3/8/1983 - Regular
I
I
I
.'
3-8-83
~'16
;J
.
.
.. .
. --;-
. ".. ..'
. " .
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Roanoke Co. Administration Center
3738 Brambleton A venue, S. W.
Roanoke, VA 24015
March 8, 1983
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, 1983.
IN RE:
CALL TO ORDER - WORK SESSION
At 3:28 p.m. Chairman May W. Johnson called the meeting to order.
The roll call was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman May W. Johnson, Supervisors Athena E. Burton
and Gary J. Minter
MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice Chairman Harry C. Nickens and Supervisor Robert
E. Myers
IN RE:
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Supervisor Minter moved to go into Executive Session pursuant to
the Code of Virginia, Section 2.1-344(a), (1), (2), and (6) to discuss personnel,
real estate, and legal matters. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote.
During ) Executive Session, Supervisor Nickens arrived at 4:43
p.m. Also, two itefs from County Treasurer, Alfred C. Anderson, were received
and filed as reference material. These were "The United States Budget in
Brief, Fiscal Year 1984" and "Special Analysis H, Federal Aid to State and
Local Governments."
IN RE:
RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
Supervisor Minter moved to return to open session at 5:04 p.m.
Motion carried.
51;;.'
3-8-83
"
C,C-'=-
--- -
"
^ ,
,
,
IN RE:
WORK SESSION
Virginia Cooperative Extension Service Agent, Lowell Gobble,
introduced Mr. Leo Painter, a retired volunteer Roanoke County Soil
Conservationist and Member of the Blue Ridge Soil and Water Conservation
Board; and Mr. Noah Mullins, a Federal Soil Conservationist for Roanoke,
Botetourt, and Craig Counties stationed in the Daleville office.
Mr. Gobble informed the Board that the soil survey presentation
was primarily at the request of County Administrator, Donald R. Flanders, and
supported by the interest of Superintendent of the Department of Development,
Timothy W. Gubala. Mr. Gobble indicated there is a priority listing for a
survey and that the State will pay up to approximately 90% with localities
paying from 10% to 25%.
Since none of the Supervisors had cost information, Supervisor Burton
inquired as to what the cost would be. This is $2.50 per acre, or approximately
$350,000. The State has indicated Roanoke County's offer of $39,000 would
be entertained but the County's priority level could not be guaranteed. However,
Roanoke County has been identified as a priority due to its rapid growth.
The Board was then told by Mr. Gobble that a decision was needed
prior to March 17, 1983, which is the deadline for submitting a soil survey
request to the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission. If a decision
was not made immediately, then it would not be considered again for another
year.
A seven-minute slide presentation followed which described the
benefits of a soil survey. Supervisor Minter then suggested that in order to
save on the cost, a mini survey be conducted since the use of much of the
County land has already been determined. Mr. Gobble stressed that a complete
survey would be necessary in order to provide accurate information. Mr.
Painter explained that the accurate information would help the County in
writing the Comprehensive Plan, planning location of sewer and water lines,
writing specs, and with evaluating drainage problems.
Mr. Gobble estimated that it would be approximately 12 to 18 months
before the start of the survey, and that Roanoke County would not have to
consider the funding until the 1984-1985 budget.
,
,
"
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
<
< '
3-8-83
SI8
'.
..
, <.
Supervisor Burton moved that a resolution be prepared to be spread
in the March 8 minutes authorizing the request for priority consideration for
a soil survey for Roanoke County. Supervisor Nickens then suggested that an
option should be set so that 10% of the cost would not be exceeded. Supervisor
Burton then made an addendum to her motion to include figures of a maximum
of $39,000 with an annual fee of $7,800 for a period of five years commencing
after the soil survey is started.
RESOLUTION NO. 83-37 REQUESTING THE VIRGINIA SOIL AND
WATER CONSERVATION COMMISSION TO AUTHORIZE A SOIL
SURVEY TO BE CONDUCTED IN ROANOKE COUNTY AND
PROVIDING FOR A CONTRIBUTION OF LOCAL FUNDS TO DEFRAY
THE COST OF SUCH SOIL SURVEY
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
as follows:
1. That the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission be, and
it is hereby, requested to authorize a soil survey to be conducted in Roanoke
County at the earliest possible time; and
2. That the County of Roanoke does hereby offer to defray a share
of the cost of such soil survey by providing a local share of the expense
thereof as follows, to-wit:
The total sum of $39,000 payable in five (5) equal installments of $7,800.00
each, such installments to commence when the said soil survey is
undertaken and one such installment to be made annually thereafter until
paid in full.
3. That an attested copy of this resolution be forthwith forwarded to
the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission.
Adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Nickens, Minter, Burton and Johnson
NAYS:
None
ABSENT: Supervisor Myers
Superintendent of the Department of Public Facilities, John R.
Hubbard, reported that the State Water Control Board needed a 10% ($70,000)
-
5 1 fj
3-8-83
.. '..
.
.
.
~ ..
, .'
commitment from Roanoke County for the EP A grant for the design and
construction cost of Matthews Electroplating site in Salem. Supervisor Minter
moved for the following prepared resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 83-38 AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR TO ENTER INTO A CERTAIN AGREEMENT
COMMITTING THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, TO PAY A
CERTAIN SUM AS THE LOCAL SHARE OF A CERTAIN
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY GRANT
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
as follows:
1. That the County Administrator be, and he hereby is, authorized to
enter into a certain agreement committing the County of Roanoke to pay a
certain sum for design and construction cost of "Alternate #7" as set out in
Environmental Protection Agency's "Feasibility Study Report - Matthews
Electroplating Site, Salem, Virginia", the said sum to be the 10% local share,
but, in any event, not to exceed $70,000.00; and
2. That the County's share shall be paid upon the terms and conditions
set forth in the agreement executed pursuant to this resolution; and
3. That any and all documents and agreements required to be executed
in the premises on behalf of Roanoke County shall be executed by the County
Administrator upon form approved by the County Attorney; and
4. That attested copies of this resolution be forthwith forwarded to
the Commonwealth of Virginia - State Water Control Board.
Adopted by the following roll call vote:
A YES: Supervisors Nickens, Minter, Burton and Johnson
NA YS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Myers
County Attorney, James E. Buchholtz, presented a resolution limiting
through truck traffic on State Route 605, which was a followup action from
the Board Meeting of October 12, 1982. Supervisor Minter moved for the
following prepared resolution:
.'
.. .
I
I
I
5 0
3-8-83
RESOLUTION NO. 83-39 CONCURRING IN LIMITING THROUGH
TRUCK TRAFFIC ON A CERTAIN SECTION OF STATE ROUTE 605
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
as follows:
I
1.
That the Board does concur in the request of Botetourt County that
a certain section of State Route 605 situate, lying and being partly in Botetourt
County and partly in Roanoke County be closed to through truck traffic on
that portion of State Route 605 lying in Roanoke County, being approximately
1100 feet thereof from the Botetourt County line in a southwesterly direction
to State Route 601; and
2. That an attested copy of this resolution be forthwith forwarded to
the State Department of Highways and Transportation.
Adopted by the following roll call vote:
A YES: Supervisors Nickens, Minter, Burton and Johnson
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Myers
I
Superintendent of the Department of Fiscal Management made a
followup report on the shift differential from the January 25, 1983, work session
and outlined two alternatives for the 128 employees: (I) a 1% supplement would
generate an annual cost of $14,747 and (2) a fixed dollar amount of $4 per
day would cost $108,749.
After discussing what shifts would qualify for a pay differential, it
was determined that the hardships and hazards created during the 11:00 p.m.
to 7:00 a.m. did not exist on the 3:00 p.m. to 1l:00 p.m. shift.
Supervisor Nickens moved that the matter be carried over until the
next meeting. John Chambliss then told the Board that the County Administrator
I
had suggested consideration of a recommendation by Sheriff Foster for an
education pay supplement to be studied during the budget process. Supervisor
Minter offered a substitute motion that a 3% differential be granted only for
the employees on the late night shift and that the education policy be carried
over. Supervisor Nickens asked the parliamentarian if a motion to table would
take precedent over a substitute motion. Supervisor Nickens moved that the
t-. q
.;) I;' J
3-8-83
"
...
. "
.
shift differential be tabled, and the roll call was taken:
AYES:
Supervisors Nickens and Johnson
NAYS:
Supervisors Minter and Burton
ABSENT: Supervisor Myers
The County Attorney advised the Board that under the Code of
Virginia, if less than all members of the board are present, a tie vote could not
be resolved until the next meeting.
IN RE:
RECESS
At 6:03 p.m. Chairman Johnson called for a recess. Supervisor
Nickens advised that he would not be able to return at 7 :00 and requested
that Item 8 of the Consent Agenda be deleted. Supervisor Burton asked that
Item 9 be removed from the Consent Agenda.
IN RE:
CALL TO ORDER - REGULAR SESSION
At 7:07 p.m. Chairman Johnson called the regular meeting to order.
The roll call was taken.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman May W. Johnson, Supervisors Athena E. Burton
and Gary J. Minter
MEMBERS ABSENT: Vice Chairman Harry C. Nickens, Supervisor Robert E.
Myers
IN RE:
OPENING CEREMONIES
Chairman Johnson stated that Supervisor Nickens would be late.
Superintendent of the Department of Fiscal Management, John M.
Chambliss, Jr. offered the invocation. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited
by all present.
IN RE:
CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Johnson asked if there were any deletions to the Consent
Agenda and informed the Board that Supervisor Nickens had requested that
.
.".
I
I
I
,
I
I
,
3-8-83
"'" ') ~
~) l,
t.., '-' f...
,
,"" '
, ,
Item 8 be deleted until he arrives and Supervisor Burton requested that Item 9
be deleted.
Supervisor Burton moved for approval of the amended prepared
resolution excluding Items 8 and 9.
RESOLUTION NO. 83-40 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 8, 1983, 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 as Items 1 through 9, inclusive, as follows:
1. Notice of Initial Order concerning application of Atlantic
Greyhound Lines of Virginia, Inc. for authority to discontinue
intrastate regular route common carrier of passenger service.
2.
Planning Commission - Board of Zoning Appeals 1982 Annual
Report.
3. Treasurer's Report for January 1983
4. Letter from Senator Dudley J. Emick, Jr., dated February 22,
1983.
5. Letter from Delegate C. Richard Cranwell, dated February 18,
1983.
6. Botetourt Jaycees Application for Raffle Permit - Fee Paid
7. Bid Report: Tires and Tire Service
8. Bid Report: Auctioneer Services on twenty (20) parcels of
Roanoke County Surplus Property
9. Bid Report: Roanoke River Engineering Design Services.
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 tabulations
for any such item pursuant to this resolution.
5 2 ;:;
3-8-83
.
.
.
.
Adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Minter, Burton and Johnson
NAYS:
None
ABSENT: Supervisors Nickens and Myers
r
RESOLUTION NO. 83-40-a. ACCEPTING A CERTAIN BID MADE TO
THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE FOR A ONE YEAR CONTRACT FOR
TIRES AND TIRE SERVICE
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
as follows:
1. That that certain bid of Firestone Tire and Rubber Company in the
amount of $51,906.82, being the lowest and best bid received for a one year
contract for tires and tire service, upon all and singular the terms and conditions
of the invitation to bid, the specifications of this resolution be, and the same
hereby is, ACCEPTED; and
2.
That the County Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to
enter into a contract upon a form approved by the County Attorney for this
I
service; and
3. That all other bids for this service are hereby rejected and the
County Clerk is directed to so notify such bidders and express the County's
appreciation for the submission of their bids.
Adopted by the following roll call vote:
A YES: Supervisors Minter, Burton and Johnson
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisors Nickens and Myers
IN RE: PUBLIC HEARINGS
REQUEST OF MRI TANGLE WOOD RENTAL INVESTMENTS, INC. TO
REVIEW A SPECIAL EXCEPTION UNDER SEC. 21-67(6) OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE TO OPERATE AN ELECTRONIC GAME ROOM
AT 4001 AVENHAM AVE., S.W. WITHIN TANGLEWOOD MALL IN
THE CAVE SPRING MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - WITHDRAWN
I
This request was withdrawn by a March 7, 1983, letter to Mr. Claude
Lee, Zoning Administrator for Roanoke County, from Mr. J. A. Repass,
Superintendent of Paramount Group, Inc.
~
5 ') ."1
3-8-83 r:-
. ... ~ '.
. ... .. -:- . ..
REQUEST OF AWARDS & TROPHY COMPANY OF VIRGINIA,
TRADING AS VIDEO VILLAGE TO RENEW A SPECIAL EXCEPTION
UNDER SEC. 21-67 (6) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO OPERATE
AN ELECTRONIC GAME ROOM AT 7214 WILLIAMSON ROAD IN
THE MARKET SQUARE NORTH SHOPPING CENTER IN THE HOLLINS
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. - APPROVED
I
Zoning Administrator, Claude Lee, reported that no complaints were
received during the past 90 days and that he had made a personal inspection
and observation several times and found no problems. He recommended that
the permit be renewed with the following special exceptions: (l) Hours of
Operation, Monday thru Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and Sunday 1:00 p.m.
to 11:00 p.m.; (2) An attendant on duty during all hours of operation; (3) A
Deputy on duty Friday and Saturday nights; (4) No eating or drinking in gameroom.
Mr. Don Johnson, owner of Video Village was present and requested that
since there appeared to be no problems and that since he had a deputy on duty
on Friday and Saturday nights that he be allowed to remain open Friday and
Saturday nights until 12:00 midnight. On motion by Supervisor Minter approval
was granted for renewal of the permit for Video Village and to remain open
I
until 12:00 midnight on Fridays and Saturdays, approved by the following roll
call vote:
A YES: Supervisors Minter, Burton and Johnson
NA YS: None
ABSENT: Supervisors Nickens and Myers
REQUEST OF BENT MOUNTAIN AMUSEMENT PARK, INC. FOR A
"USE NOT PROVIDED FOR" PERMIT TO CONDUCT A STRING BAND
COMPETITION BETWEEN MAY 20-22, 1983, ON THE PROPERTY
OF PAUL HOLLYFIELD ON THE WEST SIDE OF STATE ROUTE 211
AND THE EAST SIDE OF STATE ROUTE 889 IN THE WINDSOR
HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. - APPROVED
Mr. Hollyfield was present, and there were no objections to his request.
Supervisor Burton moved for approval of the permit.
FINAL ORDER
I
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED that a "Use Not Provided For"
permit to allow a string band competition between May 20-22, 1983, on the
property of Paul Hollyfield on the west side of State Route 211 and the east
side of State Route 889 in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District be granted
to begin on the date that this order is entered into record.
~ -----
~, 2 :-:.'.)' 3-8-83
;..) ~
-
-
BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be forwarded to
the County Planner, and that he be and hereby is directed to enter this permit
into the official zoning records of the County.
This action was adopted on motion of Supervisor Burton and upon the
I
following recorded vote:
A YES: Supervisors Minter, Burton and Johnson
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisors Myers and Nickens
REQUEST OF H & B ASSOCIATES TO REZONE FROM RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT R-3 TO BUSINESS DISTRICT B-2, 4.467 ACRES LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF
COLONIAL AVENUE AND ROUTE 419 IN THE CAVE SPRING
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT SO THAT A NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING
CENTER MA Y BE CONSTRUCTED THEREON SUBJECT TO
PROFFERED CONDITIONS. - APPROVED
Mr. Gary Lumsden, representing H & B Associates presented drawings
I which explained the building construction and design, traffic patterns,
landscaping, and drainage. Chairman Johnson noted that the proffered conditions
I
had been amended listing ten businesses that could not occupy the property.
She also stated that there were no objections from the Planning Commission.
Supervisor Burton moved for the rezoning from R-3 to B-2 with the amended
proffered conditions.
FINAL ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED that the aforementioned tract of
land, more particularly described below, be rezoned from Residential District R-
3 to Business District B-2.
BEGINNING at an iron pin and being a point on the easterly right-
of-way line of Colonial A venue (50 foot right-of-way) and being a
common corner with the southwest corner of Marvin O. Tinsley
property; thence leaving Colonial Avenue and with Tinsley in a
southeast direction S 38 deg. 29' 40" E, 201.36 feet to the ACTUAL
PLACE OF BEGINNING; thence continuing with Tinsley S 38 deg.
29' 40" E, 208.96 feet to a point and being a common corner with
the southeast corner of Tinsley property and the southwest corner
of Lot 2, Block 4, Map of Green Valleys as recorded in Plat Book
3, Page 153, of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County; thence
continuing with said plat of Green Valleys in a southeasterly direction
the following 3 courses; S 38 deg. 14' 04" E, 709.00 feet to a point;
thence S 50 deg. 17' 00" E, 100.08 feet to a point; thence S 59 deg.
12' 00" E, 100.00 feet to a point and being a point on the northerly
right-of-way line of Virginia Route 419; thence leaving Green Valleys
Subdivision and with the northerly right-of-way of Route 419 in a
northwesterly direction the following 3 courses; N 78 deg. 45' 35"
W. 99.37 feet to a point and being the P. C. of a curve to the
I
I
I
I
u ,,,..
3-8-83
~ foJ 6.-
t..~ i~
.
.
. -
.
~ . .
.
right and which curve is defined by a delta angle of 16 deg. 20' 05",
a radius of 1362.39 feet, a tangent of 195.47 feet, an arc of 388.28
feet, a chord of 386.97 feet and bearing N 59 deg. 08' 55" W to the
P. T. of the curve; thence N 50 deg. 58' 53" W, 748.14 feet to a
point; thence leaving Virginia Route 419 and in a northeasterly
direction, S 58 deg. 09' 22" W, 311.36 feet to the place of BEGINNING
and containing 4.467 acres as more particularly shown on plat
prepared by Buford T. Lumsden and Associates P.C., Certified Land
Surveyors, Roanoke, Virginia, dated December, 1982, entitled "Plan
Showing Property to be Re-zoned from R-3 to B-2, Situated at the
Intersection of Route 419 and Colonial A venue and being Property
of H &: B Associates, A General Partnership".
BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be transmitted to
the County Planner and that he be and hereby is directed to reflect that
change on the official zoning maps of the County.
Adopted on motion by Supervisor Burton and the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Minter, Burton and Johnson
NAYS:
None
ABSENT:
Supervisors Myers and Nickens
REQUEST OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY TO AMEND CHAPTER 21 (ZONING) OF THE ROANOKE
COUNTY CODE TO ESTABLISH AN R-5 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
FOR TOWNHOUSES FOR SALE - CONTINUED
Since there was some confusion as to whether the buffer specified was 10
or 20 feet, this was continued until the next public hearing on motion by
Supervisor Burton and carried by a unanimous voice vote.
REQUEST OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY TO AMEND CHAPTER 21 (ZONING) OF THE ROANOKE
COUNTY CODE TO ESTABLISH AN R-6 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
FOR CONDOMINIUMS. - APPROVED
Supervisor Burton moved for adoption of the prepared ordinance.
ORDIN ANCE NO. 83-41 AMENDING CHAPTER 21. ZONING OF THE
ROANOKE COUNTY CODE BY THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN R-6
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT - CONDOMINIUM ZONING CLASSIFICATION
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
as follows:
1. That Chapter 21. Zoning of the Roanoke County Code be amended
to establish a R-6 Residential District - Condominium zoning classification as
hereinafter set forth:
F.:' Ii) f""t
Uk.lIt
3-8-83
.
..
Chapter 21.
ZONING.
Article I. In General.
Sec. 21-1. Definitions.
Condominium - a multi-unit structure having individual units marketed as
real property and constructed in accordance with the multi-family provisions
of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, the Virginia Horizontal Property
Act (Sec. 55-79.1 et seq.) and the Virginia Condominium Act (Sec. 55-79.39 et
seq.) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, as the case may be.
Article VII.2. R-6 Residential District - Condominium.
Sec. 21-60.2:1. Statement of Intent.
The intent of the R-6 District is to allow for the development of areas
appropriate for condominium housing for sale. Condominium housing units are
characteristically constructed in a multi-unit structure of several stories in
height. All condominiums shall have public water and sewer or provide for
the equivalent as approved by the Board of Supervisors.
Sec. 21-60.2:2. Permitted uses.
In Residential District R-6 any building to be erected or land to be used
shall be for one or more of the following uses:
(a) condominiums, developed and constructed for sale and which shall
not thereafter be collected in either single or multi-ownership for rental
purposes
(b) accessory buildings
Sec. 21-60.2:3. Signs
Sign regulations in an R-6 District shall conform to Article XVII of this
Chapter.
Sec. 21-60.2:4. Area, frontage, and width requirements.
(a) Condominium units shall meet the following minimum lot area
requirements plus six thousand square feet for the first dwelling unit in the
development:
One bedroom
Two bedroom
Three bedroom
Four or more bedroom
1100 square feet
1600 square feet
1800 square feet
2000 square feet
(b) There are no lot frontage or lot width requirements for condominiums.
Sec. 21-60.2:5. Lot coverage.
Maximum lot coverage shall be thirty-five percent (35%).
.
..
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
3-8-83
i'w..-.. ",) 'C')
~) ....' 0
.
. .
--:-
Sec. 21-60.2:6. Setbacks.
Buildings in an R-6 District shall be located thirty feet or more from
any street right-of-way which is fifty feet or greater in width, or fifty-five
feet or more from the center line of any street right-of-way less than fifty
feet in width. This shall be known as the 'set-back line'. No building shall
be required to set back from the street a distance greater than the setback
line observed by the one or two existing buildings on the immediately adjoining
lots in the same zoning classification on either side which is the further
removed from the street.
Sec. 21-60.2:7. Yards.
Condominiums shall have the following minimum yards:
(a) Side. Twenty feet which shall include the required ten feet screen
planting area when adjoining a R-l District. 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 the required ten feet screen planting area when
adjoining a R-l District.
(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 corners 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.
(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 or within any landscaped area
required by this Article.
(e) Condominiums constructed as high rise units shall conform to the
requirements of Article XIX.
Sec. 21-60.2:8. Open Space.
The minimum open space in an R-6 District shall be not less than twenty-
five percent of the total lot area exclusive of buildings, streets, alleys, roads,
walks, swimming pools, patios, parking and any other area not landscaped or
planted, subject to special provisions for high-rise apartments as required by
Article XIX.
Sec. 21-60.2:9. Heights
(a) Buildings in an R-6 District in the vicinity of an airport shall comply
with Article XVI.
(b) Condominiums may be erected to a height of either three and one-
half stories or forty-five feet above the ground level of the principal entrance.
(c) High-rise condominiums shall comply with Article XIX of this chapter.
(d) Water towers, chimneys, flues, flag poles, television antennae and
radio aerials are exempt. Parapet walls may be up to four feet above the
height of the building on which the walls rest.
(e) All accessory buildings shall be not more than fifteen feet in height.
j
f-' ') 9
If) f:W .
3-8-83
..
. ..
Sec. 21-60.2:10. Special provisions for corner lots.
The side yard on the side facing the side street in an R-6 District shall
be twenty-five (25) feet or more for both main and accessory buildings.
Sec. 21-60.2:11. Parking.
(a) Parking regulations in an R-6 District shall conform to Article XV
of this chapter.
(b) A landscaped area shall be maintained as follows:
(1) between the parking area and the street right-of-way line - six
(6) feet
(2) between the parking area and any adjacent R-l District - ten
(10) feet
Sec. 21-60.2:12. Screening regulations.
(a) Garbage and trash containers for condominiums and high-rise
condominiums in an R-6 District shall be screened from view from any adjacent
street or property.
(b) Wherever an R-6 District boundary adjoins an R-l Residential District,
a landscaped area ten (10) feet in width planted with non-deciduous trees shall
be established and maintained by and at the sole expense of the condominium
owner or owners.
This amendment shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage.
Adopted by the following roll call vote:
A YES: Supervisors Minter, Burton and Johnson
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisors Nickens and Myers
REQUEST OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY TO AMEND CHAPTER 21 (ZONING) OF THE ROANOKE
COUNTY CODE TO ESTABLISH PROVISIONS FOR R-5 AND R-6
UNDER ARTICLES PERTAINING TO SITE PLANS, PARKING SIGNS,
AND HIGH-RISE APARTMENTS.- CONTINUED
County Attorney, James E. Buchholtz, recommended that this be continued
until the next public hearing since this was a housekeeping ordinance making
other code provisions conform to the new zoning classifications. The motion
was made by Supervisor Minter and carried by a unanimous voice vote.
. .
.~
.....
I
I
I
"
I
I
I
,
3-8-83
t;'" 0 0'
t) t.)
,
".,' -c:- ,'"
REQUEST OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC FACILITIES TO
AMEND CHAPTER 8.1 (EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL) OF
THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE IN ORDER TO BRING THE CODE
INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE VIRGINIA EROSION AND SEDIMENT
CONTROL HANDBOOK, AND MAKE AMENDMENTS TO FEES AND
ORDINANCE APPLICABILITY IN THE TOWN OF VINTON.
- APPROVED
Superintendent of Public Facilities, John Hubbard, told the board that
this would conform to minimum standards and that the fee schedule was not
attached. Supervisor Minter moved for adoption of the prepared ordinance with
a fee schedule resolution to be prepared for the next meeting.
ORDINANCE NO. 83-42 AMENDING CHAPTER 8.1. EROSION AND
-
SEDIMENT CONTROL OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
as follows:
1. That Chapter 8.1. Erosion and Sediment Control of the Roanoke
County Code be amended by deleting "county engineer" throughout the chapter
and referring instead to the "Superintendent of Public Facilities".
2.
That the following sections be amended to read and provide as
follows:
Chapter 8.1.
Erosion and Sedi ment Control.
* * * *
Sec. 8.1-4. Noncontrolled activities.
(a) The provisions of this chapter shall not be construed to apply to
the following:
(l) such minor land-disturbing activities as home gardens and
individual home landscaping, repairs and maintenance work;
(2) individual service connections, construction, installation, or
maintenance of electric and telephone utility lines; installation,
maintenance, or repair of any underground public utility lines
when such activity occurs on an existing hard surfaced road,
street or sidewalk, provided such land-disturbing activity is
confined to the area of the road, street or sidewalk which is
hard surfaced;
(3) septic tank lines or drainage fields unless included in an overall
plan for land-disturbing activity relating to construction of
the building to be served by the septic tank system;
(4) surface or deep mining; exploration or drilling for oil and gas
including the well site, roads and off-site disposal areas;
fV n ]
<i) "j .
3-8-83
.'
.<
(5) neither shall it include tilling, planting, or harvesting of
agricultural, horticultural, or forest crops;
(6) construction, repair or rebuilding of the tracks, rights-of-way,
bridges, communication facilities and other related structures
and facilities of a railroad company;
(7) preparation for single-family residences separately built, unless
in conjunction with multiple construction in subdivision
development;
(8) disturbed land areas for commercial or noncommercial uses of
less than ten thousand square feet in size;
(9) installation of fence and sign posts or telephone and electric
poles and other kinds of posts or poles;
(IO) shore erosion control projects on tidal waters recommended by
the soil and water conservation districts in which the projects
are located or approved by the Marine Resources Commission;
(II) emergency work to protect life, limb or property, and emergency
repairs; provided that if the land-disturbing activity would have
required an approved erosion and sediment control plan, if the
activity were not an emergency, then the land area disturbed
shall be shaped and stabilized in accordance with the requirement
of the local plan-approving authority or the Commission when
applicable.
Sec. 8.1-5.
Enforcement.
Enforcement of this chapter shall rest with the Superintendent of Public
FacilitieS.
Sec. 8.1-6.
Control programs generally.
(a) An erosion and sediment control plan is required under this chapter
and shall detail those methods and techniques to be utilized in the control of
erosion and sediment in accordance with Chapters 3 and 6 of the Virginia State
Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook.
* * * *
Sec. 8.1-7.
Site plans generally.
* * * *
(f) No agency authorized under any other law to issue grading, building,
or other permits for activities involving land disturbing activities may issue
any such permits unless the applicant therefor submits with his application the
approved erosion and sediment control plan or certification of such approved
plan from the Department of Public Facilities as well as certification that such
plan will be followed. The Department, prior to issuance of any permit, shall
require from any applicant a reasonable performance bond, cash escrow, letter
of credit, any combination thereof, or such other legal arrangement acceptable
to the agency, to ensure that measures could be taken by the County, at the
applicant's expense should he fail, after proper notice, within the time specified
to initiate or maintain appropriate conservation action which may be required
of him by such approved plan as a result of his land disturbing activity. Within
sixty days of the completion of the land disturbing activity, such bond, cash
escrow, letter of credit or other legal arrangement, or the unexpended or
unobligated portion thereof, shall be refunded to the applicant or terminated,
as the case may be. These requirements are in addition to all other provisions
of law relating to the issuance of such permits and are not intended to otherwise
affect the requirements for such permits.
<
<
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
3-8-83
r-; Iii ';)
~ 'I:- 4..1
* * * *
Sec. 8.1-8.
Control Measures.
(a) Practices for erosion and sediment control shall meet or exceed the
standards and specifications contained in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment
Control Handbook, Part III, as published and amended through the date of
adoption hereof in haec verba and the Code of Virginia, amended through the
date of adoption-hereof.
* * * *
Sec. 8.1-10.
Elimination of existing conditions; failure to comply with
program or site plan
* * * *
(d) In cases where a site plan has been approved and the applicant fails
to comply with the requirements of such plan the Superintendent of Public
Facilities shall take the necessary steps to insure compliance with the site
plan. If a satisfactory response has not been received from the applicant, the
Superintendent shall give written notice giving the applicant ten (0) days to
resolve the matter. Upon the expiration of the above ten days and upon a
further determination that the requirements have not been complied with, the
Superintendent shall call in the bond, letter of credit, or escrow account that
has been posted to insure that the necessary work shall be done to comply
with the plan.,
* * * *
Sec. 8.1-12.
Control plan amendments
An approved erosion and sediment control plan may be amended upon the
mutual agreement of the Superintendent of the Department of Public Facilities
and the applicant. If the on-site inspection indicates that the approved control
measures are not effective in controlling erosion and sediment, or because of
changed circumstances, the Superintendent of Public Facilities may direct that
the plan be amended to better realize the objectives of the plan.
* * * *
That Section 8.1-16. Application to the Town of Vinton be repealed in
its entirety.
That Section 8.1-17. Fee for filing of plan be renumbered 8.1-16 to read
and provide as follows:
Sec. 8.1-16.
Fee for Filing of plan
The applicant shall pay a filing fee as required by the Board of Supervisors
and set forth by separate resolution such cost to cover the administrative
expense of review and approval of such plan.
This amendment shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage.
Adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Minter, Burton and Johnson
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisors Nickens and Myers
533
3-8-83
.
.
.
-..
IN RE:
CITIZENS COMMENTS
A letter dated February 9, 1983, from Mr. C. L. Fallis, Manager,
Virginia District United States Postal Service, regarding a study as to the
adequacy of the facilities of the Hollins Post Office was received and filed
I
on motion by Supervisor Burton.
A letter dated February 21, 1983, from Dr. James K. Morgan, D.D.S.
supporting development of the industrial site in Hollins was received and filed
on motion by Supervisor Minter.
IN RE:
REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Nickens - was absent.
Supervisor Myers - was absent.
Supervisor Minter - verified that the patching work on Verndale
Road would begin in a couple of weeks.
Supervisor Burton - made an official comment concerning items not
I
included in her agenda packet that were not emergency items that she would
move to delay that particular item until the next meeting. Supervisor Johnson
gave the Board's support to her comment.
Chairman Johnson - inquired about the resolution for the Auxiliary
Police, and the County Attorney told her it would be ready for the next
meeting on March 22.
IN RE: REPORTS OF OFFICERS, DEPARTMENTS, AND COMMITTEES
County Attorney - requested an Executive Session.
County Administrator - Superintendent of the Department of Fiscal
Management, John Chambliss spoke for County Administrator, Donald R.
Flanders, who was not present at the meeting.
He referred to the
I
"Commonwealth of Virginia; Auditor of Public Accounts; Specifications For
Audit; Counties, Cities & Towns" publication which he received and stated
that the audit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1983, must comply with this.
The two major areas of concern are protection of fraud and the single audit
concept, whereby the audit will be performed according to Federal guidelines.
I
I
I
.
.
3-8-83
f""" (, .'J
V t.J
..
.
.
The Data Processing Steering Committee met last week, and it was
discussed that no policy was ever adopted outlining the functions of this
Committee. A charter was prepared by the Committee and approved for
presentation to the Board of Supervisors and the School Board for consideration.
Department of Development - County Planner Rob Stalzer reported briefly
on the status of the Comprehensive Plan. Supervisor Burton expressed her
concern about the delay in the completion date, which has now been projected
for December, 1983. This will make 2t years since the last approved update
had been published. Since Superintendent of Development Timothy W. Gubala
and County Administrator Donald R. Flanders were not present at the meeting,
Supervisor Burton moved to continue this until the next meeting in order to
obtain answers to some questions and to expedite the completion date. The
motion carried by a unanimous voice vote.
Zoning Administrator Claude G. Lee requested the Board's approval for
the preparation of an amendment to the County Code that would allow the
"Use Not Provided For" permits to be approved by the administration rather
than by the Board of Supervisors. This appears to be a routine matter and
would save staff time.
Chairman Johnson asked that the Department's
suggestions be brought back before the Board.
Department of Public Facilities - Superintendent John R. Hubbard presented
the resolution for the use of the Community Room at the Roanoke County
Administration Center and referred to Item (d), which defined "political parties"
according to the Code of Virginia. The County Attorney said that before the
Board voted on this resolution he would like to discuss a legal matter with them.
A letter from the State Water Control Board regarding the Westward
Lake dam was received, which indicated they are unable to take any action
to force the owner into correcting the hazardous conditions that exist because
the dam does not meet the requirements of fifty acre-feet of water. John
Hubbard informed the Board that negotiations are still in progress.
-
!':)' 3 r:-;
~. '..I
3-8-83
.
.
.
..
As a follow up from the meeting of February 22, 1983, Supervisor Minter
moved for adoption of the following Resolution approving Change Order 7 for
construction at North 11 and Fort Lewis fire stations:
I
RESOLUTION NO. 83-44 APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO.
THE COUNTY'S CONTRACT WITH THOR, INC. FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE NORTH 11 AND FORT LEWIS
STATIONS
7 TO
THE
FIRE
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That Change Order No.7 to the County's contract with Thor, Inc.
for the construction of the North 11 and Fort Lewis Fire Stations be, and it
hereby is, approved as herein set forth in the following words and figures, to-wit:
Item No.1:
ADD to each Fire/Rescue Station Garage Lofts for
a lump sum of $5,939.99 for each Station.
Item No.2:
ADD to each Fire/Rescue Station Photoelectric
Controls for the site lighting for the lump sum of
$699.00 total.
I
SUMMARY:
Item No.1:
ADD $ 1l,878.00 ($5,939 ea.Station)
Item No.2:
ADD
699.00 (both Stations)
$ 12,577.00
2. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to
execute this change order on behalf of the County of Roanoke upon a form
approved by the County Attorney.
Adopted by the following roll call vote:
A YES: Supervisors Minter, Burton and Johnson
NA YS: None
ABSENT: Supervisors Nickens, and Myers
A report was made requesting a transfer of $15,000 for the emergency
I
repairs to the Starkey Sewage Treatment Plant. Since there was no appropriation
resolution prepared, Supervisor Minter moved that this be carried over until
the next meeting. The motion carried by a unanimous voice vote.
I
I
I
" " "
3-8-83
5:3()
"
Two easements remain to be obtained that have not been negotiated for
the Glade Creek Easement construction. John Hubbard would like to proceed
with filing condemnation suits in order that construction may begin. Supervisor
Minter moved for the following prepared resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 83-45 AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE
COUNTY ATTORNEY TO INSTITUTE CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDINGS TO ACQUIRE CERTAIN EASEMENTS WANTED AND
NEEDED BY THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A CERTAIN INTERCEPTOR SEWER LINE IN THE COUNTY OF
ROANOKE AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
TO SEEK A RIGHT-OF-ENTRY UPON PROPERTY ON BEHALF OF
THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, ITS EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS
PENDING A FINAL RESOLUTION OF SAID CONDEMNATION
PROCEEDING
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
as follows:
1. That the County of Roanoke has determined that a certain
interceptor sewer project within Roanoke County;, i.e., the Glade Creek Sewer
Project, is necessary in order to promote the health and general welfare of
the citizens of Roanoke County; and
2. That certain easements are wanted and needed by the County of
Roanoke in order to proceed with said sewer interceptor project and a bona
fide offer to acquire same has been made, which said bona fide offer has been
refused; and the aforesaid easements wanted and needed by the County of
Roanoke are more particularly described as follows, to-wit:
(a) A 15' permanent easement across the property of the Lester C. Hutts
Estate, the center line of which is described as follows:
Beginning at an iron pipe on the northwest boundary of Norfolk &
Western Railway, which point is common corner to Lots 4 and 5 of
the Berkley Estate; thence N. 43 deg. 05 min. 17 sec. W. 417.24 feet
to the actual beginning point of said center line; thence N. 37 deg.
19 min. 03 sec. E. 235.10 feet to a point; thence N. 54 deg. 47 min.
24 sec. E. 496.93 feet to a point; thence N. 51 deg. 35 min. 50 sec.
E. 229.56 feet to a point in the boundary between Lots 5 and 6 of
the Berkley Estate, which point is N. 45 deg. 12 min. 59 sec. W.
306.73 feet from the point of intersection of Lots 5 and 6 of the
Berkley Estate and the Norfolk & Western Railway, as shown on
plat dated January 13, 1982 made by Guffey, Hubble and McGhee,
P.C., which is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Together with a 35' wide construction easement as shown on a
certain plat prepared by the Engineering Division of the Roanoke
County Department of Public Facilities.
The fair market value of the aforesaid interest to be acquired is
$1,188.00.
r)/ ,~ ~
f~_ *...1 i
3-8-83
.
.
.
.
(b) Two (2) 15' permanent easements across the property of Joe Lynwood
Grissom and Joyce M. Grissom, husband and wife, the center lines of which
are described as follows:
Easement #1
Beginning at a point in the northwest boundary of Norfolk &: Western
Railway which point is N. 15 deg. 18 min. 50 sec. E. 253.88 feet
from the common corner of said right-of-way and property of parties
of the first part; thence, N. 76 deg. 21 min. 35 sec. W. 44.99 feet to
a point; thence, N. 17 deg. 58 min. 37 sec. E. 440.18 feet to a point;
thence N. 68 deg. 59 min. 33 sec. W. 130.41 feet to a point designated
as manhole #38; thence N. 21 deg. 07 min. 51 sec. E. 414.02 feet to
a point; thence N. 21 deg. 07 min. 51 sec. E. 62.68 feet to a point
in the boundary between properties of parties of the first part and
Howard Feiertag, which point is S. 53 deg. 07 min. 48 sec. E. 2.80
feet from a pin in said boundaries.
Easement #2
Beginning at a point in boundary between properties of parties of
first part and Ronald C. and Brenda S. Brooks, said point being N.
42 deg. 45 min. 00 sec. E. 23.81 feet from common corner of said
properties; thence S. 71 deg. 55 min. 52 sec. E. 23.27 feet to a
point; thence S. 56 deg. 49 min. 33 sec. E. 204.98 feet to a point;
thence S. 44 deg. 24 min. 33 sec. E. 247.61 feet to a point designated
as manhole #38, both easements as shown on plat dated February
10, 1982, by Guffey, Hubbell and McGhee, P.C., which is attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
Together with two (2) 35' wide construction easements as shown on
a certain plat prepared by the Engineering Division of the Roanoke
County Department of Public Facilities.
The fair market value of the aforesaid interest to be acquired is
$1,347.00.
3. That the County of Roanoke, in order to proceed with the Glade
Creek Sewer Project in an expeditious and orderly fashion needs to immediately
enter upon the hereinabove described property and the County Attorney, in
the petition for condemnation, is authorized and directed to seek a right-of-
entry as made and provided by law and in furtherance thereof is authorized
and directed to pay into Court the hereinabove set forth fair market value of
each said interest to be acquired, the same to be placed in an interest bearing
account for the benefit of each said property owner pending a final determination
of said proceeding or other order of the Court.
Adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Minter, Burton, and Johnson
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisors Nickens and Myers
. .
I
I
I
I
I
I
3-8-83
S :3 $\1.
~...:.
.
School Board - John Chambliss presented a School Board Resolution which
requested $50,000 be transferred by the County Board of Supervisors to offset
the cost of 1982 - 1983 textbooks. John Chambliss recommended that the
resolution be received and filed since this amount is already part of the Board's
unappropriated balance.
On motion by Supervisor Minter, the following
resolution was received and filed:
RESOLUTION REQUESTING APPLICATION OF UNENCUMBERED
BALANCE IN THE 1981-82 SCHOOL OPERATING FUND.
WHEREAS, the County School Board of Roanoke County by its resolution
dated June 30, 1982 requested an appropriation transfer by the Board of
Supervisors of Roanoke County in the amount of $50,000.00 from the
unencumbered balance of the 1981-82 School Operating Fund to the 1982-83
Textbook Fund for the purpose of meeting the cost of the reading textbook
adoption; and
WHEREAS, it was deemed advisable by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke
County to stay action on the request until completion of the audit of funds
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1982; and
WHEREAS, said audit has been completed determining a balance of
$206.919.00 in the School Operating Fund on June 30, 1982;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County School Board of
Roanoke County, recognizing its financial situation for the 1983-84 school year,
due primarily to the separation by the City of Salem from the Roanoke County
School System, has concurred in delaying certain textbook adoptions until the
1984-85 school year and is, therefore, on motion of H. David Rowe and duly
seconded, requesting that the unencumbered balance of $206,919.00 be held in
abeyance by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County for application to
the 1983-84 School Operating budget.
The foregoing was adopted by the following recorded vote of the Roanoke
County School Board:
AYES:
Mrs. Barbara Chewning, Mrs. Charlsie Pafford, H. David Rowe, C.
Wayne Taliaferro, James A. Wymer
NA YS: None
f"-' Q 9
a ~_.>> ..
3-8-83
:-::-~
IN RE:
APPOINTMENTS
On motion by Supervisor Minter and carried by a unanimous voice
vote, Mrs. Mary Alice Hutcherson, from the Hollins Magisterial District, was
appointed to serve a one-year term to the Court Service Unit Advisory
Council/Youth and Family Services Advisory Board. This one-year term is
effective March 22, 1983 and ends March 22, 1984.
On motion by Supervisor Minter and carried by a unanimous voice
vote, Miss Toni Herron was reappointed as a Youth Member from the Hollins
Magisterial District for a one-year term to the Court Service Unit Advisory
Council/Y outh and Family Services Advisory Board. This one-year term is
effective March 22, 1983 and ends March 22, 1984.
IN RE:
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 8:31 p.m. Supervisor Burton moved to go into Executive Session
pursuant to the Code of Virginia, Section 2.l-344(a), (1), (2) and (6) to discuss
personnel, real estate, and legal matters. Motion carried by unanimous voice
vote. Supervisor Nickens arrived at 9 :00 p.m.
IN RE: RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
At 9:15 p.m. Supervisor Nickens moved to return to Open Session.
Motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
On motion by Supervisor Minter the following resolution concerning
use of the Community Room at the Roanoke County Administration Center was
adopted. The amendment to the prepared resolution was to delete paragraph
#l.(d) concerning the definition of "political parties".
RESOLUTION NO. 83-43 ESTABLISHING A POLICY AND
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO
ESTABLISH AND COLLECT RENTAL FEE AND CHARGES FOR
OUTSIDE USE OF THE RCAC COMMUNITY ROOM
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
as follows:
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
3-8-83
540
.
n
1. That the policy of the Board relating to use of the RCAC Community
Room shall be to permit such use limited to the following groups, to-wit:
(a) Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County
(b) County agencies, departments, committees, and commissions
(c) State and federal government agencies, providing informational
programs for area citizens
2. That the County Administrator be, and he hereby is, authorized to
establish and collect rental fees and charges for outside use of the RCAC
Community Room taking into consideration personnel costs, utility cost and
set-up cost using generally a base charge and hourly rate criteria; and
3. That the County Administrator shall, on behalf of Roanoke County,
execute a written lease agreement with each such outside user upon form
approved by the County Attorney.
Adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Minter, Burton and Johnson
NA YS: None
ABSTAIN: Supervisor Nickens (was not present for discussion)
ABSENT: Supervisor Myers
The Board also concurred with the fees suggested in the report by
the Administrator.
IN RE:
CONSENT AGENDA
Item #8 - Dr. Nickens wanted to be sure all properties could carry
a minimum acceptable price. Dr. Nickens moved for adoption of the following
prepared resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 83.40-b ACCEPTING A CERTAIN BID MADE TO
THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE FOR AUCTIONEER SERVICES ON
CERTAIN PARCELS OF ROANOKE COUNTY SURPLUS PROPERTY
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
as follows:
1. That that certain bid of Ray D. Miller Auction Company on the
basis of their bid as follows:
Flal
If... ._'... .
3-8-83
.
. .....
... .. .
... .
.., -".. "..... " . . . . ... ..
,. .. qq.
..... ..
.....
. . .... . ..... . ..... .. ..... ....... .....
. ..... .. .....-' ...
.......... .... - "'~~........
...... ..........
396 of the next
$ 50,000.00
50,000.00
100,000.00
496 of the first
296 of the amount over
being the lowest and best bid received for auctioneer services on certain
parcels of Roanoke County surplus property, upon all and singular the terms
I
and conditions of the invitation to bid, the specifications of the County of
Roanoke, the bidder's proposals, and the provisions of this resolution, be, and
the same hereby is, ACCEPTED; and
2. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to
enter into a contract upon a form approved by the County Attorney for this
service; and
3. That all other bids for this service are hereby rejected and the
County Clerk is directed to so notify such bidders and express the County's
appreciation for the submission of their bids.
Adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Nickens, Minter, Burton and Johnson
NAYS:
None
I
ABSENT: Supervisor Myers
Item #9 - John Chambliss explained the process of competitive
negotiation for professional services and John Hubbard explained the technical
services required for the project. Supervisor Burton moved for the following
prepared resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 83-40.c ACCEPTING A CERTAIN PROPOSAL
MADE TO THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE FOR PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE ROANOKE
RIVER INTERCEPTOR PROJECT
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia,
as follows:
I. That that certain proposal of Mattern and Craig Consulting Engineers
I
in the amount of $8,000, being the best proposal received for professional
engineering services in connection with the Roanoke River Interceptor Project,
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 resolution be, and the same hereby is, ACCEPTED; and
I
I
I
,
3-8-83
5 /i ~2!
2. That the County Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to
enter into a contract upon a form approved by the County Attorney for this
project; and
3. That all other bids for this project are hereby rejected and the
County Clerk is directed to so notify such bidders and express the County's
appreciation for the submission of their bids.
Adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Supervisors Nickens, Minter, Burton and Johnson
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Supervisor Myers
IN RE: REPORTS AND INQUIRIES OF BOARD MEMBERS
Supervisor Nickens - recommended that one member of the Board
of Supervisors be assigned to each Constitutional Officer to serve as a liaison.
All Board Members had been contacted except Mr. Myers.
Recommended To
-
Supervisor Johnson Commissioner of the Revenue
Supervisor Burton Treasurer
Supervisor Myers Com monweal th Attorney
Supervisor Minter Sheriff
Supervisor Nickens Clerk of Circuit Court
Supervisor Nickens moved for the above mentioned assignments, and
the motion carried by a unanimous voice vote.
Chairman Johnson suggested that at some later date a Board Member
or Committee could be assigned to a Department or major area.
IN RE:
EXECUTIVE SESSION
At 9:32 p.m. Supervisor Burton requested an Executive Session to
discuss a legal matter pursuant to the Code of Virginia Section 2.1-344(a), (6).
J\\ G-~~
5 "J: D
3-8-83
IN RE:
OPEN SESSION
At 10:00 Supervisor Nickens moved to return to Open Session. Motion
carried by a unanimous voice vote. The following items were discussed:
1. Supervisor Minter requested John Hubbard to develop a packet
of information on Orlando and Palm Valley Roads.
I
2. Status of Minutes requested from Deputy Clerk.
3. Complete correspondence package should be given to the Board
of Supervisors on items given to them (incoming and outgoing).
4. Supervisor Nickens questioned Board of Supervisors' budget and
telephone lines.
5. Garbage customers.
6. Chairman Johnson instructed Supervisor Minter, County
Administrator and County Attorney to finish report on dog pound.
7. Deputy Clerk to notify Supervisors of upcoming meetings.
8. County Attorney instructed to hold all resolutions that come in
past agenda deadline.
I
9. Supervisor Nickens submitted a sexual harassment policy for
County review to John Hubbard.
10. Documentation of Division Heads under Superintendents and
evaluations.
IN RE:
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the Board, Supervisor Nickens
moved for adjournment at 10:48 p.m., and the motion carried by a unanimous
voice vote.
I