Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 09, 1992 Regular Meeting 067 A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of supervisors was held on September 9, 1992, 7:15 P.M., in the Board of Supervisor's Meeting Room, Frederick County Courthouse, Loudoun Street Mall, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT: Richard G. Dick, Chairman; W. Harrington smith, Jr., Vice-Chairman; James L. Longerbeam; Robert M. Sager; Beverly J. Sherwood and Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order. INVOCATION A moment of silence was observed in the absence of the minister. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Mr. Riley requested that the Board approve the resolution for the cable extension franchise that was handed out prior to the meeting. This will be considered under county officials. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by James L. Longerbeam the agenda was amended as noted. The above motion was passed by the following recorded vote: Richard G. Dick - Aye w. Harrington smith, Jr. - Aye James L. Longerbeam - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Beverly J. Sherwood - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED Mr. Riley asked the Board to consider approving tabs D and L under the consent agenda. TAB D - County Treasurer to Address the Board Re: Delinquent taxes. TAB L - Road Resolutions Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Beverly J. Sherwood tabs D and L were approved under the consent agenda. The above motion was passed by the following recorded vote: Richard G. Dick - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye James L. Longerbeam - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Beverly J. Sherwood - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 068 PRESENTATION OF COUNTY AWARD MADE TO CREEKSIDE/AL GRABER Mr. Dick stated that the actual plaque was presented on Tuesday to Mr. Al Graber as he was scheduled to be out of town therefore, unable to attend tonight's meeting. The plaque was presented to Mr. Graber in conjunction with his development of Creekside and the positive impact that it has had on Frederick County. APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEETING OF JULY 8. 1992 Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Charles W. Orndoff, Sr., the minutes of July 8, 1992 were approved as submitted. The above motion was passed by the following recorded vote: Richard G. Dick - Aye w. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye James L. Longerbeam - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Beverly J. Sherwood - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye BOARD MEETING OF JULY 20. 1992 Upon motion made by Charles W. Orndoff, Sr., seconded by Robert M. Sager the minutes of July 20, 1992 were approved as submitted. The above motion was passed by the following recorded vote: Richard G. Dick - Aye w. Harrington smith, Jr. - Aye James L. Longerbeam - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Beverly J. Sherwood - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS BETTY CHUMLEY APPOINTED TO HISTORIC RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD Upon motion made by Robert M. Sager, seconded by w. Harrington Smith, Jr., Betty Chumley was appointed to the Historic Resources Board to fill the seat vacated by Maral Kalbian, said term to commence September 13, 1992, and expire September 13, 1996. The above motion was passed by the following recorded vote: Richard G. Dick - Aye w. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye James L. Longerbeam - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Beverly J. Sherwood - Aye 069 Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye ROBERT M. SAGER APPOINTED TO THE REGIONAL JAIL BOARD AS COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE - APPROVED Upon motion made by W. Harrington smith, Jr., seconded by James L. Longerbeam, Robert M. Sager was appointed to the Regional Jail Board as county representative for a four year term, said term to commence October 13, 1992 and expire October 13, 1996. Mr. Sager will be filling the expired seat of Mr. Roger Crosen. The above motion was passed by the following recorded vote: Richard G. Dick - Aye W. Harrington smith, Jr. - Aye James L. Longerbeam - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Beverly J. Sherwood - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye JEAN WESTLER ADDRESSES BOARD - RE ROUTE 37 PROJECT Ms. Jean Westler appeared before the Board at which time she read from a prepared letter signed by seven individuals representing Citizens for a Quality community, Concerned citizens of Frederick County, Shenandoah Valley Audubon Society, Clarke county Citizens Council, Izaak Walton League, Shenandoah Valley civil War Foundation, and Commonwealth Coalition, that are opposed to the proposed route 37 project. Mr. Dick explained to Ms. Westler that this project has had more meetings and public hearings than any other project in Frederick County for quite some time. He further noted that he was not sure that all of the individuals that signed the letter were completely opposed to route 37, and he found it interesting that a gentleman from a neighboring county of Clarke had also signed the letter, even though Mr. Hardesty, Chairman of the Board of supervisors has asked him on more than one occasion about Clarke County dumping their sludge in the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant. He further noted that we are all in this together and that additional meetings will be held on this project before a final decision is made. RESOLUTION I AGREEMENT FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING CABLE AGREEMENT WITH ADELPHIA CABLE FOR AN ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS OR LESS IN ORDER TO NEGOTIATE A BETTER CONTRACT WITH ADELPHIA - APPROVED j 010 Mr. Owen, Assistant County Administrator, presented this request to the Board at which time he explained a draft of this agreement was not received from Adelphia until recently and that staff is still working on fine tuning it to the county's advantage, therefore the need for approval of the resolution for an extension of the agreement. Upon motion made by Robert M. Sager, seconded by James L. Longerbeam the following resolution approving the extension of the current agreement with Adelphia Cable was approved: RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE DURATION OF COMMUNITY ANTENNA TELEVISION FRANCHISE ORDINANCE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia: 1. That the duration of the franchise, right and privi- lege ("Franchise") granted to Central Virginia Cable, Inc., d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications, as the successor to Winchester TV Cable Company, under the Community Antenna Television Franchise Ordinance of September 14, 1977, as amended, shall be and hereby is extended for a period not to exceed six (6) months beyond the duration set forth at Section 3(d) of the aforesaid Ordinance. 2. That all terms, conditions and provisions of the aforesaid ordinance, as amended, not otherwise ad- dressed herein shall continue in full force and effect, without abatement, for the duration of the Franchise hereby extended until the terminal date of such extension, which terminal date shall be no later than March 14, 1993, or until such earlier date as a subsequent ordinance may be adopted by the county relating to the renewal of the Franchise hereby extended. 3. The extension of the duration of the Franchise is hereby granted is conditioned upon the acceptance by Adelphia Cable Communications, as evidenced by a separate writing, of its continuing duties and obliga- tions for the duration of the Franchise as extended, and its agreement during such extension to participate and cooperative with the County of Frederick and its representatives and agents in such procedures as may be required for the renewal of cable television franchises under Title VI of the Communications Act of 1934, as added by the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, Public Law 98-549, 98 stat. 2780, October 30, 1984. 4. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to preclude the County of Frederick from adopting, prior to the terminal date of the extension hereby granted, such subsequent Ordinance as it determines appropriate for the renewal of the Franchise currently granted to Adelphia Cable Communications, as hereby extended, under such terms and conditions, and for such dura- tion, as may be agreed to by the County of Frederick and Adelphia Cable Communications. ADOPTED this 9th day of September, 1992. AGREEMENT FOR CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE EXTENSION ',,- 011 ~IS AG~~ is entered into by and b7tw~en the county of Frederl.ck, Vl.rgl.nl.a ("County") and Central Vl.rgl.nia Cable, Inc., d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications ("Adelphia"), effective as of the date last set forth below: WHEREAS, pursuant to the Community Antenna Television Franchise Ordinance, as amended, dated September 14, 1977, the county has granted to Adelphia, as the successor to Winchester TV Cable Company, the franchise, right and privilege (the "Fran- chise") to construct and operate a cable television system in the County, with the term of such Franchise to expire on septem- ber 14, 1992; and WHEREAS, during the pendency of negotiations relating to the proposed renewal of the Franchise the parties desire to extend for a period not to exceed six months, until no later than March 14, 1993, the term of the aforesaid Franchise, without otherwise altering or modifying in any way the other provisions of the Franchise, and without altering or waiving any of the parties/ respective rights concerning the Franchise or the renewal thereof; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution duly adopted by the County, the term of the aforesaid Franchise has been extended SUbject to the acceptance of certain conditions by Adelphia as set forth in such Resolution, and Adelphia by its execution of this Agreement does signify its acceptance of and agreement to such conditions. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable consideration, including the aforesaid exten- sion of the Franchise, the parties agree as follows: 1. Adelphia accepts the aforesaid extension of the Fran- chise, and Adelphia and the County agree that, for the duration of such extension or until such earlier date as the Franchise may be renewed, each party shall be and is hereby obligated to fulfill its respective duties and obligations as set forth in such Franchise granted pursuant to the Community Antenna Television Franchise Ordinance, as amended. 2. Adelphia agrees that it shall participate and cooper- ate with the County and its representatives and agents in such franchise renewal procedures as may be re- quired under section 626 of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, which each counterpart being deemed an original, and all such counterparts taken together being deemed as one and the same instrument. WHEREFORE, the parties, by the signatures appearing below of each of their authorized representatives, indicate their acceptance of the provisions of this Agreement, effective this 9th day of September, 1992. The above motion was passed by the following recorded vote: Richard G. Dick - Aye W. Harrington smith, Jr. - Aye James L. Longerbeam - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Beverly J. Sherwood - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye APPROVAL GIVEN TO COUNTY TREASURER TO REMOVE FROM BOOKS THE LIST OF NAMES WITH PROPERTIES WITH NO MAP NUMBER IDENTIFICATION AND HAVE NOT PAID THEIR TAXES (THIS WAS TABLED FROM THE AUGUST 12. 1992 BOARD MEETING) APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING: 072 AN AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 9. FINANCE AND TAXATION: ARTICLE II. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL. HORTICULTURAL. FOREST OR OPEN SPACE REAL ESTATE: AMEND SECTION 2-1. FINDINGS OF COUNTY: ADDITION OF SECTION 2-2-3 - APPROVED Mr. Riley presented this information to the Board. There was no public input. Mrs. Sherwood stated that she had thought long and hard about this and how it relates to some of the planning items that the Board has been discussing in order to preserve the county's rural lands. She further stated that the word "incentivell has been used a great many times as the Board has talked about preserving the open space in this county that everyone loves, and she feels this would help to diminish this incentive by increasing the amount it would cost to sign up each parcel that a citizen might want to put in land use, and she has a problem with this, as she feels it goes against what the Board has been trying to do in preserving the county's farm land. Mr. Longerbeam asked Mr. Didawick if this amount represented the cost involved in handling this program. Mr. Didawick replied yes as far as processing the applications. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Charles W. Orndoff, Sr., the above ordinance amendment was approved as presented. The above motion was passed by the following recorded vote: Richard G. Dick - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye James L. Longerbeam - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Beverly J. Sherwood - Nay Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye AN AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 9. FINANCE AND TAXATION: ARTICLE XIX. PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES: BY THE ADDITION OF SECTION 19 4. PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX ON MOTOR VEHICLES. TRAILERS. AIRPLANES AND BOATS - TABLED Mr. Riley presented this amendment request and noted that airplanes are not included. Mr. Marty Monk, lifelong resident of Frederick County, stated that he was opposed to this amendment as he prefers to purchase a new vehicle after January 1, and that way the vehicle depreciates one year before he is required to pay personal 073 property taxes on it, he feels there are other areas in county government that need change, but this is not one of them. Mr. Kenneth Y. stiles, resident of stonewall District, stated that he read an article in today's paper referring to this amendment, and it stated that technically this was not going to be a tax increase, but somehow, somewhere there is going to be a half million dollars supposedly come out of the pockets of the citizens of Frederick County into the coiffures of Frederick County. He further stated that he felt regardless of how this was sliced, it is a tax increase to those that have to pay it. He noted how this amendment was advertised in the paper, and stated that he felt there was not one person in ten thousand in Frederick County that could have read what was advertised and know that the Board was considering a tax increase. He further stated that this amendment had been around for years and had been presented by staff to the Board on more than one occasion. He stated that based on the figures he had come up with he felt this amendment would generate somewhere between $800,000 and a $1,400,000. He noted that this was a tax increase and wanted to know why it went to the Code & Ordinance Committee and not to the Finance Committee. He asked if this was being sneaked through the back door so that the citizens would know nothing about it until they received their tax bill next year. He stated that this tax increase, regardless of the amount, will only be paid by part of the people in Frederick County, those that buy cars next year, somewhere between 25 and 30% of the people, and they will be faced with a tax increase of several hundred dollars if this is approved. He stated that he felt the personal property tax in Frederick County is too high and this has been his position for some time, as well as that of some members of the present Board, and many other public officials. He addressed the fairness of how the rebate is proposed to work, based on where you move, as well as the additional staff that would be needed in order to have this administered properly. He asked each Board member as they voted for this to say why, and why they thought it was fair. 014 Mr. Greg Hewitt, resident of Gainesboro District, stating that he agreed with what Mr. stiles had said as it is not a fair tax and also felt more publicity was needed in order to get the word to the citizens. Mr. Perry silva, resident of Opequon District, opposed this as he feels you are already taxed by the state when you purchase the car, that is bad enough, and now the county wants to hit you again. He further stated that he too felt it was not advertised in a manner in which the citizens would know that it was a tax increase. Mr. Charlie Boyd, resident of Stonewall District, questioned how a citizen could be assessed an amount that was more than was actually invested in the vehicle. Mr. Carroll Brown, resident of Shawnee District, was opposed to this, as he feels it is an increase that is unnecessary. Mr. Donald Jones, resident of Opequon District, stated that he came to this meeting because of another agenda item, but after hearing what he has up to this point he felt compelled to speak. He further stated that he felt the voters, citizens of Frederick County, were about to have something shoved down their throats. He referred to the number of retirees that live in the county and how they would be affected by this tax increase. Mr. Monk addressed the Board again stating that he felt some sort of a "cap" needed to be put into place with regard to the county personal property tax. Mr. smith stated that he was not speaking in defense of the automobile industry, but as a member of the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County. He further stated that he had studied this a great deal and it is a shame when a citizen of the county owns a $lOO,OOO home their real estate taxes are $430 per year, if they own a $10,000 car their taxes are $425 per year. If they moved up to a $200,000 home and a $20,000 automobile, the car taxes will be $850 and on the home $860, there is something wrong. He further stated that come November of this year he will have served on the Board for four years, but before he was l 075 ever a board member he said the personal property taxes need to be lowered. He explained that he had an alternative program that had not been ironed out, but feels it would be equitable. If a car was bought in August, why not pay your taxes the following August, when you buy the car that is the month, a year from now, that you would pay your taxes. He feels it would be a bookkeeping maze to keep track of all the individuals that would move in and out of the county, and he does feel this is a tax increase. Mr. Charles Orndoff, Sr., stated that he had been against this all along, as the figures have not been available, and feels this information is imperative, before any decision can be made. Upon motion made by James L. Longerbeam, seconded by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., to table the above ordinance amendment. The above motion was passed by the following recorded vote: Richard G. Dick - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye James L. Longerbeam - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Beverly J. Sherwood - Nay Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Nay AN AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 6. BUILDINGS; BY THE ADDITION OF ARTICLE V. TRADESMEN CERTIFICATION STANDARD. ADOPTION OF THIS AMENDMENT WILL ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THE VIRGINIA TRADESMEN CERTIFICATION STANDARDS. PURSUANT TO TITLE 15.1. CHAPTER 1. SECTION 15.1.11.4 AND TITLE 36. CHAPTER 6. SECTION 36-99. CODE OF VIRGINIA - DENIED Mr. Riley, presented this amendment request to the Board. Mr. Ed strawsnyder, Engineering Director, appeared before the Board noting that there have been several changes since the time this amendment was presented to the Board a few years ago. He explained that now there is a new licensing requirement that states in order to qualify for and A & B license you must have your tradesmen certification, this is a state law that went into effect on July 1, 1992. He further explained that the county feels this certification program is not only a benefit to Frederick county but also the building community. He further noted that this applies to speciality trades, ie., plumbers, electricians, and HAVC. He did state that this does not apply 076 to homeowners, only to tradesmen operating in the commercial realm and major builders. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Strawsnyder to outline the pros for implementing this program as well as the cons. Mr. strawsnyder replied that it would assist the contractors in obtaining or maintaining their license by offering them an opportunity to receive their certification on a local level. Anyone in business before 1972 will be grandfathered under this program. The fact that qualified tradesmen will be working in Frederick County will be a benefit to the citizens of the county. He noted that most of the adjoining counties require tradesmen certification. Mr. Smith asked if most of our tradesmen are certified. Mr. strawsnyder replied yes, most of them are certified. Mr. Carroll Brown, resident of Opequon District, and former Building Official for Frederick County appeared before the Board to oppose this amendment. He stated that this is still a local option as it was when he was a building official, and he asked what the purpose is for local enforcement of a state law. Mr. James Amer, resident of Opequon District, and a contractor, stated he was in favor of this as he feels any cohesion that can be made between the county and the state in codes has to be a plus. The certification will benefit the residents of this county and builders as well. Mr. Kenneth Y. Stiles, resident of stonewall District, stated that according to Roberts Rules of Order any action that is tabled for an indefinite time may be brought up at any time at any further meeting, and because of that and the action taken by the Board of the amendment request for proration of personal property taxes, he would request that the amendment be advertised in order that the people will know that it is being considered. Mr. Stiles stated that his opinion is that this is a "lemon" that has been around for years. He stated that Mr. strawsnyder had said earlier that contractors from Frederick county are barred from working in other counties because we 077 don't have certification, but this is not true as they can be certified in other counties. He feels this is regulation for the sake of regulation, and this will do nothing whatsoever to improve the quality of building in Frederick County. Whether or not a contractor is certified, the county can require the builder to build to the code, no more no less. The fact the contractor is certified will change absolutely nothing as far as the quality of building is concerned. This will require additional staff to see this is administered. He stated that this will benefit the big guy and hurt the small guy, and the one that does this part-time. Mr. Longerbeam moved for approval and Mr. Sager seconded. Mr. Longerbeam stated that he had just returned from Florida where he spent a number of days in the area that had been impacted by Hurricane Andrew. He stated that he felt a great number of law suits would come out of this because of poor construction, and the fact that tradesmen are not required to be certified. He does not feel that if this would be enacted that trade would be restrained, and that this would in fact force those that are not certified to become certified, and in turn the county would have a better work force in the construction industry. Mr. smith asked if a house is built and the builders are not certified and the inspections department sign off on it, and something is missed, sayan electrical problem, and the house burns down, and the Fire Marshall says, it is due to bad electrical work within the house. Is the contractor liable because his man was not certified. Mr. Strawsnyder explained that it depends on various factors. Mr. Orndoff asked if this would not come back on the inspector rather than the contractor. Mr. Ambrogi explained that this would fall under a civil liability not criminal charges. The county would probably be sued because they had the deed pocket, and it would depend on the jury and judge hearing the case. If the county knows the 018 state has the certification program but elects not to implement it, then in his opinion this would make the case stronger against the county. Mr. Orndoff asked if the state in fact did require this certification. Mr. Ambrogi replied that he did not know as he had not been asked to research this. He explained that the state says a locality "MAY" enact this it does not say it "SHALL" enact it. The above motion was denied by the following recorded vote: Richard G. Dick - Aye W. Harrington smith, Jr. - Nay James L. Longerbeam - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Beverly J. Sherwood - Nay Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Nay PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #010-92 OF LEWIS A. BOYER. II. SHAWNEE DISTRICT - APPROVED Mr. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator, presented this request to the Board noting that the staff and Planning commission recommended approval with conditions. Mr. Boyer was present on behalf of his request. There was no public input. Mr. Sager asked if condition number 4 could be amended and that everything be moved within the 30 days off of route 647, because of a complaint that he had received. Mr. Longerbeam stated that Mr. Boyer had 30 days to submit the site plan, that is a requirement. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Charles W. Orndoff, Sr., Conditional Use Permit #010-92 of Lewis A. Boyer, II, for the relocation of an existing landscaping contracting business was approved with the understanding that the entire business be vacated from the property within the next sixty days. The above motion was passed by the following recorded vote: Richard G. Dick - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye James L. Longerbeam - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Beverly J. Sherwood - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye 0"79 REZONING APPLICATION #001-92 OF JOHN AND JANE MCALLISTER TO REZONE TWO ACRES FROM RP (RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE) TO B-2 (BUSINESS GENERAL) - OPEQUON DISTRICT - APPROVED Mr. Kris Tierney, Assistant Planning Director, appeared before the Board to present this request noting that the Planning Commission recommended approval with acceptance of proffers. Mr. Sager asked who would pay for the light. Mr. Tierney replied that it would likely be up to the applicant. Mr. Smith stated that in his review of this request he thought he had read where the county would pay for the light and VDOT would install it. Mr. Watkins explained that he felt VDOT was saying, if you want the light then you are going to pay for it. VDOT usually doesn't get involved until the problem is there. If this is developed and traffic becomes a problem then the developer could be asked to pay a portion or all of the expense involved in erecting a traffic light. Mr. Tierney, explained that not everyone is talking about the same light, this light is at Jefferson and Warrior Road. Mr. Watkins apologized stating that he was not sure which light was being discussed, he thought it was the one coming out from the new high school on Route 277. Mr. Sager stated that the light he was aSking about is the one at Jefferson and Warrior Roads, not the one for Warrior Road and Route 277. Mr. Frank Weller, Chief, Stephens City Fire Company, appeared before the Board with regard to item #7 Emergency Services Cost, wherein they refer to law enforcement and what the cost might be for that, but nothing else, and he has some problems with that statement. He feels that growth does impact the need for emergency services and as growth continues so does the impact on emergency services. He presented figures in the area of emergency services within the Stephens city service area. He noted that the county is responding to 10 and 3/4 080 incidents per day and 1/4 of these are in the stephens city response area. Mr. Sager asked Chief Weller if this is the first time that he has requested a proffer like this. Chief Weller replied, no we have made other requests, but have not received anything. Mr. Ron Mislowsky, representing G. W. Clifford and Associates, appeared before the Board on behalf of the applicant. He explained that there had been discussion earlier in the meeting with regard to a signal light and there is nothing there to show a signal light is planned. He stated that with regard to the emergency services cost, this is land that is going from residential to commercial therefore, he felt the emergency services cost would be less. Mr. Weller stated that in the impact study it showed that In RP zoning there would be 53 trips generated and in B2 l,l39 trips. He feels that anytime you have that kind of traffic increase it will definitely have an impact on emergency services. Robert M. Sager moved for approval and Beverly J. Sherwood seconded the rezoning application #001-92 of John and Jane McAllister to rezone two acres from RP (Residential Performance) to B-2 (Business General) for retail business. Mr. Sager stated that he recognized Chief Wellers concern, the corridor is getting full and he feels the county needs to look at the county's fire and rescue services. Mr. Longerbeam stated that because of his association with the McAllisters he would be abstaining from voting on this issue, however he would like to comment on the issue of fire and rescue, that he sympathizes with Frank Weller, and he feels he is right in what he has said. He has discussed this with Tom Owens and Bob Watkins as to when the time is appropriate for the County Fire and Rescue Services to ask for proffers. Mr. Watkins noted that proffers can only be requested at the time of rezoning. 081 Mrs. Sherwood stated that there has to be another way to pull this out at the time of rezoning. Mr. Watkins explained that the issue has been are we concerned with the county budget or are we concerned with the fire and rescue companies. We need to be reminded that you do not ask for proffers. You need to put together a proffer package which evaluates all the impacts and the board either approves it or denies it based on what they have received. The above motion was passed by the following recorded vote: Richard G. Dick - Aye W. Harrington smith, Jr. - Aye James L. Longerbeam - Abstained Robert M. Sager - Aye Beverly J. Sherwood - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye A PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH A LOCAL HISTORIC PROPERTY RECOGNITION PROGRAM - APPROVED Mr. Kris Tierney presented this information to the Board. Mr. Sager asked how would someone know where these properties were located. Mr. Tierney explained that this information would be available through the Planning Department. There was no public input. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Charles W. Orndoff, Sr., the addition to the Frederick County Code which would establish a local historic property recognition program was approved. The above motion was passed by the following recorded vote: Richard G. Dick - Aye W. Harrington smith, Jr. - Aye James L. Longerbeam - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Beverly J. Sherwood - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye (A copy of the code is on file in the Office of Planning and Development) RESOLUTION REQUESTING TRAFFIC LIGHT BE ERECTED ON ROUTE 277 AT ENTRANCE TO SHERANOO HIGH SCHOOL - APPROVED AS AMENDED Mr. Watkins presented this information and resolution request to the Board. Mr. Tom Sullivan, Assistant superintendent, stated that the cost for this light would be between $70,000 and $100,000. 082 Robert M. Sager moved and Beverly J. Sherwood seconded to approve the resolution. Mr. Tom Malcolm asked the Board if they could do anything to get this cost lowered or at least the part the county would have to pay. Mr. Dick stated that he felt VDOT should be the ones to pay for the light. Mr. Malcolm explained that the school board had not anticipated this and once again asked if there was not another source that could help out on the cost of having this light erected. Following Board discussion it was decided that VDOT should be the one to bare this cost and that the resolution would be amended to show this. Upon motion made by James L. Longerbeam seconded by Charles W. Orndoff, Sr., the following amended resolution requesting that VDOT be asked to pay for the erection of the light on Route 277 at the entrance to Sherando High School was approved: SIGNALIZED TRAFFIC LIGHT AT SHERANOO HIGH SCHOOL WHEREAS, the Frederick County Transportation Committee met on the 3rd day of August, 1992; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Transportation Committee recommended that a signalized traffic light be installed at the intersection of Route 277 and Warrior Drive; and, WHEREAS, the installation of a signalized traffic light at this intersection will promote safe and efficient traffic flows for persons utilizing Sherando High School and the Route 277 corridor; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of a signalized traffic light at their regular meeting of August 19th; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick county Board of Supervisors considered this recommendation at their regular meeting of September 9, 1992; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: The Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the recommendation to install a signalized traffic light at the intersection of Route 277 and Warrior Drive, and; The Frederick County Board of Supervisors insists that funding of said traffic signal be the responsibility of the Virginia Department of Transportation. The above motion was passed by the following recorded vote: Richard G. Dick - Aye \ I 083 W. Harrington smith, Jr. - Aye James L. Longerbeam - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Beverly J. Sherwood - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye ROAD RESOLUTIONS - FREDERICKTOWNE - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA BE IT RESOLVED, that the Virginia Department of Transporta- tion is hereby requested to add the following roads to the Secondary System of Frederick County pursuant to Section 33.1 - 229 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended: WESTMORELAND DRIVE (60' ROW) Fredericktowne Estates, Section I & II From: Intersection with Route 1058 To: 61.00' or 0.01 mile east of Warrior Drive Length: 2,096.80' or 0.40 mile and as described in Deed Book 716, Page 454 and certified on June 16, 1989; Deed Book 748, Page 0303 and certified on March 27, 1990; Deed Book 748, Page 0306 and certified on July 18, 1990. WARRIOR DRIVE (50' ROW) Fredericktowne Estates, Section II From: Intersection with Westmoreland Drive To: 60.00' or 0.01 mile north of Montgomery Circle Length: 343.49' or 0.07 mile and as described in Deed Book 742, Page 0155 and certified on March 27, 1990 and Deed Book 748, Page 0306 and certified on July 18, 1990; Deed Book 443, Page 303 and certified April 29, 1975. MONTGOMERY CIRCLE (50' ROW) Fredericktowne Estates, section II From: Intersection with Warrior Drive To: 378.19' or 0.07 mile west Length: 378.19' or 0.07 mile and as described in Deed Book 742, Page 0155 and certified on March 27, 1990 and Deed Book 748, Page 0306 and certified July 18, 1990. The total length of the proposed addition is 2,818.48' or 0.54 mile. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors does guarantee to the Commonwealth of Virginia an unrestricted right of way of 50' or 60' as described in the above referenced Deed Books and Page numbers, with the necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage. GREENWOOD HEIGHTS. SECTION V - APPROVED BE IT RESOLVED, that the Virginia Department of Transporta- tion is hereby requested to add the fOllowing roads to the Secondary System of Frederick County pursuant to Section 33.1 - 229 of the Code of virginia, 1950, as amended: MEADOWBRooKE DRIVE (50' & 56' ROW), Greenwood Heights, Section V. From: Route 656 To: 597.06' or 0.11 mile west of Meadowview Court (cul-de-sac) Length: 1,034.14' or 0.20 mile and as described in Deed Book 647, Page 746 and certified on May 18, 1987; Deed Book 773, Page 0143 and certified on February 28, 1992; Deed Book 762, Page 378 and certified July 5, 1991. MEADOWLARK COURT (50' ROW) Greenwood Heights, Section V From: Meadowbrooke Drive To: 463.19' or 0.09 mile south (cul-de-sac) Length: 463.19' or 0.09 mile and as depicted in Deed Book 647, Page 746 and certified on May 18, 1987. MEADOWVIEW COURT (50' ROW) Greenwood Heights, Section V 084 From: Meadowbrooke Drive To: 596.42' or 0.11 mile north (cul-de-sac) Length: 596.42' or 0.11 mile and as depicted in Deed Book 647, Page 746 and certified May 18, 1987. The total length of the proposed addition is 2,093.75' or 0.40 mile. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of supervisors does guarantee to the Commonwealth of Virginia an unrestricted right of way of 50' or 56' as described in the above referenced Deed book and Page numbers, with the necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage. LAKESIDE - APPROVED BE IT RESOLVED, that the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation is hereby requested to add the following roads to the Secondary system of Frederick County pursuant to Section 33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. CAPON WAY (50' ROW) The villages at Lakeside, Section VIII From: Intersection with Chinkapin Drive To: 366.17' or 0.07 mile south (CUl-de-sac) Length: 366.17' or 0.07 mile and as described in Deed Book 689, Page 511 and certified on August 11, 1988. CASCADE CIRCLE (50' ROW) Lakeridge, Section II From: Intersection with Lakeridge Drive To: 609.29' or 0.12 mile northeast (CUl-de-sac) Length: 609.29' or 0.12 mile and as described in Deed Book 735, Page 0634 and certified January 5, 1989. CHINKAPIN DRIVE (60' ROW) The Villages at Lakeside, Sections IV & VIII From: Intersection with Route 1182 To: 439.12' or 0.08 mile west Length: 439.12' or 0.08 mile and as described in Deed Book 637, Page 830 and certified on January 27, 1987 and Deed Book 689, Page 511 and certified on August 11, 1988. CHINKAPIN DRIVE (60' ROW) Lakeridge, Section II From: Intersection with Hackberry Drive (Route 1070) To: 61' or 0.01 mile east of Lakeridge Drive Length: 1,013.58' or 0.19 mile and as described in Deed Book 735, Page 0634 and certified on January 5, 1989. LAKERIDGE DRIVE (50' ROW) Lakeridge, Section II From: End of Maintenance, Route 1191 To: Intersection with Chinkapin Drive Length: 785.17' or 0.15 mile and as described in Deed Book 735, Page 0634 and certified January 5, 1989. WOODRIDGE COURT (50' ROW) Lakeridge, Section I & The Villages at Lakeside, Section VII From: Intersection with Chinkapin Drive To: 610.26' or 0.12 mile northwest (CUl-de-sac) Length: 610.26' or 0.12 mile and as described in Deed Book 689, Page 486, certified August 11, 1988 and Deed Book 689, Page 511, certified August 11, 1988. The total length of the proposed addition is 3,823.59' or 0.73 mile. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors does guarantee to the Commonwealth of Virginia an unrestricted right of way of 50' or 60' as described in the above referenced Deed Books and Page numbers, with the necessary easements for cuts, fills, and drainage. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in order to provide route numbering continuity in this area, the Department of , l 085 Transportation requests, and the Frederick county Board of Supervisors do hereby agree, to renumber a section of Route 1070 to Route 1187; from its intersection with Route 642 to 0.10 mile northeast of its intersection with 642 for a total length of 0.10 mile. This is requested in accordance with the policy set forth by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. ROAD NAME REQUESTS - APPROVED Mr. Tierney presented this information to the Board. ROAD NAMING COMMITTEE The Frederick county Road Naming Committee is continuing to review road name change requests on a monthly basis. At the August meeting, the committee decided on recommendations for the requests currently on file and therefore, submit these recommen- dations to the Board for action. Recommendation for Approval The following road name requests have met the requirements set forth by the Board of Supervisors. The Road Naming Commit- tee believes that the following road name changes will assist in clarifying street addressing: 1) FROM: TO: 2) FROM: TO: 3 ) FROM: TO: 4) FROM: TO: Bivouac Lane (Back Creek District) Merrifield Lane Fleagle Lane (Back Creek District) Flegal Lane Ruffed Grouse Lane (Gainesboro District) Bethany Hill Drive Caldwaller Road (Opequon District) Refuge Church Road (portion of Rt.640jRt. 639) * This will require the portion of Route 640 south of the Route 639 intersection to be renamed. The Road Naming Committee recommends Bunker Hill Road. This name has not been used and has been designated by a street sign by Warren county at the boundary line. 5) FROM: TO: 6) FROM: TO: 7) FROM: TO: 8) FROM: TO: 9) FROM: TO: 10) FROM: TO: Lum Perry Road (Opequon District) Hudson Hollow Road (portion of Rt. 636) Dick Road (Gainesboro District) winding Hill Road (Rt. 674) catwalk Hollow Road (Gainesboro District) Old Bethel Lane Horseshoe Circle (Back Creek District) Rose Hill Circle No Name-39-1 (Back Creek District) Hedrick Lane Rabbit Road (Town of Stephens city) Passage Road (Opequon District) (Rt. 648) * This road name change request was made by the Town of Stephens city Street Committee. The Road Naming 086 Committee supported this request as there is currently a Rabbit Lane near Route 648 and Route 648 has been referred to as "Passage Lane" over the years. The Road Naming Committee changed this to Passage Road to conform with the road nomenclature policy specified by the Board of Supervisors. Staff discussed this with Mr. Michael K. Kehoe, stephens City Town Administra- tor. Mr. Kehoe agreed with the Road Naming Commit- tee's decision. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Charles W. Orndoff, Sr., the above road name changes were approved. The above motion was passed by the following recorded vote: Richard G. Dick - Aye w. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye James L. Longerbeam - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Beverly J. Sherwood - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye Recommendation for Denial The Road Naming Committee recommends denial of the follow- lng road name change requests: 1) FROM: TO: Stone Ridge Circle (Back Creek District) Stone Ridge Road (Rt. 1118) This request was denied by the Road Naming Committee because it does not comply with the road nomenclature policy specified by the Board of supervisors. The only suffix that would apply in this case (besides Circle) is Court. 2) FROM: TO: Greenfield Circle (Back Creek District) Greenfield Road (Rt. 1112) This request was denied for the same reason as item #1. The only suffix that would apply in this case (besides Circle) is Avenue. 3) FROM: TO: Headly Lane (Opequon District) Buckhorn Lane (Rt. 854) This request was denied by the Road Naming Committee because Buckhorn Lane has been used in Back Creek District, and because the petitioners did not obtain a majority of signatures. Upon motion made by Robert M. Sager, seconded by James L. Longerbeam the above road names recommended for denial of change was approved. The above motion was passed by the following recorded vote: Richard G. Dick - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye James L. Longerbeam - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Beverly J. Sherwood - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye l I 087 Mr. Dick asked if #3 Buckhorn Lane could be changed to Buckhorn Road. Mr. Riley requested that Mr. Tierney look into this. ACTIVITY REPORT INFORMATION AUGUST l6-3l. 1992 - RECEIVED AS COMMITTEE REPORTS: PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION REPORT The Parks and Recreation Commission met on August 18, 1992, at Greenwood Fire Company. Members present were: James Robinson, Charles Sandy, Carmen Rio, Jimmie Ellington, Joe BiShOp, Cheryl Swartz, Beverly Sherwood. Frederick Heiqhts Communitv Park Mr. Rio moved to take down one of the basketball poles at Frederick Heights Community Park, paint over the three point line, paint over the other half of the court for another type of activity, request impact fees from the Shawnee District for these improvements, and solicit input from the residents in the ensuing months to see if there has been any improvement, seconded by Mrs. Swartz, carried 5-1 (Robinson opposed) . The commission requests that the board release the $5,420 in impact fee funds from the Shawnee District so that these improvements can be completed as soon as possible. If funds remain after completion of this project, they will be returned to the Shawnee District Impact Fee Fund. This was pulled as the county is awaiting an opinion from the County Commonwealth Attorney. Request for Surplus Funds Mr. Ellington moved to request FY 1991-1992 surplus funds in the amount of $17,460 to be used for a railing on the spillway at Sherando Park, replacement of four paddleboats, and recapping the asphalt parking lot at Clearbrook Park, seconded by Mr. Sandy, carried unanimously (6-0). This is being submitted to the Finance Department for their review and recommendation. End of Committee Reports. 088 UPON MOTION MADE BY W. HARRINGTON SMITH, JR., SECONDED BY JAMES L. LONGERBEAM, AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADJOURNED AS THERE WAS NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD.