A rare tie vote on a routine item on the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors' agenda will likely lead to a delay in the board's consideration of a rezoning and special-use permit application for a controversial asphalt plant.

Adams Construction Co. has proposed converting the former Salem water filtration plant on West Main Street into an asphalt production facility. The property is across Interstate 81 from a residential subdivision, but also near other industrial facilities.

The board regularly sets dates for public hearings on such requests with a disclaimer that "approval of these items does not indicate support for, or judge the merits of, the requested zoning actions."

But Supervisors Butch Church, in whose Catawba District the plant is proposed, and Charlotte Moore, who represents Cave Spring, voted against the first reading, a procedural move to set the date for the public hearing.

The two attended a neighborhood information meeting on the plant last week that drew more than 200 people, most of them vocally opposed to the project, to Glenvar Middle School.

"I vote with my heart," Moore said afterward. She said she would not vote to allow the plant based on her belief that it will "put the life and health and welfare of the people who live nearby at risk."

Church insisted that he was merely being consistent with his already stated opposition to placing an asphalt plant there. He said he didn't want any of his constituents to think that he might have changed his mind with a positive vote to move the project forward in the zoning process.

Supervisor Richard Flora was absent from the meeting, so when Supervisors Mike Altizer and Joe McNamara voted for the agenda item, there was a tie.

County Attorney Paul Mahoney explained that the tie doesn't kill the item but merely moves it to the next meeting, Feb. 3, for another vote.

He also reminded the board members that state law gives a petitioner for a rezoning or special-use permit the right to a hearing before the governing body.

McNamara, the vice chairman and a 10-year veteran of the board, said he could not recall a first reading ever having been delayed before.

"It's part of good government to allow a petitioner to go through the process. We're not a dictatorship," he said.

By passing the item, the board would have authorized a second reading and public hearing at its Feb. 24 meeting, by which time the planning commission is expected to have issued a recommendation on the request.

Mahoney said that even if the board approves the first reading at its Feb. 3 meeting, he is not sure the county can meet the legal requirements to advertise a public hearing for Feb. 24.

In a later work session, board members indicated that -- assuming the first reading is passed next time -- they would not object to moving the public hearing to the first meeting in March.

Also at that work session, the board considered some objections raised by Church to the notification process for neighborhood meetings such as the one Adams Construction held last week. In the end, the board members reached a consensus that in the future, such notifications, which go out on county letterhead, should include a disclaimer.

It would indicate that the meeting is sponsored by the company or person seeking the rezoning or special-use permit and does not imply endorsement by the county.

In a phone call after the vote, Adams Construction Executive Vice President Rick James said he couldn't understand what could be controversial about holding a public hearing. He indicated the company would continue to seek a positive recommendation from the planning commission, which will hold a public hearing on the request at its Feb. 3 meeting.