE TO ENTER INTO A CERTAIN
LEASE AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE CERTAIN
FACILITIES FOR THE ROANOKE COUNTY WELFARE
DEPARTMENT (NOW KNOWN AS THE ROANOKE
COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County, Virginia, as follows:
1. That the County of Roanoke be, and it hereby is, on
behalf of the Roanoke County Welfare Department (now known as the
Roanoke County Social Services Department) authorized and direct-
ed to enter into a lease agreement with the Salem Bank Building
Limited Partnership to lease office space in the building situate
at the southwest corner of Main Street and College Avenue in the
City of Salem, Virginia, commonly known as the Salem Bank Build-
ing for an initial threé year period at an annual base rate of
$91,875.00; and
I
2. That the County Administrator be, and hereby is,
authorized and directed to execute said lease on behalf of Roa-
noke County upon a form approved by the County Attorney.
Adopted on motion of Supervisor McGraw, and the follow-
ing recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Brittle, McGraw, Minter, Nickens
~
~
"...-
1 ~ (')
¿ _ h" 'oJ'
:1:.....þ t
NAYS:
None
3/13/84
Mr. Flanders then requested an executive session to
discuss legal, real estate, and personnel matters.
IN RE:
APPOINTMENTS
I
Highway Transportation Safety Commission - Supervisor
Minter moved that the following people be appointed to this Com-
mission, and the motion carried by a unanimous voice vote.
Interest
Represented
citizen at
large
neighborhood
organization
citizen at
large
senior
citizens
County Board
liaison
Name/Address/Phone
District
Term Length
Term Expires
B. Arnold Davis
One Homestead Lane, NE
Roanoke, VA 24012
Home: 345-2986
Hollins
3 years
l/1/87
Charlotte T. Lichtenstein
4873 Brookwood Drive, SW Windsor Hills
Roanoke, VA 24018
Home: 774-3562
3 years
1/1/85
John N. Starnes vinton
1016 Chestnut Mountain Drive
Vinton, VA 24179
Home: 890-3198 Work: 982-7265
3 years
1/1/86
I
Amanda B. Bullins Cave Spring
5670 Roselawn Road, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Home: 989-5376 Work: 345-0451
H. Rodney Smith Catawba
Route 4, Box 465
Salem, VA 24153
Home: 384-6079
4/1/87
Alan H. Brittle Cave Spring
3915 Skylark Circle, SW
Roanoke, VA 24018
Home: 774-9390 Work: 982-7418
1 year
This leaves three vacancies in the handicapped, medical
and legal areas.
Court Service Unit Advisory Council/Youth and Family
Services Advisory Board - Supervisor Minter appointed Mary
Alice Hutcherson from the Hollins Magisterial District for a two
I
year term. Supervisor Minter also removed Toni Herron at a Youth
Member on this Committee and stated he is seeking a new youth
member. Chairman Nickens reported that there is a question as to
whether or not there are available funds for the Girl Haven Pro-
gram, which is one of the things to be considered by this Commit-
tee.
~
~
3/13/84
45 i¡
IN RE:
EXECUTIVE SESSION
I
Supervisor McGraw moved to go into executive session
pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a) (1) (2) and (6) of the Code of
Virginia, and the motion carried by a unanimous voice vote.
IN RE:
ADJOURNMENT
Supervisor McGraw moved to return to open session at
1:58 a.m., and the motion carried by a unanimous voice vote.
Supervisor Minter moved to adjourn at 1:59 a.m., and the motion
carried by a unanimous voice vote.
~
I
I