8/24/1982 - Regular
I
I
I
8-24-82
98
.,
Roanoke County Board of Supervisor
Salem-Roanoke County Civic Center
Salem, Virginia
August 24, 1982
The Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County, Virginia, met this day in
open session at the Salem-Roanoke County Civic Center in Salem, Virginia,
this being the fourth Tuesday and the second regular meeting of the month
of August, 1982.
HEMBERS PRESENT:
Chairman Athena E. Burton and Supervisors Harry C. Nickens
Robert E. Myers, Gary J. Minter, and May W. Johnson.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
IN RE:
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Burton called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. Supervisor
Johnson immediately moved to go into executive session, pursuant to Section
2.1-344 (a) (1), (2), and (6) of the Code of Virginia, to discuss personnel,
real estate, and legal matters. Her motion was adopted by unanimous voice
vote.
,I
IN RE:
RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
At 7:00 p.m. the Supervisors returned to open session on a motion
made by Supervisors Myers. The motion carried. Chairman Burton told
those present that the Supervisors had been meeting since 4:00 p.m.
reviewing the working drawings for the new courthouse facility and had been
in executive session since 6:15 p.m. discussing real estate and legal
matters.
IN RE:
INVOCATION/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Rabbi Gerry H. Walter of Temple Emanuel offered the invocation,
and the pledge of allegiance to the flag was recited in unison by those
present.
",..--
8-24-82
99
..
IN RE:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Supervisor Johnson moved that the minutes of the Supervisors'
regular meeting held on July 27th and their adjourned meeting held August 2nd,
1982, be approved as submitted. Her motion was adopted by a unanimous
I
voice vote.
IN RE:
INFORHATION ITEHS
On motion by Supervisor Myers, adopted by a unanimous voice vote,
the following items were ordered received and filed:
(1) Letter from J. P. Saunders of the U. S. Postal Service
advising he cannot recommend establishment of a Post Office in Southwest
County.
(2) Two letters from the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation listing roads accepted into the State Secondary System.
(3) The accounts paid during July, 1982.
I
IN RE:
PUBLIC HEARINGS
APPLICATION OF ROBERT W. AND LINDA D. KELLEY FOR A *
HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT TO ALLOW OPERATION OF A *
BEAUTY SHOP IN THEIR HOME AT 1038 STARMOUNT AVENUE * CONTINUED
N.W. IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. *
Mr. and Mrs. Kelley were present for this public hearing. Super-
visor Myers asked if the shop was to be operated in their basement and
whether they had a building permit to finish the basement and install their
pool and whether a final electrical inspection had been made. Supervisor
Myers said he had been advised by the Building Inspector that inspections
were not allowed to be made. Mr. Kelley said he had finished the basement
without getting a building permit for that work or installation of the pool.
Chairman Burton asked how much time would be spent in the shop.
I
Mrs. Kelley replied it would be three days --. Uednesdays, Thursdays, and
Fridays. Chairman Burton then said that beauty shop operators had told her
there is plenty of part-time work available. Mrs. Kelley replied that she
has a young daughter, her husband is going on the night shift, and that she
wants to be able to stay at home with her dau8hter and continue to
-
lll.....lL
~
8-24-82
100
contribute to the family income. This would not be possible in a commercial
shop because she has no choice of hours. Supervisor Johnson said she didn't
know shops stayed open at night and asked Mrs. Kelley if she couldn't
I
arrange to have daylight hours.
Supervisor Minter asked about shops currently operating in the
County and whether they have to have bathroom facilities. Supervisor
Johnson asked if home shops must meet health standards.
Chairman Burton asked for a motion to deviate from the prepared
agenda to go to a report prepared by Claude G. Lee, Zoning Administrator,
on the differences between commercial beauty shops and home-occupation beauty
shops. Supervisor Johnson so moved and the motion was adopted by a unanimous
voice vote.
Mr. Lee advised that his report was prepared at the direction of
the Supervisors on August 10. He read aloud the differences in rates for
water and sewer service; Supervisor Johnson asked about inspections. He
replied that the only "health" inspections are made by the State and are
I
usually only for licensing. Chairman Burton commented that there was a
significant cost advantage to home-occupation shops. Mr. Lee agreed and
said these differences include other kinds of home occupations vs. commercial.
Supervisor Myers asked if Mr. Lee considered the County ordinances vague on
home occupations. He agreed, but advised that a report prepared by the
American Society of Planning Officials and entitled "Report on Planning for
Home Occupations" indicated that these are very difficult to control. Copies
of the County's home-occupation ordinance were distributed to the Supervisors.
Chairman Burton said she was concerned for the people engaged in
full-time businesses and paying licenses and fees which put them at a
competetive disadvantage. She felt the County should protect those in
business and had reservations about the County's current procedure and
I
suggested stricter guidelines. Supervisor Minter asked the County Attorney
if there was any legal rationale for the differences between commercial and
home occupations. The Attorney replied that to answer this, he needed to
address the purposes of home occupations and why the Supervisors grant
permits. He said he did not believe it was intend@ to allow commercial
enterprise in homes; he said the basis for granting a home occupation
permit should be a demonstrable hardship. Chairman Burton asked what is a
i-
I
I
I
I
I~
~
8-24-82
101
.
.
.
hardship. The Attorney suggested someone very seve~ly handicapped or a
person who had been doing something in the home for which there was no real
. 'I
commercial demand or a person who cannot get to the marketplace to ply his
Supervisor Nickens said that given the current ordinance, which
I
trade.
specifies that home occupations are to be incidental to the residential use
of the property, he did not feel the requests before the Supervisors tonight
could be denied. Chairman Burton asked for further discussion. Supervisor
Johnson moved that the home occupation ordinance be studied, strengthened,
and specifics added which would put teeth into it. Supervisor Minter amended
her motion by moving that the ordinance should be amended to encompass
safety and health. The amended motion was adopted by a unanimous voice vote.
The next speaker was Mr. Mike Bailey, who identified himself as a
resident of northwest County on Lula Avenue. He said the community
residents and future residents have a right to know their homes will remain
residential and that the area won't become a business area, that granting
this permit could be an opening for other businesses to come into the
I
community. lie also said he was against any business coming into a residentia
area, unless in the case of hardship, because of traffic safety.
Ann Bailey was present in opposition. She advised she owns a
beauty shop on Peters Creek Road and lives at 7514 Deer Branch Road. She
then read a prepared statement. She reminded the Supervisors that she was
present at their last meeting and was reiterating the concerns she expressed
then. She also said Mrs. Kelley was already doing business and had been for
some time. Mrs. Bailey asked if home-operated businesses go before a zoning
board; she was told they do not. She then asked if the Kelley property is
not rezoned, why is the Kelleys' business different from the property Mrs.
Bailey had to have rezoned; Mrs. Bailey felt it right to rezone for a
Timothy W. Gubala asked for how long home--operated businesses are given
I
ho~e business just as a commercial establishment is rezoned. County Planner
permits; he replied it was for two years and that this was standard practice.
He was then asked what happened at the end of the two years. Supervisor
Johnson replied that the matter caTIe back to the Supervisors for review.
Zoning Administrator Claude G. Lee reminded the Supervisors that the County
-- Code had been changed and that home occupation permits can be
~I
8-2Lf-82
102
--
administratively renewed instead of coming to the Board of Supervisors.
Mrs. Bailey's next question was, if a business is dropped, does anyone inspect
to see if the business is being illegally conducted. Mrs Bailey's specific
I
objections were that Mrs. Kelley was in business and had been and was taking
Mrs. Bailey's customers. Mrs. Bailey said that when Mrs. Kelley worked for
her, if she had requested it, her hours of work could have been changed.
Supervisor Minter asked Mrs. Bailey if she would get with the
County Administrator and the planning staff when they commence study of
changes in the home occupation ordinance. Mrs. Bailey replied that she
would.
The next speaker was Betty Fuller of 6064 Loch Haven Drive, who
was also at the Supervisors' August 10th meeting and who agreed with Mrs.
Bailey that the situation is unfair.
Mr. Bill Bailey spoke next. He identified himself as a resident
of Deer Branch Road, less than 200 yards from Mrs. Kelley. He reminded those
I
present that Mr. Kelley had admitted he did not get a building permit for the
work necessary to put in the beauty shop and asked what would have been done
to him (Mr. Bailey) if he added onto his commercial building without a permit.
Mr. Kelley said electrical inspection and wiring were done at the time his
home was built; the only "building" he did was putting up some sheets of
paneling; the plumbing was roughed in in his basement when the house was
built. Mrs. Kelley said she had not begun operation yet. She said to
accommodate an occasional customer she had had at Mrs. Bailey's, she would
take them, but she did not charge.
Supervisor Nickens said if individuals were aware of people
operating businesses out of their homes, if they were really concerned, it
I
I
!
should be reported to some County official. He said that this operation wouldi
be incidental to the main use of the property as a residence and moved that I
I
i
;
,
I
I
the permit be approved for two years.
Supervisor Myers made a substitute motion, saying he did not
agree with Supervisor Nickens. Supervisor Myers said he felt when a home
had been improved to the extent this one had been and the property value
enhanced, a building permit was necessary. He said the work had been done
and the building permit should have been gotten. He also said that about
a year and a half or two years ago, a request for a home occupation in the
I
I-
I
i
I~
r
8-24-82
103
.
house next to the Kelleys was denied and that he had had calls opposing
opening of a beauty shop on this street. He said the County laws do not
govern home occupations as they should and moved that the request be
continued until the staff has studied and investigated the ordinance as
directed. Mr. Kelley told Supervisor Myers there were no other hair dressers
on their street. Supervisor }lyers replied he was sure there was.
Supervisor Minter wanted the matter held over until at least the
building inspections could be made. Supervisor Myers's motion to continue
the request was adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Myers, Minter, and Johnson
NAYS:
Supervisors Nickens and Burton.
Supervisor Nickens then pointed out that Lynn Creasy's application
for a home-occupation beauty shop had already been continued for two weeks.
APPLICATION OF RALPH W. FOSTER FOR A HOME OCCUPATION *
PEIDiIT TO ALLOW OPERATION OF AN INCOME TAX PRE PARA- *
TION BUSINESS IN HIS HOME AT 4040 TRAIL DRIVE, N.E. * APPROVED
(NORTH OFF ROUTE 460 EAST) IN THE HOLLINS DISTRICT. *
Mr. Foster was present for this public hearing. Supervisor Minter
asked if just one person at a time would be coming to the Foster home. Mr.
Foster replied he retired recently from the Internal Revenue Service and
wanted to get enough clients to keep busy about two days a week. Mostly
he would pick up and deliver at their place of business, but has parking
available. He further advised there would be no more than two people
(clients at his home) at any time. No one was present in opposition, and
Supervisor Minter moved that the permit be granted for two years. His
notion was adopted by a unanimous voice vote.
PETITION OF THOMAS F. BEASON, ET AL, REQUESTING *
REZONING FROM B-2 TO M-l OF 5.942 ACRES ON THE SOUTH *
SIDE OF U.S. ROUTE 11/460 AT GLENVAR IN THE CATAvffiA *
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. REZONING IS REQUESTED TO PER}iIT
COnSTRUCTION OF A WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTORSHIP FOR * APPROVED
l~:OLESALE GOODS. *
Mr. Samuel L. Lionberger, Jr. was present as spokesman for this
~. uctition. 1.e advised the proposed construction would be an addition to the
I
~II
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
..~
8-24-82
10/1
Blue Ridge Beveridge Company facilities and showed the Supervisors a site
plan. No one was present to oppose the request, and Supervisor Myers moved
the rezoning be granted. His motion was adopted by a unanimous voice vote.
I
FINAL ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDERED that the aforementioned tract of land,
more particularly described below, be rezoned from Business District B-2 to
Industrial District M-l.
I
PARCEL I
BEGINNING at an iron pin on the easterly side of the right-
of-way of U. S. Route No. 11, corner to the property of
Roger E. Vest; thence with the easterly side of U. S. Route
No. 11 the following courses and distances: (1) with a curve
to the right having a radius of 1454.91 feet, a chord of
N. 220 30' 21" E., a chord distance of 133.64 feet; (2)
N. 300 16' 18" E., 97.27 feet; (3) with a curve to the right
having a radius of 1449.91 feet, a chord of N. 390 06' 44" E.,
a chord distance of 498.04 feet to an iron pin; thence
leaving the easterly side of U. S. Route No. 11, S. 460 06'
08" E., 340.08 feet to an iron pin on the westerly right-
of-way of the N & W Railway; ~hence with the right-of-way
of the N & W. Railway a curve to the left having a radius of
1960.55 feet, a chord of S. 350 17' 08" W., a chord distance
of 640.42 feet to an iron pin; thence leaving the westerly
right-of-way of the N & W. Railway, N. 600 22' 04" W.,
333.04 feet to an iron pin; the PLACE OF BEGINNING, con-
taining 5.642 acres according to a plat of survey by Jack
G. Bess, C.L.S., dated October 19, 1981.
,
PARCEL II
BEGINNING at a point of intersection of the northerly side
of State Secondary Road #612 (known as Bohon Road) with the
westerly right-of-way line of the Norfolk & Western Railway
Company's property; thence along said northerly side of said
Bohon Road, N. 620 06' W. 134.5 feet to a point; thence
leaving said road, and with the easterly line of the property
previously conveyed by W. O. Goodwin and wife to M. H.
Carter, N. 210 27' E. 162 feet to a point on the south line
of "Hurt" property; thence with said "Hurt" property line,
S. 620 06' E. 134.5 feet to a point on said right-of-way
line of the N & W Railway Co. property; thence with a curved
line to left (fenced) the chord of which is S. 210 27' W.
162 feet to the place of BEGINNING; and CONTAINING one-half
(1/2) acre.
BE IT FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be transmitted to
I
the County Planner and that he be and hereby is directed to reflect that
i
;
change on the official zoning maps of the County.
:
\
PETITION OF LEWIS-GALE CLINIC, INC. REQUESTING REZONING*
FROM RE TO B-1 of a portion of a 6.592-ACRE TRACT *
PRESENTLY OWNED BY EMILY RIERSON JONES AND LOCATED *
ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF U. S. ROUTE 221 AT ITS INTER- *
SECTION WITH THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF ROUTE 694 IN WINDSOR*
HILLS MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. REZONING IS REQUESTED TO *
\
L-
;
I~I
"..-
105
8-24-82
I J PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-DOCTOR, FAMILY MEDICAL* APPROVED
PRACTICE OFFICE AND CLINIC. *
Mr. Daniel F. Layman, Jr., attorney, was present as spokesman on
behalf of the petitioner.
None of the Supervisors had questions for Mr.
Layman. He advised the facility would be a new, one-story, wood-frame
I
building. It was anticipated that an average of 22 patients a day would be
seen, perhaps increasing to around 40. No one was present in opposition.
Supervisor Johnson moved that the rezoning be permitted, and the motion was
adopted by a unanimous voice vote.
FINAL ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the Zoning
Ordinances of Roanoke County, as amended, be and they hereby are, further
amended to reclassify and rezone from Residential District RE to Office
and Residential District B-1 the following tract or parcel of land:
Lying between U.S. Route 221 and a line 200 feet
northwest from and parallel with Route 221, at
the intersection of the northwest side of U.S.
Route 221 and the southwest side of State Route
694, containing 2.3 acres, more or less, and being
the southeasterly portion of a 6.592 acre tract
presently owned by Emily Rierson Jones and shown
on a plat entitled "Plat prepared for Lewis-Gale
Clinic, being property of Emily Rierson Jones (D.B.
531, pg. 163) situate along U.S. Route 221," made
by Buford T. Lumsden & Associates, P.C., dated
June 17, 1982.
I
The rezoning hereby effected shall, however, be subject to the
following conditions: (a) that the tract as rezoned will be used only for
the purpose of constructing and operating a medical clinic and physicians'
office facilities, and (b) that no entrance to the tract will be constructed
or established from State Route 694.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that this Resolution and Order
be spread on the official records of the Board of County Supervisors of
Roanoke County by the Clerk of this Board and that the Clerk further
furnish a certified copy of this Resolution and Order to the Secretary
I
of the Planning Commission of Roanoke County Virginia, who is hereby
directed to change all official zoning maps of Roanoke County to reflect
the rezoning ordered herein and that additional certified copies be sent
to counsel for the petitioners herein.
I'
I'
-I'
ll...1:
8-24-82
1 U 6 I
I
PETITION OF BARBARA J. BOGAR, M.D. REQUESTING *
REZONING FROM R-l TO A-l OF A HALF-ACRE LOT *
LOCATED AT 4903 COLONIAL AVENUE, S.W. IN THE *
CAVE SPRING DISTRICT. REZONING IS REQUES'lED SO ~~
DR. BOGAR MAY USE THE EXISTING DWELLING AS HER *
PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND OPERATE HER MEDICAL OFFICE *
THEREIN. *
PETITION
WITHDRAHN
The spokesman for this request was Mr. S. Ronald Owens, real estate
broker.
He advised that Dr. Bogar is a chiropractor and directed the
Supervisors attention to the list of conditions proffered and commented
that the conditions submitted applied only to the professional office not
the entire dwelling. He also pointed out that the Planning Commission
recommendation suggested that no more than three cars be permitted. The
County Attorney said the proffered conditions are what must be considered
and suggested the Supervisors consider carefully condition number 3, "The
property is only to be used as a professional medical, legal, engineering,
and/or architectural office conducted within the dwelling by the owner/
occupant." Mr. Owens said he referred to Article II, Section 21-15 (5) in
preparing the proffered conditions and that he was instructed to do so by
I
a member of the County Planner's staff. The County Attorney was asked if
condition number 3 could be dropped; he replied it could not because the
conditions were voluntarily proffered. Supervisor Johnson asked that this
petition be continued. The County Attorney advised that once the conditions
were proffered and the public hearing was under way, they could not be
changed. He suggested that the wording of condition number 3 should have
been that the property would be used only for a professional medical office
conducted within the property by the owner.
Supervisor Johnson then suggested to Mr. Owens that he withdraw
the petition for rezoning so Dr. Bogar would not have to wait for a year
before re-petitioning. Chairman Burton suggested Mr. Owens check with the
County Attorney or planning staff for the correct procedure. Mr. Owens
I
then asked to be allowed to withdraw the petition. Supervisor Myers moved
that Mr. Owens be allowed to withdraw the petition without prejudice. The
motion was adopted by a unanimous voice vote.
{-
!
i
!
l~
,.-
8-24-82
107
~
PETITION OF ALBERT AND NADINE A. SALEM REQUESTING *
REZONING FROM B-1 TO B-2 OF 0.714 ACRE AT THE NORTH*
WEST CORNER OF U.S. ROUTE 11/460 AND ROUTE 645 WEST*
OF SALEM IN THE CATAWBA MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. *
REZONING IS REQUESTED TO PERMIT OPERATION OF AN *
AUTOMOTIVE PARTS STORE ON THE PROPERTY. *
APPROVED
Mr. Salem was present as spokesman in this matter. No one was
I
present in opposition, and Chairman Burton called for questions from the
Supervisors. Supervisor Minter asked what the property was currently being
used for; Mr. Salem told him it had been a restaurant for years. Supervisor
Myers moved that the rezoning be granted for the purpose stated. His motion
was adopted by a unanimous voice vote.
FINAL ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED that the aforementioned tract of
land, more particularly described below, be rezoned from Business District
B-1 to Business District B-2.
BEGINNING at a point on the north side of U.S.
Route 11 and 460 and the northeast corner of property
now or formerly owned by Gertrude C. Hill, thence with
the easterly dividing line of Hill, N. 210 53' W. 175.0
feet to a point; thence leaving Hill N. 680 07' E.
177.9 feet to a point on the west side of Virginia Secondary
Route 645; thence S. 210 53' E. 175.0 feet to U.S. Route
11 and 460; thence with the northerly line of U. S. Route
11 and 460 S. 660 32' 20" W. 177.97 feet to the place of
BEGINNING; and containing 0.714 acre according to a plat
of survey made by T. P. Parker & Son, Engineers and
Surveyors, Ltd., dated June 30, 1982.
I
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.
Supervisor Minter moved to suspend, temporarily, agen~item B-7
(amendments to County sign regulations) and go to items B-8 and 9. His
!'
motion was adopted by a unanimous voice vote.
~ ;
I
APPLICATION OF LYNN R. CREASY FOR A l:mm OCCUPATION 7~
PERMIT TO CONDUCT A ONE-CHAIR BEAUTY SHOP IN HER
HOME AT 5571 CAPITO STREET, N.E. IN THE HOLLINS
~1AGISTERIAL DISTRICT.
* Continued to
,'t September 28,
* 1982.
This request had been continued from the Supervisors' August 10
meeting, and ~1rs. Creasy was again present for the hearing; however, the
-
.....
I
I
I
8-24-82
108
County Attorney advised that the only appropriate action would be for this
matter to be continued until the study and investigation previously
directed to be made had been completed.
Mr. Alex Apostolou, attorney, was also present on behalf of this
request and felt the hearing should go forward. Supervisor Minter said
the Supervisors did not have enough information to consider the item at
this time and asked Mrs. Creasy if any building inspection had been made
during the last two weeks; she replied not. Mr. Apostolou said it was unfair
to ask the petitioner to come back repeatedly. Supervisor Nickens felt
the petitioner was not correctly advised at the previous hearing of what
would be required and felt the petitioner should not be penalized because
the Board has decided the home occupation ordinance should be revised.
Supervisor Minter moved that this request be continued until the
last Board meeting in September and that a building inspection be made before
that meeting. The motion was adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Myers, Minter, and Johnson.
NAYS:
Supervisors Nickens and Burton.
County Attorney, James E. Buchholtz reminded the Supervisors that
the ordinance amending the provisions of the County Code relating to
shooting matches was before them at their August 10 meeting pursuant to
their direction that the Code be revised to provide for shooting matches
l
'I
'I
i
I
'I
I
i
I
!
,I
I
under certain circumstances. He advised that two questions were raised at
the August 10 meeting and that both have been addressed in this re-drafted
ordinance. He also advised that the last section has been discussed with
and received approval from the County Sheriff. Supervisor Johnson moved
for adoption of the following prepared ordinance:
ORDINANCE NO. 3216 M1ENDING ARTICLE III. SHOOTING 11ATCliES
OF ChAPTER 4. AHUSEMENTS OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CO~
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
I:
I
Virginia, as follows:
1. That Chapter 4. Amusements, Article III. Shooting Matches be
:i
I
I
I
I
amended to read and provide as follows:
,...-
109
8-24-82
....
Article III. Shooting Hatches
i
I Sec. 4-5. Definitions.
A shooting match is a competitive, outdoor event utilizing fire-
I
arms.
Sec. 4-6. Use of rifles or pistols prohibited.
,
I
I
i
I
;
,
i
"
~
r
I
I
I
1
,
I
I
I
j
i
I
I
I
i
j
i
It shall be unlawful for any person to hold and operate any outdoor
shooting match within the county at which shooting match rifles, shotguns,
and/or pistols are discharged unless a special use permit has been
obtained from the Board of Supervisors in accordance with Chapter 21,
Zoning, of this Code.
Sec. 4-7. Conditions governing shooting matches.
The following conditions shall be observed in the issuance of any
special use permit for a shooting match:
a) The location of the shooting match must be such that the
target area and impact area are not located in such a way to endanger
citizens and property, and the person or organization conducting such
shotting match shall provide appropriate barriers to provide maximum
protection to the public.
I
b) The shooting match area must be defined on the ground by
warning signs every fifty (50) feet to insure that citizens will not
stray into the range area.
c) A site plan to scale of the shooting match range showing the
firing points, target area, and access to the area shall be submitted.
Sec. 4-8. Sheriff's report required.
A written investigative report from the Sheriff of Roanoke County
with specific recommendations shall be submitted before the Board of
Supervisors shall issue any special use permit for any outdoor shooting
!i match.
I,
I,
This amendment to be in full force and effect from and after its
passage.
Ii
Adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Supervisors Nickens, Myers, Minter, Johnson, and Burton.
NAYS:
None
I
-
~I
..,
8-24-82
110
REQUEST OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION *
TO AJ1END VARIOUS SECTIONS OF ARTICLE XVII (SIGN *
REGULATIONS) OF THE COUNTY CODE IN ORDER TO CONTROL *
THE LOCATION IN ZONING DISTRICTS, NUMBER ON SITE, *
AND TO SET A REVIEW PROCESS FOR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING *
SIGNS IN ROANOKE COUNTY. *
APPROVED WITH
REVISIONS
I
Chairman Burton requested that opponents and proponents of the Planning
Commission's recommendations regulating signs in Roanoke County designate a
spokesman for their side who would be allowed to speak for 15 minutes. If a
spokesman did not use up his 15 minutes, the remainder of his time could be
used by other persons wishing to speak in support of his position. Other-
wise, after the spokesman's presentation, other speakers were to be allowed
two minutes each.
J. R. Jones, Chairman of the Planning Commission and a member of the
subcommittee which revised the sign regulations, spoke first and advised the
Supervisors that a lot of work and study and a number of meetings, all of
which were open to the public, went into preparation of these recommendations.
I
Supervisor Johnson asked if there is a standard size of outdoor advertising
sign; Mr. Jones referred her question to the spokesman for the sign industry,
who advised that there are standard sizes nation wide.
l1rs.Gerard Bijwaard of 4802 Brookwood Drive, S.W. asked that the
Supervisors accept the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Mrs.
Bijwaard felt that a middle ground had been found to meet the needs of the
sign industry and the County citizens; she was concerned that the County
remain the beautiful place it is. She then read a prepared statement in
support of the Planning Commission's recommendations and asked that the
measures recommended be adopted, pointing out that some Virginia counties
and some whole states have outlawed billboards.
I
John Cone of 522 Mountain Avenue, Roanoke City, was present on behalf
of the Citizen's Environmental Council of the Roanoke Valley. He outlined
their letter prepared in support of the proposed regulations (copy of the
letter is filed with the agenda material related to this meeting).
I
I
I~
~
8-24-82
111
.
Will Estes of 4920 Cave Spring Circle was present, representing the
Joint Council of Civic Leagues. He said members of the Joint Council and
the Planning Commission had worked long and hard in preparing the sign
ordinance and felt the citizens and Commission deserve recognition for their
efforts.
I
William Tanger of Image Advertising, 1302 Second Street in Roanoke, was
present in support of the proposed ordinance. He had received a mailing
from the sign industry urging citizens to turn out to protect the business
community, and he wanted to rebut its points. Mr. Tanger felt the sign
ordinance would encourage companies to come into this area because outdoor
advertising would be controlled, making the area attractive.
Daniel Shaw of 3570 Forester Road in Roanoke County said the signs along
Brambleton Avenue are an eyesore and said he did not want to see them spread.
He said he is not anti-business and that adoption of the proposed ordinance
would not affect the way he spends his money.
I
This concluded the comments from persons in favor of the proposed
sign ordinance.
The spokesman for the sign industry was Gordon LaGarde, who identified
himself as a resident of Cresthill subdivision in Roanoke County. He advised
he served on the Planning Commission subcommittee that prepared the
proposed ordinance. He stated that billboards are not a cause of traffic
accidents, as had been stated in the letter submitted by Mr. Cone. He
pointed out that the State Division of Motor Vehicles suggests that drivers
read highway signs and billboards to keep alert. He also said the Planning
Commission should be helping, not hindering businesses. He said outdoor
advertising fills a need in the area and that this ordinance would deny them
space to erect their units. He felt the sign industry was being harassed
and driven out of business and asked the Supervisors to vote "No" on the
ordinance. A copy of Mr. LaGarde's prepared statement is filed with the
agenda material related to this meeting.
I
~1
~I:
-
.,
8-24-82
112
~-~'_---=-...--..,
John Poff, Senior Vice President of American Motor Inns, spoke
in opposition to the ordinance changes. He felt outdoor bulletins are
necessary to direct traffic. He read a list of taxes and charges paid into
I
Valley treasuries by the sign industry and said the Supervisors had a
responsibility to foster an atmosphere conducive to promoting business
and industry. A previous proponent of the proposed ordinance had mentioned
that Vermont was one of the states which had prohibited billboards, and Mr.
Poff advised that American Motor Inns had sold two of their hotels in Vermont
because people could not find them.
William W. Whittaker, who identified himself as a resident of the
Summerdean subdivision in Roanoke County, was present in opposition to the
amended sign regulations. He highlighted the points in a prepared statement
(filed with the agenda material related to this meeting) in which he advised
that Distributive Education students work mostly in businesses that use
billboards to promote business. If these businesses are not allowed to
I
advertise, these part-time employees could be affected.
George McInturff from Maryland was present to speak in opposition to
this proposal. He suggested that the proposed sign limitations are unique
in business and industrial zones and recommended the sizes be changed in
both zones. He recommended getting rid of height restrictions; his
two-minute time limit ran out before he completed his remarks.
Fancher Turner of Dominion Signs said the Planning Commission had
asked for a moratorium to study Roanoke City's sign ordinance and the effect
it would have on Roanoke County. He said no such study had been made or
attempted. Mr. Turner then displayed a series of maps of Virginia counties
I
which surround cities where billboards are prohibited or strictly regulated.
He advised that correspondence with the administrators of those counties
indicated that the cities' sign restrictions had had little or no impact
on the surrounding counties.
Pete Watkins of Tuckawana Circle in Roanoke City identified himself as
!
1-
President of the Advertising Federation of the Roanoke Valley and read a
~....
r
113
8-24-82
prepared statement. He felt the proposed restrictions would be counter-
productive to Valley growth.
Frank Bern said the advertising industry donates space to non-profit
I
groups and that they depend on the standard-size unit.
Steve Bryant, Market Manager for 3-M Advertising of Raleigh, North
Carolina, said the "long, hard effort" mentioned by the proponents as going
into preparation of this ordinance did not mean the ordinance is a good one or
that it should be passed. He also said the sizes recommended in the
ordinance were odd and they needed standardization. He did not feel the
committee that prepared the ordinance was aware of the effect the odd sizes
would produce and felt this needed to be considered.
At this point in the meeting (9:33 p.m.), Chairman Burton asked if there
were any more speakers. She then said one of the Supervisors had requested
a break.
I
After a brief recess, the meeting resumed at 9:46 p.m. Chairman
Burton then announced she would give each of the two sides in this matter
five minutes to sum up.
Thomas M. Hufford, member of the County Planning Commission, was
present to answer any questions. Mr. Hufford said the Commission's
subcowmittee felt they were well within their bounds in the recommendations
they have made. Regarding the impact of the Roanoke City sign ordinance,
,
Hr. Hufford said a survey of signs was made and that the Commission used
,
in the City, signs would come to the County or to Salem. He said the
I
common sense and took for granted that if the sign industry was regulated
I: proposed ordinance was a compromise, that he was not against billboards,
Ie
l he had used them in his business. He said neither side was happy with the
ordinance and for that reason he felt it was a good ordinance. He also
pointed out there was provision in the proposed regulations for a review
by the Planning Commission for a sign that did not meet the provisions of
L-
~
8-24-82
114
Article XVII.
Mr. LaGarde summed up for the sign industry. He said Mr. Hufford was
I
misinformed, that the sign industry had heard the same speech about "not
taking away the right to do business" from the Chairman of the City Planning
Commission, but that the first two variances requested before the City
Planning Commission were turned down. He said that had been the trend
everywhere that restrictive sign ordinances have been adopted. He said
there was no way the sign industry can recognize municipal boundaries, they
depend upon the amount of traffic passing their signs. He asked the
Supervisors not to take away their space and the standard sizes of their
signs.
Fancher Turner said much had been made of the small sums paid by the
sign industry. He said only in the past few years had signs been taxable.
I
He said the payroll for the sign industry in the Valley is over $1 million
and that that was a sizeable contribution to the economy.
John Cone, representing the environmentalists, presented statistics
showing that billboard regulations have nothing to do with unemployment.
Mrs. Bijwaard felt that everything had been said that could be said
and requested that the Board's decision be made based on the entire County
and its population.
Mr. LaGarde asked Mr. Tanger if he had in the past bought outdoor
advertising and if he would buy it in the future. Mr. Tanger replied that
he had bought it and will in the future, that it is a useful tool, but
I
that that fact did not have anything to do with the sign ordinance under
discussion. Mr. Tanger said outdoor advertising is a public medium and
unavoidable and that the sign industry needs to be regulated and controlled fo
the benefit of the entire community.
Supervisor Johnson asked the sign industry representatives at large
I
!
I
I
what their standard sizes are. She was told there are three standard sizes:
~
"..-
115
.
8-24-82
672 square fe,et (14' x 48'),378 square feet (10'6" x 36') and 300 square
"\
feet. It was stated that 40 per cent of signs in the Roanoke Valley are
672 square feet and 60 per cent are 300 square feet.
Supervisor Minter moved that each section of the proposed ordinance
I
be considered separately. His motion was adopted by a unanimous voice vote.
Proceeding thus, the first section of the ordinance to be considered
was Section 21-124 (d). Supervisor Johnson asked Planning Commission Chairman
Jones how the subcommittee had arrived at a maximum size of 312.5 square feet.
He replied it was a compromise. Supervisor Johnson asked if the ordinance
provided that a sign that was torn down could be replaced; County Attorney
Buchholtz said there are no "grandfathered" signs. It was also pointed out
that existing provisions in the County Code provide for nonconforming uses
and that under these provisions if a sign does not conform to regulations and
~ the cost to restore it is not more than 50 per cent of the original cost of
the sign, it can be restored.
I
The Supervisors then discussed 21-128 (g) and asked the County Attorney
to address the legalities. Mr. Buchholtz read the section aloud and said he
had no problem with the terminology but that in his opinion it was clearly
illesal because it delegates the right and authority to the Planning
Commission to amend an ordinance adopted by the Board of Supervisors without
any standards or guidelines to guide them in their deliberations as to the
needs or reasons for amending the ordinance. He advised the Supervisors
this section was illegal.
Supervisor Nickens moved that Section 21-124 (d) be revised to reflect
following roll call vote:
I
a maximum sign area of 378 square feet. His motion was adopted by the
AYES:
Supervisors Nickens, Myers, Minter, Johnson, and Burton.
NAYS:
None.
:
-
......
,
I
I
I
'" ..-
~' ~ l
8-24-82
.A ~i. (:~~
.. .,~'
,
,
--;-
,
'-I
.,
.
. ,
Supervisor Minter moved that Section 21-126 (c) be revised to reflect
a maximum sign area of 672 square feet. His motion was adopted by the
following rol I call vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Nickens, Myers, Minter, Johnson, and Burton.
NAYS:
None.
During the discussion of Section 21-128 (a) someone asked if a sign
existed in an A-lor RE zoning classification and the land were rezoned to
R-1, what would happen to the sign; could it remain or would it have to be
taken down? The County Attorney answered that it would be allowed to remain,
that rezoning cannot foreclose existing rights. Chairman Burton asked if
the ordinance could stipulate this; Mr. Buchholtz suggested this be put
in the sign ordinance and R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning districts be amended to
so reflect. Gordon LaGarde said this problem has never arisen.
Supervisor Myers moved that Section 21-128 (a) be adopted as written.
Supervisor Johnson made a substitute motion adding A-1 and RE with the
provision that if these go into residential areas or zoning that prohibits
signs, they will be taken out. Mrs. Johnson's motion was adopted by the
fol lowing roll call vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Nickens, Minter, Johnson, and Burton.
NAYS:
Supervisor Myers.
Supervisor Minter moved that Section 21-128 (b) be adopted as written;
his motion was adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Nickens, Myers, Minter, Johnson, and Burton
NAYS:
None.
Supervisor Minter moved that Section 21-128 (e)be adopted as written;
his motion was adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Nickens, Myers, Minter, Johnson, and Burton
NAYS:
None.
Supervisor Myers moved approval of Section 21-128 (f); his motion was
adopted by the following roll call vote:
--I
....~ ~~t
AYES:
NAYS:
8-24-82
Supervisors Nickens, Myers, Minter, and Johnson.
Supervisor Burton.
Supervisor Nickens moved that Section 21-128 (g) be deleted. Planning
Commission Chairman Jones said this section was needed. Supervisor Johnson
made a substitute motion that the County Attorney revise this section and
write in legal language something that would be acceptable for review.
Supervisor Johnson then withdrew her motion and moved that the County Attorney
write a legal ordinance. Her motion was defeated by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
AYES:
NAYS:
Supervisor Johnson.
Supervisors Nickens, Myers, Minter, and Burton
Then the original motion by Dr. Nickens was voted on as fol lows:
Supervisors Nickens, Myers, Minter, and Burton.
Supervisor Johnson.
The County Attorney then suggested that the whole ordinance be referred
to him to be put in proper form.
outdoor advertising sign areas of no more than 672 square feet, plus 10 feet
Supervisor Nickens moved that the Board consider for A-1 and RE districts
for embell ishment. His motion was adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Nickens, Johnson, and Burton.
NAYS: Supervisor Myers.
ABSTAIN: Supervisor Minter.
area should be 378 square feet. His motion was defeated by the following roll
Supervisor Minter moved that in A-1 and RE districts the maximum sign
call vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Supervisors Minter and Myers.
Supervisors Nickens, Johnson, and Burton.
Supervisor Myers moved to send this ordinance to the County Attorney to
be put in proper form, incorporating the changes just made. His motion was
adopted by a unanimous voice vote.
--
M __
'-,. --
I
I
I
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY. VIRGINIA.
HELD AT THE SALEM-ROANOKE COUNTY CIVIC CENTER ON TUESDAY. AUGUST 24. 1982.
ORDItIANCE NO. 3350 AMENDING ARTICLE" XVII. SIGN REGULATIONS
OF CHAPTER 21. ZONING OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY CODE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County.
Virginia, as follows:
1. That Article XVII. .~ Regulations of Chapter 21. Zoning be
amended to read and provide as follows:
Article XVII. Sign Regulations.
* * * *
Sec. 21-118. A-l District regulations.
* * * *
(f) All sign structureiexcept general advertising signs may be erected
up to a height of forty feet.
(g) General advertising signs shall have a sign area of no more than
six hundred seventy-two square feet. plus ten percent for embellishments.
Sec. 21-119. RE District regulations.
* * * *
(e) No free-standing sign, except general advertising signs. shall
exceed a height of ten feet unless an integral part of a building.
(f) General advertising signs shall have a sign area of no more than
six hundred seventy-t\~O square feet. plus ten percent (10%) for em-
be 11 is hments .
* * * *
Sec. 21-124. B-2 District regulations.
* * * *
(c) Free-standing signs except general advertising signs shall not
exceed a height of forty-five feet above the pavement of the street to
which such sign in oriented. Projecting signs and roof signs are
permitted. but no business sign erected on the roof of a building shall
extend higher than thirty feet above the roof at the point of mounting.
and a clearance of at least five feet shall be maintained between the
bottom edge of the sign and the roof level when such clearance is
required for rapid access to any part of the roof in case of emergency.
(d) General advertising signs shall have a sign area of no more than
three hundred seventy-eight square feet, plus ten percent for embellish-
ments.
Sec. 21-125. B-3 District regulations.
* * * *
(c) General advertising signs shall have a sign area of no more than
three hundred seventy-eight square feet. plus ten percent for embellish-
ments.
Sec. 21-126. M-1, M-2 and M-3 District regulations.
* * * *
(c) General advertising signs shall have a sign area of no more than
six hundred seventy-two square feet, plus ten percent for embellish-
ments.
* * * *
Sec. 21-128. General advertising signs.
General advertising signs shall be governed by the following
regulations, in addition to those regulations specifically set out
in the preceding sections of this article as they relate to general
advertising signs:
(a) General advertising signs shall be permitted to be erected
only in Districts A-1, RE, B-2, B-3, M-1, M-2 and M-3~ provided
however, any permitted sign shall, within sixty days, be removed in
the event the zoning classification of the property is changed to
any zoning classification in which general advertising signs are
not permitted. No more than one general advertising sign structure
shall be permitted to be erected on a lot having one hundred lineal
feet of street frontage or less, and no more than one additional such
structure shall be erected on the same side of the street or road
unless it is three hundred feet from any other general. advertising
sign. Such structure shall not contain more than two signs per facing.
(b) No free-standing general advertising sign structure shall
be permitted to be erected within three hundred feet measuring parallel
to the road or in any case within one hundred feet from any adjoining
residential district, or within one hundred feet of any public square,
school, library, church or any similar institution, or street desig-
nated a parkway or entrance to any public park if designed to face
into such district, institution or facfl ity and be visi ble therefrom.
* * * *
(e) The height of any general advertising sign shall not exceed
thirty-five feet above the abutting road.
(f) Side by side, double and multi-decker general advertising
signs shall not be permitted.
* ,* * *
Sec. 21 -132 . 1 .
The provisions of this article shall be in full force and effect
after August 24, 1982; provided however, the provisions of this article
shall in no way be construed to supercede any other provisions of
Chapter 21 relating to non-conforming uses or structures, or otherwise
guarantee any person, firm or corporation a guaranteed sign inventory
in contradiction of this article.
Supervisor Minter moved that each section of this ordinance be
voted on separately, and thE! motion carried by a unanimous voice vote.
Adopted per the recorded votes on Pages 115. 116. and 117 of
Supervisors Order Book #32. Supervisors Nickens, Myers. Minter, Johnson,
and Burton voting.
3-23-84
Copies To:
Department of Development
Zoning Administrator
County Attorney
Department of Public Facilities
M.J-i n Libra ry
Aile
Anpy - Test~ ,~
Dona ~ anders .~rerk
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
8-24-82
118
I
I
I
IN RE:
RECESS
At this point in the meeting (11:35 p.m.) the Supervisors took
a brief recess.
IN RE:
RECONVENEMENT
The meeting reconvened at 11:40 p.m.
IN RE:
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Supervisor Johnson directed that County Engineer R. E. Robertson
investigate the request of Edward L. Janney, et aI, that Poplar Drive and
View Avenue be closed to through traffic between Colonial Avenue and
Brambleton Avenue. Chairman Burton commented that the County does not have
authority to close a public road, but agreed Mr. Robertson should contact
the petitioners and discuss their request with the Highway Department. This
letter and attached petition were ordered received and filed.
Robert D. Kester of View Avenue was present with another petition.
He advised he had contacted Fred Altizer, Resident Engineer of the State
Highway Department, who has the original of M~. Kester's petition. ~1r.
Kester said residents of the area were directed to come before the Supervisors
so they would know what is happening.
IN RE:
REPORTS OF DEPARTMENTS, OFFICERS, AND COMMITTEES
At this point in the meeting, the Supervisors deviated from the
order of the prepared agenda and called upon the County Engineer to present
his reports.
After the Engineer had presented his report on a request to have
Airpoint Drive and Airpoint Road from U. S. Route 221 to Airpoint Circle
declared rural additions and his report on a request to have Eveningwood
Lane from North Lakes Drive to Summer Drive declared a rural addition,
I
I
I
I
!-
I
!
I
Supervisor Johnson moved for adoption of the following, prepared resolution:
"I
~
"..-
119
8-24-82
RESOLUTION NO. 3217 DECLARING CERTAIN STREETS, HIGHWAYS, OR
ROADS LOCATED IN ROANOKE COUNTY AS RURAL ADDITIONS AS MADE AND
PROVIDED BY LAW
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
1. That a certain portion of a certain street known as Eveningwood
I
Virginia, as follows:
Lane in the North Lakes Subdivision situate in the Hollins Magisterial
District, being a section of road running from North Lakes Drive to
Summer Drive, is hereby declared as a rural addition pursuant to Section
33.1-72.1 (Cl) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and
I, 2. That a certain street known as Airpoint Drive in the Airpoint
Estates Subdivision in the Windsor Hills Magisterial District in its
entirety is hereby declared a rural addition pursuant to Section 33.1-
72.1 (Cl) of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended; and
3. That a certain portion of a certain street known as Airpoint
Road in the Airpoint Estates Subdivision in the Windsor Hills Magisterial
District, from the intersection of Airpoint Road and Orchard Drive to
il
Ii
Ii
the intersection of Airpoint Road and Airpoint Circle is hereby deca1red
I
a rural addition pursuant to Section 33.1-72.1 (C1) of the 1950 Code of
Virginia, as amended; and
4. That an attested copy of this resolution be forthwith forwarded
to the State Department of Highways and Transportation.
Adopted by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Nickens, Myers, Minter, Johnson, and Burton.
NAYS:
None.
C. Allen Duvall was present and submitted a petition containing
fifteen names requesting that Airpoint Road and Airpoint Drive be declared
rural additions.
I
Chairman Burton asked for a motion to recess until Friday
afternoon (August 27, 1982) at L,:OO p.m. After a brief discussion, it was
decided to remain in session a little longer.
ll....
"""lIIlIl
3-24-82
120
IN RE:
REPORTS OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR:
The County Administrator asked S. A. Cable, Radio Maintenance
Supervisor, to discuss the sound system planned for the Roanoke County
I
Administration Center. Mr. Cable did so and outlined the time frame
involved in selecting a phone system if private companies are invited to
bid on providing service. Supervisor Minter moved to advertise bids for
a phone system and Chairman Burton recommended that a time table be
initiated as soon as possible. Supervisor Minter's motion was adopted by
a unanimous voice vote.
The County Administrator then advised that he had already
submitted to the Supervisors a synopsis of his report on the solid waste
program. He advised further that he plans to expend a great deal of time
and effort to work with other units of local government to make the solid
waste management team a wide-ranging team, not just landfill oriented. He
I
planned to encourage questions about other options, consideration of source
separation, incineration, and other methods. Chairman Burton was concerned
about the rate increase that will be necessary if the County participates
in purchase of a baler for use at the regional landfill. Supervisor Minter
moved that the County enter into the contract to purchase the baler since
the Landfill Board is facing a deadline and has no option. Supervisor Myers
made a substitute motion that the matter be held for further consideration.
Supervisor Myers's motion was adopted by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Nickens, Myers, Johnson, and Burton
NAYS:
Supervisor Minter.
I
IN RE:
REPORTS OF BID CO~1ITTEE
Purchasing Supervisor E. D. Fitzgerald outlined the Bid Committee's
report on supplying food to the Roanoke County/Salem jail for the fiscal
year 1982-83. Supervisor Myers moved for adoption of the following,
prepared resolution:
I
I-
I
r-
121
8-24-82
RESOLUTION NO. 3218 AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE TO
PURCHASE FOOD AND RELATED ITEMS NEEDED IN THE ROANOKE COUNTY,
SALEM JAIL FROM CERTAIN VENDORS
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
1. That the County of Roanoke is authorized to purchase food and
I
Virginia1 as follows:
related items from Rainbo Bread Company, Valley Rich, Inc., Beatrice
Foods, Armour, Frigid Freeze, Roanoke Restaurant Service, and Theimer
Foods, said vendors having been awarded low bids from the Roanoke
County School Board for the purchase of these items; and
2. That the County of Roanoke is hereby authorized to in the
future conduct a similar joint bid with the Roanoke County School Board
for the purchase of food and related items for the Roanoke County, Salem
Jail.
Adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Nickens, Myers, Minter, Johnson, and Burton.
NAYS:
None
I
Ii
The Bid Committee's report on surfacing Penn Forest tennis courts
and parking area was presented next. Supervisor Johnson moved for adoption
of the following, prepared resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 3219 ACCEPTING A CERTAIN BID MADE TO THE
COUNTY OF ROANOKE FOR SURFACING TIlE PENN FOREST TENNIS COURTS
AND PARKING AREA CONSTRUCTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That that certain bid of S. R. Draper Company in the amount of
$29,999.00 for tennis court surfacing, line work, and construction of a
new parking area at Penn Forest Elementary School, upon all and singular
!;
,
the invitation to bid, the specifications of the County of Roanoke, the
I
bidder's proposal 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 with S. R. Draper Company upon a form approved
by the County Attorney for this work; and
3. That all other bids for this project are hereby rejected and
-
~
,.,
8-24-82
122
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:
I
AYES:
Supervisors Nickens, Myers, Minter, Johnson, and Burton.
NAYS:
None.
Purchasing Supervisor Fitzgerald next presented the report on
fencing of the Penn Forest tennis courts. Supervisor Johnson moved for
adoption of the following, prepared resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 3220 ACCEPTING A CERTAIN BID MADE TO THE
COUNTY OF ROANOKE TO FURNISH AND INSTALL FENCING AND RELATED
WORK AT THE PENN FOREST TENNIS COURTS
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That that certain bid of Hartwell Fence Company in the amount
I
of $4,550.00 to furnish and install fencing and related work at the Penn
Forest Park tennis courts, upon all and singular the terms and conditions
of the invitation to bid, the specifications of the County of Roanoke,
the bidder's proposal 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 with Hartwell Fence Company upon a form approved
by the County Attorney for this work; 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:
I
AYES:
Supervisors Nickens, Myers, Minter, Johnson, and Burton
NAYS:
None.
IN RE:
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
Supervisor Minter moved for adoption of the following, prepared
appropriation resolution:
,-
I
I
i
l~
r
I
}23
8-24-82
RESOLUTION NUMBER 3221
On motion made by Supervisor Minter, the General Appropriation
Resolution of Roanoke County, Virginia, adopted June 22, 1982 be, and is
DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NUMBER
INCREASE
(DECREASE)
I
the same hereby amended as follows to become ffective August 24, 1982:
Class:
Fund:
Dept:
Object:
Expenditures
Utility
utility Maintenance &
Operations
Salaries
92-6-04302-10010
$2,232
Object:
Unappropriated Balance
92-6-99999-99999
($2,232)
Adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Nickens, Myers, Minter, Johnson and Burton
NAYS:
None.
Supervisor 11inter moved for adoption of the following, prepared
RESOLUTION NO. 3222 AUTHORIZING THE RECLASSIFICATION OF A
POSITION IN THE COUNTY ADHINISTRATOR'S OFFICE
I
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County,
Virginia, as follows:
1. That a certain position of employment in the office of the
County Administrator heretofore established by the Board of Supervisors
as Clerk-Typist II shall from and after July 27, 1982, be reclassified
to Clerk-Steno II; and
2. That the employee presently occupying such position shall be
placed in the new classification at Step A; and
3. That an attested copy of this resolution be forthwith forwarded
to the Director of Finance.
AYES:
Supervisors Nickens, Myers, Minter, Johnson, and Burton.
I
Ii
F
Adopted by the following roll call vote:
NAYS:
None.
I
~
I,
~I
~
8-24-82
124
Supervisor Minter moved for adoption of the following,
prepared resolution:
RESOLUTION NUMBER 3223
I
On motion made by Supervisor Minter, the General Appropriation
Resolution of Roanoke County, Virginia, adopted June 22, 1982 be, and is
the same hereby amended as follows to become~fective august 24, 1982:
DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NUMBER
INCREASE
(DECREASE)
Class:
Fund:
Dept:
Expenditure
General
County Administrator
Salary
03-6-01201-10010
$ 646
Unappropriated
Balance
03-6-99999-99999
(646)
Adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Nickens, Myers, Minter, Johnson, and Burton.
NAYS:
None
I
IN RE:
APPOINTMENTS
Chairman Burton had before her a letter of resignation from
William Brenton, Vice Chairman of the Roanoke Valley Industrial Fact-
Finding Commission. The Supervisors had previously been advised that the
term of Albert Trompeter as a member of the Industrial Development Authority
would expire September 24, 1982. Supervisor Minter moved that John T.
Parker (6133 Hidden Valley Drive, Salem) of T. P. Parker & Son be
appointed a member of the Industrial Fact-Finding Commission and appointed
to the Industrial Development Authority for a four-year term ending
September 26, 1986. Motion adopted by a unanimous voice vote.
I
Supervisor Myers moved that Gary L. Stewart (6724 Laban Road,
N. W.; phone 366-5791) be appointed to fill the unexpired term of 11rs.
Helen Rutrough (resigned) which ends November 12, 1982. The motion was
adopted by a unanimous voice vote. Appointment is to fill vacancy on
The Air Pollution Advisory and Appeals Board.
I
l-
I
j
Ij
,...-
125
8-24-82
Supervisor Johnson moved that Danny B. Bolt of the firm of VVKR,
Incorporated be authorized to advertise for bids on construction of the
new Roanoke County Courthouse.
Her motion was adopted by a unanimous voice
vote.
I
Supervisor Johnson then reminded the Supervisors of a previous
discussion of putting on microfilm the minutes of the Board of Supervisors'
meetings. The County Attorney was directed to prepare a resolution authorizin
this microfilming to be done.
Supervisor Minter moved that Howard R. Keister, Jr. (4425 Fontaine
Drive, S.\~.) be reappointed as Roanoke County's citizen representative on
the Roanoke Valley Regional Solid Waste Management Board for a one-year term
which will expire in August, 1983. His motion was adopted by a unanimous
voice vote.
I
I IN ttE:
I
!
REPORTS OF DIRECTOR OF UTILITY ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION
Director John R. Hubbard presented his report on donation of
easements for the Tinker Creek interceptor, and Supervisor Minter moved for
!
I
i
[:
adoption of the following, prepared resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 3224 EXPRESSIHG THE APPRECIATION OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND THE CITIZENS OF
ROANOKE COUNTY TO CERTAIN CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS OF ROANOKE
COUNTY FOR THEIR DEMONSTRATION OF DEEP CONCERN FOR THE EFFICIENT
OPERATION OF THE PROCESSES OF GOVERNHENT OF ROANOKE COUNTY
:
;
:
:
j
WHEREAS, the County of Roanoke has undertaken an extremely costly
and expensive sewer interceptor project known as the Tinker Creek Sewer
Interceptor Project in Roanoke County; and
\~EREAS, certain citizens and residents of Roanoke County owning
I
property in that portion of Roanoke County through which the Tinker
Creek sewer interceptor project is to be constructed, out of said
citizens' and residents' deep and genuine concern for the more efficient
operation of their local government, deemed it appropriate to donate
certain rights and interests in their land to their government at no
charge thereby lessening the financial burden placed on all the citizens
-
~,
8-24-82
126
of Roanoke County as the result of said sewer interceptor project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Roanoke County that the Board does express its most sincere and genuine
I
appreciation on behalf of both itself and all the citizens of Roanoke
County for the demonstration by the citizens and the residents of the
Tinker Creek area of Roanoke County for their concern for the more
efficient operation of their government through their very selfless
donation of certain rights and interests in their property in order that
certain public improvements in the Tinker Creek area could be accomplished
at a lesser cost to all the citizens of Roanoke County; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that an attested copy of this resolution be
forthwith forwarded to each of the citizens and residents who exhibited
such civic pride and concern.
Adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
Supervisors Nickens, Myers, Minter, Johnson, and Burton.
NAYS:
None.
I
Supervisor Johnson directed the Superintendent of Public Works
Roy Nester to make a sign for Route 921, Jenkins Road, and have it erected.
IN RE:
ADJOURNMENT
At 12:16 a.m., Supervisor Nickens moved that the meeting be
adjourned.
His motion was adopted by a unanimous voice vote.
I
~dF~
CHAIRMAN
~