Loading...
April 23, 2003 Regular Meeting 545 A Regular Meeting of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on April 23, 2003, at 5:l5 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; Sidney A. Reyes; Gina A. Forrester; and Lynda J. Tyler. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Shickle called the meeting to order. INVOCATION The invocation was delivered by Reverend David R. Witt of the Opequon Presbyterian Church. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADOPTION OF AGENDA Administrator Riley advised he had nothing to add. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Sager, the agenda was adopted, 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 - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye CONSENT AGENDA Administrator Riley suggested the following tabs for approval under the consent agenda: 1. Parks & Recreation Commission Report - Tab D; 2. Road Resolution Re: Stoneymeade Subdivision; Section I and II, Phase I - Tab T. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Sager, the consent agenda 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 - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 546 Gina A. Forrester - Aye MINUTES Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the minutes of the Budget WorksessionlRegular Meeting of, February 12,2003, were 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 - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, the minutes of the Budget Worksession of February 19,2003, were 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 - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye DISCUSSION AND VOTE ON NORTHEAST LAND USE PLAN Director Lawrence advised, as Administrator Riley pointed out, this is an effort that the Planning Department and the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee and the Planning Commission has been reviewing for the better part of the last year. At the March 12 Board meeting staff was directed to proceed with holding community meetings to provide the alternatives to the community, and also seek comments. He further advised staff was present tonight to present those comments to the Board. He advised some hand written comments received were not legible, when copied, and he had staff retype those in order that the information would be legible, which was delivered to the Board on April 22nd. This is a comment sheet; therefore, it was not reviewed from a statistical perspective. He further advised there were approximately sixty comment sheets, which he would touch on some common ideas submitted through these forms. He did advise that there is no one particular alternative that seems to stand out over another one. A lot of the comments that you will see address the four issues that are before us. Majority of the people spoke to the preservation of the rural landscape of their community in the northeastern part of the County. A Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 547 number of comments recognized the importance of having a commercial/industrial growth adjacent to your interstate interchanges. This is referenced a number oftimes throughout the comment sheets. There are some strong statements supporting a residential planned community concept and he would wager to say there are just as many opposing such a project. It is a tough call to give the Board direction on the comment sheets, but they did receive sixty comment sheets from the approximately 117 citizens that did attend the two community meetings held. Both meetings were held at the Stonewall Elementary School during the evening. The meetings were held on a Monday night of one week and Tuesday night of another week. He explained about the four displays that were directly behind the Board as these were the same ones used at the two community meetings. He further explained that there was a descriptive sheet that accompanied each display. The Plan to the far left of the Board, from where Director Lawrence was standing, is the current County Comprehensive Policy Plan adopted in September 2000. He advised that when you look at Alternative I the significant difference is the removal of the industrial which is approximately one thousand acres of planned industrial use. The sewer and water service area was also removed. Those are the significant changes in Alternative 1 when you compare it to the existing land use plan. Alternative 2 has much more significant changes, if you will. Alternative 2 reduces the amount of planned industrial, it is actually zero. Alternative 1 has two hundred acres of planned industrial, this is above and beyond what is currently zoned. Alternative 2 has no planned industrial beyond what is currently zoned. It does increase what they refer to as the developmentally sensitive areas, which is DSA, and it can be seen in the green hatchingCon the display). It is about two thousand acres approximately as shown on this proposal. It is about fourteen hundred acres on Alternative 1, and the other three alternatives have about fourteen hundred. You can see Alternative 2 gives you more DSA, less industrial. It does preserve Stephenson's Depot significantly, and it does introduce more rural uses, and less industrial uses up and down the Route 11 corridor. Alternative 3 - Behind Supervisor Smith, note that Alternative 3 is extremely consistent with the current land use plan that is in the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. The significant difference is strictly at Stephenson's Depot. It is an enlargement of the DSA to recognize Stephenson's Depot as the Shenandoah Battlefield Foundation identified it as maintaining it's Mlnnte Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 548 integrity in the core battlefield area. Alternative 3 is very consistent with what you have on the books. Alternative 4 - This Alternative introduces about 970 acres of residential planned community. That is a concept that the County had in the zoning ordinance but had never been applied any where in the County, and similarly, the County has never applied the planned residential community concept into any ofthe land use plan maps. This is the first time the Board is seeing this on a land use map. The residential planned community that it envisions is a mix of residential, commercial and industrial use. He would suggest, the text can be modified if the Board is inclined to go with Alternative 4, the supporting text that would go into a Comp Plan would certainly address the Board's concerns, whether you want to see any percentage of industrial use or commercial use, things of that nature. This alternative provides for flexibility in a residential development. The Urban Development Area is also expanded on Alternative 4 to incorporate about one thousand acres, UDA expansion which would accompany this alternative land use plan. A couple of things have been presented to staff over the past few weeks that he wanted to bring to the Board's attention. There is an Urban Development Area. There is currently UDA within their study area. Alternative 3 is the best place to show it. It shows up as a black line. He wants to make sure that is out in public, because that is a UDA boundary established in the late 80's when the County adopted the original UDA, that is out there. He has mentioned to a couple Board members that had some concerns with it, if your concern is that you do not want to see this, then this is certainly the opportunity as we go through the land use process, that can be a recommendation to remove it. He would note that within this UDA boundary you have existing zoning with M2 zoning, Ml and the Rutherford Farm area, and you have some areas immediately east of Route 11, Omps Trucking property sets on it. It is planned for future industrial on this map, but it is certainly industrial use by- rights. This concludes what staff wanted to present. Staff is looking for direction as pointed out by Administrator Riley. Supervisor Smith asked about the battlefield area on Alternative 4? Director Lawrence advised area is essentially here (shown on the map). Supervisor Smith asked what is the light blue? Director Lawrence advised that is still industrial. That could be DSA ifthat is what you are Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 549 inclined to do. What they took with Alternative 4 back at the March Board meeting when the directive was given to go to public meetings, Alternative 4 did not exist at the time, but was a proposal that some landowners had presented to the Board. Staff took the landowners' proposal and essentially super imposed it onto the County's existing land use plan. It did not show the DSA enlarged there for Stephenson's Depot, but staff can do that if that is the Board's directive. Essentially make the DSA consistent on all four Alternatives. Supervisor Reyes asked Director Lawrence to go over the difference between our current Land Use Plan and Alternative 3. Director Lawrence explained that the map to the far left is the current Northeast Land Use Plan. That is what is in the Comprehensive Policy Plan adopted in September 2000. Alternative 3, essentially the significant change is the DSA, it is an enlarged DSA to reflect what the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation, the core battlefield area and maintains its integrity. Supervisor Tyler advised the body here is having a discussion on perhaps to send something or not to send something forward. How do we work with you, tonight is difficult to determine to improve or extend the DSA component on land use Alternative 4. If there is to be any further trimming of the industrial areas up and down. How do we go through this process? Director Lawrence advised that from the staff perspective they are looking for guidance. If the majority ofthe Board members feel there is an Alternative up here that you support and you want to tweak it through a motion to take something through a public hearing process you could tell us if you want to increase the DSA or you want to cut back some of the industrial. Through a motion you could tell us how you want to tweak it and they will proceed with that. Supervisor Tyler advised she would like to call to the attention ofthe Board of Supervisors something that she has passed out to them, which she told them they did not have to decipher, it is something of a spread sheet. She did her best to take the survey sheets and break those comments down, either choices of Alternates 1,2,3, or 4, no preference. People were very mindful when they were filling out the survey forms, and Eric thank you, and your stafffor sending those back to the Board electronically so they could read them, for a lot ofthem were not legible. The paper said there was no real clear choice, but she thinks there was a real clear choice to reduce the industrial component, particularly on the bubble area which has been the bone of contention. But she would Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 550 go further than that to keep the industrial component between Route 11 and 81. She feels that was very clear through the public process what the wishes were of Stonewall District, is to eliminate a substantial amount of the industrial properties. When you further look at it, there were an awful lot of folks concerned with sewer and water, they want it. Stephenson may not be in as bad shape as Brucetown is, but it has its challenges and issues. We have outhouses up and down the roads and failing systems. The one thing that we do have over Brucetown is that we do have water for some residents up there, but we do not have the sewer component. You will notice that the historical component is there, that people are very in tune with the historical components and the DSA's, they know the treasurers that we have up there, and they want to keep those. She just wanted to call attention to that. As far as the whole process goes, here we are sitting ready to make a decision, the way that she looks at this decision and she would like the Board Members to chime and give her some opinions oftheir own as well. We have Alternative 1,2,3, and 4. Alternative 3 is not wanted by the community as evident over the last years, that this is not the way the community would like to go and the survey sheets reflect that. She would hope the Board would not consider that Alternative, pointed to #3.. Alternative 4 is supported by nineteen or so of the people who responded. Those were direct answers to those questions. Alternative 1 did not have any support. Alternative 2 does; however, we have the infrastructure being currently laid for the sewer and water. She feels we need to be very careful about by right development hooked to sewer and water, although she knows in that shale land, environmentally it is better to have them on sewer and water, but that is somewhere the Board has not gone as a County, and she is not real comfortable going there. Her preference is to let the public process go forward and shoot Alternative 4 out there and let the public hearing process take care of it, and go from there. She would like to hear from other Board Members. Supervisor Sager asked how many people participated in the survey? Director Lawrence replied 117 people attended the meetings in total, and sixty-one surveys were received. Supervisor Sager asked of the sixty-one surveys, does Alternative 1 through 4, is this an expression of what they wanted to see in Alternatives to the Northeast Land Use Corridor, or is this strictly from the Planning Commission? Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 '.551 Director Lawrence explained looking at the surveys there is a lot of reference to, half the surveys talk about what their preference is, they actually give an Alternative number, and half just talk about goals of preserving agriculture, recognizing the need for industrial in certain areas. It wasn't clear for staff to say which Alternative was best. Supervisor Sager, so all the Alternatives are the conceptual ideas of our Plarming staff and the input you received from the Board etc., is that correct? Director Lawrence advised as far as all the Alternatives behind you, Alternative 2 was actually submitted by some residents. The staff working with the Comp Plan Committee and the Plarming Commission have certainly come up with some alternatives, but not all of them. Supervisor Forrester asked Director Lawrence to point out where the sewer and water service area is presently on the existing plan. Director Lawrence advised the SWSA is actually on this map, it is the line that runs along the outside of your industrial, the blue, and then basically follows 81. Supervisor Forrester asked if this includes most of the area Supervisor Tyler was talking about that are in need of public - -? Director Lawrence advised no, it is not. The areas the County is recognized in need of sewer and water are the rural community centers, basically they are showing up in yellow on the original map, all the maps really. Supervisor Smith stated that the water right now goes down Stephenson Road to Morrison Road, is that correct? Director Lawrence advised he was not sure where it ran out. Supervisor Smith referred to the battlefield and stated that Alternative 4 probably shows less than any of them, doesn't it? Director Lawrence advised the staff suggestion is, ifthe intention is to increase the DSA, they can certainly do that on the map. Supervisor Smith advised he could support Supervisor Tyler's recommendation provided the battlefield had more space there. Supervisor Reyes advised when he met with Director Lawrence recently, he explained to him that on Alternative 2, the irregular shape ofSWSA. He asked him to explain that for the benefit of Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 552 others present at this time. Director Lawrence advised that on Alternative 2 it suggests that SWSA would jump out around Clearbrook, Brucetown communities and also Stephenson communities. None of the other Alternatives actually proposed taking the SWSA out around the communities. As it has been suggested previously if funds are available, basically community development block grants. If the County can locate grants and funds to extend sewer into the rural community centers, and provide assistance for the homeowners to actually tap into the system. Once we locate funding, and staff is currently going through the exercise to figure out what grant programs do exist. Once we can locate funding, it could be an exercise for the Board versus modifying a land use plan, you just do a policy exception to allow sewer and water service to extend outside of the SWSA area to a designated portion of the community. If you identify which lots have rights to it, and in stead of moving the SWSA, they would just do an exception outside ofthe boundary. Staff does not like to mislead the community, and when you expand the SWSA, it's a planning document, it's a policy document. There are no guarantees that sewer and water is going to be extended. I would suggest that if you do not want to extend sewer and water service areas in places where the County does not have funds to extend the service itself. Along that train of thought, if they can locate grants, if they can locate funding sources that will provide assistance to construct the trunks and help the individual residents to construct laterals to their houses, at that point staff can come back to the Board and ask for permission to extend sewer to those properties. There are a number of locations throughout the County, and he is sure Supervisor Sager is aware of it where the County has extended policies, but there are no funds to extend the sewer. The homeowners thought they were going to get sewer, and ten years later they don't have it because funding is not there. Staff is saying secure the grants, the funding, and then they will come back through and determine who can get it and they wiJl do a policy amendment to get the sewer to the people. Supervisor Forrester asked ifit were easier to get the grants once the Board has established the area? Director Lawrence advised staff was looking into this. The grants they are finding talks about density, population and failing systems. They have to get estimates, see how much it would cost, how much they can get through the grants, and as they are getting ready to make application, Miuute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 553 if it is a case of getting a resolution supporting the grant and recognizing that we will extend sewer there. He feels they can do that all at once. He does not think the Board wants to extend SWSA if there are no funds there to implement it. Supervisor Smith stated that on these grants you are talking about the main trunk line, right? It runs about $4500 to run water in and $9110 to run water and sewer. These are the figures. He just wanted to make that clear so everyone understands what is happening. Director Lawrence advised that when you tap into the sewer in the County, the property owner is responsible for running it across his property to his house and pay the tap fees. There are two bills, one to run the trunk line down the main road, and a bill to run it to each house. Supervisor Smith stated that the grants are for the main trunk line. Director Lawrence explained their goal is to get funding for the main trunk line, if they can find them, they are doing the research. Also find grants, or low interest loans to help people get it to their house. Supervisor Sager advised that he wanted to make sure he understood what was being said here, because he has not heard the word funding previously in our conversations regarding an expansion of the sewer and water service area in the Opequon District. He was not aware it was based on some type of available funding. He thought the arguments were that it was outside of the water and sewer service area and therefore could not be expanded because it was the intent to take it out there, especially in housing developments, as you said, that were built many years ago. His concern would be, if we say this, can we support this in the future as far as an expansion, when there is money, and does it contradict to what we have said is previous policy when we have told people regardless of where it is that we are not going beyond the sewer and water service area boundaries that we now have, so therefore, work it out. He is having some problem with what he is hearing now, that it is now connected to funding. He realizes we are talking about trunk lines. Is it in fact expansion based on the availability of funds, grants and the willingness of people to expand the lines based on the dollars that are available, or are we going to set a policy saying this is the line and it doesn't go beyond it. Director Lawrence advised, again, staff is looking for direction. His suggestion, based on the experiences they have had, there is a misunderstanding as to what the sewer and water service Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 554 area IS. If he has a failing system and you modify the policy of the sewer and water service area, now he is in the SWSA. In the sewer and service area there are no guarantees he is going to get sewer. He would have to pay for it once it is within range. There is certainly benefit to planning and expanding the sewer and water service area to accommodate properties that you think you can serve, but ifthere is no funding to get it there, it's like an empty Easter basket. Assistant Administrator Tierney advised it is a policy decision, as so many things the Board does are. Ifthe Board feels those two rural community centers should have sewer and or water and you are more concerned making that intent or policy clear, that is your desire, then you could incorporate them in you sewer and water service area, extend the line out there. He feels all Director Lawrence is trying to point out is that if you do that, if you extend your line, but you don't have the capability to get the sewer to those people you may raise some expectations and set some folks up for disappointment that yes, you put them in the SWSA area, but they are only a little closer to getting sewer and water then they were before you did that. Supervisor Tyler asked about if the opportunities for grants and some of the new initiatives the Governor has recently announced. Director Lawrence advised, at this point, he does not have all the details. Staff is doing the research and have indicated there is funding. Supervisor Tyler asked ifhe was familiar with how Boyce in Clarke County did this? Director Lawrence advised that he knew it was a Community Development Block Grant. Supervisor Tyler stated that as far as disappointing folks, they have been disappointed for about thirty years. She feels we are as close as we can be, ever in history, for the infrastructure is up there now. She feels we have made great strides and feels this Board can get some relieffor those folks. Supervisor Forrester referred to some papers she passed out prior to the meeting and referred to the highlighted areas. One of these is some verbiage from the 1999 Comprehensive Plan and it was in reference to the NELUP area which at the time they were calling it the Route 11 corridor- Comprehensive Plan in September of 2000. Previous to that adoption under the UDA it just says that, the present UDA boundary incorporates a small portion of the southwestern quadrant of the study area. Expansion ofthe UDA beyond it's existing boundary is not appropriate for this area. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 555 So then we move forward to September of2000, which is the next hand out she passed out, and this has the map of the NELUP that was adopted September 27,2000, and on the baek of that there is a copy of the verbiage from the actual Comprehensive Policy Plan, and referred to paragraph 2. It says the preservation and protection of significant historic resources, (skips down at this point) is encouraged by this land use plan. The majority of the acreage within the study area which comprises these features has been protected from industrial and commereial development through its exclusion from the SWSA expansion. Skip down to the third paragraph. Significant historic resources including the core area of Stephenson's Depot, Kennelworth, The Branson House, Milburn, The Briars House, Milburn Road corridor and minor areas of steep slope, fall within the expanded SWSA boundary. The land use plan incorporates a developmentally sensitive area designation to insure that these features, as well as existing residential clusters and public land uses, are protected from future industrial and commercial development proposals, but the map does not indicate this. The DSA does not reflect what is in this verbiage. She has spoke with Director Lawrence earlier today and this was discussed. It is clear from the verbiage in the 2000 Comprehensive Policy Plan that was the intent. Looking at that Alternative 2, that is the one that most closely resembles what the intent of thc Comprehensive Policy Plan was in September, but for whateverreason the DSA never encompassed that entire historic area, but they outlined in the verbiage the actual historic sites that were of significance. She feels this is pretty important and that the Board recognizes that Alternative 2 preserves all those areas, and is consistent with that. Director Lawrence advised that the remedy to that is, if the Board chooses an Alternative to take to a public hearing between now and when the public hearing process starts, obviously staff will draft up text to refleet what the new Alternative is. We can make sure we capture the essence of what the intent is ofthe DSA and SWSA. If the Board's intent is not to move forward on one of the Alternatives, staff can go through the exercise and revise the text on the existing land use plan, so that it reads more clearly if that is your directive. Supervisor Forrester advised there is obviously conflict between what the map reflects versus what the verbiage states. She is not sure if Attorney Ambrogi could advise us as to which would carry the most weight. Attorney Ambrogi advised that he would have to look at the verbiage, the plan, and study Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 556 it the verbiage, but basically verbiage controls. The plan, the map, is reflection of the verbiage. You would need to reconcile their conflict. Supervisor Forrester advised, so what we are looking at in the map up here does not reflect what our Comprehensive Plan states, and which was adopted on September 2000. The verbiage reflects what the apparent intent was at the time, which was to protect those areas. Chairman Shickle stated, ifthat were to be true, all the times he has set before the Planning Commission they generally look at a map, and use it to pictorially decide what they want. There is some care that needs to be adopted to make sure verbiage matches maps, because usually maps are what is put before us. We don't have verbiage on four Alternatives to speak of tonight. Ifverbiage rules over map, I think maybe we are going to have to do things a little different. Attorney Ambrogi advised that you may have to refer to minutes to see if there is anything that would help you. Supervisor Forrester advised that when she spoke with Director Lawrence earlier today they discussed that it would be helpful for them to have - - - whenever they look at large changes to the Comprehensive Plan, ifthey had a copy of what the present verbiage is in the Plan, and what is being proposed to be changed to, as well as what a proposed map was in reference, to what it was previously. Tonight what they are looking at in their agendas are four Alternatives, but there is not even a reference as to what it presently is, to compare to, this is what we are now, here is what we are proposing to change to. If you, as an individual, did not go back to the Comprehensive Plan of September 2000, pull your maps and try and co-relate it, you would not have any thing to compare it to. There is absolutely nothing in there, as far as the verbiage of the Comprehensive Plan, and what the Board is intending to change it to, if they select any of the Alternatives presently before them tonight. The verbiage is very important. She feels if she were a landowner, it would be very important to know how it was designated. Assistant Tierney advised that in looking at the verbiage that is being referred to, he does not really think there is a discrepancy. If you read the text, what it talks about is the majority of the area, in the study area, is excluded from the sewer and water service area. Which means that, the bubble that is primarily looped is in the sewer and water service area, the rest of the majority of the study area was excluded. How those specific properties, that are mentioned, were protected through the Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 557 environmentally sensitive designation, the green areas, that incorporate the Milburn Road corridor, what was then felt to be the core area, Second Winchester, etc. When he reads this, having been involved in the process at the time, he really does not think there is the discrepancy that we are talking about. The text does not say that those areas were excluded from the sewer and water service area, it says they are protected, and they are protected because they were designated by the green environmentally sensitive area. Supervisor Douglas asked about the pale green on the original plan. Director Lawrence advised it was consistent with all the pale greens, it is rural areas. It is to remain RA 5 acre density, agriculture land. Supervisor Douglas asked about Alternative 4? Director Lawrence advised on Alternative 4, the pale area is the same thing. With looking at Alternative 4 has about 11,000 acres ofRA left, Alternative 2 has about 13,000 acres. The reason being Alternative 2 does not have as much future growth outside the rural areas. Supervisor Reyes advised that he supports what Supervisor Forrester said, and backed up by Attorney Ambrogi, in that verbiage is so important, and takes precedence over maps. When he attended the presentation at the school, and talked to staff about the different Alternatives, very often he got the comment, this was conceptual. To him this does not hold as much water as verbiage, he does support the verbiage. Maps should reflect the verbiage. Director Lawrence advised that staff does recognize that. The reason verbiage is not available for every map is that essentially they would be writing four land use plans. They are available and through discussion they can talk about what key information the Board would like to see on the Alternative plan that is chosen by the Board, then staff can write the verbiage to get there. Time was not there to write the narrative for each plan. Chairman Shickle suggested unless there are a lot of questions or additional discussion, that perhaps Supervisor Tyler could advise as to what she might propose as the Supervisor ofthat district, and see if it has enough support to go forward, and if not, then the Board will regroup unless there are other questions. Supervisor Tyler advised she would like to ask a couple of questions. The by right issue on sewer and water, should that be of any concern or not. This has always been a beef with her. She Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 558 fought the water wars, she wanted sewer and water lines to stay off of that property, that was defeated. It was changed and now we have the pipes being run. What will happen ifthe Board lets the sewer and water run around that area and then it is developed by right, they hook up with sewer and water on aby right issue or we actually try and move those lines back away. The infrastructure is being laid, it's going down Red Bud Run. Attorney Lawrenee, it is currently being done. You have to look at the issue of vesting too. How many people, how many businesses, how many entities have vested. Have money and other things vested in reliance on what the Board did. If it were just proposed or on paper, he wouldn't see any problem, legal problem. Where you run into legal problems is if there is vesting and you try to change something that persons have relied upon, then there probably would be a problem. It is definitely something he would be concerned with. Supervisor Forrester advised that she is kind of concerned on the by right water. She knew when the issue first came up that the sewer and water expansion to the northeast area, that the Board was kind of told, it was inferred that, in order to get the water to the VDOT Rest Stop and Stonewall Elementary, the County had to do this. But when the situation with the middle school site came up they were told that they could just dedicate one line and not have to change the sewer and water service area. She is confused as to where the consistency is on how we are doing our planning for our water. She asked if this could be cleared up? Director Lawrence advised it was his understanding that VDOT was pursuing water and sewer to their Rest Area and they were going to pursue getting the rights to get it there. What happened is they ended up saying we are going to spend this much money to get it there. We will contribute that to the County to help you get sewer and water to the northern part of your extension. Supervisor Forrester advised that perhaps she didn't state her question correctly. Whywasn't it offered up to this Board at the time. You can just dedicate a line running to VDOT's Rest Stop and to the elementary school to resolve their situation. She didn't think the Board has the option of doing that. Director Lawrence advised that he believed the original proposal that VDOT came to the table with was to run water and sewer up the interstate right-of-way. Supervisor Forrester advised that Director Lawrence was missing her point. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 559 Administrator Riley advised there was an established water and sewer service area. The original proposal by VDOT was to run a 2-inch forced main sewer outside of the water and sewer service area on the west side ofInterstate 81 to accommodate their request. Once that request was evaluated, they felt it should be run within the water and sewer service area, as designated on the Comprehensive Plan, that would benefit a number of different zoned uses within that area and have a greater degree of economy scale as far as contributing to the overall effort to run water and sewer in that area ofthe County. There was some confusion originally because VDOT wanted to run it outside of the water and sewer service area, west ofInterstate 81. I guess we could revisit that whole issue again, but I hope that helps. Supervisor Tyler stated that in light of the fact that Alternative I and 2 we have the water issue that we have to deal with. Alternative 3 has been very clearly said by our community that we do not want to have industrial development. She would like to see Alternative 4 go through the public process, if it can prove itself with the criteria that is acceptable to this Board. That is what she would like to have, Alternative 4 taken through the public process for public hearings. Supervisor Sager seconded the motion, and as a point of clarification, asked if this will go back to the Planning Commission and through the public hearing process? Supervisor Forrester stated so what we send forward there will not be public hearing on the other Alternatives? There will only be a public hearing on the one Alternative that we send forward? Chairman Shickle stated that he thinks ifthis model went through public hearing, and there was significant sentiment by the time that it got back to the Board, as it was not the right thing, then you would send something back to go through the whole process again with those changes, but minor things would probably be accommodated along the way. Administrator Riley advised that the focal point would be the recommendation of the Board, but obviously the public comment can focus on any and everything that is up here behind us, as far as public sentiment is concerned. He wanted to be sure that the people understand that it does not restrict the scope of the public comment. The public comment can come from any direction as to what people feel is appropriate. Supervisor Forrester asked ifthere is any reason why we couldn't have some ofthat public comment tonight, on this issue, prior to us making our decision. Normally we have citizen Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 560 comment, you know, prior to our making decisions like this. She can look out into the audience tonight and she can see a significant portion of people that she knows the whole reason they are in attendance tonight is about this, and she is wondering if we should hear what they have to say. Administrator Riley advised the Board is going to have a public process and they will have the opportunity to speak, unfortunately what has happened is that we have come up with a number of different subject matters this evening that we are trying to get through. We have a public hearing scheduled for 6 P.M. on the vacation of a plat in an existing subdivision. What we are trying to do is provide a process and set it out separately so people will have ample opportunity to speak to this issue. Ifhe understood the direction of the Board, we were to have some public meetings, try and get some feed back, provide that to the Board and then go into a public process. He thinks that is what staff is attempting to do by getting the Board to this public process so they can have the opportunity to comment. Supervisor Forrester advised she understands that, but she has some concerns. A) the map that is being used as what the current developmentally sensitive areas, does not encompass those historical sites and that was not reviewed by the public. B) She knows some of the public tried to make appointments earlier in the week to be heard tonight, and she does not feel it is much to ask to give them five - ten minutes. This is going to affect their homes, their community. She feels they need to have the opportunity now. What you are saying to me is if we go forward with one of the other Alternatives, but they are only going to weigh in on that Alternative, anything they want to tweak. Administrator Riley advised no, they would have the opportunity to speak on anything. Supervisor Forrester so they can go up there and say, I want Alternative 1, and we would be able to vote on it that night, even though that Alternative was not in front of us. Administrator Riley replied sure. They have the opportunity to comment on anything that is up there, you cannot restrict that. Supervisor Forrester advised what she is saying is, will the Board then have the opportunity to vote on the other Alternatives if that Alternative is not before us that evening of the public hearing? Administrator Riley replied yes, he would think you would. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 561. Supervisor Reyes asked Administrator Riley if we were to select an Alternative and it goes for public hearing, then the other maps would be up there equally? Administrator Riley replied yes. He did not think you could limit the scope of what the public wants to comment on. What staff is trying to say here is everything on the landscape that we have talked about since 1996 on the northeastern area of the County, Board please, send it somewhere, give it a public process and lets figure out what we are going to do in this area of the County, so the staff can move onto other areas ofthe County that have been neglected over the last several years. We are trying to bring this process to closure. You are going to send it out and say, Alternative 4 appears to be the consensus, but public give us your feedback through the Planning Commission and then back to the Board. Supervisor Reyes, I want to make sure at the public hearing, if we were to say that we wanted Alternative whatever, that is what the Board on April 23 recommended that we go forth with, Alternative X; however, there are other Alternatives up here at that point and time. Administrator Riley that is correct. Supervisor Tyler advised we have been through this exercise before, and looking through the text ofthe minutes back in 1999 and 2000 and 1996, it is the Board's prerogative to take from what they hear, and incorporate into that Plan. Administrator Riley advised you could end up with an Alternative 6. Supervisor Tyler, exactly. It could be something that everyone comes together and works on. It does not have to be 1,2,3, or 4. Get it out of here so we can get to the public process. Supervisor Smith advised that he does like Alternative 4, but he wants to go on record that with Alternative 4, if it is adopted, I want to see it adopted with the larger battlefield area there. He feels this is lacking in number 4. Supervisor Forrester stated that she would like to, regardless of how this plays out on these Alternatives, she would like to have some sort of correction made to the existing map, that reflects with the verbiage in our Comprehensive Plan states. She would like to see in the developmentally sensitive areas, those historic sites that were identified in that Comprehensive Plan. She thinks that should be done regardless of how we move forward with this. That way everybody can see on all the Alternatives where that developmentally sensitive area is at present, and what the changes could Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 562 do to that. Supervisor Forrester made an amendment to the motion that would say regardless of the outcome of the Alternative that goes forward, that there is a correction made to the map that is reflected in our current Comprehensive Plan which identifies our developmentally sensitive areas, as the verbiage outlines in the September 2000 Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Shickle asked Supervisor Forrester ifthere was a map, behind the Board members, that she thinks depicts that verbiage? Supervisor Forrester replied the closest one to it is Alternative 2, has the closest with the developmentally sensitive area, but once again, we are working with that conceptual thing, but it appears as ifthat includes these areas that were identified as significant historic resources. Supervisor Tyler seconded the motion. Administrator Riley advised not to confuse the issue, Supervisor Forrester would like to see the corrections as indicated in the text to be reflected on the map, and he feels we need to make it that simple, correct? Supervisor Forrester asked that the developmentally sensitive areas would include all the historic sites that were identified in this text. Administrator Riley asked, to try and get the text consistent with the map? Supervisor Forrester, correct. Supervisor Reyes asked if this could be done tonight? Administrator Riley advised as he understood the motion ofthe Board to move forward, staff will try and get back to the Board an illustrated map and text amendment so that we are on the same page. He feels we can move on that immediately, so there is no confusion. Chairman Shickle advised that Supervisor Reyes brings up a good point. One motion says something about for public hearing, and we are amending it, with a do something right now in another arena. That may not be a proper amendment. Administrator Riley why don't you take them separately, and then the staff can deal with them separately. One we can deal with now, and the other is out there. Chairman Shickle asked Supervisor Forrester how she felt about that? Supervisor Forrester advised she was fine with that, and withdrew her motion. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 563 Supervisor Tyler withdrew her second. Chairman Shickle stated we were back to the original motion, and ready to vote. Weare sending all the maps back for public hearing with a preference shown for 4 by the Board. Richard C. Shickle -Nay W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Nay Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Nay Chairman Shickle, now Supervisor Forrester you have - - Supervisor Forrester, help me with the wording on this. Administrator Riley advised that Supervisor Forrester moves that the County look immediately at correcting the text in the Comprehensive Plan, to amend the map to reflect the text, as it is currently written in the plan. Supervisor Forrester advised that is correct. Administrator Riley advised that is something that can be done administratively by staff, brought back to the Board for review, for consistency. Chairman Shickle, that is your motion Supervisor Forrester? Supervisor Forrester, asked as a point of clarification, will that be done prior to the hearing on these? Administrator Riley, yes we will try and move quickly on that, and hopefully have something back to Supervisor Forrester, that reflects her concerns. Supervisor Forrester asked, so the amendment is to the map and not the text? Administrator Riley, advised that is what he is understanding. Supervisor Forrester asked if that changes, please let the Board know. Administrator Riley advised this would be out in advance, in order that Board members would have an opportunity to look at it before it goes back on the agenda. Supervisor Reyes seconded the motion. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Nay Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 564 W. Harrington Smith, JI. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye 6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION (#053-03) TO VACATE A PLAT AND CONVEY ALL RIGHTS AS TO "PARK" - THE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION TO VACATE A PLAT AND A DESIGNATION THEREON AS "PARK". PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED TO THE COUNTY ON THE DEED OF DEDICATION AND DECLARATION OF PLAT OF THE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION DATED MAY 11. 1970 IN THE OPEOUON MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT. FREDERICK COUNTY. VIRGINIA. CONTAINING 72.393 SOUARE FEET. SAID "PARK" IS FURTHER IDENTIFIED ON SAID DEED OF DEDICATION AND DECLARATION OF PLAT WHICH IS FOUND AND RECORDED IN THE LAND RECORDS OF FREDERICK COUNTY IN DEED BOOK363 AT PAGE 658 - ONL YV ACATIONTO BE DONE BY COUNTY WOULD BE ANY LAND INTEREST THE COUNTY MIGHT HAVE AND THERE IS NONE Administrator Riley advised the attached plat vacation is back before this body due to a recent ruling by the Frederick County Circuit Court that the aforementioned action was not done properly. In the previous action, the Board of Supervisors vacated its interest in said plat since the County did not own the parcel in question. The land was owned by Fredericktowne Company and subsequently the Costello Estate. The land had never been developed as a park by the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department nor had the parks department ever expressed any intent or interest in developing same. County Attorney Lawrence Ambrogi explained that this property was never conveyed to the County; therefore, the County has no interest in it. Ty Lawson, local attorney, appeared before the Board on behalf of Tony Cook, owner ofthe property. Chairman Shickle advised that he was curious as to how it was ever determined that Frederick County owned this land, was it the word "Park"? Supervisor Douglas advised that as far as she knew Mr. Cook has been paying the taxes. The following residents of this area appeared before the Board advising that this property has always been used as a "Park." Arlene Hicks, Opequon District, advising there have been no swings or other playground equipment, but the children have used it for an area to play for many years. Many residents ofthis subdivision would like to have the area left as it currently is. Marjorie Grey, resident of the Meadows for thirty two years, stating that her two children Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 565 have used this area for years as a playground and park area, does not understand, after all this time, how someone else can say they own the property. Samuel DeTello, resident of the Meadows for thirty one years. Addressed the open space area and the fact the residents were lead to believe this space would remain open forever. He feels some one is trying to get a windfall profit. This is the only open space within the subdivision. Elizabeth Hicks, resident of the Meadows, advised the area has not been kept clean as it should have been and there is a lot of tall grass. Bev Teets, resident of the Meadows for over thirty years. Advised residents were always lead to believe this would remain an open space. Supervisor Sager asked Administrator Riley to go back to the beginning ofthis subdivision and advise the Board of the policy at that time dealing with impact fees. Administrator Riley explained how the impact fees came into play and the requirements of new subdivisions during that time period. County Attorney Ambrogi advised what had happened when this first appeared in Circuit Court. He further advised that at no time did Frederick County have any interest in this property. Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the Board hereby vacates, if any, the County's interest and approves the following resolution: WHEREAS, the County of Frederick ("County") is empowered to vacate the Plat and the dedication in the County pursuant to, and in, conformance with provisions of the Code of Virginia, 1950, Section 15.2-2270, et seq, as amended; and WHEREAS, the County intends to vacate the Plat and convey all rights as to all that certain tract or parcel of land, together with the improvements thereon and appurtenances there unto belonging, lying and being situate in Opequon Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, containing 72,393 square feet, and being designated as "Park" on the Deed of Dedication and Declaration of Plat of "The Meadows" subdivision, dated May II, 1970, being the same property previously dedicated to Frederick County by Fredericktowne Company. Said Deed of Dedication can be found and is recorded in the Land Records of Frederick County at Deed Book 363 Page 658 which intention was advertised according to law, and the land proprietors affected by said action were notified; and WHEREAS, the Board at its meeting on March 22, 2000 did previously determine that it was appropriate to vacate said designation as a park and in fact, did so through its Vacation of Interest, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as "Exhibit I". Pursuant to a subsequent Order of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as "Exhibit 2", said vacation was without effect, and as it did not vacate the Plat, it is necessary that the Board of Supervisors re-vacate the County's interest in the Park and vacate the Plat; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Plat and all that certain tract or parcel of land, together with the improvements thereon and appurtenances there unto belonging, lying and Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 566 being situate in Opequon Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, containing 72,393 square feet, and being designated as "Park" on the Deed of Dedication and Declaration of Plat of "The Meadows" subdivision and the Plat appended thereto, dated May 11, 1970 be and are hereby vacated. Being the same property previously dedicated to Frederick County, said Deed of Dedication can be found and is recorded in the Land Records of Frederick County at Deed Book 363 Page 658 be and hereby is vacated to Anthony L. Cook, as successor in interest to Fredericktowne Company. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Administrator is hereby directed to place a certified copy ofthis Resolution of record with the deed records in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court for the County of Frederick; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to execute all documents necessary to carry out the purposes ofthis resolution, as prescribed by the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, including, but not limited to, writing an amendment to the Frederick County Ordinance providing for conveyance of the aforesaid parcel to Anthony L. Cook. 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 - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye COMMITTEE REPORTS PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA The Parks and Recreation Commission met on April 15, 2003. Members present were: Charles Sandy, Robert Hartman, Cheryl Swartz, Clarence Haymaker Submitted for Board Action: New Business: I. Pool Facility Paintin~ Project - Based on the low bid received (under budget) for the "Exterior Cleaning and Staining of Pool Complex Buildings" Mr. Hartman moved that the staff submit a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to use surplus funds from this project to immediately install the non-skid sanitary/safety coating system included in next year's budget, to resolve safety issues prior to the upcoming swim season. Mr. Hartman further moved that the funding included in next year's budget for this project be used to complete the same surfacing in the park restrooms and concession stands, second by Haymaker, carried unanimously (4-0). Submitted for Board Information: New Business: 1. Policy Revisions - General Registration Policy - Mrs. Swartz moved to accept the revision proposed by staff that all participants receive a receipt regardless of the method of registration, second by Mr. Hartman, carried unanimously (4-0). LANDFILL OVERSITE COMMITTEE Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 567 The Landfill Oversight Committee met on Tuesday, April 15, 2003, at 8:00 a.m. All committee members were present except Jim Wilson and Michael Noel. The following issues were discussed: 1.) Update on New Positions: The Director of Public Works presented the committee with a summary, Attachment #1, of new positions that will be advertised in the local newspapers. These positions include three laborers to serve as attendants at the citizens convenience area. These positions were previously discussed and approved by the committee. In addition, we are requesting a Landfill Tech III position to run the tire grinding program. This tech position was necessary because our contract service option is no longer available. 2.) Proposed Billint! Procedures: In an attempt to minimize our bad debt service, the landfill manager has recommended a new billing procedure. The current method of issuing landfill stickers with new accounts will be abandoned in favor of either a payment bond with each account or a payment via credit or debit card at the scale house. The amount ofthe bond will be equal to an average ofthree months tipping fees or $10,000, whichever is greater. A motion was made by John Riley and seconded by Gary Lofton to adopt this new procedure. The motion was unanimously approved by the committee. The implementation ofthis new procedure will be coordinated through the Frederick County Treasurer's Office. We will make every effort to implement the new procedure on July 1, 2003. Forwarded to Public Works Committee. 3.) Proposed Maximum Weit!hts for Citizen Tippint!: The landfill currently allows citizens from the three jurisdictions to dispose oftheir waste without charge ifit is delivered in a 3/4 ton pickup or smaller vehicle. We also allow one free dump per year for a one ton truck. Tracking this latter policy has been difficult if not impossible. Consequently, the landfill manager has recommended that citizens be limited to a maximum weight of 1,000 pounds without incurring a tipping charge. Ifthis weight is exceeded, the citizen will be charged for the entire load at a rate of $25 per ton. A motion was made by Linda Tyler and seconded by Gary Lofton to adopt this new policy effective July 1,2003. The motion was unanimously approved by the committee. Forwarded to Public Works Committee. 4.) Proposed Up~rades to Wastewater Treatment Facilitv: Recent climatic events, drought then very wet conditions, have forced the landfill staff to explore alternative methods to meet the limits of our wastewater discharge permit. These alternatives included installing a force main to pump the effluent to the Opequon Reclamation Facility, upgrading the existing treatment facility, and recirculating the effluent back to the waste fills. The latter alternative is currently being evaluated by EP A with a decision as early as July 2003 or as late as July 2004. The current needs dictate a more immediate option. Therefore, we have explored an option which combines submerged compressed air with biofiltration aquanets. This option can be adapted to our current treatment system and is much more economical than a more conventional treatment system. It is estimated that this system will cost approximately $550,000. Whereas, the conventional system will cost approximately $1,200,000. The viability of the pumping option will depend on the actual availability fee charged by the Sanitation Authority. A motion was made by John Riley and seconded by Tim Coyne to proceed with upgrading the wastewater treatment facility. The motion was unanimously approved by the committee. Forwarded to Public Works Committee. 5.) New Rates for the Tire Pro\:ram: Based on the landfill staff's recommendations, the tire grinding program has adopted the following revised rates: $0.65 per passenger tire and $3.00 per truck tire. These rates will apply to those jurisdictions which have executed agreements with the Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 568 Planning District Commission. Local citizen rates for passenger car tires will remain at $0.80 per tire; truck tires will increase $1 to $3.00 per tire. Tires on rims will add $1.00 to passenger tires and $3.00 to truck tires. 6.) Chanl:e Order- Leachate Collection Layer Contract: The staff requested permission to issue a change order to increase the contract tonnage (amount) from 40,000 to 50,000 tons to take advantage of the excellent rate per ton received from Luck Stone. No additional funding will be required to accommodate this additional tonnage. Refer to Attachment #2. Approved A motion was made by Linda Tyler and seconded by Tim Coyne to approve the increase from 40,000 to 50,000 tons. The motion was unanimously approved by the committee. Upon motion made by Supervisor Reyes, seconded by Supervisor Tyler, the above 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 - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye 7.) Closed Session: A closed session was convened in accordance with the Code of Virginia Section 2.2-37.11, Subsection (A)3 to discuss the acquisition or disposition of real estate. CODE AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE The Code & Ordinance Committee met on Tuesday, April 8, 2003, at 3:00 P.M., in the First Floor Conference Room, County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. Present were chairman ofthe committee Supervisor Sidney A. Reyes, Supervisor Robert M. Sager, Michael L. Bryan and Stephen G. Butler. Also present were Economic Development Director Patrick Barker, County Attorney Lawrence R. Ambrogi and County Administrator John R. Riley, Jr. The committee submits the following: ***Items Requiring Action*** 1. Creation of a Pharmacy Technolo'lY Zone - To Be Scheduled For Public Hearin'l The Executive Director of the Economic Development Commission presented the attached draft ordinance amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 155, Taxation; for the committee's consideration. The purpose of the amendment is to provide incentives thru tax abatements for qualifying technology businesses that are involved in research and development andlorproductions of any product, device, or service that is related to pharmacology. The committee recommends that the ordinance be advertised for public hearing. Upon motion made by Supervisor Reyes, seconded by Supervisor Sager, the above draft ordinance amendment is to be scheduled for public hearing. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 569 Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye 2. County Code Amendment on County Vehicle License Fee - Approved The committee reviewed the proposed code amendment which reflects the board of supervisors' action in adopting the fiscal year 2003-2004 budget wherein county vehicle license (decal) fees increase from $20 to $25. Said code amendment also sets the fee at $10 for all vehicles not required to be licensed prior to November 1 of the license year, and a fee of$5 for motorcycles that fall under the same criteria. The amendment also increases the license replacement fee from $10 to $12.50. The committee recommends that the ordinance amendment be advertised for public hearing. Upon motion made by Supervisor Reyes, seconded by Supervisor Sager, the above amendment 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 - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye FINANCE COMMITTEE The Finance Committee met in the First Floor Conference Room at 107 North Kent Street on April 16, 2003 at 8:00 a.m. The committee auuroved al!enda items 2. 3. 4. and 5 under consent af:enda. Gina Forrester and Ritchie Wilkins were absent. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Sager, 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 - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye 1. The General Registrar requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of $13.165.00. This amount represents the anticipated costs associated with conducting a Republican Primary Election to be scheduled for Tuesday, June 10,2003. Additional local funds are needed. See attached memo, p.I-2. The committee recommends approval. - Approved Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Tyler, the above 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 Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 570 Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye 2. The Solid Waste Manager is requesting a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of$450.00. This amount represents donations and is requested to be appropriated into line item 4203-3006-000-000 Printing and Binding. No additional local funds are needed. See attached memo, p.3-4. The committee recommends approval. - Approved Under Consent Agenda 3. The Director of Parks and Recreation requests a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of$1O,556.60. This amount represents insurance reimbursement for property damage to the gazebo at Sherando Park and is requested to be appropriated in line item 7110-8900-000-000 Improvements Other Than Buildings. No additional local funds are needed. See attached memo, p.5. The committee recommends approval. - Approved Under Consent Agenda 4. The Economic Development Commission is requesting a General Fund supplemental appropriation request in the amount of $35,000.00 for relocation of the Shenandoah Vallev Telebusiness Center. This amount is necessary to cover additional expense for rent and relocation of equipment, furnishings and services for the telecenter. No additional local funds are needed. See attached memo, p.6-7. The committee recommends approval. - Approved Under Consent Agenda 5. The Regional Airport requests an Airport Fund supplemental aPr>ropriation in the amount of$13,OOO.OO for line service equipment and security materials supplies. No additional local funds are needed. See attached memo, p.8. The committee recommends approval. - Approved Under Consent Agenda 6. The Director of Fire and Rescue updated the committee on the status of overtime. A graph has been provided showing monthly overtime costs. See attached graph, p.9. The committee requested that Mr. DuBrueler look into insurance carriers and the age requirement for the various fire departments for vehicle coverage. - Information Only 7. The Superintendent of the CFFW Regional Jail is requesting a Jail supplemental appropriation in the amount of $160,037.00 to replace the security control system. This appropriation will be added to the $405,000.00 already allocated. No additional local funds are needed. See attached memo, p.lO. - Approved Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Sager, the above 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 - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye 8. The Chairman of the Finance Committee asked the County Administrator to give an update ofthe funding for the COLA for the County employees. The County Administrator informed the committee that the $150,000.00 needed could be transferred from the capital transfer line item. This would not require Board of Supervisor action since this line item is in the same classification as the line item for other employee benefits. The County Administrator requests that this adjustment be endorsed. The committee recommends that the Board of Supervisors endorse a 2.5% COLA for non-School employees. No additional funds are needed. - Approved Supervisor Smith moved for approval with Supervisor Sager, seconding the motion. Miuute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 571 Supervisor Reyes advised that he felt this is money that will be well spent. Chairman Shickle advised that he has received more personal input face to face on this issue than he did on the tax increase. Those speaking to him referred to the budget process and how do we find $150,000 after we pled the die hard-die straits that we did. A vote against it makes it look like a Supervisor doesn't like the County Employees, doesn't feel like they should be supported, and doesn't feel like they are deserving of a raise, and a vote in favor of it, he is afraid is going to leave the public to doubt the integrity of our budget process, and he really resents being put in this position this close to having adopted a budget. Supervisor Forrester stated that she agreed with Chairman Shickle on this. As someone who sat on the County Finance Committee, it disturbs her that this option is just now being brought forward to the Board. As Chairman Shickle said, I too support the County Employees, but during the budget process this particular item was taken off the table due to the dire economy, and then here we are less than a month, six weeks later, kind of reversing their position, she is concerned. Administrator Riley advised he would speak to the item as he feels the Board is due an explanation. Number 1, there was $100,000 set aside to come up with some type of benefit program for the employees. Those were issues staff was prepared to address. When the issue with the school system came forward and the school system approved the cost of living raise for all of the school employees, it was a timing issue with him to try and speak with the rest of the County workforce. It is true, it is small in numbers, but they are part of the County workforce as are County employees. The County had $700,000 available when we decided not to fund any capital requests from County Departments, we did that singularly. We dealt with the operational issues first, and if you will recall we came back and had County Departments submit their priority list for Capital Funding. We held out a certain amount of money at that particular point in time, not knowing what the increase was going to be on health insurance and several other issues, in order that we would not have to come back to the Board and ask for additional funding in the future. We were fortunate enough that the health insurance rates came in at a reasonable increase, we had a justified amount of funds left over to fund this project without asking for increased funding. He will agree with Chairman Shickle and Supervisor Forrester that the timing was not the best, but he felt it was the only time to try and address the rest of the County's workforce. He apologies for the timing, but he thinks the funding Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 572 is well justified without having to come back and ask for additional funding from the Board. Supervisor Smith advised he would take some of "the monkey" off Administrator Riley's back. He was the one that initiated this, and started it. Administrator Riley advised he did not mind taking ownership for it, and the Chairman and Supervisor Forrester raise excellent points. There is no question, the timing is not the best, but he feels it is incumbent upon him, if there is a way to do this, without asking for additional funding to try and assist the County Employees with at least a cost ofliving raise. He feels it is incumbent upon him to at least bring it to the Board. Chairman Shickle advised that Supervisor Smith did make such a comment during the budget meeting, and the motion did include, and he thinks Supervisor Forrester did make the comment, what about Supervisor Smith's comment? He advised it was not part ofthe motion, and the Board moved on. Having had that happen makes it worse when it comes the next month to the County Finance Committee. Chairman Shickle asked Administrator Riley if he (Shickle) knows what Administrator Riley plans to spend for capital items in next year's budget, and does he know what he will cut out because the budget has been reduced by $150,000? Administrator Riley explained that he (Shickle) saw the unfunded cuts, the 5.4 million dollars from one year to the next, those are unfunded capital items, and yes, you should know what the capital items are that were funded. Chairman Shickle asked which ones will disappear, which ones does he give up by reducing $150,000? Administrator Riley advised that he could not elaborate on that at this moment. 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 - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Nay ***For Information Only*** 1. Attached is a letter the Shenandoah Apple Blossom Festival in appreciation of the $5,000.00 contribution. See attached memo, p.ll. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 573 2. Attached is a letter from Our Health III appreciation of the $6,250.00 quarterly contribution. See attached memo, p.12. 3. The Finance Director provided a report on fund balance. See attached report, p.13-14. 4. The Board of Supervisors approved the appropriation for two additional correctional officers for the Regional Jail at the April 9, 2003 Board of Supervisors meeting. The appropriation needed would require a RegionalJail supplemental appropriation in the amount of$112, 190.00, and a General Fund supplemental appropriation in the amount of$36,316.00 for Frederick County's share. See attached report, p.15-16. 7:15 P.M. SESSION CITIZEN COMMENTS David Hurd, Stonewall District, expressed his disappointment in not being able to address the Board earlier concerning the Northeast Land Use Plan. He wanted to present to the Board a survey taken by the Save Stephenson group with regard to the NELUP. Don Shockey, Stephenson Associates, advised they have been meeting extensively with the residents of the Stephenson area, and the consensus has been that the residents would like to see a planned community. Thanked the Board for taking a decisive decision to start the process with this major parcel ofland. Doug Cochran, Stonewall District, referred to survey that was conducted by the Planning Staff, the survey never asked which alternative the respondents liked. Staff surveys asked open ended written comments that are not statistical quantifiable. Members of Save Stephenson were aware of this problem in advance of the two meetings and attempted to work with staff to develop a survey that would yield hard data that could be statistically analyzed, staff was not interested in doing so. JeffRezin, Back Creek District, spoke about air quality issues, having worked with some staff members ofDEQ, advising that trucks are the things that really need to be worked on. Jim Hodgson, Stonewall District, leave the area in question the way it is. He does not agree with what Mr. Shockey wants to do. Does not agree with everything being paved over. David Darsie, Stonewall District, is wondering why the NELUP even came up. He advised of his assistance to Supervisor Tyler in helping her to get elected and the sign that said, Keep Stephenson Country, vote Tyler. Our community really feels that way today. The people of Stephenson will tell you what they like about this area is its rural character. Advised what he and his neighbors were feeling. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 574 Diane Kerns, Gainesboro District, was present to give a plug for the Builders of the Bay. Would like to see this area do as much as they could on the voluntary level before we get to the have to area. Jim Lawrence, Stonewall District, President of the Opequon Watershed, asked the Board for their support ofthe Builders of the Bay Program, as he feels it is the first real step toward watershed planning. Mary Ann Posey, Stonewall District, advised we are trying to do what we can to protect Stephenson, we are tired of fighting over that land. At least we will know what will happen over the next twenty years, what will be developed. Feel the Shockey development will set a precedent for the new developers in the area to pay their way. She feels Mr. Shockey has worked with the people in the area. Supports the idea, feels it is workable. Sam Lehman, Back Creek District, addressed the 2800 homes and what he has been reading about this being Frederick County's first planned community, and will make the County 20 or 30 million dollars, he does not think so. Pam Kennedy, Gainesboro District, referred to the Stonewall hearing on April I and April 7, when eighty- three residents did give citizen input, and yet earlier this evening it was ignored. Referred to the proposal #4 that was submitted earlier this evening that was being proposed by a land speculator, and not part of the earlier process of reexamination of the NELUP. In no way shape or form was the concept of growth dealt with. Asked ifthe community at large was really ready to deal with 2800 homes? Kevin Kennedy, Gainesboro District, echoed some of what had been asked earlier this evening. Referred to the three land use plans that were to be considered as directed by the Board. Referred to the fourth plan generated by the Planning Department at the request of a landowner. Advised that the citizens were for slower growth and against 2800 homes in the Stephenson area. Katherine Whitesell, Stonewall District, referred to the four plans that were presented. She hopes everyone will have a chance to talk about this at a later time during the public hearing process, and may be some of the preservation issues will be sorted out. A real problem in this area is illness, referred to the ozone pollutants. Feels the ordinance needs to be done now. Glen Penton, Stonewall District, referred to a sketch diagram he passed out prior to the Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 575 meeting dealing with an area left out, sort of spot zoning, for sewer and water district. This area would make a comprehensive northeast corridor plan. It should be included in the sewer and water area now. Asked that staffbe directed to proceed with evaluation in order for it to be included. COUNTY OFFICIALS COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS FRANKLIN MAPHIS APPOINTED TO BOARD OF BUILDING APPEALS FROM GAINESBORO DISTRICT Upon motion made by Supervisor Reyes, seconded by Supervisor Sager, Franklin Maphis was appointed to the Board of Building Appeals from Gainesboro District. Mr. Maphis will fill the unexpired term of Arend Nydam who recently passed away. This is a five year term. The term will begin on April 23, 2003, and expire on April 9, 2007. 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 - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye HARRY HAMILTON APPOINTED TO THE SHAWNEELAND SANITARY DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Upon motion made by Supervisor Douglas, seconded by Supervisor Smith, Harry Hamilton was appointed to the Shawneeland Sanitary District to fill the unexpired term of De en a Kelly who has resigned. This term will begin on April 23, 2003 and expire on June 30, 2004. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Riehard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye KIM DODD APPOINTED TO BOARD OF ASSESSORS FROM STONEWALL DISTRICT Upon motion made by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, Kim Dodd was appointed to the Board of Assessors from Stonewall District. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 576 Richard C. Shickle - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye Administrator Riley reminded Board members these appointments are needed no later than the end of May. RESOLUTION (#054-03) AND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING RE: METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) - APPROVED Administrator Riley presented this request to the Board. Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the following resolution was approved: WHEREAS, the City of Winchester, the Town of Stephens City, and the County of Frederick desire to enter into an agreement with the Commonwealth of Virginia in the formation of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to facilitate the identification and prioritization of transportation needs; and WHEREAS, the MPO is to be designated the Winchester-Frederick County MPO; and WHEREAS, the MPO has designated the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission as staff for the MPO; and WHEREAS, the MPO has adopted a Memorandum of Understanding and asked the member localities to do likewise. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Memorandum of Understanding for the Winchester-Frederick County Metropolitan Planning Organization is hereby adopted. The above resolution 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 - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye (A Complete Copy ofthe MOU is on File in the Office ofthe County Administrator and the EDC Office.) REQUEST FROM THE TOWN OF MIDDLETOWN FOR ASSISTANCE IN CONDUCTING A LAND USE STUDY - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised a request has been received from John Copeland, Mayor, ofthe Town of Middletown, requesting assistance in conducting a Land Use Study similar to the one being done for the Town of Stephens City. He further advised this request is being asked ofthe County's Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 577 Planning Department for the purpose of developing additional information to be used to implement the proposed boundary adjustment. Upon motion made by Supervisor Reyes, seconded by Supervisor Sager, the request of Mayor Copeland 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 - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye MEMORANDUM AND RESOLUTION (#055-03) RE: BUILDERS FOR THE BAY PROGRAM - POSTPONED UNTIL NEXT MEETING Assistant Administrator Tierney advised that Frederick County has been approached by the Alliance for the Chespeake Bay and the Center for Watershed Protection about participating in the Builders for the Bay Program. The goal of the program is to review the design standards within a locality to determine where changes to the standards might result in both improving the quality of storm water runoff from development sites, as well as reducing the amount. He further advised that the Builders for the Bay program established a "Roundtable" of citizens within the community to review and make recommendations on possible changes to local development ordinances. Any resulting changes to our ordinances would be at the discretion ofthe Board of Supervisors following normal ordinance amendment procedures. He further advised that a resolution stating the county's intent to participate in the program for a local cost not to exceed $20,000 was attached for the Board's consideration. Supervisor Reyes advised he is hard pressed to contribute this amount of money, given our budget situation, in addition to the fact that he feels more information is needed. Supervisor Tyler stated that she he feels this is a win, win situation for Frederick County based on what she has learned up to this point. She further advised that no funds are needed at this time as they are only asking for a letter of support in order to get future funding. Supervisor Forrester moved to postpone this until the next meeting with Supervisor Reyes seconding the motion. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 578 Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye RESOLUTION (#056-03) FOR LOCAL SUPPORT OF UTILIZATION OF INDUSTRIAL RAIL ACCESS FUNDS BY TREX COMPANY. INC. - APPROVED Administrator Riley presented this resolution to the Board. Upon motion made by Supervisor Forrester, seconded by Supervisor Douglas, the following resolution was approved: WHEREAS, Trex Company, Inc. has expressed its intent and desire to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to expand its operations in Frederick County; and WHEREAS, Trex Company, Inc. and its operation will require rail access; and WHEREAS, the officials ofTrex Company, Inc. have reported to the county their intent to apply for Industrial Access Railroad Track Funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia' s Department of Rail and Public Transportation in the amount of $300,000; and WHEREAS, Trex Company, Inc. has requested that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors provide a resolution supporting its application for said funds which are administered by the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia, hereby endorses and supports the application of Trex Company, Inc. for $300,000 in industrial access railroad track funds; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors hereby makes known its desire and intent to assist the Commonwealth Transportation Board in providing the maximum financial assistance to Trex Company, Inc. for the purpose of expanding its operations in Frederick County. ADOPTED this 23rd day of April, 2003. PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #05-03 OF MARTIN L. MONK FORA COTTAGE OCCUPATION FOR SALES OF OUTDOOR FURNACE UNITS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1599 HITES ROAD AND IS IDENTIFIED WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 84-A-74 IN THE BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED Planner I Rebecca Ragsdale presented this request to the Board advising both staff and Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. There was no public comment. Upon motion made by Supervisor Douglas, seconded by Supervisor Reyes, CUP #05-03 was Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 579 approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Ir. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye PUBLIC HEARING - REOUEST OF KENT BARLEY ORCHARDS. INC. TO REMOVE ONE PARCEL TOTALING 149.06 ACRES FROM THE SOUTH FREDERICK AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT. THE PARCEL IS IDENTIFIED AS PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 74-A-13. LOCATED ALONG MARLBORO ROAD. (ROUTE 631), IN THE BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT - APPROVED Senior Planner Abbe Kennedy presented this request to the Board advising the request is to remove Parcel 7 4-A -13, owned by Kent Barley Orchards, Inc., from the South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District. She further advised the Barleys have identified a need to have the flexibility to pursue other options for this acreage, and they do not intend to leave the apple industry. Dudley Rinker, Back Creek District, appeared before the Board to support this request. Upon motion made by Supervisor Douglas, seconded by Supervisor Sager, the Request of Kent Barley Orchards, Inc., was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 165. ZONING ORDINANCE. ARTICLE VIII.R5 RESIDENTIAL RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT; SECTION 165-778 (2)(D). EXISTING LOTS. WHICH ADDRESSES THE ABILITY TO REDUCE YARD SETBACKS IN THE R5 DISTRICT - APPROVED Planner II Ieremy Camp presented this proposed amendment of the zoning ordinance to the Board advising this would be handled on a case by case basis. There was no public comment. Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the following ordinance amendment was approved: Current: 165-77 D (2) (d) E.~~6t~11g, Lvb. TI,,, appl~"a:Lk J~11'''11,,~vl1al'''':Iu~'''1l1'''ib [VI H,,, u"" "l,all apply tv Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 580 GA;"t;1l5 lots. IIovvGvGl, thG Zoning Adll1~l1~"t.atol 1l1ay .1llovv ,,,JuGGd yard sGtback distan""" Vl1 GAisting lots 01 I<o"vIJ ('UIi<OHlly wilGd R5 D;"t.~Gt. ThG Zoning Admini"tlatol may abo .1llvvv H,duGed Y<1lJ sGtbaGk d;"t.1'1"Gs on lots contained ill pI"v~vu6ly applVvGd ma5t", plans fuI R5 IGsidGlltiallGGIGational GOlllllltmities. (NOTE: Existing ordinance 165-77 B (2) (d), Existing Lots, is to be removed completely and replaced with 165-77B (3) Existing Lots.) New: 165-77 B (3) Existing Lots. The Zoning Administrator may allow reduced yard setbacks on existing lots of record, by a distance of up to 25% of the required setback, where topography or other environmental constraints create a hardship. To be considered a hardship, all conditions specified in Section 165-155C (5) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance must be met. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 165. ZONING ORDINANCE. ARTICLE X. BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS; SECTION 165-82. DISTRICT USE REGULATIONS; TO ADD SIC 83 - SOCIAL SERVICES. EXCLUDING SIC 836. RESIDENTIAL CARE. TO THE LIST OF ALLOWED USES FOR THE B2 (BUSINESS. GENERAL) ZONING DISTRICT - APPROVED Planner II Camp presented this request to the Board advising that staff and Planning Commission recommended approval. There was no public comment. Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the following ordinance amendment was approved: Addition to list of allowed uses for the B2 (Business, General) Zoning District: Allowed Uses SIC Social Services, except for the following: 83 Residential Care 836 The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 581 Lynda J. Tyler - Aye PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE. CHAPTER 165. ZONING ORDINANCE. ARTICLE IV. SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS: SECTION 165-27E (H). PARKING LOTS. LANDSCAPING: SECTION 165-31. PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES: SECTION 165-36. LANDSCAPING: AND ARTICLE XXII. SECTION 165-156. DEFINITIONS- APPROVED Planner II Camp presented this request to the Board advising that staff and Planning Commission recommended approval. There was no public comment. Upon motion made by Supervisor Reyes, seconded by Supervisor Sager, the following amendment to the County Code was approved: PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS: ~ 165-27 E. (H). Landscaping. Parking lots in the RP Residential Performance District, the R4 Residential Planned Community District, the R5 Residential Recreational Community District, the MHl Mobile Home Community District, the B 1 Neighborhood Business District, the B2 Business General District, the B3 Industrial Transition District, the Ml Light Industrial District, the M2 Industrial General District and the MS Medical Support District shall be landscaped to reduce the visual impact of glare and headlights on adjoining properties and rights-of-way. Parking lots shall be adequately shaded to reduce reflected heat. Landscaping shall also be provided to reduce the visual expansiveness of parking lots. Landscaping shall be provided in such parking lots as follows: (a) Perimeter landscaping. R..':!u;,..d parkin~ lot ~dl,a..k. areas, abutting tile, Palk.;u51vt, ~llall be plankJ VV;tll ~llade tIees and othcrlandscaping. A th1cc-foot-hi~h GvGlg1e,Gll 11".15'" f..u...., bGllll 01 ...allshalll,.. plvv;d"d a511Ge,"M.l1y tv Pl"Ve,nt h"adlighti. flolll i.l1;u;u5 vu pul,lic l;gllb-vf-vvay arId adjoining pIopcrtiGs. A minimtl1ll of 011e, shade, tIG" 001 GVG1Y 40 f....t v[ palL115 Ivt p..l;mdG1 1.11.1111,.. plUv;ded. All i.haJ.. tl....~ ~l1all havc a minimmn two-inch calipe;l at thG time; of planting. Additional ttGGS may be, l..YU;I..d tv plUp..,ly ~Lade, tll" lul. The perimeter of all impervious areas shall be landscaped with shade trees and other landscaping. One (1) tree shall be provided for every 2,000 square feet of impervious area for thefirst 100,000 square feet of the entire site. One (1) tree shall be providedfor every 5,000 square feet of impervious area over 100,000 square feet of the entire site. Self- service storage facilities shall provide one (1) tree per 10,000 square feet of impervious area of the entire site, in addition to the trees required in Section 165-44, Self-service storage facilities. The majority of these trees shall be located around parking lots. A three-foot-high evergreen hedge, fence, berm, or wall shall be provided to prevent headlights from shining on public rights-of-way and adjoining properties. All perimeter landscaping shall comply with the requirements of Section 165-36 C, Plant Selection, Planting Procedure, and Maintenance. (b) Interior landscaping. A minimum of 5% of the interior portions of parking lots shall be landscaped for the purpose of providing shade trees. Such interior landscaping shall be provided on raised islands and in continuous raised strips extending the length of a parking bay. Within the parking lot, raised islands and landscaped areas should be uses to delineate traffic and pedestrian circulation patterns. Till. ~Ilade tIees pIo~ided shall be of an applopIiatG type; to GnSUIG shading at matu1ity. No less than one (1) shade tree shall be provided in the interior ofthe parking lot for each ten (10) parking spaces. All shade tleei. ~ll.1llll<1v" alll;u;lllUlU two-inch caliper at the tillK of planting. The Zoning Administrator may waive the requirement for interior landscaping for parcels located outside ofthe Sewer and Water Service Area when curb and gutter is not proposed. The Zoning Administrator Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 582 may approve alternative locations for interior landscaping for parking lots used for truck parking, as well as other parking lots, when it would improve the overall quality of the landscape plan. All interior landscaping shall comply with the requirements of Section 165-36 C, Plant Selection, Planting Procedure, and Maintenance. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS: ~ 165-31. Protection of environmental features. [Amended 12-11-1991] In order to protect those areas of a parcel which have environmental characteristics that make them unsuitable for development, certain portions of a development shall remain undisturbed or be protected. It is the intention of this section that the disturbance of such areas by the development process be limited. It is also the intention ofthis section that the large portions ofthe areas with such environmental characteristics be placed in open space, environmental easements, the portion ofthe parcel left undivided or other areas where they will remain undisturbed. It is intended that the environmental conditions on a property be reviewed as the first step in the planning process before lots or dwellings are located. A. The requirements of this section shall apply to land in the following zoning districts: RP Residential Performance District R4 Residential Planned Community District R5 Residential Recreational Community District MHl Mobile Home Community District B I Neighborhood Business District B2 Business General District B3 Industrial Transition District Ml Light Industrial District M2 Industrial General District HE Higher Education District RA Rural Areas District MS Medical Support District B. Porti,.,ns oft11G following cnvironment"l f"atul"~ shall remain nIldi"tw~"J a" dGs"l~~"J. All developments which require a master development plan, subdivision design plan, site plan, or preliminary sketch plan shall preserve the following environmental features as described: TYPG ofF(,atmG Amotl1lt of Di"twl.,<111"" r"1111~tted FIMdplallls No distmhance allowed LakGs and ponds No distmhanc" alluw"J 'vV dlallds No dlstLl1bancG allowcd SinkhoI.:.,,, Nu J~"twbM1CG allow"..! Nattllalstornlwater D~"tUlbarlGe of 10% "lluwGJ lGtwtlOil alGas Stcep slopGS D~"tull.,d1,Ge of25% allow"J ("lul''' uf l5'}o 01 ~,GatGl) \V oodlands D~"tull.,"l1"'" uf25% alluw"J (1.) Floodplains. In gmcral, no distmbanee offloodpl"~l1"~" "lluw"J <11,..1 11U ~t.uGtures shall be GOilstructeJ ~11 DuuJvla~l1". TI,,, ZUll;ll~ Ad,uiriistrator, with tile approval ofthc rlamling Commissi,",ll, may allow distmbance of ,,111,,11 ill"''''' ~u tI,,,, Doodpl"~l1 fvl l'Wl'U""" uf ,GG1Gatioll, CUll"'" v "t;uu, util~tlGS or stoullwatcr manag(,m(,llt. Th(, Administ1ator may allow the C0l1stItlctio11 uf l""lGatIoilal faeilitic" Ul lU"J" ~11 tllG l100dplain Disturbance of floodplains is only permitted in accordance with the requirements of Article Xv, FP Minute Book Nnmber 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 583 Floodplain Districts. (2.) Lakes and ponds. Lakes, ponds and impoundments shall remain undisturbed. The Administrator may allow the removal of a lake, pond or impoundment if it ;" ;ll a flVVl "lat" of ropair, if it i" uil"afo 01 ;f ;t "<01 V <0" uv u""fulld"ul;vu, "UV;lVl11u"lilal VI l""l"at;vllal ptlrp05"5 serves no useful retention, environmental, or recreational purposes. (3.) Wetlands, Natural Waterways, and Riparian Buffers. Nv J;"twLalle" vf vvdlMd6 i5 allo~cd, execpt that the Administtator may allow disturbance ofsmall areas for pmposes of "Vll""l val;vu, le"l<oation, utilitie5 01 lOad5. Disturbance of wetlands is only permitted in accordance with the requirements of the United States Army Corps of Engineers or other qualified state or federal agency. The disturbance of natural waterways and riparian buffers is prohibited, except when necessary for public utilities, public facilities, or roads. (4.) Sinkholes. No disturbance of sinkholes is allowed other than filling with llatwallllat"l;ab. Nv "uL"lall""" VI vbjeets, other than natural fill materials, shall be placed in sinkholes. S~111.jlul\,.t3 ~11all VBI] ~\".I J)l1\".1d \IV :t1. :lllIU\".lUCU~ 1I)(\t(,11<<.1]5 that vv ill 1:101 GOutl ;but"" 1v gIOtlndwater pollution non-polluting natural materials that will not contribute to groundwater pollution. (5.) Natural stormwater retention areas. No more than 10% of natural stormwater retention areas on a site shall be disturbed. Natural stormwater retention areas may be replaced with the approval of the Administrator by artificial stormwater facilities ifthe total storage capacity ofthe site, as well as within each drainageway, is maintained. Natural stormwater retention areas which are floodplains, wetlands, lakes or ponds shall not be disturbed or replaced. (6.) Steep slopes. No more than 25% of steep slopes (Z5% or greater), as defined, shall be disturbed or regraded. The Zoning Administrator may allow the disturbance of additional small areas where that disturbance will alleviate potential health or safety problems and will not significantly denigrate the overall environmental quality of the site. Th" DValJ vf Super v isors may allovv th" di5tuiballG" of lal~(,1 .11"a~ of I,te"p 510p"l, ill "huppin~ eWl"r5, office P.11k5, ;lidu~tl;alpcl1k" alld RS l"";J"lil;all""l,,al;vu "vlluuuu;l;"". Iu "u"ll "a""", th" fWlGtions ofstrGarn valleyS 5ball bG pr"5"r ved Huough th" u"" of OP"li I,pae", landseapill~ and "lVlluvvalvl lllal1a5"1ll"ul fa";l;l;",,. The Planning Commission may allow the disturbance of larger areas of steep slopes. (7.) 1~v JlIV!"" 1LaH 25';.0 vf vyvvJlaJJd;:) a;:) d""LJJ""J ,:,l.all ~"" d;,:,1u!D""J. TL"" AJH!~H~bt.LL1.tOI 111ay allovv additional disttli banee ofthe small areas w her e the distur banee ~ ill alle v ;alv pvkul;alll<oaltIl 01 Mf"ly plob1c!l:l5 and vvill not si~iiifieallt1y dwi~rate the o v Grall "UV;lVIIIIJ(,lJtal qualily of the site. The Doard of Super visors may allow fm a greatc! percentage of ~oodlarld areas to ~<o J;"tuIL<oJ ;u "llVPP;1l5 "<0111<01", vf[',,<o pcl1k~ VI ;lldu6tl;alpcl1k6. Th~ DOalJ vf SUP"l v ;"Vl" may allow for a ~r"at"r percwta~G of ~oodlarld atGM to be disttubed within Rr Residential ferformanee DistIiet parcels ~hich contain ~oodland areas 01l2S')O Vl111Vl<O vftIl<O total ,,;te, al"a. III "u"l. "a""", lualw" ll""" "llall ~"fll"""l v"d lv tIl" lllaA;lUUlll CAt"lIt po",,;blc and the fmlGtions ofthG ~oodlallds shall be preser ved th10ugh the usc of open Spa"" allJ lallJ""ap;ug. 'vVoodlallJ" "llallllvl L" J;"lwL"J wlt;l a 111a6t"1 d"vdopm"ut fllalJ l.a" 1""11 apfll0V"d. [AmendGd 7-11-2001] (8.) SuGh areM shall r cma;ll WI..1;"tUl1"..1 a" ..1"""1 ;1"..1 a~v v" ;11 .111 dev dopments r cq uiring master dCvelopment plan 01 site plan approval. (9.) In residential develop1llwts, the tlndisttlibcd crlviromncntal aleas described aLvv" "llall be pla""J;ll al"a~ vL"qu;red open spaGe. IIowev"l, H." A..1lll;ll;"tldtOl, vvith th" apprOval ofthc rlarming Commission, may allo~ ulldistmbedareas to be irlduJ"J ;u tIl" lequired 5etbaek allJ ycl1J ,h"a6 on r"5idwtiallots. UlId;"tUlL"J .11""" r11ay b" included in lots when HlI: extmt, location and distIibution of Gn v iroumental aleas make it illlplad;"al tv pia"" tIl" w1di5tul bed aH",a., III ....OlHHiOH OpGH ;:)pa...."". B. In tIl" RA Rwal Ar"a" D;"h;"t, "ubdi~isions tlti1i.z:in~ i(ual preselval;vu Ivt" "hall demonstIate that an atklllpllw" Leon illade tv pia"" tIl""" "nv;,vlllu"11tal ar"as ~ithin the Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of04/B/03 584 40'>0 vf tl,,-, pil.icc1 "et a;,ide f,Om ,co,,;Jc;ut;al "uLJ; v ;,,;vu. When the extent, location and distribtttion of em iioll1hUllal al(,a6 1I,,~1,-, ;l ;llIpl ",-,[;,-,,,1 to plaG(. tIl('ilI in tIl(, fOitrPoc(,nt th(, paiGe!, al tl,,-, d;",-"..,t;vu vf the Subdivision AdministIator, the undi5tmbed aleas may be includcd w itIlin tIlG I (,'iu;l,-,d ",-,tback ar(,o.5 Oi iu:;;dGlil~al Ivb W;tI1 tllCO piO~ i5ion of appropriate restrictive eOvcuant5. c. Undistmbed environmental ateas may be included on ie5idwtiallot5 in Wvii01hl1(,lIlal ",a"comcolitS when the e,<tent, IOGatio,i atld d~;,l,;LlIl;vu vf '-'l";iUrmlelltal ateas make it impractical to place tIIC undistmbed areas in Gommon OP('i, 6pa(,(.. 'v\'1,,-,u tll'-' '-'u v ;iU111U'-'1,l,,! dicoa" diCO plaGed ;,1 eilv;,oilluelital coa"comcolib, JcocoJ" vf J"J;,-,at;vu, hnalsnbdi~ision plats or otIKi k~al ;,16l1 Ulh'-'llt6 w ll;,-,L "p,-,,-,; fy tll'-' I ,-,,,ll ;..,t;VlI" lv be placed on tIl(' (,nv iionm(,ntal at(,a;, shall be appro v ed by the Administrator. S nch r estIictions shall guatantee that en v it onmental "1'-''''' l,-,maiil ulidi6tuio(,d a61(,qu;lcd Ly tl1;" ;,G..,t;vu. In residential developments, the areas of undisturbed environmental features described in Section 165-31 B, shall be located in areas of open space. However, the Planning Commission, may allow undisturbed areas to be included in the required setback and yard areas on residential lots when the extent, location, and disturbance of environmental areas make it impractical to place the undisturbed areas in common open space. In such circumstances, environmental easements, deeds of dedication, final subdivision plats, or other legal instruments approved by the Zoning Administrator shall be required to specify the restrictions to be placed on the environmental areas. D. Agiiwlttllal soils. \VheiG lM~e concwtiation5 of pi;lII(' a~I;(,u1tUl"l VI lv,-,ally ,,;~nificallt soi15 can be included w;tI,iu H,,-, 40'% vrtll'-' pal ,-,..,1 tI,al w;ll remain undi v ided, w ithotlt undue dettimcnt to OdlCi piinciplu. of quaEly 6ubd;v;;,;ou J'-''';511 VI ,,;~Jlificallt 1055 of d(,u;.;ly, "" ddcouuined by the Subdivision Administrator, they shall be included in the fOity-peieent P"I'-''-'1. In rural preservation subdivisions, the environmental features described in Section 165-31B, along with agricultural or locally significant soils, shall be placed within the forty percent parcel, without undue detriment to other principles of quality subdivision design or significant loss of density, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. E. No latld d;"lwLall'-''-' p'-'"l1;l "LaB be issued for tIl(, .mov(, o";iUlllu,-,ula:l dicoa" 0,lldi1J fVi wl1;.:,1, a Hla"t,-" devcIopment platl has not been approved. The Zonin~ Administiatoi may allow the di5tmballC(' of Mlall "1'-''''' wl"",,,-, tLG di5tulbahG(' w;ll all,-,v;atc. potential health 0, ;.afdy piUl..,bu" v, will not significatltly violate the intwt of this chapter. In commercial and industrial developments, the areas of undisturbed environmental features described in Section 165-31 B, shall be located in areas of open space, environmental easements, deeds of dedication, final subdivision plats, or other legal instruments approved by the Zoning Administrator which specify the restrictions to be placed on the environmental areas. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS: ~ 165-36. Landscaping. A. All pOl tiOhS of d(,v dOpuK1,l6 1'-''iU;1;U5 ,,;t(, plan approval "l,all L,-, appropriately land;.GapcoJ to enhance the appearanee, ehatacter and v alue of dcv clopm(,ut ill tIl(, '-'OUllly. L"ud"'-'''pin~ "hall be fHovideJ tv 1COJU'-''-' tl,,-, v;sibility of paved ateas from smionnding propertics, to minimi.!:G noise Mid ~lale, to piov;d,-, "l.ad,-, alld lv ;lIlplVVe tIl(' ~en('ial app,-,<lidiH..,-, vUl,,-, Ivt to b(, d(,v..,1vp,-,J. B. Iu <lilY dl.v..,1vpm,-,ul requiring site plan appro~al, any part of a lot not used Eoi buildin~5, stIuctmGs, pa1kin~, Ioadin~, &i v(,way6 01 walkw"Y" "llal1 ,-,vlltain a ~iOuild GO vG, ;m..1uJ;u5 giass, trees, no~er5, 5Iuub5 0, on,,-,, ldi,d",-,ap;u5 malerials which shall be maintained in a healthy eondition. **added proposed Iandscaping ordinance** PROPOSED ORDINANCE: Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 585 ~ 165-36. Landscaping Requirements. The requirements of this section are intended to enhance the appearance, environment, and general welfare of the citizens of Frederick County by providing minimum landscaping standard and encouraging tree preservation for residential developments. A. Residential Developments. Residential Developments which require a master developme plan, subdivision design plan, site plan, or preliminary subdivision sketch plan sha provide at least one (1) of the three (3) types of landscaping identified below. 1. Street Tree Landscaping. Street Tree Landscaping shall require one (1) street tree fo every forty (40) feet of street frontage in a residential development, with the exceptio of frontage on roads which require a road efficiency buffer. Street trees shall b planted no more than (20) feet from right-of-ways. Planting street trees on th property lines of building lots should be avoided. Two (2) or more street trees shall b planted on each building lot. The Zoning Administrator may allow fewer than two ( street trees for individual building lot if topographical features, utilities, easement, or the width of the lot makes it impractical to do so. All street trees shall comply wit the requirements of Section 165-36 B, with the exception that street trees must be least 2 'l2" caliper at the time of planting. 2. Ornamental Landscapinf!. Ornamental landscaping shall be providedfor residenti developments based on the following index and matrix: Index of Lot Types: A. Major Rural Subdivision Lot B. Rural Preservation Subdivision Lot C. Single Family Detached Rural Traditional D. Single Family Detached Traditional E. Single Family Detached Urban F. Single Family Detached Cluster G. Single Family Detached Zero Lot Line H. Single Family Small Lot I: Duplex J: Multiplex K: Atrium House L: Weak-Link Townhouse M: Townhouse N: Garden Apartment Required Landscaping Per Dwelling Unit: Lot Type Ornamental Shrubs Ornamental Trees A none 10 per 1 unit B none 10 per 1 unit C none 10 per 1 unit D 10 per 1 unit 5 per 1 unit E 10 per 1 unit 5 per 1 unit F 10 per 1 unit 5 per 1 unit G 10 perl unit 5 per 1 unit H 15 per 1 unit 5 per 1 unit I 15 per 1 unit* 5 per 1 unit* J 3 per 3 units* 1 per 3 units* K 3 per 4 units* 1 per 4 units * L 6 per 5 units* 2 per 5 units * M 6 per 5 units * 2 per 5 units * N 3 per 2 units * 1 per 2 units * Ornamental trees & shrubs shall comply with the requirements of Section 165-36 The Zoning Administrator may allow some of the required ornamental trees an Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 586 ornamental shrubs to be planted in areas of common open space so long as the int. t of this section is met. * required ornamental landscaping is in addition to landscaping required for parking lots 3. Tree Preservation Landscaoinf!. An area with a tree canopy coverage, of at least 2. '6 of the entire site area, shall be preserved within dedicated open space. In no case sh I individual building lots be located within the open space. Canopy coverage shall e calculated from the cumulative total of existing tree canopies. Preserved trees shall e clustered together to maintain a contiguous canopy; and shall be protected fr. n construction activity. These areas of open space may be counted towards the to I required open space, as specified in Section 165-63. Residential developments Whl Ih are not required to have open space by Section 165-63 are not exempt from CTeati jg open space for the required canopy coverage. The calculation of tree canopy shall e based on either the individual tree standards of the "Manual of Woody Landsc, e Plants", written by Michael A. Dirr, or through a comprehensive analysis of existi jg tree drip lines, conducted by a Virginia certified engineer, land surveyor, or landsc, e architect. B. Plant Selection, Planting Procedure, and Maintenance. (1) Plant Selection. Based on the type of landscaping, required trees and shrubs shall e selected from the list of acceptable trees & shrubs shown below. Types of Landscaping Street Tree Landscaping (Street) Ornamental Landscaping (Ornamental) Tree Preservation Landscaping (Canopy) Interior & Perimeter Landscaping (Shade) Screening (Screen) Acceptable Trees & Shrubs Common Name Scientific Name Tvoes of Landscapinf( Permitted Dawn Redwood Metasequoia Street, Canopy glyptostroboides Bald Cypress Taxodium Street, Canopy distichum London Plane Tree Platanus acerifolia Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Red Oak Quercus borealis, Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Quercus rubra White Oak Quercus alba, Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Quercus bicolor Lacebark Elm Ulmus parvifolia Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Blackgum Nyssa sylvatica Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Ginkgo (male) Ginkgo biloba Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 Minute Book Num Board of Supervis 587 Thornless Honey Gleditsia Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Locust triacanthos inermis Japanese Pagoda Sophora japonica Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Tree Red Maple Acer rubrum Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Sugar Maple Acer saccharum Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Freeman Maple Acer freemanii Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Green Ash Fraxinus Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy pennsylvania Littleleaf Linden Tilia cordata Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Silver Linden Tilia tomentosa Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Japanese Elm Zelkova serrata Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Yellowwood Cladrastis Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy kentukea Katsura Tree Cercidiphyllum Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy japonicum Dogwood Corn us florida, Street, Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Cornus kousa, Corn us hybrid Sycamore Platanus Ornamental, Canopy occidentallis Willow Oak Quercus phellos Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Pin Oak Quercus palustris Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Sweet Gum Liquidambar Ornamental, Shade, Canopy styraciflua Japanese Maple Acer palmatum Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Amur Maple Acer ginnala Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Paperbark Maple Acer griseum Ornamental, Shade, Canopy White Birch Betula platyphylla Ornamental, Shade, Canopy River Birch Betula nigra Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Copper Beech Fagus Ornamental, Shade, Canopy atropuniciea Weeping Beech Fagus pendula Ornamental, Shade, Canopy European Beech Fagus sylvatica Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Golden-Rain Tree Koelreuteria Ornamental, Shade, Canopy paniculata Flowering Cherry Prunus (all Ornamental, Shade, Canopy varieties) European Carpinus betulus Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Hornbeam ber 28 ors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 Minute Book Num Board of Supervis ~~---- u,.__u______ American Plum Prunus americana Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Flowering Pear Pyrus calleryana Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Flowering Malus (all Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Crabapple varieties) Washington Crataegus Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Hawthorn plaenopyrum Downy Amelanchier Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Serviceberry arborea Eastern Redbud Cercis canadensis Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Star Magnolia Magnolia stellata Ornamental, Shade, Canopy Saucer Magnolia Magnolia x Ornamental, Shade, Canopy soulangiana Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga Ornamental, Screen, Canopy menziesii White Fir Abies con color Ornamental, Screen, Canopy Spruce Picea (all varieties) Ornamental, Screen, Canopy Japanese Umbrella Sciadopitys Ornamental, Screen, Canopy Pine verticillata Canadian Tsuga canadensis Ornamental, Screen, Canopy Hemlock Holly flex opaca Ornamental, Screen, Canopy flex x 'Nellie R. Stevens' Hinoki False Chamaecyparis Ornamental, Screen, Canopy Cypress obtusa White Pine Pinus strobus Screen, Canopy Western Thuja plicata Screen, Canopy Arborvitae Dark American Thuja occidentalis Screen, Canopy Arborvitae nigra and emerald Leyland Cypress Cupressocyparis x Screen, Canopy leylandi English Yew Taxus baccata Ornamental, Screen Japanese Yew Taxus cuspidata Ornamental, Screen Azalea (all varieties) Ornamental, Screen Chinese Holly flex corn uta Ornamental, Screen Boxwood Buxus (all Ornamental, Screen varieties) Juniper Juniperus (all Ornamental, Screen varieties) Rhododendron (all varieties) Ornamental, Screen her 28 ors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 588 D. PROPOSED M ~ 165-156. De Minute Book Num Board of Supervis c. -. -- 0 589 Cotoneaster (all varieties) Ornamental Spirea (all varieties) Ornamental Weiglea (all varieties) Ornamental ftea (all varieties) Ornamental Aronia (all varieties) Ornamental Clethra (all varietie~) Ornamental Forsythia (all varieties) Ornamental Viburnum (all varieties) Ornamental Winged Euonymus (all varieties) Ornamental (2) Plantim! Procedure. All required trees and shrubs shall meet the specificatio 10 of the American Association of Nurserymen. All trees shall be planted 1 closer than (3) feet from the edge of sidewalks, curb, or other pavemel Deciduous trees shall be a minimum of two (2) inch caliper at the time f planting. Evergreen trees shall be a minimum of four (4) feet in height at t, . time of planting. Shrubs shall be a minimum three-gallon container at (, time of planting. (3) Maintenance. The owner, developer, and/or builder whom is responsible fi planting required landscaping shall be responsible for maintaining it in a sta of good health for one year after planting. After one year, from the da occupancy is approved, the individual property owner and/or homeowner association shall become responsible for maintenance. As long as the inte of this section is met, the Zoning Administrator may waive the requirementfi landscaping on individual building lots when a hazard or nuisance exists. Existing Tree Credits. If the intent of Section 165-36 is satisfied, including speci type and location, existing trees that are preserved may be counted towards the tot number of required trees for residential developments. Commercial & industri developments may utilize existing tree credits when calculating the required numb of parking lot trees, as required in Section 165-27 E. (J 1), if the preserved trees a shown on an approved site plan and serve the intent of interior and perimet landscaping. The following table shows the credit given for each preserved tree, bas on the tree's caliper: Caliper Tree Credit 4" - 6" 1 7" -12" 2 13" -18" 3 19" - 29" 4 >30" 5 Enforcement Procedures. The Zoning Administrator may require a bond with sure or other acceptable guaranties to insure the completion of required improvemen Such guaranties shall be in the estimated amount of the required improvements. SUI guaranties shall be for a period of completion set by the Zoning Administrator wi consultation with the applicant. Such guaranties shall be released when the requir. improvements have been completed. ODIFICA nONS: finitions. ber 28 ors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 590 Agricultural (or Locally Significant) Soils - A group of soils identified as prime farmland by the So Survey of Frederick County Virginia, prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture. Caliper - The diameter of a tree trwJ.. 1l1"aSlm"J 12 ill"l,,,~ flom the grotlnd k,,,l as defined by th American Association of Nurserymen. Channel Scarline - The sloping margin of, or the ground bordering, a stream and serving to confin the water to the natural channel during the normal course of.flow. It is best marked where a distin channel has been eroded to the valley floor or where there is a cessation of land vegetation. Impervious Area - Any area, generally paved or graveled, with a surface that prevents, or significant reduces, absorption of storm water into the ground. When calculating impervious area fi landscaping purposes, retention and detention basins, dry wells, sidewalks, display areas, dumpst pads, and structures shall be excluded. Natural Waterway - Creeks, Streams, Runs, or other annual or perennial waterways identified 0 United States Geological Survey, Commonwealth of Virginia or Frederick County maps. Riparian Buffer - An area of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation that permits inundation by water an is at least thirty-five feet in width, measured outward from both sides of a natural waterway beginnin along the slope of the ground from the channel scar line. A riparian buffer is managed to maintai the integrity of stream channels and reduce the effect of upland sources of pollution by trappin filtering, and converting sediments, nutrients, and other chemicals. Steep Slopes - Land areas where the slope exceeds 25 50%. ~W<1.l11p 01 w"tlallJ diGM has adapted to the, O1ea. Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface ground water at a frequency or duration sufficient to support, and that under normal conditions do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adaptedfor life in saturated soil conditions, and that subject to a perpetual easement permitting inundation by water. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye Assistant Planning Director Chris Mohn presented this request to the Board advising that at t April 2, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, staff advised that the requested rezoning is inconsiste Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 591 with the adopted land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan based upon their application an request. He further advised that the Planning Commission, at their meeting of April 2, 2003 recommended denial of the rezoning request. He further advised that the applicant has revised th proffer statement to include two additional proffered conditions. Specifically, the applicant proffers t construct a landscaped earth berm six (6) feet in height that will be located along the southern bound of the site to enhance the buffering of residential lots from the Winchester Regional Airport. Thi landscaped berm will also be constructed along the boundary of the 22-acre public use site to ensur adequate buffering of adjacent residential lots. Moreover, the applicant has proffered to contribute a additional $1,000.00 per residential lot to Frederick County to be used for airport land acquisition or th development offacilities on the 22-acre public use site. This additional monetary contribution will b paid at the time of building permit issuance for each lot. The County Attorney confirmed that the revised proffer statement is in proper legal form. The revised proffer statement (dated December 8, 2002, revised through April 7, 2003) i included with the application materials contained in the agenda packet. Assistant Mohn further advised that the Airport Authority has expressed its objection t residential land uses on the subject site and passed a resolution in November of 2002, formalizing it position. Assistant Mohn further advised that the applicant proposes development ofthe 400 residentia units in three phases over five years, proffering to build no more than 80 homes per year. transportation improvement program has also been included by the applicant. The applicant has furthe proffered dedication of a 50 acre site for public school uses and approximately 20 acres fo miscellaneous public service uses. Attorney Ben Butler appeared before the Board on behalf of the applicant advising that he feel the only issue here is, is this request compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and the Airport suppo area? He referred to pages 6 and 61 of the County's Comprehensive Plan. He addressed the highes and best use of this property where he referred to a report submitted by Greenway Engineering wit regard to the use of this property. He referred to the acreage that has not been developed in this area and one would wonder why. The topography ofthis area is the main reason for this. He further advise that the Winchester-Frederick Economic Development Commission has not been able to get on prospect interested in developing the land of Prince Frederick Park in over ten years, one can see tha the demand is not there. He addressed the Airport and compatibility, and how the applicant has trie Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 592 to work around the problem that the Airport perceives at this location, and from his understanding, thO boils down to safety, noise, and funding. From what he has been able to determine from the resolutio that was passed, is that the Airport is afraid that citizens will complain about noise and the noise wi result in funding being cut off, and he feels this is not true. He referred to the building going on ne the Leesburg Airport and yet funds are being received from FAA. Evan Wyatt of Greenway Engineering appeared before the Board at this time and referred bac to the August worksession. He advised that in looking at the properties east of Interstate 81, and t further east that you go, are the properties that are suffering the most. Prince Frederick, in addition t this property that the County Comprehensive Plan suggests should be commercial. They have bee working on a design plan that would be the best for everyone, where everyone won. He referred to t plan on display behind Supervisor Smith. He advised a school site was selected in the area adjacent t the Corps of Engineer Building. The redesign effort was to take what they had learned and come u with some things. The Coverstone acreage is now part of the application. They want to relocate t proposal for school acreage the furthest away to the southeastern location ofthe site. The plan represen a three phased plan for residential which Mr. Wyatt pointed out on the plan. The County' Comprehensive Plan suggests that a connecting road be put in this area, as he indicated the location 0 the plan. He advised of the additional proffers as noted earlier by staff, advising of a savings to t from this acreage through its development proposal. They feel in meeting with and learning from t County of over $5 million, as this is what the proffers amount to. He further advised that the propert owners recognize that the golf club, in particular, has provided a benefit to the community, but it c no longer go forward as it is, and they wanted to make sure that the community still retained a bene airport staff and advisors they have developed a plan, a design they feel works for everybody, and aske that the Board approve this plan. Chairman Shickle advised he would like to give the Airport about 10 minutes as an agenc reviewer, to make a presentation, and then everyone else having comments would be heard under t citizen comments portion of the meeting. Airport Director Renny Manuel appeared before the Board. She advised that she would like t respond to a couple of items mentioned by Mr. Wyatt. The airport does have access on the northern si to the runway and Millwood Station is the first responder at this time. She further advised in order t gain entrance through the cul-de-sac it would take some maneuvering as there is not currently a soli road base at this location. She further advised why the Airport Authority is opposed to this rezonin Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 593 request. The Authority is not trying to dictate to a land owner what they can or should not do withth r property. They are only trying to protect the future viability of the operations of the Winchest r Regional Airport. This rezoning request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan, whi the Authority has worked with the Planning Department and the Board of Supervisors during the ear 1990's and establishing within the Route 50 east corridor the airport support area, and this was done try and protect the operations of the Airport. She further advised that it has been well document throughout the entire United States that aviation activities and residential development do not coex without some type of problems or complaints. B-2 Commercial may not be the best use for zoning the parcel in question; however, we have offered to work with them in promoting the parcel, that th did not know was available "For Sale" and work with them if they want to seek a different rezoni designation within the Comp Plan such as Ml or M2. The FAA has also indicated they would wo with the applicant should they want to make it an industrial park and have air side access. This of was made during the meeting with Greenway held last year. She referred to the LDN noise contours th t is reflected on the plan and emphasized that noise line does not prohibit noise from being heard fro aircraft flying over or from aircraft that are approaching or departing the pattern. She further advis that noise complaints usually end up with the political body ofthe locality with a demand that somethi be done, and often a legal course is necessitated in order to force a solution, and a primary example f where this is taking place is at the Leesburg Airport, just across the mountain. She advised of t number of planes currently using the airport on a daily basis. Supervisor Sager referred to information he received, just yesterday, from the Airport Authori and advised that he did not feel this was sufficient time to review the detailed information. He h received a number of phone calls, some in favor of, others opposing the request. Director Manuel apologized for not getting this information to the Board. She advised at the 1 t Planning Commission Meeting, when this request was before them, certain information was request that was not available at that time. In researching this information for the Planning Department, it w a last minute decision to assemble the information in a binder to provide to the Board of Supervisors the Planning Commission. She further advised a meeting with all necessary parties dealing with t Airport could not be scheduled until April 17, therefore, the information could not be assembled un' after that. Supervisor Smith asked Director Manuel if someone was present that could address the area future grants should this request be approved. Minutc Book Numbcr 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 594 Chairman Shickle advised that he has set through a number of meetings when this same questi Director Manuel advised it would not stop the funding. It would prohibit them from funding I was asked; however, the response was not an answer to the question. He is looking for an answer. acquisition ifit is needed for growth and development on the other side. As an airport sponsor, they e charged with the responsibility to protect the Airport, and to ensure its vital operations. Joe Delia, Airport Engineer for FAA having represented Winchester Airport for a number f years, appeared before the Board at this time. They have tried to be really clear, they have ne r applicant said, with not compatible uses, and typically, this type of construction leads to problems represented it, that funding would stop. The funding has not stopped at Leesburg, but the nature of e funding has certainly changed. In Leesburg, they primarily do rehabilitation and safety projects. Th would continue to support Winchester with that type of funding. We view it at Winchester and Leesb as valuable resources that need that type of funding. When it comes to discretionary funding, as t e restrictions on the utility and efficiency of the Airport. Winchester would compete with other airpo s within the Commonwealth and probably would not compete well, if this development led to restrictio s on the operations at the Airport. Robert Nates, representative of the thirteen airports in Northern Virginia on the Virginia A viati Chairman Shickle asked Mr. Nates to summerize his answer to the question, what affect wo Board, including Winchester. They established the policy that determines what projects can be fund and to what extent, percentages, they can be funded, and what the priorities will be when projects e compared. There are sixty-nine public use airports within the State of Virginia, and all vie for st e funds. Taken into consideration also, is whether the project is funded by the FAA. The general fundi pattern for a project is 90% by the FAA, 8% by the State and 2% by the local sponsors. The State s pressed now, and will be for quite a few years with the current budget situation within the State. further advised the activity levels at the Airport is viewed when considering the priorities of vario s projects at an airport. They see this as an encroachment on an area that needs to bc rcserved for Airp related purposes and they would hope this request before the Board would not be approved becaus would make it more difficult to envision just exactly how this Airport would grow in the future. further advised there have been considerable State Funds spent on this Airport, very willingly and v happily, right now there is $400,000 State Funds just waiting to go under contract for two more projec this rezoning have on funding? Mr. Nates explained that it is almost impossible to say exactly what the discretion of the Bo Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 595 would be in any particular instance. One of the factors they have to consider is what are the futu prospects of the Airport. He should mention with aviation it is almost impossible to determine what t future of aviation and; therefore, the needs of the airport will be. Aviation is one ofthe fastest changi things that we have in our life, and we do not know what our requirements will be. Supervisor Douglas asked why the Airport had not purchased some of the land that is going be "For Sale," but then she thought she understood the Airport staff to say they did not know it w going to be for sale. Director Manuel advised they did not realize that Carpers Valley Golf Course was going to placed on the market until they were approached last Fall by Mr. Wyatt with a plan of what they wou like to do with the property. Up until that time they had not given any thought of putting together a pI to show development on that side because they were not aware the golf course was available. S advised that if the Airport were to decide to purchase the property, the only funding, Federal and Stat they would receive would be for land acquisition related to the air side. Chairman Shickle stated that in observing this proceeding all the way through he has not se what it appeared to him to be a demonstration on the part ofthe Airport to attempt to cooperate with th land owner, these developers, to come up with something mutually agreeable. What he has seen is an no way, between the Airport and Route 50, did he see it wrong? Director Manuel advised that she was not going to say that he saw it wrong, but they have tri to work with them in offering other proposals, such as a different type of zoning that is commercial business related. They are part ofthe foreign trade zone, and the free enterprise zone and they have Customs and Immigration Service, so to use those tools to market that property for industrial purpose would give them an advantage over other parcels within Frederick County. Chairman Shickle advised that the buyer is a residential buyer, so he should have stuck that' there. The Airport's position has been, is that no houses between the Airport and Route 50? Director Manuel replied that is correct. That response is due to the fact it is their responsibili to protect the Airport from any restrictions or complaints, anything that could be placed on the viabili ofthe Airport in the future. Supervisor Sager asked about the Martinsburg Airport, and the growth that has taken pIa around this airport, residential and commercial. He asked why there is two standards here? Director Manuel advised she could not answer this question as she is not familiar wi Martinsburg Airport. She referred Supervisor Sager to the plan directly behind Supervisor Reyes a Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 596 and the close proximity ofthe houses to the Airport, and the hangers, and the aircraft that are doing run ups. Chairman Shickle advised he has heard the Airport's position on the rezoning, he has not heard the Airport's position on the default position for the landowner of something like 56 homes as a buy-right use, and probably not a very happy neighbor ofthe Airport, where are you then? Director Manuel replied that 50 some homes are a lot better than 400 some residents to deal with, along with the issue of a possibility of 2 schools. They realize the owner has the buy right option and can exercise that right at any time. They are talking about new residential zoning, not existing, that they are opposed to. Airport Attorney Mark Flynn appeared before the Board and advised that in talking with the FAA they have advised that when there is preexisting zoning, that does not hinder or slow down FAA's 90% participation in land acquisition. That is entirely different from a rezoning to a more intense residential zoning. Chairman Shickle advised that has nothing to do with the nature of his question. 56 people in this room, families, who are not happy with what goes on next to them at the airport, would make a significant difference. Attorney Flynn, advised it would make a difference; however, that is the environment that is there and they cannot go backwards in a way that he knows of. One ofthe primary reasons that the Airport Authority objects to the plan is the impact on future development of the Airport Authority, particularly with the funding issue, yes, there is a difference. If the applicant came in for a rezoning to some sort of business, commercial use, that would certainly be preferred by the Authority. Supervisor Douglas asked Mr. Wyatt, should this be approved and houses are built, is there any way this could be written into the deed that they are close to the Airport, they should expect noise and they should not complain? Mr. Wyatt advised in the proffer statement it is written and entitled Airport Protection where this is addressed. Supervisor Forrester referred to the signalization at Route 50 and Sulpher Spring Road and the mention of this being a part of the proffers being offered. She thought this was already in VDOT's future plans. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 597 Resident Engineer Jerry Copp appeared before the Board to address this question. He advised a traffic analysis was done by their department approximately 1 and a half years ago, it does warrant a traffic light and they have applied for Federal Funds, not Revenue Sharing. It has been programmed for Federal Funding; however, authorization has not been received at this time to proceed. Supervisor Sager asked Mr. Wyatt ifthe owners ofthis property have approached the Airport about this property being "For Sale?" Mr. Wyatt advised to his knowledge there has not been any dialogue on either side about a potential for land acquisition. The only thing that has come to the table, once again, when they saw what the Airport projected their northern expansion needs to be, they tried to address that through a donation, but a purchase discussion to his knowledge, has never occurred. Supervisor Tyler advised she would be abstaining from this vote for a perception of a conflict of interest, she cannot do it. Leo Sheffer, President of Washington Airport Taskforce and responsible for the County's foreign trade zone as the grantee of that zone. He advised there is a classic situation here, classic in the sense that Frederick County and its neighbors gathered together many years ago to create an airport, you have master plmmed it, you have created comprehensive plan around it, hopefully for compatible uses. You did that, he understands, in order to secure the economic future of your community. Prosperity of this region relies on access, you have got good road, good rail, and good air access. That is why businesses locate here and why we have rising levels of employment and prosperity. He asked the Board as they review this application to consider these points. It is very simple. Nationwide the evidence shows very clearly that housing and schools are not compatible with runways and flight operations. You do not have to take his word for it as he has brought two pieces of evidence, both written material from recent articles. James Bland, Virginia Department of Aviation, asked the Board to look at plan number 2 and plan number 3. Suppose back in the 1960's the Winchester Regional Airport was not here, no real vision for economic development for the future of the City of Winchester and Frederick County, but some folks came in and decided to do some development here, build some 1 to 3 hundred homes over the last thirty some years. Given that scenario, which is plan number 3, that is approximate of what that would look like today, if those homes were there. It is now the twenty first century and Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 598 the area decides it needs better air access to the world around them. We need an airport to serve this region, do we really think we would be here this evening talking about locating an airport, like Winchester, on that existing site with 400 homes adjacent, no, we wouldn't be here at all, we would be laughed out of this room. Walt Cunningham, resident of Shawnee District, referred to the intersection of Route 50 and Sulpher Spring Road and the many accidents, as a member of Greenwood Fire Company, that he has worked. The light is really needed at this location. He feels the Airport has been a good neighbor; however, he feels this development would be a tremendous asset to the County. Whit Wagner, Stonewall District, and one of the partners of Prince Frederick Park. He advised the Board of the many pluses of approving this request. He feels one of the main reasons for approving this plan is the security. The Corps of Engineer building is a level 4 security with the White House and Pentagon being a level 5. He further advised of those areas the applicant has worked with them on making this a secured facility, and they feel this is a win-win situation, and urged its approval. Paul Anderson, Back Creek District, is a user ofthe Airport for over forty years. He has seen it grow from grass to where it currently is. He has served on the Airport Authority. He feels this should be denied due to the safety issue. He further addressed the cost involved in educating the children that would be the result of building 400 homes in this area. Administrative Assistant Al Orndorff, with the County Schools, appeared before the Board advising why he felt this request should be approved. John Longnaker, Engineer for the Airport, advising of a report that has not been touched on so far, and that this is a regional facility impacting more than just the County. This investment has brought returns, and produces 114 jobs. It has 2.7 million dollars of wages generated and has an economic impact each year of over $7 million in the region. It is only going to continue to grow. Lew Costello, Back Creek District, he is a member ofFredericktowne Group L.C. that owns the Prince Frederick Office Park adjacent to this property on the west side. He further advised that they have owned this property since 1986, there has been water and sewer there since 1988. In 1993 it was master planned and rezoned to B-2. The only thing that has happened there in all this time is that we had to join the Prince Frederick Group in order to get the Corps there, that is not a commercial application. It was updated in 1999 by putting in Costello Drive. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 599 Tom Sitz, owner of property adjacent to the end ofthe runway, and also conducts a business at the airport. He does not feel we will be able to stop housing from going to this area, his real fear is why would we put schools in an area where airplanes sometimes don't make it to the runway, his worse fear is a pilot running into a school. R. J. Turner, commercial real estate broker, believes that quality developments like this where there are a number of owners that get together to plan something well attracts more business to the area than other amenities. He knows that it does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan and usually he does not speak unless he has some contractual relationship with some of the sellers, which he does not in this case, but this will help the county attract businesses. David Koller, owner of property in the Gainesboro District, member of the EDC Commission, and user of the Airport. He promised Patrick Barker, his executive director, that he would not speak tonight. He sent each Board Member a letter concerning the future. If you live for today, often times you will go ahead and forfeit your future. When he thinks about what is being contemplated for the residential development, so close to this Airport, that is one ofthe things I think we might be doing is short sited versus a long term perspective. Supervisor Smith advised this is a tough one for him, it's really tough, but in this case he feels the bad out weighs the good and he will move to deny. Supervisor Forrester seconded the motion. Supervisor Douglas advised that she agrees with Supervisor Sager in that the information was too late in getting to the Board from the Airport Authority. Supervisor Forrester advised that she feels the Board's responsibility extends to protecting the community and its future interest. She is convinced that it would make it harder for us to compete for more funding for the Airport in the future, we are a foreign trade zone, which is something that has not always been at the Airport. We were here a few months ago as a Board considering potential school sites and they ruled out sites that were in proximity of the Airport because of our concern for safety issues for students. This is a regional airport and she is sure we are not the only ones having made an investment into this Airport, how would our regional partners feel about this. She feels this is a consideration that would have to be looked at. Supervisor Reyes, referred to what Attorney Butler had said earlier; however, there was only one comment made about the cost involved. He advised, based on the school's figures, that it would Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 600 cost $7,473 per student times the 280 students would equate to $2, 092.44, which equates to close to a 6 cent increase in taxes. This residential growth is what keeps this County between "a rock and a hard place." Chairman Shickle stated that he felt there was a win-win situation here, but he does not feel it was achieved. He feels perhaps some did not try hard enough. He has heard a lot about the airport's funding and that being injeopardy, but he feels the Airport failed to take into consideration what might happen if they did not cooperate a little bit what it takes to have a neighbor who does not like you anymore. He predicts ifthe motion passes, that the payback for that will be pretty heavy some day, it may influence his decisions when he is looking at Airport issues, about how fair you have been and how much you have worked with your neighbors. Supervisor Smith advised Chairman Shickle he could sympathize with him, but there are nine employees at the airport and they keep that airport close to their hearts. It is probably one of the best run, best manicured airports in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and I think the representatives from FAA and Virginia Aviation will back him up on that. They do a tremendous job. We are at a point now were we are breaking even, the City, the County, we are almost to the break even point, where in a couple of years we will not have to depend on the City of Winchester, Clarke County, Warren County and Shenandoah County. The Comprehensive Plan, we might as well tear it up and throw it out the window, the Planning Commission voted against this ll-2, does that tell you something, do they know something we don't, they know exactly what is going on. That is the life blood of our economic development. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager -Nay Sidney A. Reyes -Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas -Nay Lynda J. Tyler - Aye OTHER PLANNING ITEMS REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION AND RESOLUTION (#57-03) FOR AIRPORT ROAD RELOCATION - APPROVED Senior Planner Abbe Kennedy presented this request to the Board advising that Frederick County has received notice of an opportunity to apply for an additional allocation through the Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 601 Virginia Department of Transportation FY 2002-2003 Revenue Sharing Program. Twenty-one counties are eligible to apply for the unused allocation, which totals over $525,000. State fund requests up to $100,000 may be requested. Staff has met with VDOT and the Airport Road (Route 645) Relocation "Roundabout" project would be eligible for the additional funding. Resident-Engineer Jerry Copp appeared before the Board to address this resolution. Upon motion made by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Supervisor Forrester, the following resolution was approved: WHEREAS, the County of Frederick desires to submit an application for an additional allocation of funds of up to $100,000 for improvements to Airport Road to include its alignment at the intersection of Airport road and Victory Road through the Virginia department of Transportation Fiscal Year 2002-2003 County Primary and Secondary Fund (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 additional allocation of up to $100,000 through the Virginia Department of Transportation "Revenue Sharing Program" for improvements to Airport Road as their first and only priority, which is an effort to achieve the remaining project cost ofthe Airport Road relocation project. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda J. Tyler - Aye ROAD RESOLUTION (#058-03) RE: STONEYMEADE SUBDIVISION: SECTIONS I AND II. PHASE I - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA WHEREAS, the Streets described for Stoneymeade Subdivision Sections 1 and 2, Phase 1 on the attached Additions Form SR-5A, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised this Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation; and WHEREAS, the County and the Virginia Department of Transportation have entered into an agreement on June 9, 1993, for comprehensive stormwater detention which applies to this request for addition; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THIS Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of- way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy ofthis resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 602 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMENTS Supervisor Sager asked if a resolution could be prepared for Frederick County resident Marine Lance Corporal David Owens, whose life was lost in the War with Iraq. Chairman Shickle asked ifthis could be modified somewhat and the resolution be presented to the parents of the fallen soldier. Supervisor Smith seconded this motion. Administrator Riley will prepare the resolution. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye Gina A. Forrester - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Lynda 1. Tyler - Aye (NOTE: The following is the resolution that was prepared and presented to the parents of Lance Corporal David E. Owens, Jr.): RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION HONORING LANCE CORPORAL DAVID E. OWENS, JR. WHEREAS, Lance Corporal David E. Owens, Jr. made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of freedom for the United States of America and the people ofIraq; and WHEREAS, the parents of David Owens, David and Deborah Owens, deserve the highest recognition of this community for raising and nurturing such a fine young man; and WHEREAS, recognition of family values and the strength of the family unit in formulating those values have made this county so strong. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia, does hereby express their gratitude to the Mother and Father of United States Marine Lance Corporal Davie E. Owens, Jr. for providing their son the opportunities to succeed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution of appreciation be spread across the minutes ofthe Board of Supervisors in order for all citizens to read and reflect on the contributions the Owens family has made to this country, state and community of Frederick County, Virginia, and that a true copy of this resolution be presented to the Owens family. ADOPTED, this 23rd day of April, 2003. Supervisor Reyes advised that it has been a long day and he commends staff for putting in such a long day. UPON MOTION MADE BY SUPERVISOR SMITH, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR FORRESTER, THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THIS Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03 603 BOARD, THIS MEETING IS HEREBY ADJOURNED. (TIME: 10:05 P.M.) ~\ '.L D Q~k, Richard C. Shickle Chairman, Board of Supervisors Minutes Prepared By: ~ J T vfOJy ~ Carol T. Bayliss Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors Minute Book Number 28 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting of 04/23/03