Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 10, 2003 Regular Meeting 477 A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors (Board) was held on March 10,2003, at 6:00 P.M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. PRESENT Chairman Richard C. Shickle; Vice Chairman W. Harrington Smith, Jr.; Robert M. Sager; Margaret B. Douglas; Gina A. Forrester; and Lynda J. Tyler. ABSENT Sidney A. Reyes was absent due to illness. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Shickle called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. BOARD RETIRED INTO CLOSED SESSION Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Robert M. Sager, the Board retired into Closed Session in accordance with the Code a/Virginia, 1950, as amended, Section 2.2- 3711, Subsection A, (5), to discuss an economic development industrial prospect. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Absent Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye BOARD WITHDREW FROM CLOSED SESSION Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Gina A. Forrester, the Board withdrew from Closed Session and certified nothing other than what was noted as reason for going into Closed Session was discussed. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Absent Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye BOARD RECONVENED INTO REGULAR SESSION Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/1 0/03 478 Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Margaret B. Douglas, the Board reconvened into Regular Session. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Absent Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye INVOCATION The invocation was delivered by the Pastor Ruth Crom Stotler with the Church of the Good Shepherd. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADOPTION OF AGENDA County Administrator John Riley asked that Tab K - Resolution and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Re: Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) be pulled as the Virginia Department of Transportation had some major changes and staff needed time to review these changes. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Gina A. Forrester, the agenda was approved as amended by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Absent Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye CONSENT AGENDA Administrator Riley presented for approval under the consent agenda the following items: 1. Proclamation Re: Habitat for Humanity Youth United Day - Tab G; 2. ResolutionRe: 5th Anniversary of the Northwestern Regional Juvenile Detention Center- TabH; 3. Amended Resolution Re: Changes in the Primary and Secondary System Due to Relocation and Construction and Right-of-Way Abandonment on Entrance and Exit Ramps on Route 37 at its Intersection with Route 11 North - Tab I; 4. Resolution Re: Changes in the Secondary System Due to Relocation and Construction Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/1 0/03 479 on Walter's Mill Lane, Route 836 - Tab J; 5. Parks and Recreation Commission Report - Tab L. Upon motion made by Robert M. Sager, seconded by Gina A. Forrester, the Consent Agenda as noted above was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Absent Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye MINUTES - DECEMBER 2. 2002 - FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT WORKSESSION - APPROVED Upon motion made by Margaret B. Douglas, seconded by Robert M. Sager, these minutes were approved, as presented, by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Absent Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye MINUTES - DECEMBER 17. 2002 - REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED Upon motion made by Robert M. Sager, seconded by Gina A. Forrester, these minutes were approved, as presented, by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Absent Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye MINUTES - JANUARY 8. 2003 - BUDGET WORKSESSION - APPROVED Upon motion made by Robert M. Sager, seconded by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., these minutes were approved as presented by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Absent Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/10/03 480 MINUTES - JANUARY 8. 2003 - REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Margaret B. Douglas, these minutes were approved as presented by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Absent Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF EXISTING LOT SETBACKS IN THE R5 DISTRICT - APPROVED FOR THE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS Planner Jeremy Camp presented this proposed modification. The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) recommended the revision of Section 165-77B(2)( d) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The present ordinance allows the zoning administrator the ability to waive setbacks on existing lots in the R5 (Residential Recreation Community) Zoning District, but due to the text of the ordinance being located as a subsection of Section 165-77(2), it only applies to existing lots of age-restricted communities, garden apartments, and townhouses. The text should be included under l65-77B(3). The DRRS nor stafffelt it was the intent to change the basic function ofthis ordinance. The draft amendment was presented to the Planning Commission, at their meeting of February 19,2003, and directed staffto present this amendment to the board for discussion. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Robert M. Sager, this item was approved for the appropriate public hearing process to make the requested modifications. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Absent Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye PROPOSED ADDITION OF SIC 83. SOCIAL SERVICES (EXCLUDING RESIDENTIAL CARE) TO THE B2 DISTRICT - APPROVED FOR THE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS Planner Camp presented this amendment. The DRRS, upon a request of a local resident, Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03110103 481 considered adding SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) 83 - Social Services to the list of allowed uses in the B2 (Business, General) District and the MS (Medical Support). After discussions, the DRRS felt all of the uses with SIC 83 - Social Services, excluding those listed by SIC 836 - Residential Car, would be appropriate uses within the B2 Zoning District. They did not support adding these uses to the MS (Medical Support) Zoning District. These amendments were discussed with the Planning Commission at their meeting held on February 19 and they had reservations whether or not it was necessary to add the land use group to the B2 District but advised staff to present this modification to the Board for discussion. The Board addressed concern about overnight residential care not being appropriate in the B2 district. Planning staff advised the Board that daily care is appropriate. Progressive care (overnight) is allowed in the RP and MS zones as it is considered a residence and is not viewed as a commercial entity. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Gina A. Forrester, this item was approved for the appropriate public hearing process in order to make the requested modifications. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Absent Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye 2003 PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROJECT PRIORITIES - AFFIRMED Planning Director Eric Lawrence presented this item. A Planning Commissioners' Retreat was held on February 8, 2003, at the Wayside Inn. As a result of this retreat, staff was asked to request each of the supervisors and commissioners to provide the planning department with a ranking of various planning projects to be considered for the ensuing year. Staff compiled the suggestive project rankings and was submitted for the Board's information and direction. The highest ranked long range project is the review and implementation of standards to promote agricultural pursuits while concurrently preserving the character of the County's rural areas. The highest ranked current planning project is the comprehensive review of the zoning ordinance. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/1 0/03 482 Director Lawrence advised the Board that the long range planning items were more policy oriented items and the current planning projects were more law oriented and how the secondary road plans were prioritized. Staff requested affirmation of this plan. Supervisor Sager addressed concern in stabilizing the Sewer and Water Service Area. Staff advised him that this would be covered under the #2 priority of the Long Range Projects. Supervisor Forrester asked that significant issues be developed for the Board to review for implementation. She asked to see specific initiatives with each priority. Upon motion made by Lynda J. Tyler, seconded by Gina A. Forrester, the Board affirmed the 2003 Planning Department Project Priorities. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Absent Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM APPLICATION AND RESOLUTION (#048-03) FOR AIRPORT ROAD - APPROVED Director Lawrence presented this application and resolution. The County will apply for this application through the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) FY 2003-2004 Revenue Sharing Program. The Airport Road (Route 645) Relocation Project will be eligible for funding and no additional County funds will be needed. The airport will use their existing funds for the road proj ect as the required match. The Board was presented a resolution to adopt requesting funding for this project. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Robert M. Sager, the following resolution was approved: WHEREAS, the County of Frederick desires to submit an application for an allocation of funds of up to $500,000 for improvements to Airport Road to include its alignment at the intersection of Airport Road and Victory Road through the Virginia Department of Transportation "Revenue Sharing Program;" and WHEREAS, the improvements to Airport Road will allow for the improved streets to qualify for acceptance into the State Secondary Road System; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors supports the application for an allocation of up to $500,000 through the Virginia Department of Transportation "Revenue Sharing Program" for improvements to Airport Road as their first and only Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/10/03 483 priority, which is in effort to achieve the remaining project cost of the Airport Road relocation proj ect. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Absent Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye At this time, the Board recessed until 7:15, the time advertised to take action on the remaining agenda items. CITIZEN COMMENTS (BEGAN AT 7:15) David Hurd. Stonewall District: He expressed thanks to the Board for asking staff to address the public on the Northeast Frederick County Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Meetings will be held in April at Stonewall school but it was his understanding public comment would not be received. He developed a list compiled by concerned citizens and asked the Board to use this list as a tool to receive feedback from the public on the land uses for the northeast corridor. He also expressed thanks to the Board for its thinking process on the budget for the County and felt the action the Board took on the overall budget was outstanding. Bill Sheuard. Gainesboro District: The Federal Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century TEA2l will soon be modified. Congress is debating how much and where billions of service transportation dollars should go. A new transportation charter has been developed and endorsed by literally hundreds of govemment agencies, businesses, and organizations throughout the country. He wants to see transportation funds used to fix existing roads, bridges, pedestrian, rail, and mass transit systems and not new construction. He is opposed to VDOT spending millions of dollars on the Route 37 project and instead wants to see it used on upgrading and repairing secondary roads and bridge networks. He referred to the "30 cent tax increase" and indicated this should tell us the Route 37 project is a losing proposition. Sam Lehman. Back Creek District: Over the past 20 years, he stated our county spending has grown approximately twice more than twice our population growth and the US inflation rate compounded together. Our debt has grown 3 and halftimes that. He is worried about the trend and believes there is a difference in the households the county is getting. He feels the urban households Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/1 0/03 484 are high cost households and is evidenced by the 3.1 times more j ail prisoners from Winchester than Frederick County. He also expressed concern about the purchase of land for the new middle school and feels the county paid too much for it. Concern was also addressed about making sure adequate access to the property is available, if it currently has the sufficient access or additional monies will have to be spent to construct adequate access. Vickv West. Back Creek District: On behalf of Save the Water and Residence of Frederick County, she expressed concern about the water mining strategies ofthe Frederick County Sanitation Authority (Authority). Late last year, the Board passed a resolution requesting the Authority not to drill any new production or test wells in the county until the USGS water supply study is completed in 2004. At present, there is a site known as the Cover well on Phil Glaizes property and at numerous Authority meetings questions have been addressed about the logistics ofthis well and whether or not it is necessary to complete it before the new water study. The Authority assures it is only an observation and monitoring well but is questioning why they are going through the Office of Water Programs in Lexington, Virginia, and not the local health department. She feels this is the case because the local office permits for residential and/or agriculture wells and the Office of Water Programs is the contact for larger wells for potential public water supplies. The casings are heavier and the holes are 10 to 12 inches in diameter instead of 6 to 7 inches in diameter. She has talked with the Office of Water Programs and has learned that the Cover and Hites properties have been approved for 8 to 10 well sites. She questioned why a well firm from Pennsylvania is drilling wells and why a competitive bidding process was not done with the local well drillers. She feels the condition of the water supplies in Frederick County are being jeopardized by the Authority. She asked that these issues be addressed as soon as possible as the constituents deserve better. An agreement was referred to for the Phil Glaizes properties and the amounts of money that will be paid to do the drilling. GEORGE R. VAUGHT REAPPOINTED TO TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Upon motion made by Robert M. Sager, seconded by Gina A. Forrester, George R. Vaught was reappointed to the Transportation Committee as the representative from the Town of Stephens City. This is a one year term. This term will begin on April 29, 2003, and expire April 28, 2004. PROCLAMATION (#005-03) RE: HABIT AT FOR HUMANITY YOUTH UNITED- APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/10/03 4~85 JOINT PROCLAMATION APRIL 11TH AS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY'S YOUTH UNITED DAY WHEREAS, April 11, 2003 has been designated by Habitat for Humanity of Winchester- Frederick County as YOUTH United Day; and WHEREAS, the development of to day's youth will build the leadership oftomorrow; and WHEREAS, the youth of our community participated in Habitat's goal of eliminating poverty housing by sponsoring and building a home for a family in need; and WHEREAS, this day provides us with an excellent opportunity to recognize these dedicated youth and to thank them for their achievement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Winchester City Common Council and the Frederick County Board of Supervisors do hereby proclaim Friday, April 11, 2003 as Habitat for Humanity's Youth United Day in Winchester City-Frederick County, Virginia, and by doing so, calls this observance to the attention of all our citizens; and BE IT FURTHERRESOL VED, that this action publicly expresses confidence in the ability of to day's youth as they assume responsible roles in the future of humankind. RESOLUTION (#043-03) RE: 5TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE NORTHWESTERN REGIONAL JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia, do hereby recognize the 5th anniversary of the Northwestern Regional Juvenile Detention Center which opened December 8, 1997; and WHEREAS, the supervisors wish to hereby record their appreciation for the numerous accomplishments of the Northwestern Regional Juvenile Detention Center Board, Superintendent and staff during their first five years; and WHEREAS, the supervisors thank City of Winchester Mayor Larry T. Omps who has served as Chairman of the Board since its creation, and the board members who have adroitly led the Juvenile Detention Center Board in efforts to provide policy guidance and leadership for the Superintendent and staff; and WHEREAS, the supervisors congratulate Juvenile Detention Center Superintendent Robert S. Hurt who has faithfully and diligently served the center since its opening, and who has been integral to the opening of the center, selecting the excellent staff, and developing the policy and procedures necessary to efficiently run a facility for detained youth; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors do hereby record their appreciation to the staff members of the Juvenile Detention Center for their dedication to the facility and their caring efforts to work with the detained youth in our communities, and recognize the following staff members who have been with the center since its opening - Teresa Byrne, Janet Easterday, Shelby Feathers, Michele Hackney, Tammy Link, Erin Maloney, Mary-Helene Monroe, Kenneth Redman, Charles Shetler, Stephen Shiley, James Stevenson, Vincent Thompson and Duane Welsh; WHEREAS, we look forward to many more years of the type of quality service to our communities that we have witnessed in the center's first five years. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/10/03 486 Supervisors, on behalf of the citizens they represent, do hereby record their appreciation to the Northwestern Regional Juvenile Detention Center Board of Directors, Superintendent and staff for their exemplary service to the youth of our communities and wish them a Happy 5th Birthday; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors does hereby direct to prepare an attested copy of this resolution for presentation to the Northwestern Regional Juvenile Detention Center. RESOLVED, this 10th day of March, 2003. AMENDED RESOLUTION (#044-03) RE: CHANGES IN THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SYSTEM DUE TO RELOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION AND RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT ON ENTRANCE AND EXIT RAMPS ON ROUTE 37 AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH ROUTE 11 NORTH (CORRECTION TO PREVIOUS RESOLUTION APPROVED JUNE 12.2002) - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has provided this board with sketches dated December 13, 2001 depicting required changes in the Primary and Secondary Systems of State Highways, which sketches entitled "Changes in the Primary and Secondary Systems Due to Relocation and Construction on Route 37, Project 6037 -034-103, C50 1 ,"are hereby incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, new roads, identified in Red, now serves the same citizens as the old portion of old roads identified in Blue to be abandoned and the portions to be abandoned no longer serves a public need. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia, requests that the Virginia Department of Transportation abandon from the Primary System of State Highways, the portion identified in Blue on sketch 1 of 2 of the aforementioned sketches, and further identified as Section 5, pursuant to 33.1-148 ofthe Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, abandons from the Secondary System of State Highways the portions identified in Blue on sketch 2 of2 of the aforementioned sketches, and further identified as Sections 8 and 9, pursuant to 33.1- 155 of the Code o/Virginia, 1950, as amended; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, requests that the Virginia Department of Transportation add to the Secondary System of State Highways the portions identified in Red on sketch 2 of2 ofthe aforementioned sketches, and further identified as Sections 6 and 7, pursuant to 33.1-229 ofthe Code o/Virginia, 1950, as amended; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that a certified copy ofthis resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. ADOPTED this lOth day of March 2003. RESOLUTION (#045-03) RE: CHANGES IN THE SECONDARY SYSTEM DUE TO RELOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION ON WALTER'S MILL LANE. ROUTE 836 -APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has provided this board with a sketch dated February 3, 2003 depicting required changes in the Secondary System of State Highways, which sketch entitled "Changes in the Secondary System Due to Relocation and Construction on Walter's Mill Lane, Route 836, Frederick County," which is hereby incorporated herein by reference; and Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/10/03 487 WHEREAS, a new road now serves the same citizens as those portions of old road identified to be abandoned and those portions to be abandoned no longer serve a public need. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia, does hereby abandon from the Secondary System of Highways the portion of Route 836 identified as Section 1 of the aforementioned sketch, pursuant to Section 33.1-155 of the Code o/Virginia, 1950, as amended; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy ofthis resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. ADOPTED this 10th day of March 2003. RESOLUTION (#047-03) AND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING RE: METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) -PULLED - NO ACTION TAKEN COMMITTEE REPORTS PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The Parks and Recreation Commission met on February 25,2003. Members present were: Charles Sandy, Robert Hartman, Steven White, Cheryl Swartz, Victoria Keelon, Joyce Goff, Clarence Haymaker, and Lynda Tyler The following items were submitted for the Board's information only: New Business: 1. Election of Officers Mr. Sandy was unanimously elected Chairman; Mrs. Goff was unanimously elected Vice Chairman. 2. Meetin~ Date/Time/Location The Commission unanimously agreed to meet the third Tuesday of each month at 7 p.m. in the first floor conference room, 107 N. Kent St. 3. Committee Appointments Mr. Sandy stated committee appointments would remain the same for 2003: Finance - John Powell (Chairman), Clarence Haymaker, staff; Capital Improvements/Buildings and Grounds - Victoria Keelon (Chairman), Steven White, Matthew Hott (staff); Public Relations - Robert Hartman (Chairman), Cheryl Swartz, Karen Vacchio (staff); Executive - Charles Sandy, Joyce Goff, James Doran (staff); Appeals Committee - Robert Hartman (Chairman), Cheryl Swartz, John Powell, Clarence Haymaker (alternate). 4. Policv Revisions Mrs. Goff moved to approve revisions to the following policies: Refund Policy, Vendor Policy, Athletic Field Use, second by Mr. White, carried unanimously (7-0). 5. Reauest from Winchester Chapter. National Railwav Historical Society. Inc. To: (1) install a crossing signal near the caboose at Clearbrook Park. Mr. Hartman moved to give permission to the Winchester Chapter of the National Railway Historical Society to install Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/10/03 488 a crossing signal approximately 10 feet off the southern end of the caboose at Clearbrook Park, second by Mr. Haymaker. Motion was defeated 5-2. (2) Store the signal crossing at the Clearbrook maintenance facility. Mr. Hartman moved to give the Winchester Chapter ofthe National Railway Historical Society permission to temporarily store the signal light for six months at the Clearbrook Park maintenance facility, second by Mrs. Goff, carried unanimously (7-0). 6. Work Proeram Mr. White moved to adoptthe Department's 2003-04 Work Program, second by Mrs. Swartz, carried unanimously (7-0). PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE The Public Works Committee met on Tuesday, February 25,2003, at 8 :00 a.m. All members were present except James T. Vickers and Jim Wilson. The following items were discussed and required Board action: 1. Ban of Cathode Rav Tubes at Rel!:ional Landfill- AOllroved The director of public works presented a request to ban Cathode Ray Tubes (CRT) from the regional landfill effective July 1,2003. The Landfill Oversight Committee had already endorsed this ban during their meeting on February 11, 2003. The Virginia General Assembly is currently proposing legislation to ban CRT's effective July 1, 2004. The Landfill Oversight Committee believed that the landfill currently offers citizens an opportunity to recycle electronics. These events are currently held on the second Saturday of every month and represent an alternative to disposal in the landfill. The attached memorandum dated February 10,2003, summarizes this program as well as highlights the proposed ban of CRT's. (Attachment 1) A motion was made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr. and seconded by Lynda Tyler to support the ban of CRT's from the regional landfill effective July 1,2003. George Ludwig was the only dissenting vote. Upon motion made by Lynda J. Tyler, seconded by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., this request was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Absent Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye 2. Draft Lease - Old County Courthouse - Approved The committee reviewed and unanimously endorsed a lease between Frederick County and the Old Courthouse Civil War Museum. The lease is enclosed as Attachment 2 (on file in the County Administrator's Office). Upon motion made by Lynda J. Tyler, seconded by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., the lease as presented was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/1 0/03 489 W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Absent Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye 3. Modified Position - Gvpsv Moth/Biosolids Monitor - Approved The committee reviewed and unanimously endorsed a proposal to incorporate biosolids monitoring in the gypsy moth job description. A copy of the proposed job description is attached as Attachment 3 (on file in the Personnel Department). Upon motion made by Lynda 1. Tyler, seconded by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., this position description was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Absent Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye 4. Fundinl: ReQuest from Buildinl!: Inspections - Approved Mr. John Trenary, building code official, requested a supplemental appropriation of$13,500 to allow the continued use of part-time assistance for plan review, field inspections and clerical support. The justification for this request is included in his memorandum dated February 20, 2003. (Attachment 4) A motion was made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr. and seconded by George Ludwig to endorse this request. The motion was unanimously approved by the committee. Upon motion made by Lynda J. Tyler, seconded by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., this request was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Absent Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye The following items were discussed and are submitted for the Board's information only: 1. Closure of Mt. Williams Dumpster Site Ms. Gloria Puffinburger, solid waste manager, presented the results of a one-week survey at the Mt. Williams dumpster site. This survey had been initiated at the request of the board of supervisors. The results of this survey are highlighted in the attached memorandum dated January 31,2003. The committee was reminded that the funding for the Mt. Williams dumpster site has been eliminated from the Fiscal Year 2003/2004 budget. The question ofthe closure of the Mt. Williams Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/10/03 490 site was previously discussed by the board when they voted to maintain the Star Tannery site. At that time, the committee had endorsed the closure of the Mt. Williams site with the savings to be used to offset the cost of manning the Star Tannery site. Closure of the Mt. Williams site prior to the July 1,2003 date remains an option. The committee requested that additional information related to convenience sites located west of Route 37 be provided for their review. (Attachment 5) 2. Update on Preliminary Environmental Mana~ement System Meetin!! The attached memorandum dated February 21, 2003, summarizes the county's involvement in implementing an environmental management system in Frederick County. When completed, this program could lead to ISO 14001 certification and possibly a reduction in certain insurance rates. (Attachment 6) 3. Presentation by the Center for Watershed Protection The committee listened to a presentation by the Center for Watershed Protection and the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. This program titled Builders for the Bay is highlighted in the enclosed attachment. After reviewing their proposal, the committee recommended that staff review their proposal and provide the committee with an evaluation of the impact on staff time and resources. (Attachment 7) 4. Miscellaneous Reports a. Tonnage Report: Landfill (Attachment 8), b. Recycling Report (Attachment 9), c. Animal Shelter Dog Report (Attachment 10), and d. Animal Shelter Cat Report (Attachment 11). PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION (#046-03) AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS OF THE COUNTY IN THE ESTIMATED MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $13.585.000 TO FINANCE CERTAIN CAPIT AL PROJECTS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL PURPOSES - APPROVED County Administrator Riley presented this request. This issue will provide the final cash needs for Millbrook High School and James Wood Middle. With this bond issue, the total borrowing for the high school will be $37,729,701 and $11,487,595 for the middle school. If approved, the issue will allow for a total project cost of$39,500,000 for Millbrook and $11,750,000 for James Wood Middle. A supplemental appropriation is not needed and local dollars are not needed. The additional projected expenditures will be funded by the interest earnings, premium discounts, and subsidy grant. There was no public input. Upon motion made by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., seconded by Robert M. Sager, the following resolution was approved: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $13,585,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA TO BE SOLD TO THE Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/1 0/03 491 VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM AND DETAILS THEREOF WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County of Frederick, Virginia (the "County") has determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow not to exceed $13,585,000 and to issue its general obligation school bonds to finance certain capital projects for school purposes. WHEREAS, the County has held a public hearing, after due publication of notice, in accordance with Section 15.2-2606, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code") on March 10, 2003, on the issuance of school bonds in an amount not to exceed $13,585,000. WHEREAS, the School Board of the County has requested by resolution the Board to authorize the issuance of the Bonds (as defined below) and has consented to the issuance of the Bonds. WHEREAS, the objective ofthe Virginia Public School Authority (the "VPSA") is to pay the County a purchase price for the Bonds which, in VPSA's judgment, reflects the Bonds' market value (the "VPSA Purchase Price Objective"), taking into consideration such factors as the amortization schedule the County has requested for the Bonds, the amortization schedules requested by other localities, the purchase price to be received by VPSA for its bonds and other market conditions relating to the sale ofVPSA's bonds. WHEREAS, such factors may result in requiring the County to accept a discount, given the VPSA Purchase Price Objective and market conditions, under which circumstance the proceeds from the sale of the Bonds received by the County would be less than the amount set forth in paragraph 1 below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA: 1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board hereby determines that it is advisable to contract a debt and to issue and sell general obligation school bonds of the County in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $13,585,000 (the "Bonds") for the purpose of financing certain capital projects for school purposes. The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and sale of the Bonds in the form and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution. 2. Sale of the Bonds. It is determined to be in the best interest of the County to accept the offer of VPSA to purchase from the County, and to sell to the VPSA, the Bonds at a price determined by the VPSA and accepted by the Chairman of the Board or the County Administrator and upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution. The County Administrator and the Chairman ofthe Board, or either of them, and such officer or officers ofthe County as either ofthem may designate, are hereby authorized and directed to enter into the Bond Sale Agreement with the VPSA providing for the sale of the Bonds to the VPSA in substantially the form on file with the County Administrator, which form is hereby approved ("Bond Sale Agreement"). 3. Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be issuable in fully registered form in denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples thereof; shall be dated the date of issuance and delivery of the Bonds; shall be designated "General Obligation School Bonds, Series 2003A" (or such other designation as the County Administrator may approve) shall bear interest from the date of delivery thereof payable semi -annually on each January 15 and July 15 (each an "Interest Payment Date"), beginning January 15,2004, at the rates established in accordance with paragraph 4 of this Resolution; and shall mature on July 15 in the years (each a "Principal Payment Date") and in the amounts established in accordance with paragraph 4 ofthis Resolution. The Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Payment Dates are subject to change at the request ofVPSA. 4. Principal Installments and Interest Rates. The County Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to accept the interest rates on the Bonds established by the VPSA, provided Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supen'isors Regular Meeting of 03/10/03 492 that each interest rate shall be no more than ten one-hundredths of one percent (0.10%) over the interest rate to be paid by the VPSA for the corresponding principal payment date of the bonds to be issued by the VPSA (the "VPSA Bonds"), a portion of the proceeds of which will be used to purchase the Bonds, and provided further, that the true interest cost of the Bonds does not exceed seven percent (7%) per annum. The County Administrator is further authorized and directed to accept the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds and the amounts of principal of the Bonds coming due on each Principal Payment Date ("Principal Installments") established by the VPSA, including any changes in the Interest Payment Dates, the Principal Payment Dates and the Principal Installments which may be requested by VPSA provided that such aggregate principal amount shall not exceed the maximum amount set forth in paragraph one and the final maturity ofthe Bonds shall not be later than 21 years from their date. The execution and delivery of the Bonds as described in paragraph 8 hereof shall conclusively evidence such Interest Payment Dates, Principal Payment Dates, interest rates, principal amount and Principal Installments as having been so accepted as authorized by this Resolution. 5. Form of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be initially in the form ofa single, temporary typewritten bond substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. 6. Payment: Paying Agent and Bond Registrar. The following provisions shall apply to the Bonds: (a) For as long as the VPSA is the registered owner ofthe Bonds, all payments of principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be made in immediately available funds to the VPSA at or before 11 :00 a.m. on the applicable Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption, or if such date is not a business day for Virginia banks or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or before 11 :00 a.m. on the business day next preceding such Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption; (b) All overdue payments of principal and, to the extent permitted by law, interest shall bear interest at the applicable interest rate or rates on the Bonds; and (c) SunTrust Bank, Richmond, Virginia, is designated as Bond Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bonds. 7. Prepayment or Redemption. The Principal Installments of the Bonds held by the VPSA coming due on or before July 15,2013, and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2013 are not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities. The Principal Installments ofthe Bonds held by the VPSAcoming due after July 15,2013 and the definitive Bonds for which the Bonds held by the VPSA may be exchanged that mature after July 15, 2013 are subject to prepayment or redemption at the option ofthe County prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after July 15, 2013 upon payment of the prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as percentages of Principal Installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or redemption: Dates Prices July 15,2013 to July 14,2014, inclusive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 15,2014 to July 14,2015, inclusive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ July 15,2015 and thereafter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101% 100.5 100; Provided, however, that the Bonds shall not be subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities as described above without first obtaining the written consent of the registered owner of the Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for prepayment or redemption. The County Administrator is authorized to approve such other redemption provisions, including changes to the redemption dates Minnte Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/10/03 493 set forth above, as may be requested by the VPSA. 8. Execution of the Bonds. The Chairman or Vice Chairman and the Clerk or any Deputy Clerk ofthe Board are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Bonds and to affix the seal of the County thereto. The manner of such execution may be by facsimile, provided that if both signatures are by facsimile, the Bonds shall not be valid until authenticated by the manual signature ofthe Paying Agent. 9. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit. For the prompt payment ofthe principal of, and the premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as the same shall become due, the full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year while any of the Bonds shall be outstanding there shall be levied and collected in accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation sufficient in amount to provide for the payment ofthe principal of, and the premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as such principal, premium, if any, and interest shall become due, which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or amount and in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose. 10. Use of Proceeds Certificate: Non-Arbitrage Certificate. The Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator, or either ofthem and such officer or officers of the County as either may designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Non-Arbitrage Certificate, ifrequired by bond counsel, and a Use of Proceeds Certificate setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions ofthe Internal Revenue Code of1986, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable regulations relating to the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds. The Board covenants on behalf of the County that (i) the proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in such Use of Proceeds Certificate and the County shall comply with the covenants and representations contained therein and (ii) the County shall comply with the provisions of the Code so that interest on the Bonds and on the VPSA Bonds will remain excludable from gross income for Federal income tax purposes. 11. State Non-Arbitrage Program: Proceeds Agreement. The Board hereby determines that it is in the best interests ofthe County to authorize and direct the County Treasurer to participate in the State Non-Arbitrage Program in connection with the Bonds. The County Administrator and the Chairman of the Board, or either of them and such officer or officers of the County as either of them may designate, are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect to the deposit and investment of proceeds of the Bonds by and among the County, the other participants in the sale of the VPSA Bonds, the VPSA, the investment manager, and the depository substantially in the form on file with the County Administrator, which form is hereby approved. 12. Continuing Disclosure Agreement. The Chairman of the Board and the County Administrator, or either of them, and such officer or officers of the County as either ofthem may designate are hereby authorized and directed (i) to execute a Continuing Disclosure Agreement, as set forth in Appendix F to the Bond Sale Agreement, setting forth the reports and notices to be filed by the County and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions ofthe Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12 and (ii) to make all filings required by Section 3 of the Bond Sale Agreement should the County be determined by the VPSA to be a MOP (as defined in the Continuing Disclosure Agreement). 13. Filing of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of the County are hereby authorized and directed to cause a certified copy ofthis Resolution to be filed with the Circuit Court of the County. 14. Further Actions. The County Administrator, the Chairman of the Board, and such other officers, employees and agents of the County as either of them may designate are hereby authorized to take such action as the County Administrator or the Chairman of the Board may consider necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale ofthe Bonds and any such Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/1 0/03 494 action previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed. 15. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately. The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Board of Supervisors held on March 10,2003, and of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. I hereby further certify that such meeting was a regularly scheduled meeting and that, during the consideration of the foregoing resolution, a quorum was present. The front page of this Resolution accurately records (i) the members of the Board of Supervisors present at the meeting, (ii) the members who were absent from the meeting, and (iii) the vote of each member, including any abstentions. WITNESS MY HAND and the seal ofthe Board of Supervisors of the County of Frederick, Virginia, this 10th day of March, 2003. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Absent Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #02-03 OF TIMOTHY E. FELTY FOR A DOG KENNEL (BREEDING ONLY). THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 536 FLETCHER ROAD AND IS IDENTIFIED WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 26-A-39G IN THE GAINESBORO MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED Planner Rebecca Ragsdale presented this Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The Planning Commission recommended approval with the following conditions: 1) All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all time. 2) This permit is for breeding kennel only; animals not associated with the breeding operation shall not be boarded at any time. 3) All dogs kept at the kennel must be controlled so as not to be a nuisance to any adjoining property by barking or roaming free. All dogs must be kept within a fenced-in area. 4) All requirements of the Frederick County Code and the Code of Virginia pertaining to dog kennels shall be complied with at all times. 5) Any expansion or change of use shall require a new conditional use permit. 6) No more than (30) thirty dogs shall be allowed on the property at any given time (includes the six dogs and litters of puppies). 7) Any proposed business sign shall conform to Cottage Occupation sign requirements and should not exceed four (4) square feet in size. Supervisor Tyler questioned how #3 could be enforced. Planning staff advised that since it Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/10/03 495 is a condition ofthe CUP, and if the barking becomes a nuisance, then the Board has the right to pull the CUP. If any conditions are violated, the applicant is violating the zoning ordinance and notice is given by the Planning staff. If not remedied, then the CUP is brought back to the Board for consideration and possibly revoked. Supervisor Forrester questioned enforcement by the Sheriffs department. Planning staff advised this would be enforced by planning staff and not the sheriff s office since it would be a CUP violation. The revoking ofthe CUP would prevent the applicant from breeding and selling dogs but not the removal ofthe current pets. Milton McCormick. Jr.. Gainesboro District: Speaking on behalf of his wife Betty, he spoke aeainst the approval ofthis CUP. He advised the Board that they live across the street from the Felty's and the noise is excessive when the dogs bark. It is not a personal issue but a matter of being able to sleep at night after a long day's work. Complaints have been filed with the Felty's when the noise gets excessive and is worse when the weather is nice and you try to sleep with the windows open. He does not have an issue with the number of dogs the applicant owns now but does with what will be permitted with the CUP and referred to letters and a petition with 57 signatures requesting denial of this CUP (the County Administrator's Office did not receive these documents as they were not handed out). Ray West. Gainesboro District: He spoke in favor of this CUP. He lives up the road from the applicant and has lived there since 1971. He has no problem with the dogs, they do bark from time to time, but not enough to annoy the residence. The problem is the relationship with the neighbors. Curtis Feltv. Gainesboro District Land Owner: He spoke in favor of this CUP. He currently lives in North Carolina but has bought land near his sons property (the applicant) and plans to move back in the near future. He was a long time resident of Frederick County and raised cattle. The dogs barking is no more of a nuisance than the noises created by breeding cattle and did not understand the difference. A letter of support was written and submitted to the Board for the record. Timothv and Marsha Feltv. Gainesboro District (The Applicants): The have owned dogs since 1995. Timothy became ill and could not work, and has found a hobby and a small source of income by breeding and selling beagles. Papers were submitted for the Board's record showing Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/10/03 496 signatures ofthose in favor of this CUP. The applicants had received no complaints about the dogs until he filed for the CUP. Without the approval of the CUP, the six pet dogs will remain on the property. The thirty dogs that will be allowed will be mostly puppies and will be sold by the time they are six or eight weeks old so the noise will be minimal. The wife is the main income source for the family, works full time, and at no time do the dogs keep her awake at night. They asked where else can you live to raise dogs but in the country. Pamela Bell. Gainesboro District. and Spoke on Behalf of Mother Cathline Bell: She spoke a2ainst the approval of this CUP. She does not know the applicant and did not know the applicant until she attended the Planning Commission so the issue of a neighborhood relationship did not apply to her. They own 90 acres on the ridge near the property and are the recipients of the carrying noise from the barking. The area is inappropriate to accommodate such a business as there are no shade trees and it is close to a small winding road. Charlotte West. Gainesboro District; She spoke in favor ofthis CUP. She lives two doors down from Mr. Felty and raised Dobermans at one time. Mr. Felty is handicapped and feels he has the right and the opportunity to do something with his family and unfortunately dogs do bark. The country is the most appropriate area to have dogs and if anyone cannot handle the barking of dogs or the noises of any other animals, then they need to move to the city. Julie Kibler- Kerd. Lot Owner. Gainesboro District: She spoke al:ainst this CUP and the condition allowing the 30 dogs. She plans to build on property purchased off Fletcher Road near the Felty's because it is similar to the area she grew up in. She does not like the eastern part of Frederick County because of all the chaos. The allowance of 30 dogs she feels will be a nuisance to the neighbors in that area. Mary Felty. Mother of Applicant: She spoke in favor ofthis CUP. The land has been in the family since 1980 and was deeded to Tim Felty 13 years ago. She was concerned with the Board denying this CUP. With her son's disabling disease, she does not know what other type of hobby he will be able to do. She feels her son is being harassed by neighbors because he now owns the property. He is a taxpayer and feels he has every right to have this business. Brian Kin!!. Gainesboro District; He spoke a!!ainst this CUP. He lives across from the applicant and stated it is not about farming, who lives there, not about an argument, and not about Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/10/03 497 being handicapped but about barking dogs. The barking is excessive now and will only escalate with 30 dogs. The sheriffs department has been called but he was told they were unable to do anything due to the way the county's ordinance is written. Ann Kibler. Lot Owner. Gainesboro District: She spoke al!ainst this CUP. She has purchased land close to the property and plans to build a house. The allowance of30 dogs will bring more barking and she wants to be able to enjoy the outside of her house without this nuisance. Some ofthe Board members expressed concern that most ofthe negative issues were based on the neighbors relationship with the applicants and not so much as the raising of the dogs. The owner had the right to have dogs on his property because it is in a rural area. Without the approval of the CUP, the applicant is allowed to have the pet dogs on his property. Upon motion made by Margaret B. Douglas, seconded by Gina A. Forrester, this CUP #02- 03 was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Absent Lynda J. Tyler - Nay Gina A. Forrester - Aye PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING #03-03 OF RONALD AND VELMA SIMKHOVITCH TO REZONE 6.37 ACRES FROM B3 (INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION) TO B2 (BUSINESS GENERAL). THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF MARTINSBURG PIKE (ROUTE 11) AND PARK CENTER DRIVE (ROUTE 1323) AND IS IDENTIFIED WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 54A-I-A IN THE STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - DEFERRED ACTION FOR 30 DAYS Planner Camp presented this rezoning application request. The Planning Commission recommended approval ofthe rezoning application with the understanding that the applicant would revise the proffer statement prior to the Board meeting and to address the four issues regarding the provision of additional landscaping along Martinsburg Pike, limit the potential negative impact of future signage, improve the normally required screening along the southwest property, and to remove the zoning violation cited on this property. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant submitted a revised proffer statement which addresses the three concerns but has yet to remove the trailers from the property. The applicant had provided copies ofletters to staff which indicated the owners of the trailers had been notified to remove the trailers by the end of the month, otherwise, Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/10/03 498 he would remove them himself. Chairman Shickle questioned the parking of trailers in this zoning and if it was allowed. Staff advised that the parking oftrailers requires a parking lot which is accomplished through a site plan and doing the improvements but is allowed in this zoning. It is a site plan issue and not a zomng Issue. Property owner Ronald Simkhovitch appeared before the Board and feels he should be grandfathered in regarding the trailers as they have been parked on this property since the early 70's and 80's. He does not feel he is violating the zoning on this property but agreed to remove the trailers by the end ofthe month, and asked the board for approval ofthis request as soon as possible. No one appeared before the Board. Upon motion made by Lynda J. Tyler, seconded by Gina A. Forrester, the Board deferred action of CUP #03-03 for 30 days. This will allow time for the applicant to remove the current violation still remaining on the property. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Nay W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Absent Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION (#049-03) AND 2003 PRIMARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN - APPROVED AS AMENDED Senior Planner Kennedy presented this plan. This plan is updated annually in the spring through a public hearing process and is reviewed by the Transportation Committee, the Planning Commission, and the Board. The Transportation Committee recommended that the draft presented by staff be denied as they strongly supported the construction of the Route 37 Eastern Bypass and to support a rail component as part of the Interstate-I-81 Improvement Plan. The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting on March 5, recommended approval ofthe plan to include the provision of Route 37 as a priority. Supervisor Sager asked why the presented plan did not include the recommendations as approved by the Planning Commission and Transportation Committee. County Administrator Riley advised the Board that since the Board directed last year that this not be part of the plan, he felt staff should not include this project unless it was the pleasure of the Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/10/03 499 Board. The Board inquired about the relocation ofthe 1-81 exit to Stephens City further south as it was not on the plan. This information was not discussed at either meeting according to staff. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Engineer Jerry Copp appeared before the Board and stated they are aware the Board wants to do this but the Board should definitely add this issue to this plan and include it under Item C ofthe 1-81 Improvements. Supervisor Tyler inquired about Spot Improvements under 3)A) and asked how much the developer was proffering to help with the road and why funds are being spent to help fund this improvement. Engineer Copp advised that the developer on the north side of 50 has proffered to erect a traffic light, construct a cross over and appropriate turn lanes. VDOT is dealing with a situation where the new cross over and the existing cross over to the Carper's Valley Golf Course are too close and the Board asked for and received approval last year for revenue sharing to address this problem if needed. To keep the revenue sharing project alive, it was his perception that this project needed to be in the plan. County Administrator Riley concurred with Engineer Copp's statement and added that half the problem is solved but would like to keep it as a revenue sharing project to solve the other half when the south side is improved especially if a school or anything else is built in this area. A signalized intersection will be constructed which could tie in, long term, with a cross county connector from there to Senseny Road. Sue Ellen Knowles. On Behalf of the Chamber of Commerce: Spoke in favor of adding the Route 37 project back on the plan. She is Vice President of the Business Advocacy for the Winchester/Frederick County Chamber of COflllllerce. The Frederick County Road Improvement Plan, the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan, the Eastern Road Plan, the Winchester Frederick County 2020 Vision project, and the Winchester Area Transportation Study have all included Route 37 as an integral part of the county's road improvement plan. In 1999,2000, and 2001 it was a top priority. Removing this project from the plan will cause increased traffic delays, congestion, and accidents. Two million dollars has been spent to date to undertake and prepare an environmental impact study. The UDA has four primary highways passing through, Routes 277, Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meetin!: of 03/10/03 500 522, 50, and 7 each with escalating traffic volumes. Much ofthis traffic moves through the City of Winchester and the Town of Stephens City. The chamber supports a balanced economic development approach that acknowledges the value not only of industrial development but the value of a healthy economy. David Hurd. Stonewall District: He spoke al!ainst adding the Route 37 project back on the plan. Part of the reason the public was not at the meetings to comment on the transportation plan is because the Board had addressed the Route 37 project last year, voted to have it removed, and had faith in the Board that this project will stay removed from the plan. The widening ofI-8l will accommodate and alleviate traffic congestion. Route 37 will only create more growth. Sam Lehman. Back Creek District: He spoke al!ainst adding the Route 37 project back on the plan. A petition taken years ago proved that the constituents did not want this project. A suggestion was made to candidates running for the upcoming election to campaign using this project to run on and would be a test whether or not the voters were in favor of this project. Marie Straube. Red Bud District: She spoke a~ainst adding the Route 37 project back on the plan. The cost is ridiculous and it will not alleviate any congestion on the connector roads. The widening ofI-8l will resolve traffic congestion issues. A handout was provided to the Board and she elaborated on the attachments included in this packet (this information is on file in the County Administrator's office). The current roads should be fixed first. Georl:e Semples. Red Bud District: He spoke in favor of adding Route 37 back on the plan and agreed with the Chamber representative's comments. This route has been planned for 20 years and hopes to see it built in Frederick County as it will help alleviate through traffic at intersections. Nancv Simbeck. On Behalf of the Too ofVirl!inia Builders Association Representative: Spoke in favor of the Route 37 project being added back on the plan. The Board was asked to rescind their past action removing 37 from the plan as it was designed to relieve traffic congestion, to provide safe and convenient travel throughout eastern Frederick County, and to provide quick emergency response times. The project is needed as it is the answer to control growth and development. The Board has the authority to approve rezonings in the UDA area. Route 37 will not automatically cause growth. Bill Still. Back Creek District: He spoke in favor of Route 37 being placed back on the Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/10/03 501 plan. As a daily commuter, the Route 7 and 1-81 interchange is terrible in the evenings. He would like to see the on and off ramps at exits 314 and 317 off 1-81 improved first. Kennv Stiles. Stonewall District: He spoke in favor of Route 37 being placed back on the plan. The project had been in the plan for nearly 15 years and its primary purpose is to move through traffic off the 1-81 corridor to the eastern bound areas of Routes 7 and 50. The primary problem with traffic in Frederick County is that 1-81 is the only north south corridor. To get anywhere, all the traffic is funneled to 1-81 north or south and then back. Route 37 will fix this problem, and is and has been part ofthe transportation planning needs that have been designed over the past IS years in Frederick County. Without it, you have to start all over. Route 37 will not cause development, development will occur in the UDA whether or not Route 37 is built. One of the main reasons a priority was put on Route 37 years ago was to prevent houses from being built and to minimize the impact on residences. Since this project has been drug out, the situation has become worse. Route 37 from 81 to 522 south is the most disruptive segment to people and was a very difficult corridor to find without causing a lot of impact to residences. An effort was made to at least identify a route and to begin acquiring right of ways so that ifthe road is built in 20 years, people would know where it was going. He is not in favor of the northern corridor but would like to see the 37 project back in the plan to at least Routes 50 and Route 7. This has been a good plan and commends all previous boards that have supported it and asked that the Route 37 project be reinstated. Ron Comer. Stonewall District: He spoke al!ainst Route 37 being placed back on the plan. Increased development will occur with this project and will not solve any problems. Bob Howard. Gainesboro District: He spoke in favor of the Route 37 project being placed back on the plan. The project is needed to improve traffic safety and emergency responses. Route 50, Route 7, and Senseny Road are too congested. Mary Ann Posev. Stonewall District: She spoke al!ainst Route 37 being placed back on the plan. The last election proved the constituents did not want this road project. Supervisor Sager addressed some concerns with eliminating the Route 37 project. In the 2020 booklet which was developed by responsible citizens of Frederick County, board of supervisors, city council, and business people, a plan was developed to fit the overall transportation Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/10/03 502 plan for the City of Winchester, Frederick County, and Clarke County. He felt he needed to ask for a revote on adding the Route 37 project back on the plan because the Planning Commission, in its duties, recommended that Route 37 be included in the transportation plan. The MPO organization will be making a lot of decisions that will involve Frederick County and some of the decisions the Board has made could be reversed. Chairman Shickle stated he did vote no to the Route 37 project 12 years ago when he was a new Planning Commission member. But since then he has not been able to come up with a better alternative, and the reason he supports Route 37 now. Supervisor Douglas supports Route 37 as it is most important to Frederick County and especially for safety. Supervisor Tyler stated that the MPO will be posed to deal with not only Route 37 but multi model means oftransportation, rail, commuter lots, commuter lines to West Virginia, etc. The MPO will look at ways to eliminate automobile dependent traffic for Frederick County, transportation situations and solutions for Frederick County will be ironed out, and Route 37 may be the panacea of all road building projects in Frederick County. Supervisor Forrester advised the Board that she has read through the studies on Route 37, along with all the appendix, and in the Red Bud District, almost all levels of service with her segments become worse after Route 37 is built. She has a problem with building a road that will not improve traffic movement in the urban area. In addition, an adequate footprint has not been determined for Route 37 through her district other than through Opequon Creek. As planned now, it will go through neighborhoods that in the last 10 years have been built. Upon motion made by Robert M. Sager, seconded by Margaret B. Douglas, to approve the 2003 Primary Road Improvement Plan and Resolution with the amendments as follows: 1. Include the Route 37 project as recommended by the Planning Commission. 2. Include a plan to support a rail component (as recommended by the Transportation Committee); 3. Under Item C, 1-81 Improvements, include the relocation of Exit 307 further south to alleviate existing and future congestion. RESOLUTION 2003 PRIMARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission reviewed the proposed 2003 Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/10/03 503 Primary Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County on March 5, 2003; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Planning Commission recommended approval of this plan at their regular meeting on March 5, 2003; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors considered this plan during their regular meeting on March 10, 2003; and, WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors supports the priorities of the primary road improvement projects for progranrrning by the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Virginia Department of Transportation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board ofSupevisors as follows: The Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the 2003 Primary Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County, Virginia. The above motion failed due to the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye w. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Nay Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Absent Lynda 1. Tyler - Nay Gina A. Forrester - Nay Upon motion made by Gina A. Forrester, seconded by W. Harrington Smith, Jr., to approve the Primary Road Improvement Plan and Resolution as presented above with the following amendments: 1. Include a plan to support a rail component (as recommended by the Transportation Committee); 2. Under Item C, 1-81 Improvements, include the relocation of Exit 307 further south to alleviate existing and future congestion. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Nay W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Absent Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' COMMENTS Supervisor Forrester requested that staff provide a formal survey at the public hearings that will be taking place at Stonewall school to allow the citizens to provide information to the Board about what they wanted. A draft survey was developed by a citizen and provided to staff as a Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/10/03 504 guideline to prepare this survey. She also addressed the number of calls she has received from Gainesboro residents regarding the location ofthe budget public hearings at Sherando high school. This facility was reserved to help accommodate the number of people expected to attend this meeting. If constituents are unable to attend, she advised them to contact their board representative to express their views on the proposed tax increase. Supervisor Sager wished Supervisor Reyes good health and a speedy return to the Board. UPON MOTION MADE BY GINA A. FORRESTER, SECONDED BY LYNDA J. TYLER, THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD, THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT THIS TIME. (9:35 P.M.) \2~--O.cl::J-~ Richard C. Shickle Chairman, Board of Supervisors IJft:: Jo n . Riley, Jr. Cle , Board of S pervisors ~ Minutes Prepared By: . 0' /1, /J? F A./ C thy anner Admimstrative Assistant Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 03/10/03