Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, January 30, 1992 TAG: 9201300245
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B1 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
SOURCE: M.J. DOUGHERTY CORRESPONDENT
DATELINE: FLOYD LENGTH: Medium
JUDGE HALTS CHANGE IN WASTE ORDINANCE
The much-debated Floyd County solid waste ordinance has been changed again - this time through court action.Two county residents, David H. Kaluszka and Ed Broderick, filed a lawsuit claiming that amendments made to the ordinance at the Dec. 16 meeting of the Board of Supervisors were not properly advertised.
Circuit Judge Kenneth Devore, who heard arguments in the lawsuit last week, has agreed to issue an order temporarily stopping the supervisors from changing the ordinance.
Kaluszka and Broderick contended that the board erred when its advertisements appeared in the local newspaper, The Floyd Press, 12 and five days before the public hearing. State law requires advertisement for changes in an ordinance to be "once a week for two successive weeks" - or 14 and 7 days before the vote.
"Yes, it's a technicality," said Kaluszka. "But this issue apparently is important enough for the judge to have ruled" on it.
The supervisors made two changes in the ordinance last month. The first removed an unenforceable solid-waste transportation fee of $20 per ton. It caused little controversy and passed unanimously.
The second change - and the one still being debated - removed ambiguous language from the ordinance to make it apply to landfills only, removing the collection and processing of solid waste from the range of county regulations. It passed 4-1, with Howard Dickerson casting the lone "no" vote.
This change was favored by Gainesville, Fla.-based Quadrex Environmental Co. Its president, Norm Dudey, spoke at the Dec. 16 public hearing. Since then, the company has purchased the old Bio-Regional Energy Associates Ltd. (known as B-REAL) plant in the Floyd County Industrial Park, where it plans to recycle antifreeze and oil filters.
But for now, the changes are on hold.
The lawsuit was not unexpected. A letter from David T. Mullins, the attorney represeting Kaluszka and Broderick, was hand-delivered to the board the morning of Dec. 16. The letter told the board what action the two might take if the ordinance were changed.
"Before the meeting, the attorney and I scurried around to see if there was any legal substance to it," said County Administrator Randy Arno. "After the public hearing, we informed the board in executive session that there was a possibility of litigation if they proceeded. Then one of the board members said, `Let's go.' And as we went out, I didn't know if they intended to vote on it or not."
The length of the temporary order has not been decided and no trial date has been set. In the meantime, the county might pre-empt the case by reconsidering the ordinance.
"We want to get them to look at this again and write us a good ordinance," said Broderick. "A county has a right to protect the health and welfare of its citizens. It can't control interstate commerce. But it can control what happens in the county."
The issue probably would not be reconsidered until the board's March meeting because of Devore's interpretations of the advertisement publication guidelines.
"I feel like it's going to be readvertised and come up for a vote again, sometime this spring or earlier," said Dickerson.
Whether there would be another public hearing has yet to be decided.
County officials feel a new hearing is not required. But Kaluszka and Broderick claim the hearing, as well as the vote, was invalid because of the improper advertisements. Mullins said that issue might be addressed when the judge formally enters his order. The official ruling is being drafted and might not be entered until next week.