HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/28/2005 - City Council - Minutes - RegularFebruary 28, 20 05
A regular meeting of the Coun cil of the City o f Sa lem, Virg in ia, was held
in the Cou ncil Chambe r s, Cit y Ha l l, 114 Nort h Broa d St reet, on Februa r y 2 8,
20 05 , at 7:30 p.m., cher e be i ng p re sent al l t h e membe~s of said Coun cil, to
wit: Carl E. Ta rp l ey, Jr., Howard c . Packe tt, J ohn C . Gi v e ns , Jane W. Joh nson ,
and J o hn Chr is t opher Clemens; wi th Ca r l E . Tarp ley, Jr., Mayor, presiding;
t og ether with Fo re st G. Jones, City Manag e r ; Ja mes E . Ta liaferro, II, Assi st ant
City Manager a nd Clerk of Cou n c il i Fra nk P . Turk, Di r ector of Finance; J oseph
E . Yates, Jr., Dire c tor of Planning and Devel opment; Mel vin B. Doughty , Cit y
Eng inee r; Melinda J . Payn e. Pub li c In formati o n Off icer; and Will iam C. Maxwe l l,
As s istant Ci ty Att o rney; and t h e f ol lowing bu si ness wa s transacted:
The mi nutes of the spe cia l me eting (Andrew Lew is Middl e Sc hool To ur ) of
Fe b r uary 14, 2 005, and regular meeting o f Febr ua ry 1 4 , 2 005 , were app ro ved a s
written.
Coun ci lman Give ns comme n d e d City Crews f or t he go od job done with sn ow
re mova l i n Salen d u ring th e rec ent snow s to rm.
Mayo r Tar pl ey req ues ted t hat Council receive a p r esent a tion from Gera l d M.
Pace , Chai rman of the In t e rstate 81 Ta sk Fo rce Comm it tee, regardin g the
Committ e e's re com~endati ons f or imp ro ve me nts to Inte r st ate 81; and
WHEREAS, Mayo r Tarpley r epo rted tha t Mr. Pace was u n abl e to attend this
me e ting of Council , and h e requ es ted that t he pr ese ntation be c o ntinued t o the
Ma rch 1 4, 2 005, meeting of Coun cil;
THERE UPON, sa id presentati o ~ was continued to the Mar ch 1 4, 2 00 5, meeti ng
of Counci l.
Mayor Tarp le y repor ted that this dat e and t i me has b een set t o hol d a
publ ic hea r ing to con si der amend ing Chapter 78 , Subdivisions, o f The Code of
the City of Sal em , Vi rgi ni a; this would re plac e th e cur rent Subdivision
Ord inance Chapter i n its en~irety to provi de for reorganization of t he
ordin a n c e; and
WHER EAS, Mayo r Tarpley further report ed that this dat e and time has been
set to ho ld a public he arin g to consi der amend ing Chapter 106, Zoning, of The
Co de of the City of Salem , Virgi nia , a nd to c onsid er ado pt ing a n e w z o n i n g map
for the City of Salem , encompa ss ing the enti r e c ity wi t hin th e corpo ra te
limits ; t hi s would rep l ace the cu rrent Zo n ing Ordina~ce Cha pter in its enti~et y
to provide for re o rgan i za tion o f the ordin a nc e ; a n d
WHEREAS, th e Clerk o f Council repo rted that n ot ic e o f s uch h ea ring ha d been
publishe d in th e Fe bru a ry 10 and 17 , 2005, i ss u es o f t he Sa lem T imes -Register; a
n ews paper publ ished a nd h avin g general cir cu la t i o n in the Ci ty of Salem; it was
n oted that all pro perty 0W:1ers in Sa l em were noti f ied by le t ter dat ed Febru ary
1, 2005, of the p ubl i c hear i n gs pe rt aining to t hese ordinances by the Ci ty of
Salem Planning Comm i ssion a nd S al em Ci ty Council; and
PRESENTATION
FROM G ERALD
M. PACE,
CHAI RMAN OF
INTERSTATE
Bl TASK
FORCE
COMM!TTEF.,
RE GA RDING
C0!-1M ITTEE'S
RECOMMENDA.
T IONS FOR
I NT ERS TATE
8 1
IMPROVEME~S
CONT INU ED
ORDINANCES
PASSED ON
F I RST
REA DI NG
AMEN DI NG
CHAPTER 78,
SUB
DI V IS!OllS ,
OF THE CI TY
COD E AND
CHAPTER 106 ,
ZON I NG, OF
THE c:TY
COD E; AN D
ZONING
MA P ADOPTED
WHEREAS, the Salem Planning Commission held an advertised dp~n house on
February 2, 2005, at the Salem Civic Center; citizens were notified of the
P l anning Commission open house through news release mailed to the newspapers,
display notice on Cable Channel 18, notice on the City of Salem Utility Bills,
and notice on the City of Salem Internet Website; and it was noted that the
proposed Subdivision Ordinance and Zon i ng Ordinance were available in their
entirety at the Salem Public Library, Salem Civic Center. City of Salem Schools,
Ci ty of Salem Website, and City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the Salem Planning Commission at its regular meeting held on
February 16, 2005, recommended to the Council of the City of Salem that Chapter
78, Subdivisions, and Chapter 106, Zoning, be amended as presented at the
February 16, 2005, meeting with amendments; and
WHBREAS, Joseph Yates , Jr., Director of Pl~nning and Development, appeared
before the Council explaining the process that led to the submittal of the
documents being considered at this meeting of Council; he noted that the Ci ty's
consultant on this project, Terry Harrington of MarshWitt Associates PC, was
present at the meeting; both ordinances being presented are a direct result of
adopting a new Comprehensive Plan in February 2003; he further noted that the
City is over 200 years old and is approximately 97% developed; most of the
City's developments a r e residential in character, they have been here a long
time, the City intends them to remain here a long time, and to remain the way
they are as much as possible; Mr. Yates is of the opinion that the zoning
Ordinance was last adopted in 1972 and probably was written in the 1940s, and
the Subdivision Ordinance was probably written in the 1940s or 1950s; both
documents have been amended through the years, but the documents are so out of
date and obsolete that they don 't apply at the present time and the ordinances
also oppose each other on occasion; further, the Zoning Ordinance lacks clarity
and is difficult to enforce; so the City has attempted to bring both ordinances
into conformance with current state law and also to implement those policies,
goals, and objectives that were recommended by the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Yates discussed the following topi~s related to the proposed
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances: rules and procedures for the division of
land; standards for the construction of public facilities, private and pub l ic
streets, utilities, and drainage; the role of the Planning Commission with
regards to subdivisions; rules and procedures on the use of land; standards for
land development uses, density, setbacks, scale, character, etc.; detailed
standards for the operation of home occupations; new zoning classifications;
zoni n g definitions; s t andards for parking , landscaping, and buffering; special
exception permits; use and design standards; buffer yards and screening
standards; etc.; and
WHEREAS, a discussion was held concerning all lots bein~ required to be
served by a public street; private roads are not currently allowed; Roanoke
County and Roanoke City do not allow private roads; it is the City's opinion
that the current policy prohibiting private roads should be maintained; staff
noted the problems that could be created if private roads are allowed; access
easements to lots can be created and not necessarily tied to subdivision of
property; just because the property does not have a public right of way does
not prohibit the development of a lot, but it does prohibit subdivision of the
land; the City cannot maintain private roadways due to the fact that the City
does not own the roadway; and fire, rescue, and garbage trucks cannot access
some of the existing private roadways; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Yates discussed incidents where private roads connect to
existing streets, etc.; and
WH~REAS, the Director of Planning and Development explained the following:
the proposed Zoning Districts, definitions, parking requirements, increased
landscaping standards , increased use of Special Exception Permits, new use and
design standards, cluster housing, home occupation permits, restriction for
large commercial vehicles parking in residential areas, setback lines, etc.;
and
WHEREAS, councilman Givens questioned if a new business purchases an
existing business, could the City make the new business provide landscaping
even if the old business did not have landscaping; and
WHEREAS, in summary the f ollowing was noted: the City endeavored to
increase the clarity of the ordinances to make them easier to administer and to
make them fairer; the comprehensive plan goals were followed; and once the
ordinances are adopted, they can be amended in the future; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Development thanked Terry Harrington
of MarshWitt Associates, P.C., for his time to help prepare the ordinances; and
he noted t hat the process has been going on for approximately two years; the
development community and the residential homeowners have been very positive
about the ordinances; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Tarpley commended the Director of Planning, his staff,
Planning Commission , and the consultant for the hard work in preparing these
documents; and
WHEREAS, Bob Winstead, 3272 Links Manor Lane, Salem, appeared before the
Council thanking the staff for the work that has been done on the ordinances;
he stated in 1974 he purchased a piece of property to build a house a t 3272
Links Manor Drive; several years later he pu r chased a parcel of land behind his
property of approximately 1.88 acres; at that time there was a public road
running off of Links Manor Drive, which was graveled and sprayed with tar, and
the public road was used as the en t rance to hi s house off o f Links Manor Dr ive;
he explained the roadway crossed the Moran property and exited on Franklin
Street; there were problems with indi v iduals speeding on this roadway etc.; the
ad j acent property owners requested that the roadway be closed; the roadway was
subsequen t ly closed and the right of way was divided between his neighbor and
him; he received 20 feet of the roadway, and his neighbor received 20 feet of
roadway; at that time, his lawyer told him he needed a JO-foot easement to the
property t o build a residence , and he included a 30-foot easement to his
property in the deed; in 1987 he sold the house on Links Manor Drive and built
a small house on the property he purchased in 1981 behind his original
residence; he never subdivided the property; since he purchased his lot and
built his house the zoning requirement has changed from a 30-foot right of way
to a SO-foot right of way for the subdivision of property; due to the changes
in zoning after he purchased the lot and the fact that he had not subdivided
his property when only a 30-foot right of way was required, he cannot bui l d a
house on the remainder of his property because it only has a 30-foot easement
to this property; when he bought the property and built his house, he did what
the law required; he questioned whether there are exceptions that can be made
for a single house on this property; and he questioned if he has any avenue of
appeal; and
WHEREAS, a discussion was held concerning a 30-foot right of wa y versus
SO-foot right of way; and it was noted that a street is required to have a so
foot right to way for the City to receive reimbursement funds for maintenance
from the State; and
WHEREAS, councilman Clemens questioned if there is a way that the distance
of a private road can be limited, and a limit to the number of houses to be
located on it; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Development noted that the City has
attempted every way possible to determine a way for pr i vate roads to work in
the City, but there is no way that private roads can be successful; and if the
City allowed Mr. Winstead to subdivide his property, the City would have to
allow everyone with similar situations to subdivide their property; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Tarp l ey questioned the possibility of reopening Links Manor
Drive for Mr. Winstead; and
WHEREAS, the Assistant City Attorney stated that the roadway is closed and
the r ight of way vacated ; to reopen the street, the property owners would have
to rededicate the roadway and build the street to the current standards for a
public street; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Winstead stated that when he purchased the property he
comp l ied with the ordinances; and i t is his opinion that there should be an
exception for this property since he did comply wi th the law at that time; and
WHEREAS, Cynthia Munley, 425 Boulevard, appeared before the Council
stating the City may have made changes in definitions when the zoning code was
rewritten; it does not strike her as being a zoning code that looks at the
larger picture in terms of protection, and the City used a broad spectrum of
citizen input to create the plan; she added that the brochures to promote
Salem, Salem is stated as being a historic town; she doesn't understand why
historic is not on any of the designations such as historic Main Street; there
is the downtown. business district; she is of the opinion that having the
maximum setback is good even though it is in a limited area from Academy Street
to the park on East Main Street, which is the length of the downtown business
district; perhaps people are happy with the residential districts, but the
City's collective wealth and property values are affected by the way the areas
are preserved along historic Main Street; she stated that Mr. Harrington told
her there was not a historic area; and she questioned if there is a historic
area in Salem; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Yates stated that there is a historic area, but it is not a
part of the Zoning Ordinance; it is a part of the Roanoke Valley Historic
Preservation; the entire downtown has been designated as a historic district;
and this is not a part of the zoning Ordinance and should not be a part of the
Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Munley stated that it is her opinion that the City should
have protection for the property from Lake Spring Park to the Brown House on
Main Street; the protection should state that the City has decided on its
character, the character should be rep l aced if a building is upgraded, and
there should be a review process to protect the fa9ade of structures in this
area; she stated that the new bui l ding being constructed on Eas t Main Street
across from Longwood Park is out of character and is infill; it is her opinion
that if broader citizen input had been allowed there would have been more
emphasis on saving open spaces and protecting the entrances; the City needs to
involve citizens more; she stated that the Elizabeth Campus has so much to do
with the future of Salem; it is the City's last chance to save a large central
open space; and she stated it would still be possible to save the 28 acres at
Elizabeth Campus; and she stated that she is sure that OneBeacon would be glad
to move to the other side of the trees so open space can be saved; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Tarpley stated that the Elizabeth Campus issue is not a
matter for discussion during the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance
public hearingsi and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Munley stated that the zoning is wrong on Elizabeth Campus;
the zoning shou l d have turned around during the Comprehens ive Plan; she noted
that there was an attempt to save the Elizabeth Campus; this property could be
saved if council wanted to do it; and she showed a concept to the audience
present at this meet i ng of what could be done for t his property; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Tarpley noted again that the Elizabeth Campus is not the
issue at this meeting; he stated that if Mrs. Munley wants to talk about the
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, Council will listen; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Munley stated that this process should have had more
involvement of citizens; the City could mine the talent of people in the
community and have something that looks like the drawing she brought with her
at this meeting of Elizabeth Campus; she stated the point she is trying to make
is in order to get good zoning ordinances, to get good comprehensive plans, to
get the best ideas, and to make our city the best citizens have to be more
involved; she stated that one day we will have a government in Salem that will
listen to the citizens and will make the City and the government look good; and
we will look back on this as a time where we could have done better; and
WHEREAS, Mike Pace, 844 Honeysuckle Road, Salem, appeared before the
Council stating that he spends a great deal of time performing zoning work in
various municipalities throughout central and southwest Virginia; he commended
Council, the staff, and Consultant Terry Harrington for the work that has been
done to bring forward this particular ordinance at this particular time; from
time to time, he said things get lost in translation; it is clear that this
ordinance follows the comprehensive planning effort that was done previously
that solicited and received significant citizen input and resolved itself in a
Comprehensive Plan for the City of Salem; in his opinion the Zoning Ordinance
does a very good job of seeking out the Comprehensive Plan; he has had the
privilege of working with Terry Harrington over the course of the l ast twenty
years, and Mr. Harr i ngton does excellent work and has served the City of Salem
very well; Mr. Pace further stated he has appeared before Planning Comm i ssions,
City Councils, and Boards of Supervisors in fifteen to twenty jurisdictions;
Salem Council has been very responsive to the citizens of Salem, and he is
proud that he lives in Salem; in comparison to other jurisdictions, Salem
stands out as a place where the citizens can come, express their views, and are
always heard; and as a Salem citizen, he appreciates this very much; and
WHEREAS, Bob Wi nstead, 3272 Links Manor Lane, stated that the citizens of
Salem have spoken and are involved; he wants to thank Council and City Staff
for what they have done; he appreciates being able to come before Council and
speak; and it is his opinion that Salem and its government are always looked up
to; and
WHEREAS, Joyce Foster, 342 High Street, appeared before the Council and
presented the following prepared statement:
"Prepared Statement of
David L. a nd Jo yce M. Foster
342 High St. Salem, VA 24153
City Council Public Hearing
Febru ary 28, 2005
Mr . Mayor , City Manager, and members of City Council, thank you for the
oppor t uni t y to comment on the proposed new zoning code for the City of Salem.
Reading through the new draft and studying the revised zoning map, we find a
number of things that are unc l ear; in fact, often bewildering. It seems to us that
a docum e nt being proposed to administer the City's zoning process f or years to come
ought to make things clearer and be easier for citizens to read.
1. Questions of Transition. It is not at all clear how, when the new
ordinance is adopted and effect i ve, we deal with properties that were compliant
with t he old zoning ordinance but are not consistent with the guidelines and
definitions set forth in the new one. Are these properties grandfathered? Do they
have to reconform? For example, most churches are in Residential Single Family
areas and are not l i sted as a permitted use in RSF zones.
2. De Facto Rezoning. Study of the recoded zoning maps shows many changes
in zoning ; for example, formerly R2 areas becoming Light Manufacturing, Highway
Business District , or Col l ege and University District. This appears to be a de
facto rezoning of these parcels without the rigor and formality of notification to
adjacent l andowners or opportun i ty for public hearing. Any such changes, to the
extent t hat the new zoni ng i s more permissive than the old, should require
notificat i on of landowners and ad j acent landowners and allow opportunity for public
comment . Downzoning shou l d not be an automatic consequence of adopting a new
ordinance.
3. Interpretation of Hybrid Districts. Also unclear is what is meant to
happen in the many districts shown on the official rnap that are a hybrid of two
distr i cts ; e.g., Resident i a l Single Family/Highway Business District; Residential
Single Fami l y/L i ght Manufacturing; Residential Single Family/Residential Multiple
Fam i ly; and Res i dential S i ngle Family/Transitional Business District. These
combination d i str i cts are not defined in Sec. 106-110 that sets out the zoning
c l ass i fications and definit i ons, nor is it explained which rules would govern or
where in such a hybrid district.
4. Longwood Park. A good example of the above confusion is the revised
c l ass i fication (Res i dential Single Family/Transitional Business District) applied
to Longwood Park. There are no sing le family dwellings or business district
structures present today in the park, so why put these two classifications together
on it? Transit i ona l Business District can accommodate convenience stores, auto
repair shops, and parking lots. Its definition says it is "similar to Downtown
Business District " but of "less intensive" development. T?i.e new draft defines TBD
as "suitable for future downtown-type uses." We do not want this kind of ambiguity
leading to use of Longwood Park for an expansion of the DBD.
5. Inconsistent Classification for Recreational Use. The Longwood Park
example above is i llustrative of the inconsistency afforded zoning for park and
recreat iona l use . Oakey•s Fiel d and the old hallpark on Boulevard are shown as
Res i dential S i ngle Family. Moyer Field is shown as Heavy Manufacturing. The golf
course and Mowles Spring Park are designated Agricultural. According to the
def i n i tions in the revised ordinance, "Community Recreation" belongs in RSF and
"Publ i c Parks and Recreation Areas" belong in RMF. Yet now our parks range all the
way fr.om Heavy Manufacturing to Ag ricultural.
6. Interpretation of nefinitions. Each of the new zoning classifications
has a detailed, multi -part definition detaili n g what is permitted in that zone. It
must be assumed that if something is not included in the permitted uses, it is not
permitted, unless perhaps covered by a Special Exception. What about parking? Our
ORDINANCE
PASSED ON
SECOND
READ I NG
EXTEND I NG
FRANCH I SE
AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
APPALACH I AN
POWER
COMPANY,
DO I NG
BUSINESS AS
AMER I CAN
ELEC TRI C
POWER , AND
THE CITY OF
SALEM
current zoning ordinance has long been violated by tolerating parking lots in R2
areas. Home Shopping Network, Roano ke Coll e ge, and many churches have been allowe d
to operate parking lots i n r esidentially zoned a r eas. If we cannot rely on the
definition s for p r ote c tio n , we need t o put parking under the things that a r e
specifically not allowed. The new RSF cl a ssification has detailed specs on how
mu ch of a lot can be t ake n up with o utbuildings, but no wordi n g on how much c a n be
used for p arking . Parking lo t s r eally undermine the value of a reside n tial area
and need to be sharp ly rest r i c t e d. We nee d t o st o p allowing the demolition o f
houses and u se of the land fo r pa r king witho ut a rezoning. The defi n ition s o f RSF
a n d RMF als o n eed t o exc l ude spe cifically subdi v ision of the dwelling fo r occupancy
by mor e th a n two adul t s or famili e s.
7. Too Many "Special Exceptions." These exceptions undermine the whole
purpose of public planning and consistent land use classification. Salem has been
all too willing in the past to spot zone exceptions, which then lead to a parade of
other exceptions, rapidly undermining the integrity of a zoned area. It is not
only a problem is residential areas. Look at these proposed exceptions allowed for
Ligh t Manufacturing: scrapyard s and sanitary landfills. We cannot rely on wisdom
to apply t hese exc e p tions. If the zoning standards are to have any teeth, they
have t o be rigorous in insisting on conforming uses."
WHEREAS, Tom Farrell, Jr., 359 Moses Lane, appeare d before the Council
requesting cla ri ficat i on of t h e new ordinance pertaining to private roads; he
questioned whe t her the ordinance would require an individual to have a fifty
foot righ t of way to subdivide on a private road; and he questioned the
frontage of property on a City street ; and
WHEREAS, it was noted that there will be no subdivis i on a l lowed on a
private road; and a lot would need a minimum of 7 5 feet of fronta g e on a publ i c
st r eet; and
WHEREAS, Councilman Givens thanked Mr . Yates, Mr . Ha r rington, and the
entire committee that worked on the ordinanc e s; and
WHEREAS, Councilwoman Johnson stated that she knows from her work wi th the
Planning Commission and Mr. Yates that a lot of time has been spent on these
ordinances; s he wou l d like to recogn i ze the fact t hat a lot of input was
requested and rec e ived from citizens; and th e c i tizens were given an
opportunity to spea k per t ai n ing to these amendmen t s;
ON MOTION MADE BY COUNCILWOMAN JOHNSON, SECON~ED SY COUNC!LMAN GIVENS, AND
DULY CARR I ED, an ordinance amend i ng Chapter 78, Subd i visions, of The Code of
the City of Salem, Virginia, was hereby passed on first reading to re p lace the
chapter in its enti r ety with the City of Salem Subdivision Ord i nance dated
October 13, 2004, as revised December 7 , 2004, and February 10, 2005 --the
roll call vote being as follows: John Christopher Cl emens -aye; Jan e W.
Johnson -aye; John C . Givens -aye; Howard C. Packett -aye; and Carl E.
Tarpley, Jr. -aye.
ON MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMAN CLEMENS, SECdNDED BY COUNCILMAN GI VENS, AND
DULY CARR I ED, an ordinance amending Chapter 106, Zon i ng, of Th e Code of the
City of Salem, Virginia, was hereby passed on first reading to r e plac e the
chapter in i t s entirety wit h the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance dated January
1, 2005, as revised February 10, 2005, and a new zoning map for the City of
Salem, Virginia, was hereby adopted as amended with the changes recommended
by memo r andu m dated February 1 6, 20 0 5 --the r oll call v o te be i ng as
follows: John Christopher Clemens -aye; Jane W. Johnson -aye; John C.
Give n s -aye; Howa r d C. Packett -aye; and Carl E. T arpley, Jr. -aye.
Mayor Tarpley reported that Council at its regular mee t ing held on
F e bruary 1 4, 2005 , pas s ed an ordinance on first reading extending the Franchise
Agreeme nt b e tween Appalachi a n Power Company, doing business as American
Electric Power, and the City of Salem;
ON MOTION MADE BY V!CE MAYOR PACKETT, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GIVENS , AND
DULY CARRIED, the following ordinance was duly passed and adopted on second
read i ng:
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZ I NG THE EXTENSION OF THE FRANCHISE TO APPALACH I AN POWER
COMPANY , DO I NG BUSINESS AS Af".ERICAN ELECTR IC POW ER , FOR AN ELECTRIC LIGHT, HEAT,
AND POWER TRANSMISSION AND DI STRIBUTIO N S YSTEM IN THE CIT Y OF SAL EM, VIRGINIA.
WHEREAS , by Franchise Ordinance dated April 1 0 , 199 5 , the Cit y Co u ncil of the
Ci ty of Salem , Virgin i a , granted a franchise over t h e s t ree t s and t h orou ghfares o f
the City of Salem , Virg i n i a , to Appalachian Power Company, doing business as
Ame rica n Ele c t r i c Power, to erec t and main t ain lines for the transmission and
dis t ribu t ion of e l e c t ric energy , wit h all necessary appurtenances, for the purpose
o f supplying ele c tri c energy; and
WHEREAS, by o rdi n anc e da t ed Fe b rua r y 14, 2000, eaid Franch i se was granted for
an additional te r m of five (5) y e ars u nt il Fe b r uar y 14 , 2005 ; and
WHEREAS, said Fra n c his e Ordi n a n ce provides for exteneion of the Franchise for
an additional term of five (5) years u po n t h e mu t ual agreement o f t he City of
Salem, Virginia, and Appalachian Po we r Co mpa n y; a nd
WHEREAS, the City o f Sal e m, Virginia, and App ala c hia n Powe r Company have
agreed that it is in their bes t int e r e s t t o e x t e nd th e F r a n chise Or d i nance for an
additional five-year term.
THAT:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAI NED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM , VIRG I NIA ,
1. The Franchise Ordinance of April 1 0 , 1 9 95, be ext ended for an
additional five-year term t o termi n a t e on Fe b r u ary 14, 2010.
2. All other terms and conditions of t he Franc hise Ordi n a nc e of Ap ri l 10,
1995, shall remain in full force and effec t .
3. T his ordinance shall be in full force and effect ten (10 ) days a f ter
its final passage.
Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, t h e same stood as follows:
J ohn Ch ristopher Clemens -Aye
Jane W. J o h nson -~ye
John C. Givens -Aye
Howard C. Packett -Aye
Carl E. Tarpley, Jr. -Aye
Passed: February 28, 2005
March 10, 2005 Effective:
Mayor Tarpley reported that Council at its regular meeting held on
Febru ary 14 , 2 0 05, passed an ord in ance on f i rst r eading providing for the
annual as s essment of re a l property in the City o f Salem;
ON MOT I ON MADE BY COUNCILMAN GIVENS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMWOMAN JOHNSON,
AND DULY CARRIED , the following ordinance was duly passed and adopted on second
reading to become effective July 1 , 2006:
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF SALEM,
VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, that t h e
assessor of real estate assess annually for taxat ion all real estate i n t h e City
not exempted from taxation by the Constitution and general laws of Virgini a , as
prov ided by law. Every assessment made by the real estate assessor shall be
effective for t a x purposes on the first day of July of the tax year next f o llowing
the completion of the assessment as provi d ed by law.
All ordinances or parts of ord inances in conflict with the provisions of thi s
ordinance be and the same are hereby repealed.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on July 1, 2006.
Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows:
Passed:
Effective;
Mayor
February 28, 2005
July 1, 2006
John Christopher Clemens -Aye
Jane W. Johnson -Aye
John C. Givens -Aye
Howard C. Packett -Aye
Carl E. Ta:!'.'pley, Jr. -Aye
ORDINANCE
PASSED ON
SECOND
READING
PROVIDING
FOR THE
ANNUAL
ASSESSr-".ENT
OF REAL
PROPERTY I N
THE CI TY OF
SALF.M
RESOL1.JTION
1049
AUTHORIZING
THE:
SUB'MlTIA.L OF
A,.":
APPLIC'1>.TION
FOR REG! ONAL
JAIL
RE'!MB1JRSE •
ME:NT FUNDIN'G
TO THE
C'OMMONWF:ALTH
OF VIRGINIA,
BOARD OF
CORRECTIONS
Mayor Tarpley requested that Council consider adopting Resolution 1049
authorizing the submittal of an application for Regional Jail reimbursem~nt
funding to the Commonwealth of Virginia, Board of Corrections; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Tarpley stated that this Resolution authorizes the
application be submitted for Regional Jail reimbursement funding, and it does
not comm.it to a site or monetary amount;
ON MOTION' M.U.DE BY COffi·JCILMAN GIVENS, SECONDED BY V!CE MAYOR PACKETT I AN'D
DULY CARRIED, Resolution 1049 was duly passed and adopted:
IM THE CCUt-?C!L OF' TH£ CITY OF SALEM, VIRGINIA, Februc:n:y 28, 20C5:
?.ESOLU7I ON" H}4 9
AL'THCRIZING TH~ SUBMITTAL CF M? APPI.,ICATION FOR REG!CNM, JA!L R&!MBUP.SBMENT FtTh'IDING
TO THE COM'MONHEALT'H CP VIRCHNil\., BOA.RD OF CORRECTIONS
Wl!RR!tAS, Roanoke Ccunty, Frankl in Co1.mty, Montgomery County, and the Ci t:y of
Salem have determined that a need f~xists tc construct additional jail space to
supplement their current jail facilit :i.~s; and
WHE~EA.9, these localities have contracted wj th Powell Consulti.ng Services to
prepare a communit:y Ba sect Correct.ions Plan and with Ea.yes, Seay , M'at:tet·n, and
Mattern to d e velop a Planning Study a.s required by the Commonwealth of Virg.inia,
Boa rd c f Corre~tions, St a ndards fer Planning, Design, Construction, and
Reirr.bursemt.~nt of Local Correct iona1 Facilities; and
WRBRXAS, these four lccalities ha:v·e req-Jested a \ttai'\'·er from the mo-ratoriurr, so
that t.he regional jail plan rr.ay be submitted to the Department of corrections prior
t o March 1, 2005, in accordance with Section 53.1-82.3 ot the C1.~de of! Virgin i a,
1950, as amended to date, and be c~nsidered by the Board of Ccrrections for
recornrr.endaticn to the Governor to be included in the 2006 budget for appropriation
by t::"le G(-'!:,;eral Assembly; and
WHRREAS, these four Joca.lities intend to negotiate a cooperative agreement
dnd to f orm an autho~ity pursua.nt to Section 53.:1-95.2 of t h,~ Code of V.-irginia,
1950, as amended to date, t:o conflt:ruct and operate s;;.id regional jail on bi?.half of
the four local i ~ies; and
WHEREAS, the proposed authcrity {or the lo~alitie$} shall be eligible for.
reimbursement of up ~o fif~y (SC} percent of eligible project costs af the regional
tacilit:y pursuant to section 53.1-81 of tl1e code of Vi:rginia, 1950, as arnenctcd to
date.
NOW, TSE'l!.F.l'ORE, BE I'!' traSOLV!D BY THE COUNCIL OP Tin: C!TY OF SALEM:
1, That it hereby supports the submittal of an appl.ication by Roanoke
County, Franklin County, Montgomery County, and the City of Salem for
the construction, operation, ar:d reimbu-rr,;ement cf a regional ja:i.l ::o
serve the correctional need.a of these localities, ;1nd requests
favorable cons i dera ,.i.on of this app1ic-at:ion by the Commonwealth of
Virginia, Beard cf Corrections;
2. That is requests reimbursement from the Board cf Corrections and the
Commcnweal.::'h of Virginia fifty {50) percent of the eligible project
co~ts for the preposed regional jail as provided in the Pl anning Study,
pursuant. t;,o Section 53 .1-f.H of the Cod~ of Virginia, 1950, ag a!'!:',ended
to date: and
3. That is hereby authori2es the City Manager., or his designee, to execute
such documents and to take i-;tich 1,1ctions as may be necessary to
accomplish the purposes of tl:is Re sclu U on.
Upon a call fer an aye and a nay vote. the S3ntc steed as follows:
John Christoper Clemens -Aye
Jane w. Johnson -Aye
John c. Givens MAye
Hc,1,1~r.d C •. Fackett -Aye
Carl E. Ta.:rpley , Jr, -Ayt':!
There being no further business to come before the Council, the same on
motion adjourned at 9:00 p .m.
_[Ja1_ 1~Jw I _C::.: I --~•-1--+t1--/ --------
Mayor I { f